Canagarajah 2006 TESOL at 40 - What Are The Issues

QUARTERLY
CONTENTS
Founded 1966
ARTICLES
TESOLs 40th Anniversary Issue

TESOL at Forty: What Are the Issues?
A. Suresh Canagarajah
Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives:

Two Parallel SLA Worlds?
35
Jane Zuengler and Elizabeth R. Miller
TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends
B. Kumaravadivelu
59
Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar:

An SLA Perspective
83
Rod Ellis
Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills
Eli Hinkel
109
English for Specific Purposes:

Teaching to Perceived Needs and Imagined Futures
in Worlds of Work, Study, and Everyday Life
133
Diane D. Belcher
ii
TESOL QUARTERLY
Volume 40, Number 1 March 2006
Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes

and English as a Lingua Franca
157
Jennifer Jenkins
Perspectives on Technology in
Learning and Teaching Languages
Richard Kern
183
Expanding Horizons and Unresolved Conundrums:

Language Testing and Assessment
211
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
The Sociocultural Turn and Its Challenges for
Second Language Teacher Education
235
Karen E. Johnson
Information for Contributors
REVIEWS
259
iii
QUARTERLY
Founded 1966
Volume 40, Number 1 March 2006
A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

and of Standard English as a Second Dialect
Editor
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH, Baruch College, City University of New York
Assistant Editor
CRAIG A. TRIPLETT, TESOL Central Office
Assistant to the Editor

SARAH M. NAKAMARU, New York University
Editorial Advisory Board

Sarah Benesch,
College of Staten Island,
City University of New York
Grace Bunyi,
Kenyatta University
Maria Angeles Clemente,
Universidad Autonma Benito Jurez
de Oaxaca
Alister Cumming,
University of Toronto
Pauline Gibbons,
University of Technology, Sydney
Greta Gorsuch,
Texas Tech University
Constant Leung,
Kings College London
Jo A. Lewkowicz,
University of Hong Kong
Patsy Lightbown,
Harwich, MA
Angel Lin,
City University of Hong Kong
Dilin Liu,
Oklahoma City University
David Luna,
Baruch College, City University
of New York
Paul Kei Matsuda,
University of New Hampshire
Anna Mauranen,
University of Helsinki
Shondel J. Nero,
St. Johns University
Lucy Pickering,
Georgia State University
Charlene Polio,
Michigan State University
Peter Robinson,
Aoyama Gakuin University
Norbert Schmitt,
University of Nottingham
Ali Shehadeh,
King Saud University
Mack Shelley,
Iowa State University
Bryan Smith,
Arizona State University East
Elaine Tarone,
University of Minnesota
Additional Readers
David Block; Carol Chapelle; Margaret Hawkins; Adrian Holliday; Bill Johnston; Anthony Kunnan;
Eva Lam; Peter Lowenberg; Aya Matsuda; Brian Paltridge; Sandra Savignon; Barbara Seidlhofer;
Steven Thorne; Mark Warschauer; Jessica Williams
Credits
Advertising arranged by Amanda Van Staalduinen, TESOL Central Office, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A.
Typesetting by Capitol Communication Systems, Inc., Crofton, Maryland U.S.A.
Printing and binding by Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois U.S.A.
Copies of articles that appear in the TESOL Quarterly are available through ISI Document Solution, 3501 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A.
Copyright 2006
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
US ISSN 0039-8322 (print), ISSN 1545-7249 (online)
REVIEWS
is an international professional organization for those concerned

with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and of
standard English as a second dialect. TESOLs mission is to ensure
excellence in English language teaching to speakers of other languages. TESOL
encourages professionalism in language education; individual language rights;
accessible, high quality education; collaboration in a global community; and interaction of research and reflective practice for educational improvement.
Information about membership and other TESOL services is available from TESOL
Central Office at the address below.
TESOL Quarterly is published in March, June, September, and December. Contributions should
be sent to the Editor or the appropriate Section Editors at the addresses listed in the
Information for Contributors section. Publishers representative is Cindy Flynn, Director of
Communications and Marketing. All material in TESOL Quarterly is copyrighted. Copying
without the permission of TESOL, beyond the exemptions specified by law, is an infringement
involving liability for damages.
Reader Response You can respond to the ideas expressed in TESOL Quarterly by writing directly
to editors and staff at tq@tesol.org. This will be a read-only service, but your opinions and ideas
will be read regularly. You may comment on the topics raised in The Forum on an interactive
bulletin board at http://communities.tesol.org/tq.
TESOL Home Page You can find out more about TESOL services and publications by accessing
the TESOL home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.tesol.org/.
Advertising in all TESOL publications is arranged by Amanda Van Staalduinen, TESOL Central
Office, 700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA, Tel. 703-836-0774.
Fax 703-836-7864. E-mail tesol@tesol.org.
OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 20062007

President
JUN LIU
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ USA
President-Elect
SANDY BRIGGS
Educational Consultant
San Francisco, CA USA
Past President
ELLIOT L. JUDD
University of Illinois
at Chicago
Chicago, IL USA
Treasurer
MARTHA EDMONDSON
Washington, DC USA
Brock Brady
American University
Washington, DC USA
Christine Coombe
Dubai Mens College
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Lynne Daz-Rico
California State University
San Bernardino, CA USA
Liz England
Hong Kong Institute of
Education
Hong Kong SAR, China
La D. Kamhi-Stein
California State University
Los Angeles, CA USA
2007 Convention Program Chair

Suzanne Panferov
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ USA
John Schmidt
Texas International
Education Consortium
Austin, TX USA
Jim Stack
San Francisco Unified
School District
San Francisco, CA USA
Stephen Stoynoff
Joyce Kling
Minnesota State University
Copenhagen Business School
Mankato, MN USA
Frederiksberg, Denmark
Gabriel Daz Maggioli
The British Schools
Montevideo, Uruguay
iv
Suchada Nimmannit
Chulalangkorn University
Language Institute
Bangkok, Thailand
Penny McKay
Queensland University of
Technology
Brisbane, Queensland
Australia
Executive Director/Secretary
CHARLES S.
AMOROSINO, JR.
Alexandria, VA USA
TESOL QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
Founded 1966
In This Issue
When TESOL invited me to consider publishing a special issue to mark

the organizations 40th anniversary, it seemed presumptuous to propose a
state of the art edition. It was just 15 years back that we had published the
first (and only) issue to celebrate the accumulated wisdom in our field.
However, our professional clock has not been running its normal course. It
has been running hurriedly, at times chaotically, these past few years.
Fundamental changes have occurred in the way we perceive and practice
our profession. More than our scholarly ingenuity, it is the radical transformations in the social and cultural milieu that have facilitated these changes.
It is prudent, therefore, to take stock of recent developments.
Just planning this issue conveyed to me the radical nature of the changes
that have taken place in the profession. We couldnt model this issue on the
template of the 25th anniversary edition. Some topics are simply new. Digital
communication and World Englishes have risen to prominence after the
1991 issue, affecting almost all the other domains of language teaching.
Certain other topics have to be framed differently. It seems unwise to discuss
the four skills in separate articles when the field widely accepts that they are
interconnected, with pedagogies and curricula being developed to teach
them together. Second language acquisition cannot be discussed separately
from language socialization when psycholinguists and sociolinguists lay
equal claim to the territory. The review of methods cannot feature the latest
fad but must discuss the end of methods as we know them. Our colleagues are
exploring how to proceed when there is widespread agreement that the
search for the best method is futile. Other well-entrenched domains like
testing, teacher education, and English for specific purposes show the deep
influence of ethics, power, and subjectivityconcerns that were peripheral
(at best) 15 years back. Although the movement that initiated these
concernscritical pedagogyqualifies as a new topic worthy of a separate
article, the contributions to this issue show that during the past 15 years it
has influenced the profession so deeply that it informs almost every domain
of teaching. Eventually, a separate article for critical pedagogy will seem
redundant.
IN
THIS
ISSUE Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006
TESOL
QUARTERLY
This issue is made up of articles solicited from distinguished scholars and

some that came through the regular submission process. Because of space
constraints, the articles focus specifically on the developments of the past 15
years (since the last state of the art issue was published). Readers will see a
very diverse group of scholars contemplating on the field as they know it. In
addition to those in the United States, scholars located in New Zealand,
Armenia, and the United Kingdom and with South Asian, East Asian, and
Russian backgrounds contribute to this issue. Though this issue does not
represent the full diversity of our profession, the broadened authorship is a
reminder of the changes in TESOLs composition. It is time our slogan in
the silver jubilee issues, 25 Years as an International Family, started bearing
fruits for our pedagogical and scholarly mission. I am thankful to our
authors and referees for their willingness to work diligently within a short
duration of time to bring out this issue.
However diverse the authorship and comprehensive the coverage, it will
be impossible to capture the state of TESOL with any completeness or
consensus. This issue represents only one reading of the profession. The
state of our art will be understood differently by different colleagues. The
purpose of this issue is not to make a final statement on our professional
knowledge but to open it up for scrutiny. In the coming days, we expect
discussion and debate on the trends identified hereas the 25th year issue
did before. Because the pages of the journal are not sufficient for this
purpose or congenial for a protracted exchange of ideas, we invite readers
with shorter responses to use the TQ Online Forum (http://communities
.tesol.org/~tq).
Suresh Canagarajah
Editor
TESOL QUARTERLY
TESOL Quarterly
In Press, June 2006
The June issue will contain articles focusing on the
role of vocabulary in language pedagogy.
THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF WRITTEN EXERCISE
ON L2 VOCABULARY RETENTION
Keith Folse, University of Central Florida
FROM RECEPTIVE TO PRODUCTIVE: IMPROVING ESL LEARNERS?
USE OF VOCABULARY IN A POST-READING COMPOSITION TASK
Siok Lee, Burnaby School District #41 and Simon Fraser University
James Muncie, University of Evora
NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ARABIC AND ESL TEXTS: EVIDENCE FOR THE
TRANSFER OF WRITTEN WORD IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES
Rachel Hayes-Harb, University of Utah
EFFECTS OF INPUT ELABORATION ON VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
THROUGH READING BY KOREAN LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Youngkyu Kim, Ewha Womans University
THE EFFECTS OF LISTENING SUPPORT ON
LISTENING COMPREHENSION FOR EFL LEARNERS
Anna Ching-Shyang Chang, Hsing-Wu College
John Read, Victoria University of Wellington
THE ENGLISH DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRASTIVE SPELLING TEST:
A TOOL FOR INVESTIGATING SPANISH INFLUENCE ON
ENGLISH SPELLING DEVELOPMENT
Elizabeth R. Howard, Center for Applied Linguistics
Igone Arteagoitia, Center for Applied Linguistics
Mohammed Louguit, Center for Applied Linguistics
Valerie Malabonga, Center for Applied Linguistics
Dorry M. Kenyon, Center for Applied Linguistics
TESOL QUARTERLY
TESOL at Forty: What Are the Issues?

A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
Baruch College and Graduate Center, City University of New York
New York, New York, United States
This overview delineates the direction of pedagogical developments

since the 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly. Three tendencies
characterize our professional practice: (a) a continuation along the
earlier lines of progression (i.e., in opening up the classroom to
learning opportunities, integrating skills, and teaching for specific
purposes); (b) a radical reorientation along new paradigms (i.e., in
understanding motivation and acquisition in terms of social participation and identity construction; in developing methods from the ground
up, based on generative heuristics; in widening testing to include
formative assessment; in accommodating subjective knowledge and
experience in teacher expertise); (c) unresolved debates and questions
about the direction in certain domains (i.e., when and how to teach
grammar; whether to adopt cognitivist or social orientations in SLA,
testing, and teacher education). Our professional knowledge gets
further muddled by the new movements of globalization, digital communication, and World Englishes, which pose fresh questions that are
yet to be addressed. However, grappling with these concerns has
engendered realizations on the need for local situatedness, global
inclusiveness, and disciplinary collaboration that are of more lasting
value.
e live in an age when metanarratives or grand theories that attempt

to provide unifying and totalizing explanations for social and
intellectual developments are viewed with suspicion. In this context,
publishing a state of the art issue on TESOL requires caution. Such an
issue is not only about where we are now but how we got here. In other
words, this issue is an attempt to understand the current state of the
profession in the light of its history. However, histories are always partial
and partisan because they involve the adoption of a particular narrative
viewpoint. It is not just that any description of the state of the art is
informed by the describers perspective; many would go further to
question the effects and intentions behind such descriptions. For the
state of the art serves to define what is legitimate knowledge in the field.
That is to say, the description will become the new orthodoxy. Therefore,
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006
the histories we narrate not only reflect but shape history. Such awareness makes writing the state of the art a controversial and contested
activity.
If histories are actually stories (from specific locations and locutors),
let us acknowledge up front that there are multiple stories of TESOL. I
will tell the TESOL story differently if I am narrating it from my
postcolonial setting in rural Jaffna, Sri Lanka, where I learned ESL and
taught for a while, or if I narrate it from my current setting in the
postmodern metropolis of New York City, where I teach transnational
multilingual students. The plural stories of TESOL are already colliding
in the publications in our field. For example, compare Howatts (2004)
self-assured History of English Language Teaching, which traces the progress
in constructing efficient methods and materials as ELT marched on from
medieval England to become an autonomous discipline, with Spacks
(2002) painful Americas Second Tongue, which narrates the imposition of
English on Native American childrenboth insightfully reviewed from
another location (Oaxaca, Mexico) by Angeles Clemente (2005) in the
pages of this journal. We must also be careful not to give the impression
that TESOL is only 40 years old. While Howatts book starts in 1400,
Spack starts in 1860 (for the convenience of studying recorded history,
although the history of the particular language teaching enterprise she
investigates goes further back). Even rural Jaffna has a history of TESOL
from at least 1780. Therefore, we mustnt encourage the confusion of the
name of our organization for the name of our field.
Even within this circumscribed scopethe 40-year story of TESOL the
organizationit is difficult to represent the state of the art with any
completeness. The telling of a story (or even a history) brings with it its
own genre conventions, which shape time and space in different ways.
The story has to develop in a particular direction, bring out certain
themes, employ dominant metaphors, and manifest specific organizing
principles. For example, let us consider in some detail the dominant
metaphors that organize the story in the 25th anniversary issues
(Silberstein, 1991b): growth, solution, and stability.
Regarding, first, the metaphor of growth, Silberstein (1991a) describes all the articles in her editors note: Taken together these
comprise a portrait of our profession as it enters its institutional and
intellectual maturity (p. 229). Larsen-Freeman (1991) takes this metaphor to great lengths in her comprehensive treatment of SLA research.
After reminding readers how she had referred to the field of SLA in
transition from infancy to adolescence in a 1980 publication, and later
as having arrived at older adolescence . . . while still enjoying the vigor
of youth in 1985, Larsen-Freeman states: If I may be permitted to
extend the analogy once again, I would have to say that developmentally
SLA has entered young adulthood (p. 338).
10
TESOL QUARTERLY
Brown (1991) employs the second metaphor, the problem-solution

dialectic, when he discusses this quarter century of accomplishment in
terms of the major issues and challenges that are currently engaging us,
and that, in the course of time, will one day be better resolved (p. 245).
Similarly, Celce-Murcia (1991), in her article on grammar teaching,
proposes a decision-making strategy for resolving [the] controversy of
when and how grammar should be taught (p. 459). She is hopeful of
finding effective ways to resolve the dilemmas teachers face (p. 477).
These efforts are further informed by the objective of finding our way
out of the woodsthe title of Raimess (1991) article on teaching
writing.
Yet others writing in the 25th anniversary issues express themselves in
terms of the metaphor of stability: the hoped-for arrival of harmony and
synthesis after an uncertain period of confusion and disequilibrium. In
the keynote article, Ashworth (1991) considers the TESOL field in
relation to international relations and (invoking Tennysons Locksley
Hall) wishes: Perhaps the future will continue to hold for us that swing
of the pendulumpeace to war and back; compassion to hatred and
back; feast to famine and back. . . . Does TESOL have a role in creating
a better world? Without doubt (p. 241). Larsen-Freeman (1991, p. 315)
connects the growth metaphor with stability when she hopes that our
professional maturity will encourage the different ideological camps in
SLA to develop integrated knowledge and cease their territorial wars.
It is tempting to continue with these metaphors and describe how we
have achieved greater maturity, awareness, and stability in TESOLs 40th
year. This is the happy conclusion to our professional story that our
readers would expect. Thus, Kumaravadivelu (this issue) cant resist
playing with these metaphors in his contribution: He traces the development of the field from the awareness of the 25th anniversary issues to
the awakening of the 40th anniversary issue and hopes that the golden
jubilee volume of 2016 will celebrate attainment (p. 76). Perhaps the
heady progress in our understanding of methods inspires Kumaravadivelu
to adopt these metaphors. However, when we consider the picture
emerging from the articles in this 40th anniversary issue as a whole, we
are unable to continue thinking with metaphors of finality and ultimate
attainment. What we see instead are new controversies, irreconcilable
differences, and unresolved questions. Thus, in his article on grammar
in this volume, Ellis organizes his discussion around eight ongoing
controversial issues. He insists that there are no clear solutions
currently available and that his aim is not to identify new solutions to
existing controversies (p. 83). Celce-Murcias (1991) desire for a resolution of controversies in this area thus lies undeveloped 15 years later.
Similarly, though Larsen-Freeman (1991) hoped that SLA theorists
would remember the responsibilities that come with their privileges of
TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?
11
adulthood (p. 338) and move toward a pluralist framework incorporating cognitive and social perspectives on SLA, we know that many scholars
are still bickering. Thus, while Larsen-Freeman hoped that the field
would move toward a synthesis, Zuengler and Miller (this issue) see the
two branches as so ontologically disparate and professionally divided that
they will remain in parallel SLA worlds for some time to come (p. 35).
SLA specialists have stopped staking out the territory (the title of
Larsen-Freeman, 1991); they have simply divided it up for occupation.
The paradigms in our field have changed so radically that it is
questionable whether we are still proceeding along the lines of development sketched out in the 25th anniversary issues. For example, in the
case of methods, we are no longer searching for yet another more
effective and successful method; instead, we are now questioning the
notion of methods itself. We are rightly concerned about their neutrality,
instrumentality, and their very constitution. In terms of language skills,
we now recognize that all four skills are integrated, and we are developing our curricula in terms of other organizing principlesprojects,
purposes, tasks, or portfolios, which draw from skills variously for their
accomplishment (see Hinkel, this issue). In fact, certain current topics in
the field are of such novelty that they dont have a distinct tradition to
draw from. Thus, the articles in this issue on World Englishes ( Jenkins,
this issue) and digital technology (Kern, this issue) represent domains
that have quickly gained significance and centrality in the field. Compounded by globalization, these developments raise new questions
throughout the field that are unlikely to be answered for years to come.
For this reason, the articles in this issue on testing (Leung & Lewkowicz,
this issue) and ESP (Belcher, this issue) dont end with neat syntheses.
Instead, the authors see on the horizon many new concerns that might
radically redefine everything that has been developed in their areas.
Critical practice has also introduced new questions of ethics, power, and
subjectivity that have put virtually all of our professional domains on a
new footing. To complicate matters still further, the earlier constructs
and models are also still with us: In the articles on SLA and grammar in
this issue, we see accurate representations of older traditions that are still
alive and kicking.
Although we cannot easily apply metaphors of growth, solution, and
synthesis to describe the articles in this 40th anniversary issue, there is no
story without an organizing principle. Therefore, I would like to revisit
the story Douglas Brown started narrating in the 25th year issue. (Hence
the evocation of his title in this article.) More specifically, I would like to
consider Browns (1991) four major themes [that] appear to be
running through ESOL teaching and research efforts at the present
time (p. 245): those relating to the learner, subject matter, method, and
sociopolitical and geographical issues. In writing the article, Brown
12
TESOL QUARTERLY
provides an insightful map of the complex developments in the profession at that time. Although this structure provides me a helpful way to
discuss the articles in this issue, it will soon become evident that it is
difficult to sustain Browns story line or provide narrative closure. In the
40th anniversary issue, what we see instead is continued questioning and
searching. Perhaps new metaphors are coming into prominence to
describe the current state of our profession? Perhaps even the story itself
has changed?
I must quickly clarify that the story in this issue is not We were once
lost, but now we are found! or, even worse, They were lost, but we are
out of the woods! When perceiving the history of the profession
through the spectacles of the present discourses, it is natural that the
positions of the past appear unsatisfactory. However, it is difficult to
make comparisons of this nature because the conditions are not the
same. The ground has been shifting under our feet, and the professionals of the different periods are simply attempting to respond to the
changing needs and conditions. In fact, many of the authors in the
present issue participated enthusiastically in the dominant pedagogical
movements during the 90s. Similarly, if the authors of the 25th anniversary issue were to write their articles today, they would write them
differently. Indeed, they are adopting radically complex models now to
discuss their work. Consider, for example, Larsen-Freemans (2002) use
of chaos theory to theorize SLA. Furthermore, even in the articles of the
25th anniversary issue, the authors showed remarkable openness. Despite an interest in charting the progress in the field, they discussed their
themes in terms of recognitions (see Raimes, 1991, p. 407), foci
(Larsen-Freeman, 1991, p. 315), and challenges and perspectives
(Brown, 1991, p. 245) rather than axioms and rules. This brings out
another rhetorical dilemma: Though we are all conscious of our professional moment in time as complex and fluid, the exercise of trying to
describe it (which involves identifying trends and formulating charts and
models to represent them) ends up reducing its complexity and making
it static. Can we work against such rhetorical constraints to construct a
less triumphalist and self-congratulatory story? In concluding this overview, I will return to these considerations.
REVISITING THE STORY

Focus on the Learner
Brown grounded his first themefocus on the learnerin the
effectiveness of intrinsic motivation and its compatibility with learner
empowerment. Fifteen years later, we are forced to first problematize the
13
identity of the learner before we discuss motivation or empowerment.

For example, we now recognize that (a) because English is nativized in
many communities (featuring diverse norms), we cannot treat these
speakers as less legitimate nonnative English speakers; (b) because
identities are hybrid and multiple, and most of the world is multilingual,
we must conceive of learners as having identities that often accommodate English seamlessly with other languages; (c) as English has become
an active additional language in many countries untouched by
Anglophone colonialism, the distinction between an ESL and EFL
learner is fast eroding; and, (d) even within English-dominant communities, the children of migrants form new in-between identities (e.g.,
generation 1.5 learners; see Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). Suffice it to say
that we are now compelled to orient ourselves to our learners in more
specific ways, taking into account their diverse learning contexts and
needs.
In terms of motivation, in 1991 we were already moving away from
Gardners instrumental versus integrative distinction, with the latter
treated as more conducive to acquisition (Gardner & Lambert, 1972).
We recognized that not all learners are motivated by a desire to
communicate with English-dominant communities or use English only
for socializing purposes. Brown discussed how this realization made us
move further into the psychology of the learner, distinguishing between
learning for self-accomplishment and personal interest (i.e., intrinsic
motivation) and learning under external compulsion or to attain institutional rewards (extrinsic motivation). Many of us would have concurred
with Brown (1991) at that time that an overwhelming body of research
now shows the superiority of intrinsic motivation in educational settings
(p. 247). However, the latter set of constructs, even more than Gardners,
fails to take account of the contextual forces influencing motivation. In
fact, both sets of constructsintrinsic/extrinsic and integrative/instrumental motivationgive the impression that one only needs the right
motivation to succeed in language acquisition. Yet there are serious
sociocultural considerations that shape ones motivation and the power
to attain ones objectives. Furthermore, motivation can be multiple,
contradictory, and changing. The strategies one adopts to negotiate the
contextual constraints on his or her motivation will have an effect on
ones mastery of the language.
We now have a range of perspectives that put motivation on a different
footing, integrating psychological considerations with social conditions.
For example, we can consider motivation in terms of identity formation.
In the process of learning a new language, one is engaging in the
construction of a new (or at least different) sense of self. Bonny Norton
Peirce (1995) has used the term investment to demonstrate how commitment to gaining important symbolic and material resources helps
14
TESOL QUARTERLY
learners develop counter-discourses and oppositional identities for voice

in the new language. Others relate motivation to the practice of gaining
membership in a new community of practice. They use the model of
legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) to consider
language learning as a social activity for attaining ones objectives
through situated practice and purposive participation in the relevant
community (see Toohey, 1998; Morita, 2004). Though it is becoming
easier to find counterexamples to the dominant motivational constructs
(such as the recent case for required motivation among Chinese students
see Chen, Warden, & Chang, 2005), it is more important to acknowledge
the diversity of motivations and reorient them in a more holistic and
richer framework of SLA (see Zuengler & Miller, this issue).
For Brown, intrinsic motivation facilitated empowermentalthough
he was perceptive enough to acknowledge that this [latter] term has
lately become an overused buzzword (p. 248). He then provided a chart
of pedagogical shifts that favor empowerment:
We are moving from:
a focus only on product
authoritarian structures
preplanned, rigid curricula
measuring only performance
praising only correct answers
championing analysis
and shifting toward:

a focus on process
egalitarian structures
flexible, open-ended curricula
gauging competence and potential
encouraging calculated guessing
valuing synthesis and intuition
(Brown, 1991, p. 249)
The values underlying these shifts are fairly clear. Practices that are
process-oriented, autonomous, and experiential are considered empowering. The shift from the previous product-oriented and teacher-fronted
pedagogies certainly reduced the passivity of students and encouraged
greater involvement. This shift was also consonant with the philosophical
changes led by the antibehaviorist psychology of Chomskyan linguistics,
which placed emphasis on the linguistic creativity of the human mind.
However, this is only one orientation to empowerment. Browns own
definition of empowerment is more robust. He defines it as enabling
students to become critical thinkers, equipped with problem-solving
strategies, poised to challenge those forces in society that would keep
them passive (1991, p. 248). However, another problem quickly arises:
We must distinguish the popular version of critical thinking (CT) that
informs Browns definition from critical practice (CP), as it has recently
evolved in our profession (see Benesch, 1993).
CT typically treats thinking as an individual activity, divorced from an
active engagement with social positioning, as teachers introduce reasoning strategies and logical skills. Students apply objective, linear approaches of reasoning to problem-solving. CP, on the other hand, is
15
more dialogical and reflexive in that it encourages students to interrogate thinking in relation to material life, ones own biases, and ones
social and historical positioning. In fact, the students life experience
may itself generate critical insights into issues without the student having
to learn critical thinking anew. Furthermore, for CP, thinking cannot be
divorced from ethical considerations of justice, democracy, and inclusiveness. Thinking is also integrated with practical struggles for social
change and institutional advocacy. This engagement fundamentally
shapes the tenor of ones thinking and provides deeper insights into
experience. CT may see such social engagement as extraneous to (or
even distorting) the thinking process. Finally, just as action interacts with
thinking, there are other channels of critical thinking that CP acknowledges. Passion, imagination, art, and even popular culture mesh in
complex ways to enhance critical thinking, whereas CT seems to glorify
impersonal rationalism. It is important to observe these distinctions to
prevent empowerment from becoming a clich.
Since 1991, CP has made rapid progress in TESOL, exploring empowerment from diverse orientations. The special topic issue of TQ on
critical pedagogy in 1999 moved empowerment beyond a buzzword to
wrestle with unresolved new questions and problems: Do we provide
marginalized students access to dominant discourses or help them
develop voice in order to resist them? Do we critique the machinations of
power outside in history or inside in human subjectivity? Do we
initiate changes at the macro level of educational policy or the micro
level of classroom practice? TQs special topic issue on language in
development (2002) then took empowerment beyond thinking issues to
material and structural considerations, exploring the role of English in
the social and educational development of various nations. Similarly,
recent studies have socially situated the learner, exploring how their
diverse subject positions interact in the learning experience. For example, gender is an important area of emerging research and pedagogyas represented in the TQ special topic issue (2004) on gender in
TESOL. Race, as well, is gaining importance in TESOL, with a special
topic issue of TQ scheduled for September 2006. Queer identities have
also become the focus of research (Nelson, 1999). In all these projects,
TESOL researchers adopt a constructivist orientation, perceiving how
language is constituted, negotiated, and modified in discourse. In doing
so, they move away from treating identity as essentialized (reduced to
certain dominant traits) or overdetermined (conditioned by social and
material forces, without the possibility of change). Crucial to this shift is
the exploration of the way one subject position interacts with others in
students language practices. So researchers are exploring how identities
16
TESOL QUARTERLY
like gender, race, ethnicity, or ones immigrant and nonnative status

impact language learning.
We have certainly traveled far from the 1991 practice of addressing
empowerment for the generic learner. As TESOL moves toward considering the fluid construction of identities at microsocial levels, it will need
to align this orientation with structural and material considerations.
There is a felt need to correct the romantic and volitionist perspectives
on empowerment and develop a more dynamic and balanced orientation by conducting a nuanced reading of the interface between the
micro and the macro, mind and body, classroom and society as they are
negotiated in language learning (see, e.g., Gebhard, 2005; Hawkins,
2005; Menard-Warwick, 2005 in this journal). There are no easy answers
for teachers here. They are themselves compelled to learn from students
and develop engaged positions of agency as they provide learning
environments that better enable critically negotiating language.
In the context of these developments, we must return to the six
pedagogical shifts charted by Brown (in the list presented earlier) to see
what is now happening in those areas. First, having moved from product
to process over the last 15 years, we now seem to be seeing a fresh
appreciation and integration of product, although not in its former
dichotomistic sense. Thus, corpus linguistics, genre analysis, and content-based instruction in EAP/ESP reveal how form can be integrated
with process (see Belcher, this issue). Second, we now realize that it is not
easy to move from authoritarian to egalitarian structures. At best, we can
only consider the relative autonomy of classroom and educational sites
where students must still negotiate unequal structures. Third, we are now
more alert to the irony of teachers setting up open-ended curricula for
their students (Allwright, 2005) as we struggle to make pedagogy more
participatory. Fourth, social practice perspectives (such as those based on
identity and community reviewed earlier) show that performance and
competence facilitate each other in complicated ways. Fifth, we are
moving away from achieving or approximating correctness to negotiating, modifying, and reconstructing it in relation to different genres and
contexts, while developing greater language awareness. Finally, it is no
longer analysis, synthesis, or even intuition that our attention is limited
to, but a reflexivity toward critically understanding our own and others
learning strategies and objectives. All this is to say that the progression
from one pedagogical practice to another has not been linear. In some
cases, we have integrated the earlier construct in a new way; in others, we
have moved away from the previous line of development in an altogether
different direction.
17
Focus on Subject Matter

Browns second major theme, focus on subject matter, concerned the
rapid growth of content-centered programs, whole language approaches,
and task-based classroom activities (1991, p. 252). Although contentcentered education is certainly alive and well as TESOL turns 40, there
have been fundamental shifts in its conceptual and methodological
orientation. No more is the language teacher or researcher in charge of
defining the content, however conscientious and objective the approach.
While orientations like corpus linguistics and genre analysis still focus on
objectively describing content in a fine-grained manner, there is also a
move to understand the psychological and social reality of content and
genres. As Belcher describes in this issue, EAP/ESP approaches are now
considering the gap between target language and current learner
proficiencies, variations in the same genre as practiced by diverse speech
communities, and complementing needs analysis with an understanding
of the learners self knowledge, life goals, and instructional expectations.
Also, socially grounded research orientations like ethnography and
critical practice negotiate the problematic effects and ramifications of
adopting genre or content in pragmatic terms, challenging the dominant utilitarian attitude. Approaches like rights analysis are complementing needs analysis to sensitize students to competing social interests in
the genres and languages of diverse domains (Benesch, 2001). Challenges are also experienced in describing new genres of communication
in the context of globalization, technology, and World Englishes, forcing
practitioners to learn from communities outside the professional center.
Although Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) made a sensitive attempt to
present ESP as international in scope, specific in purpose (p. 297) in
the 25th anniversary issues, we still have a long way to go in pluralizing
genre descriptions and accommodating linguistic and geographical
diversity.
It is the international dimension that also complicates peace and
environmental educationa variety of content-based education discussed by Brown (1991, p. 254) and prominently featured in the keynote
article by Ashworth (1991). This curriculum sounds quaint now as
human issues (the label in Browns article, p. 254) have become more
complex, shaping not just the topics discussed in class but the very
approaches adopted to teach them. Human issues are not an add-on (or
sweet coating) to a pedagogy for utilitarian and pragmatic purposes.
Rather, human issues shape everything we do in the classroom. More
important, the nature of this discourse has changed. Peace education,
for example, cannot be conducted in terms of the dominant groups in
our profession. Thus, we see professionals from elsewhere questioning
18
TESOL QUARTERLY
the meaning, scope, and ramifications of international peace and

inclusiveness (e.g., Karmani, 2005; Makoni & Meinhoff, 2004). It is this
interrogating spirit that influences the teaching of many other human
issuesenvironmental protection, animal rights, immigration, weapons
and viruses of mass destruction, race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Teachers now have to problematize these issues in engaging with their
students and develop critical and more inclusive representations of
them. There are also efforts to go beyond mere consciousness raising to
engage students in participatory action (Auerbach et al., 1996) and
service learning (Herzberg, 2000).
Brown goes on to present curricula as increasingly shaped by whole
language education and task-based teaching, both of which integrate the
four skills. We have now progressed far enough along this route that talk
of whole language education as a fashionable or even distinct movement
has died down. Likewise, the integration of skills has become basic to
language teaching in many contexts. Technology and economic globalization have also left their mark on language, generating new genres of
communication that integrate the skills in novel ways, as we see in Kerns
and Belchers articles in this issue. Curricula now focus on projects that
integrate language and skills according to communicative tasks that
students endeavor to accomplish (see Warschauer, 2000; for an exemplary curriculum, see Zuengler & Cole, 2003). However, task-based
instruction has been glorified into another successful method, deviating
from its moorings in communicative competence. Scholars are critiquing the ways in which tasks have now become a mere pedagogical
construct, with questionable connection to communicative tasks in social
practice (see Leung, 2005; Widdowson, 2004). As Belcher states in her
article in this issue, the challenge in fact is to define communicative tasks
in more context-bound and situation-specific ways.
Focus on Method
Regarding his third main theme, focus on method, Brown (1991)
delineated the shift in our pedagogical focus from the language to the
learner, culminating in communicative, cooperative, student-centered
teaching where we are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative
venture (p. 255). Here again, however, it appears that new approaches
and realizations have often found themselves uneasily accommodating to
traditional practices. Thus, Allwright (2005) has recently pointed out
how teachers still control the curriculum for student-centered learning,
reluctant to compromise their own teaching agendas. He proposes a
more radical program for relinquishing the teaching points of the
19
instructor and committing ourselves to providing learning opportunities (p. 9) that students will exploit for their own purposes. Allwright
proposes a curriculum designed inductively, in ongoing engagement
with our students and their agendas, preserving the richness of educational experience. In this approach, he sees the possibility for teaching
and research to go hand in hand. Teachers would now plan lessons that
not only offer more resources for proficiency but also enable a selfreflexive understanding (for teachers as well as students) of what
language learning involves.
The challenge is of course to resist the temptation to give yet another
label to this approach and market it throughout the world as the most
effective method. The most radical pedagogical realizations in our field
recently are that all methods are interested (Pennycook, 1989) and that
there is no best method (Prabhu, 1990; Kumaravadivelu, 1994). This
understanding has led to the formulation of conditions that will guarantee maximum learning opportunities in classrooms (see Kumaravadivelu,
this issue). The postmethod condition that is upon us frees teachers to see
their classrooms and students for what they are and not envision them
through the spectacles of approaches and techniques. This orientation
ensures the creativity and critical practice that Brown hoped for when he
called upon teachers to be transformative intellectuals (invoking
Girouxs label; see Brown, 1991, p. 257).
Brown saw learner strategy training as working hand in hand with the
intrinsic motivation his students should desire and the empowerment he
desired for his students. In this sense, it could be argued that the learner
strategy approach is a realization of postmethod forms of instruction
that is, strategies are different from traditional methods in that they are
not prescriptively defined nor do they have to be applied rigidly across
learning contexts. Strategies thus function as heuristics by which appropriate pedagogies can be developed from the bottom up. However, there
are significant differences between the way learner strategies and postmethod pedagogies are conceptualized and operationalized. Defined at
the most micro level of consideration in somewhat individualistic and
psychological terms, learner strategies may lack direction without a
larger set of pedagogical principles. Although the pluralism of learning
strategies is desirable, there should also be clear principles guiding the
selection of strategies according to varying contexts and conditions. For
this reason, postmethod approaches articulate a set of macrostrategies
that are well motivated by research considerations to function as larger
frameworks within which learner strategies should be employed. Kumaravadivelu defines these macrostrategies as broad guideline[s], based on
which teachers can generate their own situation-specific, need-based
micro-strategies or classroom techniques (1994, p. 32), and lists the
following macrostrategies as examples: maximize learning opportunities,
20
TESOL QUARTERLY
facilitate negotiated interaction, minimize perceptual mismatches, activate intuitive heuristics, foster language awareness, contextualize linguistic input, integrate language skills, promote learner autonomy, raise
cultural consciousness, and ensure social relevance (Kumaravadivelu,
this issue, p. 69). Such macrostrategies complement the microstrategies
articulated by learner strategy practitioners, facilitating critical and
constructive learning rather than indulgence in ones own preferred
styles and strategies. Negotiating divergent and competing strategies can
develop a metapedagogical awareness of the different potentialities of
language and learning. Relating personal learning agendas to larger
educational and social objectives can encourage critical reflection.
Postmethod realizations thus initiate a significant shift away from the
traditional paradigm, representing alternatives to the impersonal packaging of methods on the one hand and individualistic learner-centeredness
on the other.
Focus on Sociopolitical and Geographical Issues

If one prophecy in the 25th anniversary issues has come true, it is the
dire one that there will be increasing debate and polarization over the
issue of English Only versus English Plus as a guiding principle for U.S.
society (Brown, 1991, p. 251, quoting Richard Tucker, personal communication). If we can qualify this prediction a bit, we might say that
English-only rhetoric has become less harsh as the immigrant vote has
increased in importance in electoral politics. At the same time, however,
federal and state laws have become increasingly stringent in proscribing
English plus, just as the federal institution responsible for overseeing the
education of immigrant and generation 1.5 students has itself been
renamed, from Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language
Affairs (OBEMLA) to Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA).
The new office limits the role of bilingual education and provides less
scope for non-English languages in terms of helping students transition
to English. As a result, many states have sued the U.S. Department of
Education because they have not been provided sufficient funding and
because the regulations are unrealistic. Furthermore, since Brown wrote
his introduction in 1991, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona have
essentially gotten rid of bilingual education through the initiative
process in favor of structured English immersion (SEI). A lot of research has
now been done which shows that SEI doesnt work well, or works no
better than various types of bilingual education, especially when compared to high quality two-way immersion programs (for an overview, see
Ricento & Wright, in press). This one-size-fits-all approach reduces
flexibility and severely limits the amount of time learners are given ESL
21
instruction before being fully mainstreamed into regular classes. U.S.

society is thus still mired in a troubling multilingualism as a problem
perspective (see Ruiz, 1984).
It is intriguing that in the 25th anniversary issues such policy concerns
were discussed only in relation to the United States. But English has also
become controversial in many countries in the context of globalization.
Even in Europe, the increasing power of English in the emerging context
of the European Union has generated much concern (Modiano, 2004;
Phillipson, 2003). In postcolonial communities, recent edited collections
on language policy articulate the dilemmas involved in planning the
relative status of local languages and English in society and education
(Canagarajah, 2005a; Lin & Martin, 2005; Street, 2001). For example, in
communities where the vernacular has been given primacy as a form of
affirmative action against the disparities suffered during colonization,
local people subtly resist in favor of English (e.g., for Malaysia, see David
& Govindasamy, 2005; for Iran, see Riazi, 2005). In communities where
policy makers have encouraged English in deference to the economic
and educational opportunities it may provide in the context of economic
globalization, there is a near-chauvinistic resurgence of nationalism (e.g.,
for Brazil, see Rajagopalan, 2005; for India, see Ramanathan, 2004).
Many scholars have now described the unresolved tensions these dilemmas bring out for such communities in policy and practice. We see the
deviations from the avowed policy of using English only in classrooms in
Eritrea (Wright, 2001), India (Annamalai, 2005), South Africa (Probyn,
2005), Tanzania (Brock-Utne, 2005), Kenya (Bunyi, 2005), Brunei (Martin, 2005), and Hong Kong (Luk, 2005), to mention just a few, as
teachers and students mix local languages with English in subtle ways to
negotiate their desired values, identities, and interests.
Classroom codeswitching raises questions about the appropriate corpus for acquisition planning in local communities. World Englishes
(WEs) raise similar challenges. With remarkable prescience, Brown
identified WEs as a new force to contend with in TESOL. Although the
topic was not given much consideration in the 25th anniversary issues,
Brown should be commended for placing WEs on our pedagogical
agenda. However, before we can take stock of developments in WEs, it
must be acknowledged that English at the global level has changed
rapidly, calling for further paradigm revisions. Thus, Kachru (1986)
should be credited for pluralizing the English language by showing the
rule-governed nature of the new varieties that have emerged in
postcolonial communities. His well-known three circles model charts the
historical spread and functional differences of the language by developing a sensitivity to the expanding circle (where English was beginning to be
used as a foreign language), outer circle (where English was a second
language with its own well-established varieties since colonial times), and
22
TESOL QUARTERLY
the inner circle (where ownership of English was claimed and norms
originated). Kachru called these communities norm-dependent, normdeveloping, and norm-providing, respectively, to indicate their relative
status.
However, geopolitical changes related to new forms of globalization
have more recently reconfigured the relationship between English
varieties and speech communities, sending us in search of new models.
Notable among the changes are the following:
Whereas Kachrus model legitimizes each outer circle variety in

terms of its national identity (i.e., Indian English is valid for Indians,
Nigerian English for Nigerians, etc.), these varieties have started to
leak outside their national borders. The national varieties have
found new homes because of migration and diaspora communities.
They have found new visibility through technology and media. They
have found new currency because of transnational economic and
production relationships. For example, inner circle speakers now
have to conduct important domestic and personal transactions with
outsourced offshore companies, negotiating diverse Englishes.
Speakers in the expanding circle do not use English for extracommunity relations alone. For countries in East Asia, South America,
and Europe, English also performs important functions within their
own borders (see Jenkins, this issue). This development calls into
question the ESL/EFL distinction, and demands that we take account of the increasing intranational use of English in the expanding circle.
More important, we are learning that expanding circle communities

are developing new norms as they use English for lingua franca
communication. Multilingual speakers dont seem to defer to inner
circle norms when they communicate with each other in English (see
Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004). Therefore, we cannot treat the
varieties they speak as norm dependent anymore.
The centrality of inner circle communities to the life of English is

increasingly being questioned. The oft-cited statistics of Graddol
(1999) and Crystal (1997) show that the number of English speakers
outside the inner circle is now greater than those within. Likewise, in
terms of the currency of the language, there is evidence that English
is more commonly used in multinational contexts by multilingual
speakers than in homogeneous contexts by monolingual speakers
(see Graddol, 1999). In other words, Englishs greatest use is as a
contact language. Therefore, the outer and expanding circles are
quite central to the currency of English today, recasting claims of
ownership and reconfiguring relationships between varieties.
23
In light of these changes, many TESOL professionals have started

working with Crystals (2004) notion of English as a family of languages
(p. 49), sympathetic to the heteroglossic models of those like McArthur
(1987) and Modiano (1999), which envision a more egalitarian relationship among the national varieties. For example, we are moving toward an
understanding of American English and Sri Lankan English as local
varieties for intranational purposes, with a possible lingua franca core
( Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004) serving purposes of contact between all
communities. From this perspective, it is now an understatement to say
that WEs puts a new light on curriculum design and the specific focus of
classroom activities, especially in nonnative-English-speaking countries
(Brown, 1991, p. 250). In actual fact, WEs has implications for English
education everywhere, including inner circle communities. Some scholars, such as Horner and Trimbur (2002), have even questioned the
wisdom of teaching only standard American English in writing programs
designed primarily for Anglo-American students themselves. To understand the new pedagogical challenges for all of us, we have to broaden
the context of discussion.
BROADENING THE STORY

So far, I have revisited Browns (1991) four major themes which were
finding expression in TESOL circa 1990. But we are now in a new
century, with new social movements that require special consideration.
In addition to WEs, two new developments in particular generate fresh
pedagogical challenges, at the same time affecting all the domains of
TESOL discussed so far. They are globalization and digital technology.
These movements are so radical that we simply cant predict how the
profession will respond to them in the years to come. They not only
spread English far and wide, they also benefit from English for their own
centrality. As a way to understand the social context in which the state of
the art in TESOL finds (or loses) its current shape, it is important to
consider these movements.
Although it was earlier waves of globalization, in the form of colonization, that originally spread English starting some 500 years back, more
recent forms of globalization operate according to different social
principles, creating fresh problems and promises for the English language. What might be called postmodern globalization has several distinctive features (see also Appadurai, 1996; Hall, 1997):
The economic and production relationships between communities
are multilateral (i.e., they involve multinational participation at
diverse levels).
24
TESOL QUARTERLY
National boundaries have become porous as people, goods, and

ideas flow easily across them.
Space and time have become compressed, enabling us to shuttle
rapidly between communities and communicative contexts, in both
virtual and physical space.
Languages, communities, and cultures have become hybrid, shaped
by the fluidity of social and economic relationships.
These changes have created a radical shift in worldwide attitudes
toward English. Thus, while non-Western communities were busy with
decolonizationresisting English and other colonial languages in favor
of building autonomous nation-states, and reviving local languages and
culturesglobalization has made national borders almost irrelevant and
reasserted the importance of English and other linguistic and cultural
influences. The nation-state is also facing pressures toward pluralization
from within (see May, 2001), as the claims of diverse social groups and
ethnic communities within national borders have become more assertive. English has become a contact language for intra- and international
relationships, serving as a relatively unmarked language for many
communities (see Kachru, 1986). Such developments have created
certain significant changes in discourse, calling for a different orientation to language rights. People are no longer prepared to think of their
identities in essentialist terms (as belonging exclusively to one language
or culture), their languages and cultures as pure (separated from
everything foreign), or their communities as homogeneous (closed to
contact with others). As these constructs are losing their status as
bounded and objective entities, and we begin to better recognize their
constructed, fluid, and hybrid nature, scholars are beginning to doubt
that sound policies can be based on them (see Brutt-Griffler, 2002).
While we respond to these debates with suitable modification in the ways
we articulate language rights, May (2001) insists that we mustnt simplify
the significance of power differences in language, the strength of
identities and groups in social life, or the need for policies protecting
local languages. Because TESOL professionals are committed to teaching English, the question for them is not whether but how to teach
English globally. It is clear that teaching English in a manner that
complements rather than competes with local languages and local
interests, leading to additive bilingualism, is the new challenge.
The second social movement, digital technology, has transformed
communication so radically that (as Kern presents it in this issue) within
a short period of time we have moved from using computers to assist
language learning to learning the language of computer communication. In the process, our earlier notions of linguistic communication
have been radically changed: Digital technologies have led to new genres
25
of communication, new conventions of language use, and new vocabulary and grammar rules for English (see Murray, 2000; Warschauer,
2000). Consider, for example, how our notions of literacy are changing.
Because of the resources available in computers and the World Wide
Web, texts have become polysemic, multimodal, and multilingual. That
is, texts now include symbols other than the alphabet (such as icons,
images, and sound), modalities other than writing (such as speech,
graphics, and moving images), and languages other than English embedded in otherwise English texts (as diverse dialects, registers, and languages now commonly inhabit the same textual space). As texts have
changed, so have our practices of reading and writing them. For
example, reading is not a linear processing of solely words. Similarly,
some scholars have given up the term composing and started talking of
designing (Faigley, 2004), as writing becomes more about orchestrating
multiple symbol systems to display information by exploiting the resources of multimodal textual space. Literate competence therefore
means something very different today from what it did a few years ago:
We have now started talking of multiliteracies to describe texts and
competence (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).
The combined forces of technology, globalization, and World Englishes
raise new questions for our profession. What does it mean to be competent
in the English language? What do we mean by correctness? What is the best
corpus of English or communicative genres for teaching purposes? What
do we mean by language identity and speech community? In the face of such
questions, it is understandable that so many of the authors in this state of
the art issue end their articles with anticipation of things to come rather
than closure based on how things are (e.g., Belcher, this issue; Leung &
Lewkowicz, this issue; Zuengler & Miller, this issue).
To begin to address these new questions, we have to recognize that
language norms are relative, variable, and heterogeneous. A proficient
speaker of English today needs to shuttle between different communities, recognizing the systematic and legitimate status of different varieties
of English. Rather than simply joining a speech community, then, we
should teach students to shuttle between communities. To be really
proficient in English in the postmodern world, one has to be multidialectal. Not only must we possess a repertoire of codes from the
English language, we must also learn to use it in combination with other
world languages. Gone are the days in which we could focus on a singular
target language. These concerns gain importance as we begin to question
the distinctions native/nonnative and standard/nonstandard and give due
recognition to speakers of WEs. (Of course, there are expert and novice
users of each variety, with different degrees of proficiencysee Rampton,
1990.) We realize that rather than teaching rules in a normative way, we
should teach strategiescreative ways to negotiate the norms operating in
26
TESOL QUARTERLY
different contexts. Rather than judging divergence as error, we should

orientate to it as an exploration of choices and possibilities. Having lost
the innocence of teaching English for instrumental purposes, we should
now encourage students to represent their voices and identities. While
mastering the system of the language, students should also appropriate
the system to serve their interests on their own terms.
These changes in English teaching demand a fundamental shift in our
professional discourse and relationships. From the us/them perspective of
the past (when language norms and professional expertise flowed
unilaterally from the center to the periphery as the native speakers had
the unchallenged authority to spell out orthodoxy for nonnative
communities) we are moving to a we perspective that is more inclusive
(see Holliday, 2005). Teaching English as an international language
needs to be conducted with multilateral participation. Teachers in
different communities have to devise curricula and pedagogies that have
local relevance. Teaching materials have to accommodate the values and
needs of diverse settings, with sufficient complexity granted to local
knowledge. Curriculum change cannot involve the top-down imposition
of expertise from outside the community, but should be a ground-up
construction taking into account indigenous resources and knowledge,
with a sense of partnership between local and outside experts. Orthodoxy cant be defined one-sidedly by experts from centers of scholarship
and research, divorced from pedagogical ground conditions, but must
be decided in negotiation with practitioner knowledge in actual settings.
We need to learn from diverse traditions of professionalization in
different communities to develop a richer TESOL discourse. Calls for a
plural professional knowledge and inclusive relationships are beginning
to be heard loud and clear (Canagarajah, 2005b; Holliday, 2005; Widdowson, 2004).
SO WHAT IS THE STORY?

The story of TESOL at 40 is inconclusive. In some cases we do see a
continuation of trends along the same linesas in opening up the
classroom to learning opportunities, integrating skills, and teaching for
specific purposes. In others, we have radically reoriented ourselvesas
in understanding motivation and acquisition in terms of social participation and identity construction; in developing methods from the ground
up, based on generative heuristics; in widening testing to include
formative assessment; in accommodating subjective knowledge and
experience in teacher expertise. Yet a third trend is the epistemological
tensions within specific professional domains of great importance to the
TESOL enterprise. For example, research on grammar teaching seems
27
to continue inconclusively, with earlier controversies unresolved; second,

an epistemological gap in teacher education has led to tension and
contention over how L2 teacher cognition is conceptualized, how L2
teachers are prepared to do their work, and how L2 teachers and their
practices are constructed in the public settings where they work
( Johnson, this issue, p. 237); and, third, the ontological conflict in SLA
between cognitive and sociocultural orientations to acquisition seems
irreconcilable (Zuengler & Miller, this issue).
To understand this unsettled state of the art, we have to remind
ourselves of a major philosophical change that characterizes our social
context. Our quest for objective, absolute, universal knowledge has been
shaken by the questioning of Enlightenment thinking and modernist
science. Our faith in certitude died when the positivist view of a rational,
closed universe was called into doubt. As a result of this epistemological
change, we now have a plethora of theoretical positions and philosophical assumptions shaping research and teaching. Needless to say, this
diversity of available approaches informs many of the tensions within the
profession today. The debates between the positivists and relativists in
SLA and teacher education are just a more direct and visible expression
of the dilemmas in all the other pedagogical domains.
So what are our options as we confront the diversity of approaches and
practices in the field? Some of us may simply be confused by this variety
and apparent chaos. Others may say, with Mao Tse Tung, Let a hundred
flowers bloom, let one hundred schools of thought contend (cf.
Lantolf, 1996). However, an alternative, more cynical response is to say
that the field represents a supermarket of ideas and practices that we can
choose from at will for our purposes. This response can encourage
playfulness, complacency, and a superficial commitment to principles
which attitude is also a cultural phenomenon of the late capitalist period,
widely known as ludic postmodernism. A more constructive response is seen
in the way multiple orientations are brought to bear in explaining
complex linguistic and pedagogical issues. For example, Magnan (2004)
describes how cultural studies, literature, and applied linguistics come
together to provide a richer perspective on the oral and literate texts of
learners as they struggle for voice through language acquisition (see also
Byrnes, 2002; Kramsch & Kramsch, 2000). It is ironic that at the
culmination of what Howatt (2004) presents as the long march toward
our disciplinary autonomy, we are back to integrating TESOL with
knowledge from other relevant fields. There are other ways, as well, in
which history is repeating itself, shocking scholars out of the Western
predilection for teleological progress: Internationalism and multilingualism are back. For example, nonnative English teachers are regaining
the agency they had in the formative period of 14th-century Europe (see
28
TESOL QUARTERLY
Howatt, 2004). Also, as at that time, English is integrated with other

languages in its teaching, moving toward a multilingual pedagogy
favoring a multicompetence model (see Cook, 1999).
Scholars may sometimes have fun with this plurality of assumptions
and practices, but teachers will want to know what options these new
trends suggest for teaching on Monday morning. A possible response is
the one Ellis (this issue) adopts at the end of his discussion of controversies in grammar teaching. He formulates a personal strategy in line with
his philosophical assumptions, listing 10 principles that he finds useful
for teaching purposes. Widdowson (2004) adopts another approach
after reviewing the inconclusive cycle of TESOL pedagogical fashions
and trends in his concluding article to the History of English Language
Teaching (Howatt, 2004). Here, Widdowson favors a shift to localization
(p. 369): Seeing that a one-size-fits-all approach is no longer available, he
recommends fashioning our approaches from the ground up, in relation
to local contexts, needs, and objectives. Such an attitude can be creative
and liberating to teachers. It is also more intellectually honest and
socially responsible. Rather than looking at communities and classrooms
through professional spectacles, we see them for what they are as we
design specific approaches to suit them. Treating this as a fundamental
change in attitude, Widdowson explains that local contexts of actual
practice are to be seen not as constraints to be overcome but conditions
to be satisfied (p. 369). Such an ecological approach additionally has
the advantage of keeping all the variables and contextual richness intact
as we teach or research English in diverse contexts.
The conclusion to the story of where TESOL is at 40 is simple yet
unsettling: ELT has . . . lost its innocenceto quote Widdowsons
(2004, p. 362) own conclusion to the history of our profession. Indeed,
the field has lost its innocence in many ways. We have lost our faith in
finding final answers for questions of language acquisition and learning.
We have given up our march toward uniform methods and materials.
More important, we have become aware that assumptions about English
and its teaching cannot be based on those of the dominant professional
circles or communities. If TESOL has been moving toward an international family (as envisioned in the logo of the 25th anniversary issues), it
will not be in terms of the center. The international family will be
achieved through mutual questioning, active negotiation, and radical
integration.
Our internationalism has been questioned, and so has everything else
in the profession. What we have now are not answers or solutions, but a
rich array of realizations and perspectives. We should consider this a
healthiereven excitingstate of the art. It will be disconcerting only to
those who expect neat formulas and convenient axioms to guide their
29
teaching. Perhaps we should all be licking our lips in anticipation, as

Zuengler and Miller (this issue) do when they conclude their description
of the parallel worlds in SLA: We are eager to see what unfolds
(p. 52).
A DIFFERENT STORY, NEW METAPHORS

If we cant hold on to the metaphors of growth, solution, and stability,
are there new metaphors emerging to guide our professional life? We
havent produced many earth-shaking solutions or findings, but we have
learned a lot from the very march toward disciplinary identity, sharing
and drawing on each others experiences as we have constantly reexamined our assumptions and enriched our knowledge in the process. What
about the metaphorical shift behind the notions that it is not the comfort
of solutions that matters but the vigilance of the search, not the neat
product but the messy practice of crossing boundaries, mixing identities,
and negotiating epistemologies? In this sense, I am reminded of a folk
tale from my South Asian community: A group of pilgrims once
undertook an arduous journey to the top of a tall mountain where they
were told they would find a golden temple in which dwelled God. After
many days of trudging together, they reached their destination. However,
they were distraught to find only an empty, tumbledown hut instead of
God and his golden temple. Then, as they started to lose all hope and
return home as disconsolate unbelievers, an old man emerged from the
nearby woods. Hearing what they were looking for, he answered cryptically: God is not here. You met God on the way! After some confusion,
the pilgrims realized that their journey, with all its sacrifice, pain, and
anxiety, matched by acts of generosity, dignity, and courage, indeed
represented the divine. They marched back home with a new sense of
themselves, their community, and life.
THE AUTHOR
Suresh Canagarajah teaches undergraduate-level composition, linguistics, and literature, and graduate-level courses in the teaching of writing. He taught in Sri Lanka
before joining the faculty of the City University of New York.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Dwight Atkinson, Sandy Silberstein, and Jane Zuengler for helpful comments
on this article. The limitations, however, are mine.
30
TESOL QUARTERLY
REFERENCES
Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond.
TESOL Quarterly, 39, 932.
Annamalai, E. (2005). Nation building in a globalized world: Language choice and
education in India. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation:
Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 2138). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ashworth, M. (1999). Internationalism and our strenuous family. TESOL Quarterly,
25, 231244.
Auerbach, E., with B. Barahona, J. Midy, F. Vaquerano, A. Zambrano, and J. Arnaud.
(1996). Adult ESL literacy from the community to the community: A guidebook for
participatory literacy training. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Benesch, S. (1999). Thinking critically, thinking dialogically. TESOL Quarterly, 33,
573580.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Brock-Utne, B. (2005). Language-in-education policies and practices in Africa with a
special focus on Tanzania and South Africa: Insight from research in progress. In
A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy
and practice (pp. 175195). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Brown, H. D. (1991). TESOL at twenty-five: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 25,
245260.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). Class, ethnicity, and language rights: An analysis of British
colonial policy in Lesotho and Sri Lanka and some implications for language
policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1, 207234.
Bunyi, G. (2005). Language classroom practices in Kenya. In A. Lin & P. Martin
(Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp.
133154). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Byrnes, H. (2002). The cultural turn in foreign language departments: Challenge
and opportunity. Profession 2002, 114129.
Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005a). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005b). Introduction. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local
in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459480.
Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H.-T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate:
The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation.
Clemente, A. (2005). Remembered histories and other controversial issues. TESOL
Quarterly, 39, 787793.
Cole, K., & Zuengler, J. (2003). Engaging in an authentic science project: Appropriating, resisting, and denying scientific identities. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter
(Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 98113).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. London: Routledge.
31
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.
Crystal, D. (2004). The language revolution. Cambridge, England: Polity.
David, M., & Govindasamy, S. (2005). Negotiating a language policy for Malaysia:
Local demand for affirmative action versus challenges from globalization. In A. S.
Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 123146).
Faigley, L. (2004, March) Rhetoric/design/sustainability. Paper presented at the CCCC
Convention, San Antonio, TX.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language
literacies, TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187210.
Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. AILA Review, 13, 5768.
Hall, S. (1997). The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity. In A. D. King
(Ed.), Culture, globalization, and the world system (pp. 1940). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college
composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of English as a
second language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawkins, M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in
early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 5982.
Herzberg, B. (2000). Service learning and public discourse. Journal of Advanced
Composition, 20, 391404.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. college composition. College
Composition and Communication, 53, 594630.
Howatt, A. P. R, with Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language teaching
(2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of English as an international language: A testing time
for testers. ELT Journal, 60, 4250.
Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in
scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297314.
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native
Englishes. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Karmani, S (2005). Petro-Linguistics: The emerging nexus between oil, English, and
Islam. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 87102.
Kramsch, C., & Kramsch, O. (2000). The avatars of literature in language study.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 179191.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for
second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 2748.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language
Learning, 46, 713749.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the
territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315350.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/
complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and
language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 3346). London: Continuum.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 119144.
32
TESOL QUARTERLY
Lin, A. & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education

policy and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Luk, J. (2005). Voicing the Self through an Other language: Exploring communicative language teaching for global communication. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.),
Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 247268). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Magnan, S. S. (2004). Rediscovering text: Multiple stories for language departments.
Profession 2004, 95106.
Makoni, S., & Meinhof, U. (2004). Western perspectives in applied linguistics in
Africa. AILA Review, 17, 77105.
Martin, P. (2005). Safe language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions
between policy and practice. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation,
globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 7599). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of
language. London: Longman.
McArthur, A. (1987). The English languages? English Today, 11, 913.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2005). Intergenerational trajectories and sociopolitical context:
Latina immigrants in adult ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 165186.
Modiano, M. (1999). Standard English(es) and educational practices for the worlds
lingua franca. English Today, 15(4), 313.
Modiano, M. (2004). Monoculturalization and language dissemination. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 3, 215227.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL Quarterly 38, 573604.
Murray, D. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated
communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 397422.
Nelson, C. (1999). Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory and classroom inquiry.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 932.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the
politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589618.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London:
Routledge.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best methodWhy? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161176.
Probyn, M. (2005). Language and the struggle to learn: The intersection of
classroom realities, language policy, and neo-colonial and globalisation discourses
in South African schools. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation:
Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 155174). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
Rajagopalan, K. (2005). The language issue in Brazil: When local knowledge clashes
with expert knowledge. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language
policy and practice (pp. 99122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramanathan, V. (2004). The English-vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and
practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Rampton, B. (1990). Displacing the native speaker: Expertise, affiliation, and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44, 97101.
Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In A. Lin & P. Martin
(Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp.
33
Ricento, T., & Wright, W. (in press). Language policy and education in the United
States. In S. May (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 1. Language policy
and political issues in education. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Rubdy, R. (2005). Remaking Singapore for the new age: Official ideology and the
realities of practice in language-in-education. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.),
Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 5575).
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations to language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 1534.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209239.
Silberstein, S. (1991a). Editors note. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 229230.
Silberstein, S. (Ed.). (1991b). 25 years as an international family [Special issues].
TESOL Quarterly, 25(14).
Spack, R. (2002). Americas second tongue: American Indian education and the ownership of
English, 18601900. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Street, B. (Ed.). (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Toohey, K. (1998). Breaking them up, taking them away: ESL students in Grade 1.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A perspective on recent trends. In A. P. R. Howatt with
H. G. Widdowson, A history of English language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 353372).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wright, M. (2001). More than just chanting: Multilingual literacies, ideology and
teaching methodologies in rural Eritrea. In B. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 6177). London: Routledge.
34
TESOL QUARTERLY
Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives:

Two Parallel SLA Worlds?
JANE ZUENGLER
University of WisconsinMadison
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
ELIZABETH R. MILLER
University of WisconsinMadison
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Looking back at the past 15 years in the field of second language

acquisition (SLA), the authors select and discuss several important
developments. One is the impact of various sociocultural perspectives
such as Vygotskian sociocultural theory, language socialization, learning
as changing participation in situated practices, Bakhtin and the dialogic
perspective, and critical theory. Related to the arrival of these perspectives, the SLA field has also witnessed debates concerning understandings of learning and the construction of theory. The debate discussed in
this article involves conflicting ontologies. We argue that the traditional
positivist paradigm is no longer the only prominent paradigm in the
field: Relativism has become an alternative paradigm. Tensions, debates, and a growing diversity of theories are healthy and stimulating for
a field like SLA.
n this article, we characterize the several most important developments in the SLA field over the past 15 years. Although research and
findings in the early decades of SLA were major accomplishments, we
believe that the developments of the past 15 years are better characterized as ontological,1 manifested in part as debates and issues. More
specifically, we address the arrival of sociocultural perspectives in SLA
and then discuss two debates, one whose tensions involve cognitive
versus sociocultural understandings of learning and a second, related
1
Ontology asks basic questions about the nature of reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 185).
We focus on ontological debates, which we consider a development particularly prominent
within the past 15 years. These ontological debates have emerged with the arrival of
sociocultural perspectives in SLA. In contrast, since the beginning of the field of SLA, there
have been debates and discussion regarding epistemology (or how we come to know the world,
Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Some recent discussions can be found in Jordan (2004), Lazaraton
(2003), Ortega (2005), and Thorne (2005).
35
debate involving disagreements between positivists and relativists over

how to construct SLA theory.
THE CONTINUATION OF COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES

AS TRADITIONAL SLA
In one of two special issues of TESOL Quarterly published in 1991 to
celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary, Diane Larsen-Freeman contributed
an article that discussed the important topics that had emerged during
SLAs first 20 years, from 1970 to 1990. Perhaps the most important SLA
topic, as Larsen-Freeman (1991) saw it, was research attempting to
describe and then explain the process of second language learning.
Though the research varied somewhat regarding the particular theory
invoked (e.g., universal grammar [UG], interactionism, connectionism),
the phenomena that were researched (input, transfer, output, etc.) were
conceptualized as psycholinguistic entities. That is, the SLA process was
considered, almost unanimously, to be an internalized, cognitive process.
(Though Larsen-Freemen did not mention this in her 1991 survey, the
theories and research she surveyed were cognitively based.)
Writing as we are, 15 years later, the cognitive continues to dominate
SLA. (However, it is not without critique nor is it the only paradigm; we
discuss this in more detail later.) For many, the metaphor that Michael
Sharwood Smith used in his plenary at the 1991 Second Language
Research Forum in Los Angeles remains apt. Defining SLA for the
audience, Sharwood Smith (1991) said the cake of SLA is cognitive,
while its icing is the social. A perusal of four of the major refereed
journals publishing SLA research in the 15 years since Sharwood Smiths
remark bears testimony to the continuing domination of cognitively
oriented SLA research. Language Learning, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, and TESOL Quarterly each continue to
publish SLA articles that are cognitively based and, in the case of the first
two journals listed, are devoted almost entirely to work within a cognitive
paradigm. New volumes and articles providing surveys of SLA research
either offer cognitively based research as virtually the only orientation
(e.g., Doughty & Long, 2003; McGroarty, 2005; Pica, 2005) or at least
give it a major role (though cf. Sealey & Carter, 2004). After all, as
DeKeyser and Juffs (2005) write: Nobody would doubt that language,
whether first or second, is an aspect of human cognition (p. 437).
Moreover, if one considers predictions made by some prominent SLA
researchers, one might envision a future SLA field in which the cognitive
has an even more expanded position than it currently has. Writing on
the occasion of his stepping down as editor of Language Learning,
Alexander Guiora (2005) addresses the future in what he referred to as
36
TESOL QUARTERLY
the language sciences. Though he points to what he sees as a new and

exciting chapter in the field, with more developed technology and
greater multidisciplinarity of research (pp. 185186), Guiora envisions
these developments through a cognitive lens. The greater disciplinarity
of research involves, for him, the greater inclusion of cognitive science
and neuroscience; the new technologies that will bring a more complex
understanding of language will offer the real possibility of establishing
direct relationships between observed behaviors and their neurobiological substrates without mediating constructs, that is, a set of words, thus
allowing for first-order explanations of these phenomena (p. 186).
In the concluding chapter to their Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition, Long and Doughty (2003) view the SLA future quite similarly.
While discussing how the fields of cognitive science and SLA are related,
Long and Doughty end their extensive volume with this vote of confidence for cognition:
For SLA to achieve the stability, stimulation, and research funding to survive
as a viable field of inquiry, it needs an intellectual and institutional home that
is to some degree autonomous and separate from the disciplines and
departments that currently offer shelter. Cognitive science is the logical
choice. (p. 869)
We wish to make clear, before going further, that we see nothing

problematic or aberrant in continuing a certain perspective or theory in
a given field. In showing evidence that the cognitive orientation continues to dominate SLA, we intend to clarify the context within which our
discussion occurs. In other words, to understand the new kids on the
block and, later, some tensions and arguments in the neighborhood, it is
necessary to understand what the neighborhood has been and who has
dominated it. We turn now to the newer arrivals.
THE ARRIVAL OF SOCIOCULTURAL

PERSPECTIVES ON SLA
These more recent arrivals to the field of SLAsociocultural perspectives 2 on language and learningview language use in real-world situations as fundamental, not ancillary, to learning. These researchers focus
not on language as input, but as a resource for participation in the kinds
2
We use the term sociocultural perspectives to refer to varied approaches to learning that
foreground the social and cultural contexts of learning (as discussed in Zuengler & Cole, 2004;
see also Thorne, 2005). One such approach to learning is what we call Vygotskian sociocultural
theory. However, we recognize that for some, the term sociocultural theory is equivalent to
Vygotskian theory.
COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
37
of activities our everyday lives comprise. Participation in these activities is

both the product and the process of learning.
We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we find
typically invoked in recent SLA research, mentioning relevant studies.
We do not, however, refer to all studies that draw on these perspectives.
Readers are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of Vygotskian
SLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of language
socialization research in second language learning. The order we have
chosen is somewhat arbitrary. We begin, however, with Vygotskian
sociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the other
is often positioned as the primary theoretical framework. These two also
seem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theory,
Bakhtinian approaches to language, or critical theories of discourse and
social relationsthe remaining perspectives we discuss. Segregating
these sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us to
address their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA. Though
we believe researchers must take care in how they bring together these
varying approaches, given their distinctiveness, we suggest that the
hybrid interdisciplinarity that many SLA scholars practice (Rampton,
Roberts, Leung, & Harris, 2002, p. 373) has been productive and mirrors
the increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current social
science research.
Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

SLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began to
appear in the mid-1980s (Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985) but quickly
gained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the Modern
Language Journal (Lantolf, 1994), devoted to sociocultural theory and
second language learning. That same year, an edited volume appeared
(Lantolf & Appel, 1994), and the first of a series of annual meetings
dedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh. Since
then, conference presentations and publications taking this approach to
SLA have only increased.
Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning, Vygotskian sociocultural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the development of cognitive processes. However, its distinctiveness from traditional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing Vygotsky:
The social dimension of consciousness [i.e., all mental processes] is
primary in time and fact. The individual dimension of consciousness is
derivative and secondary (1979, p. 30). Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995)
clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny a
role for biological constraints, development does not proceed as the
38
TESOL QUARTERLY
unfolding of inborn capacities, but as the transformation of innate

capacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed mediational means (p. 109). These means are the socioculturally meaningful
artifacts and symbolic systems of a society, the most important of which is
language. Of significance for SLA research is the understanding that
when learners appropriate mediational means, such as language, made
available as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities, these
learners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin to
function independently. And as Lantolf (2000) notes, according to
Vygotsky, this is what development is about (p. 80).
SLA researchers have focused on learners linguistic development in
the zone of proximal development (ZPD), Vygotskys conception of what an
individual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others
(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collaboration with others (less). The ZPD points to that individuals learning
potential, that is, what he or she may be able to do independently in the
future (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton,
1999, 2000; DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Ohta,
2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Others have focused on the use of private
speech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behavior.
Private speech manifests the process in which external, social forms of
interaction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental development (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; McCafferty, 1994, 2004b; see also
McCafferty, 2004a). Still others have focused on activity theory and taskbased approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlan
& Duff, 1994; McCafferty, Roebuck, & Wayland, 2001; Parks, 2000;
Storch, 2004; Thorne, 2003).
Language Socialization
Language socialization researchers, including those in SLA, closely
identify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs,
1988; Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986; Watson-Gegeo, 2004; Watson-Gegeo &
Nielson, 2003). But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology and
a focus on cognitive development, this theory emerged from anthropology with an interest in understanding the development of socially and
culturally competent members of society. In her introduction to an
edited volume comprising language socialization studies among children
in a variety of cultures, Ochs comments that she and her co-editor,
Schieffelin (1986), take for granted . . . that the development of intelligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrens communication with others, and instead emphasize the sociocultural information [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational
39
discourse (pp. 23). As such, language socialization research has

investigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and cultural
learning in discourse practices, interactional routines, and participation
structures and roles.3
Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investigated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of a
community, by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach was
being applied to adult second language learners (see, e.g., Duff, 1995;
Harklau, 1994; Poole, 1992). Whether at home, in the classroom, at
work, or in any number of other environments, language learners are
embedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturally,
socially, and politically shaped communicative contexts. The linguistic
forms used in these contexts and their social significance affect how
learners come to understand and use language.
In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA, Zuengler
and Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portray
socialization as a smooth and successful process (e.g., Kanagy, 1999;
Ohta, 1999), many other studies, mostly classroom based, demonstrate
language socialization as potentially problematic, tension producing,
and unsuccessful (p. 306). For example, some researchers have found
that school socialization processes can have negative effects on second
language learning (Atkinson, 2003; Duff & Early, 1999; Rymes, 1997;
Willet, 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and school
socialization processes, which often result in students relatively unsuccessful socialization to school norms (Crago, 1992; Moore, 1999; WatsonGegeo, 1992). These findings, among others, point to the shifting
emphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimensions of discourse and social organization and their implications for
language learning (Watson-Gegeo, 2004). Like language socialization,
situated learning theory, to which we now turn, underscores the role of
social identity and relationships as well as the historical and practical
conditions of language use in learning.
LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATION

IN SITUATED PRACTICES
Typically, situated learningmost notably represented by Lave and
Wengers (1991) notion of community of practicehas not been positioned
as the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that
3
See, however, Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003), who insist that
investigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in language
socialization research.
40
TESOL QUARTERLY
Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been. For example,

though Tooheys ethnographic research (2000) and the related work by
Day (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengers community of
practice, they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtins
dialogic perspective (see next section). Lave and Wenger note that they
could have adopted a socialization model, but they found that the
apprenticeship model helped them conceptualize learning in situated
waysin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming complex, full cultural-historical participants in the world (p. 32). As suggested in this comment, situated learning foregrounds learners participation in particular social practices, understood as habitual ways people
(re)produce material and symbolic resources, often attached to particular times and places, and comprising communities of practice in complex, often overlapping ways.
Lave and Wengers (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participation is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular social
practices that entail learning. Thus, we can consider second language
learners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participation
in social practices involving their second (or additional) language as
giving evidence of language development (much as language socialization views children or novices being socialized into more appropriate
participation in the social practices of their communities). Elsewhere,
Wenger (1998) maintains that learning is not a separate activity. . . .
[but] is something we can assumewhether we see it or not. . . . Even
failing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involves
learning something else instead (p. 8). Toohey (1999) agrees, suggesting that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success in
second language learning merely to an individuals failure to learn.
Legitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that some
members learn to take a less empowered position in a community of
practice because of the kinds of participation made available to them by
processes of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locally (p.
135). Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners as
marginalized than to view them as very much integrated into schools or
other communities of practice but in positions that maintain their
peripheral participation (p. 135). This shift in focus away from language
and learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtins view of
language as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts.
Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtins view of the fundamentally social nature of
language and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how
41
people take others utterances in coming to own a languagewithin a

specific social space and historical moment, Bakhtinian theory overlaps
in important ways with situated learning. Though Hall (1995, 2002) and
Johnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtins ideas and their
applicability for understanding second language learning, most second
language researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtins
philosophical writings and, as with situated learning, have folded them in
with other sociocultural frameworks.
Like the sociocultural theories already described, we find that Bakhtin
(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming that
language, for the individual consciousness, lies on the border between
oneself and the other (p. 293). One of the key concepts in Bakhtins
writings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism: the mutual
participation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterances
and the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressions.
Thus, the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen as
merely part of a neutral and impersonal language; rather, Bakhtin
viewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one time
exist[ed] in other peoples mouths before we make them our own (pp.
293294). Hall (2002) explains that, in this view, an utterance can only
be understood fully by considering its history of use by other people, in
other places, for other reasons (p. 13). Within this framework, Toohey
(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners try on
other peoples utterances; they take words from other peoples mouths;
they appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)
these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meanings
(p. 13).
Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtins understanding of the inherently
ideological nature of language. In agreeing that all language is political, Hall (1995) asserts that the authority and privilege residing in
certain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historical
forces surrounding their use (p. 214). Every utterance we produce
reveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved, signaling our social
positioning within the local interaction and in response to larger
sociopolitical forces. This ideological nature of language is foregrounded
by critical theorists, who see the role of power relations as primary for
understanding the social world, both in broader social worlds as well as
in our very local social practices.
Critical Theory
From the point of view of critical theory, being socialized into the
practices of a community includes learning ones place in the sociopolitical
42
TESOL QUARTERLY
organization of those practices. Researchers who incorporate critical

theory into their exploration of second language learning argue that one
must account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understanding of the practices and interactions in which learners participateand
thus of their learning processes. But what is more important, these
researchers contend that this understanding should then lead to social
and educational change such that more equitable social relations can be
effected, particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups and
individuals. It is interesting that, in contrast to the theory of legitimate
peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in which learners are
viewed as learning their marginalized participation, critical theorists
tend to view marginalized members of a community as having their
access to learning blocked because they may be prevented from participating meaningfully in target-language social practices. The critical focus
in second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work of
Pennycook (1990, 1999, 2001) as well as Norton (1995, 1997b, 2000) and
Canagarajah (1993, 1999, 2005).
Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of this
discussion, we highlight one area of interest, language and identity, that
has gained footing in the field and become a research area in its own
right. It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly
(Norton, 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications. From a
sociocultural perspective, our identities are shaped by and through our
language use (Norton, 1995, 1997b, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2003).
Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of the
sociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far, we
think it is appropriate to mention them here because they often explore
and critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships can
legitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue others.
As such, language learners have much more at stake than merely
developing competence in an additional linguistic code. As Morgan
(1998) notes, language conditions our expectations and desires and
communicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesour identityand the realities we might develop (p. 12).
COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL:

TENSIONS AND DEBATES
As we have seen, the SLA field in the past 15 years has expanded
from a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approaches
such as those just documented. This expansion, we believe, is one of
the main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnessed
debates and tensions that, in their cross-paradigm criticisms and
43
ontological disagreements, are more fundamental than the (largely)

intraparadigm issues surrounding, for example, the relative validity of
options for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlier
decades of SLA. This said, we would not, however, go as far as LarsenFreeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being in a state
of turmoil (p. 33). We prefer Lantolfs (1996) more positive, accepting
portrayal of the SLA field as incredibly, and happily, diverse, creative,
often contentious, and always full of controversy (p. 738).
In this section, we discuss two debates that originated within the past
15 years and still continue. These debates are arguably the most
important given their ontological differences, the great amount of
attention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literature,
and, on a more cynical note, the wrestling for academic territory that
some have seen in them. Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists and
socioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to make
clear. However, we feel that such labels (cognitivists, socioculturalists), if
used as the primary characterizations of the debates, would obscure the
more basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments. Though
the two debates are related, each originated in and focused on different
conceptions, conceptions that we feel are more important means of
framing and understanding each of the debates. Framing by conception,
then, we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 and
after that, the debate about theory construction in SLA.
The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association of
Applied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvskyl, Finland, Alan Firth and Johannes
Wagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paper
arguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of the
learner and learning as individualistic, mentalistic, and as functioning
independent of the context and use of the language. Following their
paper, several presenters took a variety of positions vis--vis Firth and
Wagners critique. (One of the authors attended that symposium and
remembers that the atmosphere was quite electric.) Although Firth and
Wagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field
(see, e.g., Bremer, Roberts, Vasseur, Simonot, & Broeder, 1996; Hall,
1995; Rampton, 1987), attention to Firth and Wagners criticism in
particular, with prominent respondents (e.g., Joan Kelly Hall, Gabriele
4
Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition, following the
distinction made by Krashen (e.g., 1982, 1985), we understand the two terms as synonymous.
Our understanding reflects the fields current position, given that Krashens theory has fallen
out of favor.
44
TESOL QUARTERLY
Kasper, Nanda Poulisse, Michael Long) from varying orientations offering support or declaring opposition, was guaranteed when, in 1997, their
symposium papers were published along with additional response papers
in the Modern Language Journal (see Firth & Wagner, 1997). The debate
intensified further after the Modern Language Journal published Susan
Gasss (1998) response to Firth and Wagner, and Firth and Wagners
(1998) response to Gass.5
Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelmingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner and
learning. Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual, the
internalization of mental processes, and the development of grammatical competence (p. 288). Meaning does not occur, they argue, in
private thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain, but
[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction, transcending individual intentions and behaviours (p. 290). Like other humans, a
language learner should be considered a participant-as-language-user
in social interaction (p. 286). It is time, they say, to question the fields
division of language use (as consigned to the social) from language
learning (as the individualized, decontextualized domain of the cognitive). An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagners
argument would help us gain more comprehension of how language is
used as it is being acquired through interaction, and used resourcefully,
contingently, and contextually (p. 296). Reiterating their view of
learning in their response to Gass (1998), they invoke Vygotsky in
asserting that cognitive structures are influenced and, indeed, developed through engagement in social activity. . . . From this perspective, it
can be said that language use forms cognition (Firth & Wagner, 1998,
p. 92).
Firth and Wagners argument that learning (or acquisition) occurs
through use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the other
sociocultural perspectives discussed in this article. In fact, Kramsch
(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her edited
collection is a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separation
between language acquisition and language socialization (p. 4), language socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives prominent in current SLA. Some go further. In her contribution to the
Kramsch collection, Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyond
dissatisfaction in declaring that the failure to consider language use
is one of the most trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA research (p.
34), the other being the lack of balance between the social and the
cognitive.
5
For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary, see Seidlhofer (2003). LarsenFreeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate.
45
Although some of the respondents (namely, Hall, 1997, and Liddicoat,

1997) support Firth and Wagners argument, it is the opposing respondents whose position we summarize, particularly thoseLong (1997),
Kasper (1997), and Gass (1998)who assert strong opposition to Firth
and Wagners claim that we should not separate acquisition and use
because use is actually how learning takes place. Perhaps because they
share a cognitive orientation, all three give basically the same response,
maintaining a strong split between acquisition and use. To Kasper
(1997), the most nagging problem with Firth and Wagners paper is
that it has in fact very little to say about L2 acquisition (p. 310) because,
as she sees it, although social context can influence SLA, the SLA process
itself is essentially cognitive. Long (1997) completely agrees, ending his
response by offering his skepticism as to whether greater insights into
SL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisition (p. 322). And
though Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps some parts of language are
constructed socially, that in itself does not imply that we cannot
investigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individual
(p. 88), maintaining, in so doing, her view of learning as largely an
individualized mental process. Drawing a figure characterizing the field,
Gass (1998) presents SLA and SL Use as together making up
research on Second Language Studies, but it is important that she
draws SLA and SL Use as branches that are separate and unconnected (p. 88).
As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out, this debate is irresolvable
because it involves two different ontological positions that reflect fundamental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learning (p. 37). What one might hope for, though, is that we agree to
disagree, as the expression goes, and accept that contrasting views of
learning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field.
The Debate on Theory Construction in SLA:

Positivism Versus Relativism
During the past 15 years, the SLA field has devoted more attention to
metatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlier
decades. The most prominent debate has concerned theory construction
in SLA. Though others have written (and continue to write) on theory
construction,6 we have selected a set of authors and articles, ranging
from 1991 to 2000, that comprise a coherent debate for discussion. The
discussion we profile of theory constructionin fact, any discussion of
theory constructionaddresses a complex subject that raises a number
6
46
See, for example, Atkinson (2002), McGroarty (1998), and van Lier (1991, 1994).
TESOL QUARTERLY
of questions. We have distilled from the discussion the authors debate

on positivism versus relativism in theory construction. The tensions and
differences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field, one that
continues and that results from, we believe, the arrival on the SLA scene
of the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier.7
Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by addressing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theories
and criteria in SLA represents a problem; that is, should this diversity be
reduced to one or a few theories? Considering different approaches to
theory building, Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of few,
rather than many, theories, viewing the former as the result of rationality and the latter, the outcome of relativism (p. 495). Comparing SLA
to the already-successful sciences (p. 497; i.e., the so-called hard
sciences), Beretta says that because these fields do not, unlike SLA, have
multiple rival theories (p. 497), it is not beneficial for SLA to have
many theories, either. He goes on to state that the most anarchic
criterion of all is that of no criterion (p. 501). Referring to what he
calls extreme relativism, Berettas nightmare scenario is one in which
phenomena are not independent of but always relative to the values of
individuals and communities (p. 501). This whatever position (to use
a current slang term) implies that poetry, voodoo, religion, and nonsense are no less valid bases for belief than science (p. 501). Clearly,
then, Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalist/positivist8
paradigm, and certainly not from a relativist one. He is not alone.
Although Crookes (1992) does not address relativism, his agreement
with Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion of
science as the gold standard in considering theory construction.9
The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of Applied
Linguistics in 1993 titled Theory Construction in SLA, which contains
papers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titled
Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Research.
Almost all of the contributors (i.e., Beretta, Long, Crookes, Gregg)10 take
7
To follow the debate, the reader should consult, in this order, Beretta (1991); Crookes
(1992); Beretta (1993); Block (1996); Gregg, Long, Jordan, & Beretta (1997); Lantolf (1996);
and Gregg (2000).
8
Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer, he appears to be
keeping to positivism nevertheless, taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead. For
information on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm), see, for example, Guba
and Lincoln (1998). Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree rather
than substance, and because positivism is the better known term in the field, we will use positivism
to describe Berettas and others positions.
9
Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic. We thank
one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out.
10
The exception is Schumann (1993), who argues, to oversimplify it, that art and science are
not that different. Because Schumanns position is similar to that of the other relativists that we
discuss, we will not focus on him here.
47
a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativism explicitly, nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivism
as the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA. Beretta and
Crookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause the
content of theories; they argue that social conditions are not only not
sufficient but are not necessary for scientific discovery(p. 253). Gregg
(1993), like Beretta and Crookes (1993), does not attack relativism
directly. Nevertheless, it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism: In
SLA . . . the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)
of L2 competence, in the Chomskyan sense of the term (p. 278). And
the criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory construction,
transition theories and property theories, come from psychology (i.e.,
Cummins, 1983). Thus, in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in the
debate, Greggs Let a Couple of Flowers Bloom does not advocate a
relativists acceptance of a multiplicity of theories, but advocates a
couple as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivistic
framework.
Adapting Greggs metaphor, Lantolfs (1996) article, subtitled Letting All the Flowers Bloom!, not surprisingly supports relativism and
opposes positivism. Though Blocks (1996) article is more wide-ranging,
he, too, argues for relativism: Reality is a social, and, therefore, multiple,
construction. . . . there is no tangible, fragmentable reality on to which
science can converge (p. 69, citing Lincoln, 1990). However, that does
not mean that everything is acceptable, Block asserts. Though he
acknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentally
different ontologies, he argues, again citing Lincoln (1990), that rather
than throwing their hands up at the situation, relativists attempt to find
patterns, working hypotheses, or temporary, time-and-place-bound knowledge (Block, 1996, p. 69). Coming from a similar position, Lantolf
(1996) provides a postmodernist critical analysis of the theory-building
literature of Gregg, Long, Crookes, and others, pointing out that they
are all clearly dedicated to the rationalist/positivist paradigm in the SLA
field and adding ironically that they share . . . a common fear of the
dreaded relativism (p. 715). In fact, Lantolf coins a term for this
condition: relativaphobia (p. 731). In a detailed set of points, Lantolf
argues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic, echoing
Blocks (1996) accusation of science envy (p. 64) in accusing Gregg
and the others of having physics envy (p. 717). Where Gregg and the
others consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensurable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of the
field, Lantolf (1996) encourages Letting All the Flowers Bloom,
warning that otherwise, once theoretical hegemony is achieved, alternative metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor;
48
TESOL QUARTERLY
subsequently, those who espouse different world views . . . cease to have

a voice (p. 739).
Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articles;
Gregg, Long, Jordan, and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block article,
while Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting a
negative summary of postmodernism. Writing from within their positivist
paradigm, Gregg, Long, Jordan, and Beretta (1997) accept Blocks
criticism that they have science envy:
Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twinge
of envy for the accomplishments of other sciences; given the fairly feeble
progress made so far in SLA, and the magnificent intellectual achievements
of the more successful sciences, such envy would certainly be unsurprising.
(p. 543)
Unfortunately, their stance becomes both smug and nave. For example,
Gregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of disbelief in Blocks
point that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research is
probably not even desirable (p. 544, quoting Block, 1996, p. 74).
Continuing, they declare: Do we actually need to point out the
disastrous consequences of Blocks stance for SLA, or indeed for any
intellectual inquiry? (p. 544). No one invoking a positivist paradigm
would disagree with their critique because one of the paradigms
principles is indeed the manipulation of variables, which includes
controlling wherever possible for extraneous variables. However, what
Gregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blocks statement
comes from a different (relativist) paradigm, rendering their response
irrelevant.
In his critique of Lantolf (1996), Gregg (2000) does not directly
reiterate the anti-relativist, pro-positivist argument that he and his
colleagues had already published elsewhere. Instead, he begins by
summarizing (negatively) postmodernism, the approach that Lantolf
(1996) takes in his article. Describing postmodernism, Gregg discusses
its stance that, among other things, instead of written texts having
objective meaningthat of the texts authormeaning is generated as
the reader interacts with the text. Greggs response to this stance reveals
his reluctance (or inability?) to think outside of his paradigm: Such a
perspective strikes me as nonsense (p. 386). On the other hand, he
takes the common-sense position . . . that the meaning of sentences can
usually be agreed upon, and that there generally are correct and
incorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentences (pp. 386387).
Concluding his discussion of postmodernism, Gregg (2000) asserts,
again from within his paradigm:
49
It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement among

literary critics and cultural philosophers. . . . It flourishes, that is, precisely in
those areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard to
find. . . . Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress
. . . the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences. . . . Rather
than claiming that the grapes of science are sour, the postmodernist assures
us that there are no grapes. . . . To put it a bit differently, one can see
postmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities to
overcome their own physics envy. (pp. 389390)
With that memorable point of view, we will end our discussion of the
theory construction debate. On the positive side, we agree that debates
like this stimulate a field. And debates being debates, it is not necessary
or relevant to try to come to agreement. After all (as we indicated in
discussing the debate about learning), the debate on theory construction
is occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views of
reality. Although the debate can be framed as occurring between
cognitivists and socioculturalists, we have emphasized a more fundamental difference. Like Lantolf (1996), we view as positive a field in which
possibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated rather
than allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized. We
are only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participants
refusal to admit (or understand?) that these positions on theory are
incommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies. And
the smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only nave
but unfair.
Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensurability, some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration. Authors take
varying approaches in making their argument. For example, LarsenFreeman (2002) proposes chaos/complexity theory as a means of
accommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives within
SLA. Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for the
complementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views, namely, Ellis
(2000), Swain and Lapkin (1998), Tarone and Liu (1995), and TeutschDwyer (2001). However, Block himself does not take a clear position
supporting integration. Instead, he advocates a more multidisciplinary
and socially informed future for those following the input-interaction
tradition (p. 139). Making a somewhat different argument, WatsonGegeo (2004) sees a possible new synthesis of the cognitive with the
sociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition as
a phenomenon which originates in social interaction and is shaped by
cultural and sociopolitical processes (p. 331). Thorne (2005) and
Lantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing a
lens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition
(see also Johnson, 2004).
50
TESOL QUARTERLY
IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE
Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identify
good pedagogical interventions that will most effectively facilitate
learners assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledge
structures (p. 48). However, given their different understandings of
language learning, socioculturally informed studies offer much different
recommendations for improving classroom practice. For example, in
seeing learning as participation, as relational and interactive, and as
constrained by unequal power relations, Lave and Wengers perspective
asks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to those
outside of school, how schools and classrooms themselves are organized
into communities of practice, and what kinds of participation are made
accessible to students.
Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined classroom interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifying
those that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez, Rymes, &
Larsen, 1995; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Nystrand, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long,
2003; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Still others have examined such topics
as the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or other
experts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh &
Lantolf, 1994; Anton, 1999; McCormick & Donato, 2000; Nassaji &
Cumming, 2000), the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue between
peers to mediate learning (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000; Swain & Lapkin,
1998), and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approaches
to language assessment ( Johnson, 2001, 2004). These studies are only a
few among many, but they share the sociocultural awareness that highly
situated classroom participation promotes language learning.
We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations for
transforming classroom practices, primarily because we are aware of the
limits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts. Hall (2000)
speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that effecting
change in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions from
outside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to our
particular contexts (p. 295). Clearly, this is no easy task for educators. It
requires ongoing and intense work with every group of students and
reflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions of
classroom life affect individual students participation. However, with the
increased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that sociocultural
perspectives bring us, we have reason to hope that we are closer to
understanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities that
learners need.
51
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years in
such a dynamic field, we end our article by looking forward to some
developments we consider exciting and worth watching. Among them is
work in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occurs
in the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see, e.g.,
Markee, 2004); developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergent
in SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioning
within social practices; see, e.g., Davies & Harr, 1990); a growth in work
focusing on postcolonial, transnational, and World Englishes (e.g.,
Canagarajah, 2000; Jenkins, 2003, also this issue; Kachru, 2001; Pennycook,
1998; Rampton, 1995); and explorations in the new kinds of discursive
practices that language learners engage when using new technologies
(see especially Gee, 2003; Kern, this issue; Lam, 2000; Thorne, 2003; and
Warschauer, 1997). We are eager to see what unfolds.
THE AUTHORS
Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University of
WisconsinMadison. Her research and teaching interests include second language
acquisition and use, classroom discourse analysis, critical perspectives on language,
and the global spread of English.
Elizabeth R. Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at the
University of WisconsinMadison. Her research interests include second language
acquisition and use, microanalytic discourse analysis, and critical and poststructural
perspectives on language, pedagogy, and ideology.
REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the
zone of proximal development. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 532
555.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second
language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 465483.
Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural
perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314
342.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 525545.
Atkinson, D. (2003). Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indian
college. In R. Bayley & S. R. Schechter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual
and multilingual societies (pp. 147168). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
52
TESOL QUARTERLY
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans.).
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Beretta, A. (1991). Theory construction in SLA: Complementarity and opposition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 493511.
Beretta, A. (Ed.). (1993). Theory construction in SLA [Special issue]. Applied
Linguistics, 14(3).
Beretta, A., & Crookes, G. (1993). Cognitive and social determinants of discovery in
SLA. Applied Linguistics, 14, 250275.
Block, D. (1996). Not so fast: Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted
findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 17, 6383.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M.-T., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving
understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London: Longman.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27,
601626.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
Canagarajah, A. S. (2000). Negotiating ideologies through English: Strategies from
the periphery. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on
English (pp. 121131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Critical pedagogy in L2 learning and teaching. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and research (pp.
931949). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coughlan, P., & Duff. P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA
task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language learning (pp. 17394). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Crago, M. B. (1992). Communicative interaction and second language acquisition:
An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 487505.
Crookes, G. (1992). Theory format and SLA theory. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 14, 425449.
Cummins, R. (1983). The nature of psychological explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Davies, B., & Harr, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 4363.
Day, E. M. (2002). Identity and the young English language learner. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding
in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 5168.
DeKeyser, R., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative
materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2
learners: A Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53,
609633.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P.
Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33
56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language
acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
53
Duff, P. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in

Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505537.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 289322.
Duff, P., & Early, M. (1999, March). Language socialization in perspective: Classroom
discourse in high school humanities courses. Paper presented at the American
Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Stamford, CT.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 193220.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1996, August). On discourse, communication, and (some)
fundamental concepts in SLA research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Association of Applied Linguistics, Jyvskyl, Finland.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing! The Modern Language
Journal, 82, 9194.
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1984). Speaking as self-order: A critique of orthodox L2
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 143159.
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan
perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 1944.
Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and dont need
to be. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 8390.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gregg, K. R. (1993). Taking explanation seriously; or, Let a couple of flowers bloom.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 276294.
Gregg, K. R. (2000). A theory for every occasion: Postmodernism and SLA. Second
Language Research, 16, 383399.
Gregg, K. R., Long, M. H., Jordan, G., & Beretta, A. (1997). Rationality and its
discontents in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 18, 538558.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues (pp. 195220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guiora, A. Z. (2005). The language sciencesthe challenges ahead: a farewell
address. Language Learning, 55, 183189.
Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in
the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard
Educational Review, 65, 445471.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective
of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 206232.
Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice. The Modern
Language Journal, 81, 301306.
Hall, J. K. (2000). Classroom interaction and additional language learning: Implications for teaching and research. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and
foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 287298). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. London: Pearson
Education.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241272.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
54
TESOL QUARTERLY
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation: A reexamination of the oral proficiency

interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language education. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Jordon, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of nonnative Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and
socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 14671492.
Kasper, G. (1997). A stands for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 307
312.
Kramsch, C. (2002). Introduction: How can we tell the dancer from the dance? In
C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 130). London: Continuum.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager
writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457482.
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning
[Special issue]. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4).
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language
Learning, 46, 713749.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language
Teaching, 33, 7986.
Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: An
exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 335354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language
research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108124.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the
territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315350.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/
complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and
language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 3346). London: Continuum.
Lave, J. (1998). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics: Whose criteria and whose research? Modern Language Journal, 87, 112.
Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, social structure, and second language use. The
Lincoln, Y. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 2847). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal,
81, 318323.
Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (2003). SLA and cognitive science. In C. J. Doughty &
55
M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 866869).

Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Markee, N. (Ed.). (2004). Classroom talks [Special issue]. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4).
McCafferty, S. (1994). Adult second language learners use of private speech: A
review of studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 421436.
McCafferty, S. (Ed.). (2004a). Private and inner forms of speech and gesture and
second language learning [Special issue]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1).
McCafferty, S. (2004b). Space for cognition: Gesture and second language learning.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 148165.
McCafferty, S., Roebuck, R. F., & Wayland, R. P. (2001). Activity theory and the
incidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness, 10, 289
294.
McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in
an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign
language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied linguistics. Language Learning, 48, 591622.
McGroarty, M. (Ed.). (2005). A survey of applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25.
Moore, L. C. (1999). Language socialization research and French language education in Africa: A Cameroonian case study. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
56, 329350.
Morgan, B. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching critical practice and community development. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). Whats in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL
student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 95121.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). Whats the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation
of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376406.
Norton, B. (Ed.). (1997a). Language and identity [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly,
31(3).
Norton, B. (1997b). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 931.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in
time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse.
Discourse Processes, 35, 135198.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ochs, E. (1991). Socialization through language and interaction: A theoretical
introduction. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 143147.
Ohta, A. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in
adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 14931512.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate
assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2
grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.
5380). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
56
TESOL QUARTERLY
Ortega, L. (2005). Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 89, 317327.
Parks, S. (2000). Same task, different activities: Issues of investment, identity and use
of strategy. TESL Canada Journal, 17, 6488.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. New York: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
33, 329348.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language
Learning, 42, 593616.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach. The
Rampton, B. (1987). Stylistic variability and not speaking normal English: Some
post-Labovian approaches and their implications for the study of interlanguage.
In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 4758). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London:
Longman.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C., & Harris, R. (2002). Methodology in the analysis
of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 23, 373392.
Rymes, B. (1997). Second language socialization: A new approach to second
language acquisition research. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 11, 143155.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures.
Schumann, J. H. (1993). Some problems with falsification: An illustration from SLA
research. Applied Linguistics, 14, 295306.
Sealey, A., & Carter. B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, B. (2003). Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991, FebruaryMarch). Plenary given at the Second Language
Research Forum, University of California, Los Angeles.
Storch, N. (2004).Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic
interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457480.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language
Journal, 82, 320337.
Tarone, E., & Liu, G.-Q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second language
acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in
applied linguistics (107124). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality. In
A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Multilingualism, second language acquisition, and gender (pp. 175
198). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991).The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning
in social activity. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about
relativity. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.
219244). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning and Technology, 7, 3867.
57
Thorne, S. (2005). Epistemology, politics and ethics in sociocultural theory. Modern

Toohey, K. (1999). Comments on Kelleen Tooheys Breaking them up, taking them
away: ESL students in Grade 1: The author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 132
136.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
van Lier, L. (1991). Doing applied linguistics: Towards a theory of practice. Issues in
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior.
Soviet Psychology, 17, 335.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and
practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470481.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child
socialization and development. In W. A. Corsaro & P. J. Miller (Eds.), The
production and reproduction of childrens worlds: Interpretive methodologies for the study of
childhood socialization (pp. 5166.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language
socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 331350.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Nielsen, S. E. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In
C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 155
177). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Willet, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473503.
Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2004, May). Problematizing and pluralizing sociocultural
theory. Colloquium convened at the American Association for Applied Linguistics
Conference, Portland, OR.
Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2005). Language socialization and second language
learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 30116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58
TESOL QUARTERLY
TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks,

Challenging Trends
B. KUMARAVADIVELU
San Jos State University
San Jos, California, United States
This article traces the major trends in TESOL methods in the past 15
years. It focuses on the TESOL professions evolving perspectives on
language teaching methods in terms of three perceptible shifts: (a)
from communicative language teaching to task-based language teaching, (b) from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and
(c) from systemic discovery to critical discourse. It is evident that during
this transitional period, the profession has witnessed a heightened
awareness about communicative and task-based language teaching,
about the limitations of the concept of method, about possible
postmethod pedagogies that seek to address some of the limitations of
method, about the complexity of teacher beliefs that inform the
practice of everyday teaching, and about the vitality of the macrostructuressocial, cultural, political, and historicalthat shape the microstructures of the language classroom. This article deals briefly with the
changes and challenges the trend-setting transition seems to be bringing about in the professions collective thought and action.
n this state-of-the-art essay,1 I trace the major trends in TESOL

methods since the 1991 publication of the 25th anniversary issue of
TESOL Quarterly. I shall, therefore, refer to two overlapping periods of
time: before 1990 and after. To somewhat pre-empt my central thesis: If
the first period is called a period of awareness, the second may be called a
period of awakening. I focus on the nature and scope of the transition from
awareness to awakening, along with the contributions and consequences
associated with it. For the sake of synthesis, organization, and presentation,
1
A state-of-the-art essay is mostly a summary statement of instant history with all its attendant
subjectivities. A subject like TESOL methods, with its multiple issues and multiple players, is
bound to carry multiple perspectives. In putting together my understanding of the field, I
received help from three anonymous reviewers and from the TESOL Quarterly editor. I am
indebted to them. I have not accepted all their suggestions and, therefore, Im responsible for
any remaining errors in judgment. For a detailed treatment of some of the issues discussed in
this article, see Kumaravadivelu (2006).
59
I frame this overarching transition in terms of three principal and

perceptible shifts: (a) from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, (b) from method-based pedagogy to postmethod
pedagogy, and (c) from systemic discovery to critical discourse. By opting
for a from-to frame of reference, I do not suggest that one concept has
completely replaced the other; instead, I consider the transition as work
in progress.
Before I proceed, a caveat and a clarification are in order. The caveat
relates to the constraints on space. The editorial stipulation on length
has necessitated a limited selection of the literature on TESOL methods
and a limited focus on general goals and strategies rather than on
specific objectives and tactics. The clarification pertains to a widely
prevalent terminological ambiguity. In the practice of everyday teaching
as well as in the professional literature, the term method is used indiscriminately to refer to what theorists propose and to what teachers
practice. Clearly, they are not the same. Mindful of such a disparity,
Mackey (1965) made a distinction four decades ago between method
analysis and teaching analysis. The former refers to an analysis of methods
conceptualized and constructed by experts, and the latter refers to an
analysis of what practicing teachers actually do in the classroom. Method
analysis can be done by reviewing the relevant literature, but teaching
analysis can be done only by including a study of classroom input and
interaction. This article is about method analysis, not teaching analysis.
FROM COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

TO TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
The 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly contains a state-of-theart article devoted exclusively to communicative language teaching (CLT),
thus highlighting the pre-eminent position it held during the 1980s. In
it, Savignon (1991) notes that CLT is a broad approach that
has become a term for methods and curricula that embrace both the goals
and the processes of classroom learning, for teaching practice that views
competence in terms of social interaction and looks to further language
acquisition research to account for its development. (p. 263)
The phrase competence in terms of social interaction sums up the

primary emphasis of CLT, whose theoretical principles were derived
mainly from concepts oriented to language communication, particularly
Austins (1962) speech act theory, which explains how language users
perform speech acts such as requesting, informing, apologizing, and so
on, Hallidays (1973) functional perspective, which highlights meaning
60
TESOL QUARTERLY
potential, and Hymes (1972) theory of communicative competence, which

incorporates interactional and sociocultural norms.
According to American (e.g., Savignon, 1983), British (e.g., Breen &
Candlin, 1980), and Canadian (e.g., Canale & Swain, 1980) commentators, CLT was essentially concerned with the concepts of negotiation,
interpretation, and expression. They and others point out that underscoring the creative, unpredictable, and purposeful use of language as
communication were classroom practices largely woven around sharing
information and negotiating meaning. This is true not only of oral
communication but also of reading and writing. Information gap activities that have the potential to carry elements of unpredictability and
freedom of choice were found to be useful. So were games, role plays,
and drama techniques, all of which were supposed to help the learners
get ready for so-called real world communication outside the classroom.
These activities were supposed to promote grammatical accuracy as well
as communicative fluency.
During the 1980s, CLT became such a dominant force that it guided
the form and function of almost all conceivable components of language
pedagogy. A steady stream of scholarly books appeared with the label
communicative unfailingly stamped on the cover. Thus, there were books
on communicative competence (Savignon, 1983), communicative grammar (Leech & Svartvik, 1979), communicative syllabus (Yalden, 1983),
communicative teaching (Littlewood, 1981), communicative methodology
(Brumfit, 1984), communicative tasks (Nunan, 1989), communicative
reading (Bowen, 1990), and communicative testing (Weir, 1990). To
transfer the burgeoning CLT scholarship to the language classroom,
scores of communicative textbooks were produced in various content
and skill areas.
CLT was a principled response to the perceived failure of the
audiolingual method, which was seen to focus exclusively and excessively
on the manipulation of the linguistic structures of the target language.
Researchers and teachers alike became increasingly skeptical about the
audiolingual methods proclaimed goal of fostering communicative
capability in the learner and about its presentation-practice-production
sequence. The proponents of CLT sought to move classroom teaching
away from a largely structural orientation that relied on a reified
rendering of pattern practices and toward a largely communicative
orientation that relied on a partial simulation of meaningful exchanges
that take place outside the classroom. They also introduced innovative
classroom activities (such as games, role plays, and scenarios) aimed at
creating and sustaining learner motivation. The focus on the learner and
the emphasis on communication made CLT highly popular among ESL
teachers.
Subsequent research on the efficacy of CLT, however, cast serious
TESOL METHODS: CHANGING TRACKS, CHALLENGING TRENDS
61
doubts about its authenticity, acceptability, and adaptabilitythree important factors of implementation about which the proponents of CLT
have made rather bold claims. By authenticity, I am referring to the claim
that CLT practice actually promotes serious engagement with meaningful negotiation, interpretation, and expression in the language classroom. It was believed that CLT classrooms reverberate with authentic
communication that characterizes interaction in the outside world. But a
communicative curriculum, however well conceived, cannot by itself
guarantee meaningful communication in the classroom because communication is what may or may not be achieved through classroom
activity; it cannot be embodied in an abstract specification (Widdowson,
1990, p. 130). Data-based, classroom-oriented investigations conducted
in various contexts by various researchers such as Kumaravadivelu
(1993a), Legutke and Thomas (1991), Nunan (1987), and Thornbury
(1996) reveal that the so-called communicative classrooms they examined were anything but communicative. In the classes he studied, Nunan
(1987) observed that form was more prominent than function, and
grammatical accuracy activities dominated communicative fluency ones.
He concluded, There is growing evidence that, in communicative class,
interactions may, in fact, not be very communicative after all (p. 144).
Legutke and Thomas (1991) were even more forthright:
In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers manuals, very little is
actually communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not
seem to stimulate the wish of learners to say something, nor does it tap what
they might have to say. (pp. 89)
Kumaravadivelu (1993a) analyzed lessons taught by teachers claiming to

follow CLT, and confirmed these findings: Even teachers who are
committed to CLT can fail to create opportunities for genuine interaction in their classroom (p. 113).
By acceptability, I mean the claim that CLT marks a revolutionary step
in the annals of language teaching. This is not a widely accepted view,
contrary to common perceptions. Several scholars (e.g., Howatt, 1987;
Savignon, 1983; Swan, 1985; Widdowson, 2003) have observed that CLT
does not represent any radical departure in language teaching. As
Widdowson (2003) points out, the representation of CLT given in
popular textbooks on TESOL methods such as Larsen-Freeman (2000)
and Richards and Rodgers (2001) as a quite radical break from
traditional approaches (p. 26) is not supported by evidence. For
instance, Howatt (1987) connects several features of CLT to earlier
methods such as direct method and audiolingual method. According to
him, CLT has adopted all the major principles of the 19th century
62
TESOL QUARTERLY
reform (p. 25) in language teaching. Swan (1985) is even more

emphatic:
Along with its many virtues, the Communicative Approach unfortunately has
most of the typical vices of an intellectual revolution: it over-generalizes valid
but limited insights until they become virtually meaningless; it makes exaggerated claims for the power and novelty of its doctrines; it misrepresents the
currents of thought it has replaced; it is often characterized by serious
intellectual confusion; it is choked with jargon. (p. 2)
In fact, a detailed analysis of the principles and practices of CLT would

reveal that it too adhered to the same fundamental concepts of language
teaching as the audiolingual method it sought to replace, namely, the
linear and additive view of language learning, and the presentationpractice-production vision of language teaching. The claims of its
distinctiveness are based more on communicative activities than on
conceptual underpinnings (see Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
By adaptability, I mean the observation that the principles and practices of CLT can be adapted to suit various contexts of language teaching
across the world and across time. Holliday (1994) suggests a plan for
designing an appropriate methodology, a modified CLT that is sensitive to
different sociocultural demands. Savignon (2001) identifies five components of a communicative curriculum for the 21st century and predicts
confidently that CLT will continue to be explored and adapted (p. 27).
Such optimistic observations have been repeatedly called into question
by reports of uneasiness from different parts of the world. Consider the
following: From India, Prabhu (1987) observes that the objectives
advocated and the means adopted by CLT are so inappropriate for the
Indian situation that he thought it necessary to propose and experiment
with a new context-specific, task-based language pedagogy. From South
Africa, Chick (1996) wonders whether the choice of communicative
language teaching as a goal was possibly a sort of naive ethnocentricism
prompted by the thought that what is good for Europe or the USA had
to be good for KwaZulu (p. 22). From Pakistan, Shamim (1996) reports
that her attempt to introduce CLT into her classroom met with resistance
from her learners, leading her to realize that she was actually creating
psychological barriers to learning (p. 109). From South Korea, Li
(1998) declares that CLT has resulted in more difficulties than one can
imagine. From China, Yu (2001) speaks of considerable resistance to
CLT both from teachers and learners. From Japan, Sato (2002) reports
practical difficulties in implementing CLT. From Thailand, Jarvis and
Atsilarat (2004) observe how, in spite of the Thai governments official
endorsement, teachers and learners consider CLT inappropriate and
63
unworkable. These and other reports suggest that, in spite of the positive
features mentioned earlier, CLT offers perhaps a classic case of a centerbased pedagogy that is out of sync with local linguistic, educational,
social, cultural, and political exigencies. The result has been a gradual
erosion of its popularity, paving way for a renewed interest in task-based
language teaching (TBLT), which, according to some, is just CLT by
another name.2
Whats in a Name? A Task Is a Task Is a Task

The trend away from CLT and toward TBLT is illustrated in part by the
fact that communicative, the label that was ubiquitous in the titles of
scholarly books and student textbooks published in the 1980s, has been
gradually replaced by another, task. Within a decade, several researchbased books have appeared on task-based language learning and teaching (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Crookes & Gass, 1993; Ellis, 2003;
Nunan, 2004; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1998). In addition, there are
specifically targeted textbooks that provide tasks for language learning
(Gardner & Miller, 1996; Willis, 1996), tasks for language teaching
( Johnson, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Parrott, 1993), tasks for teacher education
(Tanner & Green, 1998), tasks for classroom observation (Wajnryb,
1992), and tasks for language awareness (Thornbury, 1997).
In spite of the increasing number of publications, a consensus
definition of task continues to elude the profession. One finds in the
literature a multiplicity of definitions, each highlighting certain aspects
of TBLT (for a compilation, see Johnson, 2003; Kumaravadivelu, 1993b).
Nearly 20 years ago, Breen (1987) defined task broadly as a range of
workplans which have the overall purpose of facilitating language
learningfrom the simple and brief exercise type to more complex and
lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and
decision-making (p. 23). In a more recent work, Ellis (2003) synthesizes
various definitions to derive a composite one:
A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically
in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end,
it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of
their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose
them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use
that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the
real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or
2
One of the reviewers, for instance, raises the following question: Is TBLT simply an
updated emphasis on CLT designed to generate sales of teaching materials?
64
TESOL QUARTERLY
receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes.
(p. 16)
Ellis has deftly crafted a definition that includes almost all the major
points of contention in language pedagogy: attention to meaning,
engagement with grammar, inclusion of pragmatic properties, use of
authentic communication, importance of social interaction, integration
of language skills, and the connection to psycholinguistic processes.
The definition also highlights differing perspectives that scholars
bring to bear on TBLT, perspectives that offer a menu of options ranging
from an explicit focus on form to an exclusive focus on function.
Reflecting such a diversity, Long and Crookes (1992) present three
different approaches to task-based syllabus design and instruction. In a
similar vein, Skehan (1998) refers to two extremes of task orientation:
structure-oriented tasks and communicatively oriented tasks. They
share the quality, he writes, that they concentrate on one aspect of
language performance at the expense of others. The structure-oriented
approach emphasizes form to the detriment of meaning, while an
extreme task-based approach focuses very much on meaning and not on
form (p. 121). He then stresses the need for a third approach in which
the central feature is a balance between form and meaning, and an
alternation of attention between them (p. 121). Long (1991; Long &
Robinson, 1998) has consistently argued for a particular type of focus on
form in which learners attention is explicitly drawn to linguistic features
if and when they are demanded by the communicative activities and the
negotiation of meaning learners are engaged in.
It is precisely because a task can be treated through multiple methodological means, Kumaravadivelu (1993b) argues, that TBLT is not linked
to any one particular method. He reckons that it is beneficial to look at
task for what it is: a curricular content rather than a methodological
construct. In other words, different methods can be employed to carry
out language learning tasks that seek different learning outcomes. Using
a three-part classification of language teaching methods, he points out
that there can very well be language-centered tasks, learner-centered
tasks, and learning-centered tasks. Language-centered tasks are those that
draw the learners attention primarily to linguistic forms. Tasks presented in Fotos and Ellis (1991) and in Fotos (1993), which they
appropriately call grammar tasks, come under this category. Learnercentered tasks are those that direct the learners attention to formal as well
as functional properties. Tasks for the communicative classroom suggested by Nunan (1989) illustrate this type. Learning-centered tasks are
those that engage the learner mainly in the negotiation, interpretation,
and expression of meaning, without any explicit focus on form. Problemsolving tasks suggested by Prabhu (1987) are learning centered.
65
In spite of its methodological disconnect, TBLT has been considered

an offshoot of CLT (Nunan, 2004; Savignon, 1991; Willis, 1996). As an
anonymous reviewer correctly points out, the reason for this impression
is that the initial work on language-learning tasks coincided with the
development of CLT (e.g., Candlin & Murphy, 1987). Regardless of its
origin, TBLT has clearly blurred the boundaries of major methods.
These and other developments have led Celce-Murcia, Drnyei, and
Thurrell (1997) to wonder whether it makes any sense to talk about CLT
at all (p. 148). They recognize that the development of language
teaching theory has arrived at a postmethod condition, which requires a
reconsideration of some of the metaphors used to describe methodological issues (p. 148), and that it has provided a coherent enough
framework for teachers to make it unnecessary to use higher-order terms
such as CLT (p. 149). In making these remarks, they were prompted by
a shift that has been fast unfolding.
FROM METHOD-BASED PEDAGOGY

TO POSTMETHOD PEDAGOGY
The best way to understand the ongoing shift from method-based
pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy is to start with two groundbreaking
papers published in TESOL Quarterly: Pennycook (1989) and Prabhu
(1990). Pennycook was persuasive in his argument that the concept of
method reflects a particular view of the world and is articulated in the
interests of unequal power relationships (pp. 589590), and that it has
diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching (p. 597). Equally persuasive was Prabhu, who argued that there is no
best method and that what really matters is the need for teachers to learn
to operate with some personal conceptualization of how their teaching
leads to desired learningwith a notion of causation that has a measure
of credibility for them (p. 172). He called the resulting pedagogic
intuition a teachers sense of plausibility. The challenge facing the profession, he noted, is not how to design a new method but how to devise a
new way to help activate and develop teachers varied senses of
plausibility (p. 175).
In short, Pennycook sought to put an end to the professions innocence about the neutrality of method, while Prabhu sought to put an end
to its infatuation with the search for the best method. But they were not
the only ones to raise serious doubts about the concept of method. Quite
a few others expressed similar doubts, most notably Allwright (1991),
Brown (2002), Clarke (1983), Jarvis (1991), Nunan, (1989), Richards
(1990), and Stern (1985). It was even declared, rather provocatively, that
66
TESOL QUARTERLY
method is dead (Allwright, 1991; Brown, 2002). These scholars are

prominent among those instrumental in nudging the TESOL profession
toward a realization that the concept of method has only a limited and
limiting impact on language learning and teaching, that method should
no longer be considered a valuable or a viable construct, and that what is
needed is not an alternative method but an alternative to method. This
growing realization coupled with a resolve to respond has created what
has been called the postmethod condition (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
Among several attempts that have been or are being made to provide
the practicing teacher with a compass for navigating the uncharted
waters of the postmethod condition, three stand out.3 Sterns (a) threedimensional framework, (b) Allwrights exploratory practice framework, and (c)
Kumaravadivelus macrostrategic framework. These frameworks, developed
more or less at the same time, present wide-ranging plans for constructing a postmethod pedagogy. Even though I present these as examples of
postmethod perspectives, it should be remembered that Stern and
Allwright do not invoke the label postmethod. A common thread, however,
runs through the three frameworks: the authors disappointment with
and a desire to transcend the constraining concept of method.
Postmethod Perspectives
Published posthumously in 1992, Sterns framework consists of strategies and techniques. He uses strategy to refer to broad intentional
action and technique to refer to specific practical action (p. 277).
Strategies operate at the policy level, and techniques at the procedural
level. He emphasizes that strategies are not simply another term for
what used to be called methods (p. 277). His framework has three
dimensions: (a) the L1-L2 connection, concerning the use of the first
language in learning the second, (b) the code-communication dilemma,
concerning the structure-message relationship, and (c) the explicitimplicit option, concerning the basic approach to language learning.
Each dimension consists of two strategies plotted at two ends of a
continuum. The first dimension refers to intralingual-crosslingual strategies that remain within the target language (L2) and target culture (C2)
as the frame of reference for teaching. The intralingual strategy adheres to
the policy of coordinate bilingualism, where the two language systems
are kept completely separate from each other, while the crosslingual
strategy believes in compound bilingualism, where the L2 is acquired and
3
Other initial proposals include Rivers (1992) and Brown (1994, 2002), both of whom
suggest a set of broad principles for interactive language teaching.
67
known through the use of the L1. The second involves explicit focus on
the formal properties of language, that is, grammar, vocabulary, and
notions on the one hand, and message-oriented, interaction-based
communicative properties on the other. The third concerns the key issue
of whether learning an L2 is a conscious intellectual exercise or an
unconscious intuitive one. Stern uses familiar words, explicit and implicit, to refer to the two strategies. His framework, thus, deals directly
with major contentious dichotomous issues that have marked the pendulum swing in language teaching methods.
Allwrights exploratory practice (EP) is premised on a philosophy that
is stated in three fundamental tenets: (a) the quality of life in the
language classroom is much more important than instructional efficiency, (b) ensuring our understanding of the quality of classroom life is
far more essential than developing ever improved teaching methods,
and (c) understanding such a quality of life is a social, not an asocial
matter (Allwright, 2000, 2003; Allwright & Bailey, 1991). From these
fundamental tenets, Allwright derives seven broad principles of language
teaching: (a) put quality of life first, (b) work primarily to understand
language classroom life, (c) involve everybody, (d) work to bring people
together, (e) work also for mutual development, (f) integrate the work
for understanding into classroom practice, and (g) make the work a
continuous enterprise.
These broad principles inform specific practices. According to Allwright
and Lenzuen (1997) and Allwright (2000), EP involves a series of basic
steps including (a) identifying a puzzle, that is, finding something
puzzling in a teaching and learning situation; (b) reflecting on the
puzzle, that is, thinking about the puzzle to understand it without
actually taking any action; (c) monitoring, that is, paying attention to the
phenomenon that is puzzling to understand it better; (d) taking direct
action, that is, generating additional data from the classroom; (e)
considering the outcomes reached so far, and deciding what to do next,
which involves determining whether there is sufficient justification to
move on or whether more reflection and more data are needed; (f)
moving on, which means deciding to choose from several options to
move toward transforming the current system; and (g) going public, that
is, sharing the benefits of exploration with others through presentations
or publications. Thus, the central focus of EP is local practice.
Kumaravadivelus (1992, 1994, 2001, 2003) macrostrategic framework
is based on the hypothesis that language learning and teaching needs,
wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, and therefore,
we cannot prepare teachers to tackle so many unpredictable needs, wants and
situations; we can only help them develop a capacity to generate varied and
68
TESOL QUARTERLY
situation-specific ideas within a general framework that makes sense in terms

of current pedagogical and theoretical knowledge. (1992, p. 41)
A product of the postmethod condition, his framework is shaped by

three operating principles: particularity, practicality, and possibility.
Particularity seeks to facilitate the advancement of a context-sensitive,
location-specific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local
linguistic, social, cultural, and political particularities. Practicality seeks to
rupture the reified role relationship between theorizers and practitioners by enabling and encouraging teachers to theorize from their
practice and to practice what they theorize. Possibility seeks to tap the
sociopolitical consciousness that students bring with them to the classroom so that it can also function as a catalyst for identity formation and
social transformation (see Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
The construction of a context-sensitive postmethod pedagogy that is
informed by the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility
entails a network of ten macrostrategies derived from the current
theoretical, practical, and experiential knowledge base. They are (a)
maximize learning opportunities, (b) facilitate negotiated interaction,
(c) minimize perceptual mismatches, (d) activate intuitive heuristics, (e)
foster language awareness, (f) contextualize linguistic input, (g) integrate language skills, (h) promote learner autonomy, (i) ensure social
relevance, and ( j) raise cultural consciousness. Using these macrostrategies
as guidelines, practicing teachers can design their own microstrategies or
classroom activities. In other words, macrostrategies are made operational in the classroom through microstrategies. It is claimed that by
exploring and extending macrostrategies to meet the challenges of
changing contexts of teaching, by designing appropriate microstrategies
to maximize learning potential in the classroom, and by monitoring
their teaching acts, teachers will eventually be able to devise for themselves a systematic, coherent, and relevant theory of practice (see
Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
The three frameworks represent initial attempts to respond, in a
principled way, to a felt need to transcend the limitations of the concept
of method. They seek to lay the foundation for the construction of
postmethod pedagogies. They merely offer certain operating principles
pointing the way. Any actual postmethod pedagogy has to be constructed
by teachers themselves by taking into consideration linguistic, social,
cultural, and political particularities. The importance of addressing
pedagogic particularities has been strengthened by yet another shift in
the field.
69
FROM SYSTEMIC DISCOVERY TO CRITICAL DISCOURSE

During the 1990s, the TESOL profession took a decidedly critical
turn. It is probably one of the last academic disciplines in the field of
humanities and social sciences to go critical. Simply put, the critical turn
is about connecting the word with the world. It is about recognizing
language as ideology, not just as system. It is about extending the
educational space to the social, cultural, and political dynamics of
language use, not just limiting it to the phonological, syntactic, and
pragmatic domains of language usage. It is about realizing that language
learning and teaching is more than learning and teaching language. It is
about creating the cultural forms and interested knowledge that give
meaning to the lived experiences of teachers and learners.
Slow to start, the profession acted fast. Within a decade, the flagship
journal of the profession, TESOL Quarterly, has brought out five special
volumes on themes that are, in one way or another, connected to critical
pedagogy: language and identity (Norton, 1997), critical approaches to
TESOL (Pennycook, 1999), language in development (Markee, 2002),
gender and language education (Davis & Skilton-Sylvester, 2004), and
race and TESOL (Kubota & Lin, in press). Various aspects of pedagogic
operations including teaching for academic purposes (Benesch, 2001),
testing techniques (Shohamy, 2001), discourse analysis (Fairclough,
1995) and classroom interaction (Kumaravadivelu, 1999) have been
explored from critical pedagogic perspectives.4 For a detailed treatment
of applying critical pedagogy in TESOL, see Canagarajah (2005b), Ellis
and Barkhuizen (2005, chapter 12), Morgan and Ramanathan (2005),
and Norton and Toohey (2004). In fact, the volume of work in this area
is considered to have reached a critical enough mass to propose a new
subfield called critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001).
From a methodological point of view, critical pedagogy has been
prompting new ways of looking at classroom practices. Auerbach (1995)
has showed us how participatory pedagogy can bring together learners,
teachers, and community activists in mutually beneficial, collaborative
projects. Morgan (1998) has demonstrated how even in teaching units of
language as system, such as phonological and grammatical features, the
values of critical practice and community development can be profitably
used. Based on a critical ethnographic study of Sri Lankan classrooms,
Canagarajah (1999) has revealed creative classroom strategies employed
by teachers and students in periphery communities. His holistic methodological approach not only involves a reflexivity on the discourses and
4
For instance, this anniversary issue carries contributions on teacher development, language acquisition, and language testing in which the authors refer to the impact of critical
pedagogy.
70
TESOL QUARTERLY
strategies students bring with them (p. 186) but also productively
exploits students own linguistic and cultural resources. In a similar vein,
finding the use of the learners L1 and L2 very useful in her Hong Kong
classrooms, Lin (1999) has designed critical practices that connect with
students and help them transform their attitudes, dispositions, skills, and
self-imagetheir habitus or social world (p. 410). Benesch (2001) has
suggested ways and means of linking the linguistic text and sociopolitical
context as well as the academic content with the larger community for
the purpose of turning classroom input and interaction into effective
instruments of transformation. Kubota (2004) has advocated a critical
multicultural approach that can potentially provide learners with opportunities to understand and explore a multiplicity of expressions and
interpretations (p. 48).
Perhaps as a spin-off of the critical turn, a new horizon of explorations
has opened up in hitherto neglected topics that have a significant impact
on classroom methodological practicestopics such as learner identity,
teacher beliefs, teaching values, and local knowledge. We have learned
how
it is only by understanding the histories and lived experiences of language
learners that the language teacher can create conditions that will facilitate
social interaction both in the classroom and in the wider community, and
help learners claim the right to speak. (Norton, 2000, p. 142)
We have learned how the structure of teachers beliefs, assumptions, and

background knowledge play a crucial role in their classroom decisionmaking process ( Johnson & Golombek, 2002; Woods, 1996), how
language teaching and learning are shot through with values, and that
language teaching is a profoundly value-laden activity imbued with
moral meaning ( Johnston, 2003, p. 1), how a systematic exploration of
knowledge production in periphery communities can yield hitherto
untapped resources about different pedagogical cultures and educational traditions (Canagarajah, 2005a), and how the exploration of local
realities can reveal the deep division between English as a global
language and vernacular languages that informs curricular and methodological decisions teachers and students make (Ramanathan, 2005).
CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

The three shiftsfrom communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from method-based pedagogy to postmethod
pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourseconstitute
the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This
71
transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited
from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent
that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to
CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented. A volume edited by
Crookes and Gass (1993) addresses acquisition-related issues such as task
complexity, task sequencing, task performance, and task evaluation.
Another collection edited by Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) takes up
the same issues but with deeper psycholinguistic understanding and with
more rigorous investigative procedures. A 387-page comprehensive work
by Ellis (2003) reveals the richness of the current knowledge base in
TBLT.
But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major
ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning
and its attendant issue of how the learners attention resources are
allocated. Calling the allocation of attention the pivotal point in L2
learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it largely determines
the course of language development (p. 11, italics added). The crux of
the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their
attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning. Doughty and Williams (1998) note that a crucial methodological
choice
is whether to take a proactive or reactive stance to focus on form. That is to
say, a proactive approach would entail selecting in advance an aspect of the
target to focus on, whereas a reactive stance would require that the teacher
notice and be prepared to handle various learning difficulties as they arise.
(p. 198, italics in original)
but at present, there is no definitive research upon which to base a

choice of one over the other, rather, it seems likely that both approaches
are effective, depending upon the classroom circumstances (p. 211).
That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. As mentioned earlier, one of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it
can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs,
wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both
CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to
linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They
seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical
particularities. Ellis (2003) articulates this problem rather briskly:
Task-based teaching is an Anglo-American creation. Irrespective of whether it
is psycholinguistically justified, it must be considered in terms of social and
cultural impact it has on consumers, especially in non-western contexts, and
72
TESOL QUARTERLY
also in terms of whether the language practices it espouses are transformative, i.e. enable learners to achieve control over their lives. (p. 331)
He further asserts that

a critical perspective on task-based teaching raises important questions. It
forces us to go beyond the psycholinguistic rationale for task-based instruction in order to examine the social, cultural, political, and historical factors
that contextualize teaching, and influence how it takes place. (p. 333)
The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching
(e.g., Bax, 2003; Jarvis & Atsilarat, 2004).
The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift
within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from
method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as
much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to
method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative
to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman
(2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that Kumaravadivelus macro-microstrategies constitute a method (p. 24). While
declaring that method and postmethod are so compatible that they can
together liberate our practices, Bell (2003) laments that by deconstructing methods, postmethod pedagogy has tended to cut teachers off
from their sense of plausibility, their passion and involvement (p. 333).
This observation is rather puzzling because it was only during the heyday
of CLT that we found that in our efforts to improve language teaching,
we have overlooked the language teacher (Savignon, 1991, p. 272).
Postmethod pedagogy, on the contrary, can be considered to put a
premium on the teachers sense of plausibility.
Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy
has been described as a compelling idea that emphasises greater
judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the
means and the ends (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher to
engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and
assessment (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be
responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the
local exigencies of learning and teaching. It opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be
recognized and valued and makes it more feasible for teachers to
acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their
classrooms, guided by local assessments of students strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities (Block &
73
Cameroon, 2002b, p.10). The emphasis on local knowledge and local

teachers, however, represents a problematic aspect of postmethod pedagogy because it is premised on a transformative teacher education
program that does not merely lead to the easy reproduction of any
ready-made package or knowledge but, rather, the continued recreation
of personal meaning on the part of teachers (Diamond, 1993, p. 56).
The profession has just started focusing on such a challenging teacher
education program (Freeman & Johnson, 1998).5
The idea of a transformative teacher education program dovetails
nicely with the ongoing shift from systemic discovery to critical discourse.
The emphasis on critical discourse has, however, met with skepticism in
certain quarters. For instance, the subject does not even find a place in
Kaplans (2002) encyclopedic volume The Oxford Handbook of Applied
Linguistics. Its chief editor writes:
The editorial group spent quite a bit of time debating whether critical
(applied) linguistics/critical pedagogy/critical discourse analysis should be
included; on the grounds that critical applied linguistics rejects all theories of
language, expresses skepticism towards all metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984)
and rejects traditional applied linguistics as an enterprise because it has
allegedly never been neutral and has, rather, been hegemonic (Rampton,
1997), the editorial group decided not to include the cluster of critical
activities. (Kaplan, 2002, pp. vvi)
Taking a slightly different view, Widdowson (2003) observes that the

fundamental assumption governing critical pedagogy, namely, social
justice, is something that everybody, overtly and in principle, would
espouse (p. 14). Therefore, he does not see the need to give it the label
critical and put it on polemical display (p. 14). Although one can
readily disapprove of any polemical display, one sees no harm in giving
critical pedagogy, as Shakespeares Duke Theseus would say, a local
habitation and a name.
Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed
by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension,
critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that
critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation
by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence.
Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as linguistics with a conscience
and a cause, Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its less rigorous
operation (p. 137) that involves a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes
from theory whatever comes usefully to hand (p. 137). Undoubtedly,
these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism
about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to
5
74
For more details, see Johnson, this issue.

TESOL QUARTERLY
research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular,

warranting the search for robust research design. We should at the same
time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive
one in search of meaning (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning,
particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of
becoming a speculative exercise. And todays speculative exercise may
lead to tomorrows specialized knowledge. Along with Candlin (1998)
I make no apology for this commitment to speculation. While it is natural to
speculate at the outset of enterprises, it is also important to continue to do so,
especially when we are some way along the route, if only to check our
compasses, as it were, and resight some of our objectives. (p. 229)
While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three
changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to
come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We
have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging
processes of globalization (Block & Cameron, 2002a) and the renewed
forces of imperialism (Edge, in press) will have on language teaching
practices. But, thats another story.
THE END AS THE BEGINNING

Weve come a long waydeclared Brown (1991, p. 257) as he
concluded his essay for the 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly. He
was actually referring to the progress the TESOL profession was making
during the 1970s and 80s in achieving desired goals such as shifting its
focus from product-oriented teaching to process-oriented teaching, and
from a rigid curriculum to a more flexible one. Even those modest shifts,
according to him, had created a new state of awareness in the profession.
Considering the more significant trend-setting shifts that have marked
the 1990s, we can claim with some justification that we have now reached
a much higher level of awareness. We might even say, with a good
measure of poetic license, that we have moved from a state of awareness
toward a state of awakening. We have been awakened to the necessity of
making methods-based pedagogies more sensitive to local exigencies,
awakened to the opportunity afforded by postmethod pedagogies to
help practicing teachers develop their own theory of practice, awakened
to the multiplicity of learner identities, awakened to the complexity of
teacher beliefs, and awakened to the vitality of macrostructuressocial,
cultural, political, and historicalthat shape and reshape the microstructures of our pedagogic enterprise.
75
Weve certainly come a long way in identifying and understanding

some of the central issues that will orient the future course of action.
Although we can be proud of what has been accomplished, this is no
time for complacency. What is clear is the laudable transition from
awareness to awakening. What is not clear is how this awakening has
actually changed the practice of everyday teaching and teacher preparation. Admirable intentions need to be translated into attainable goals,
which, in turn, need to be supported by actionable plans. I hope that the
person who will be writing a state-of-the-art essay for the golden jubilee
volume of TESOL Quarterly in 2016 will be able to narrate a possible
transition from awakening to attainment. After all, the end of all
awakening must be the beginning of attainment.
THE AUTHOR
B. Kumaravadivelu is a professor in the Department of Linguistics and Language
Development at San Jos State University, San Jos, California, United States. His
research interests include critical discourse analysis, postmethod pedagogy, and the
learning and teaching of culture.
REFERENCES
Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Paper No. 10). Lancaster,
England: The University of Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Centre.
Allwright, R. L. (2000, October). Exploratory practice: An appropriate methodology for
language teacher development? Paper presented at the 8th IALS Symposium for
Language Teacher Educators, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Allwright, R. L. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in
language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7, 113141.
Allwright, R. L., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge,
Allwright, R. L., & Lenzuen, R. (1997). Exploratory practice: Work at the Cultura
Inglesa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Language Teaching Research, 1, 7379.
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in
pedagogical choices. In J. W. Tollefson, (Ed.), Power and inequality in language
education (pp. 933). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. English
Language Teaching Journal, 57, 278287.
Bell, D. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002a). Globalization and language teaching.
London: Routledge.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (2002b). Introduction. In D. Block & D. Cameron, (Eds.),
Globalization and language teaching (pp. 110). London: Routledge.
Bowen, E. R. (1990). Communicative reading. Salem, WI: Sheffield.
76
TESOL QUARTERLY
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. F.

Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 2346). London: Prentice Hall.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum
in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1, 89110.
Brown, H. D. (1991). TESOL at twenty-five: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 25,
245260.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the post-method era: Towards better
diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W. A.Renandya (Eds.),
Methodology in language teaching (918). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge,
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks in second
language learning, teaching, and testing. New York: Pearson Education.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005a). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005b). Critical pedagogy in L2 learning and teaching. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and research (pp.
Canale, M, & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 147.
Candlin, C. N. (1998). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate,
P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks in second language learning,
teaching, and testing (pp. 229243). New York: Pearson Education.
Candlin, C. N., & Murphy, D. F. (Eds.). (1987). Language learning tasks. London:
Prentice Hall.
Celce-Murcia, M., Drnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2
instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141152.
Chick, K. J. (1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In H. Coleman (Ed.),
Society and the language classroom (pp. 2139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Clarke, M. A. (1983). The scope of approach, the importance of method, and the
nature of technique. In J. E. Alatis, H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1983: Applied linguistics and the
preparation of second language teachers (pp. 106115). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University.
Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly,
37, 934.
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory
and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Davis, K. A., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (Eds.). Gender and language education [Special
issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3).
Diamond, C. T. P. (1993). In-service education as something more: A personal
construct approach. In P. Kahaney, L. Perry, & J. Janangelo (Eds.), Theoretical and
critical perspectives on teacher change (pp. 4566). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In
77
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 197261). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (in press). (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London:
Longman.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance vs. formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385407.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397417.
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1996). Tasks for independent language learning. Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1987). From structural to communicative. Annual Review of Applied
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin
Books.
Jarvis, G. A. (1991). Research on teaching methodology: Its evolution and prospects.
In B. Feed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 295
306). Lexington, MA.: D. C. Heath.
Jarvis, H., & Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shifting paradigms: From communicative to contextbased approach. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/december_04_HJ&SA.php
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing a language teaching task. London: Palgrave.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers narrative inquiry as
professional development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kaplan, R. (Ed.). (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, England:
Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In
B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 3052).
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (in press). Race and TESOL [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly,
40(3).
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Macrostrategies for the second/foreign language teacher.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993a). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative
classroom. ELT Journal, 47, 1221.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993b). The name of the task and the task of naming:
Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.),
Tasks in a pedagogical context (pp. 6996). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
78
TESOL QUARTERLY
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for

second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 2748.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly,
33, 453484.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35,
537560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of postmethod. ILI Language Teaching
Journal, 1, 2125.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1979). A communicative grammar of English. London:
Longman.
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom.
London: Longman.
Li, D. (1998). Its always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677703.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1999). Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of
social worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 33, 393412.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge,
Liu, D. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravdivelus The postmethod condition:
(E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching: Alternative to or
addition to method? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 174177.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching
methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language
research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3952). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice (pp.
1541). In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press.
Mackey, W. F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Markee, N. (Ed.). (2002). Language in development [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3).
Morgan, B. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching, critical practice, and community.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto University Press.
Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education:
Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151169.
Norton, B. (Ed.). (1997). Language and identity [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly,
31(3).
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. London: Longman.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal,
41, 136145.
79
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, England:
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Parrott, M. (1993). Tasks for language teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
politics of language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589618.
Pennycook, A. (Ed.). (1999). Critical approaches to TESOL [Special issue]. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(3).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best methodwhy? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161176.
Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-vernacular divide. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Rampton, B. (1997). Retuning in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 7, 325.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1992). Ten principles of interactive language learning and teaching.
In W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Teaching languages in college: Curriculum and content (pp. 373
392). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of communicative language teaching and
teacher development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language
teaching (pp. 4181). New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century.
In Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp.
1328). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 332). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In
H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 105121). Cambridge,
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1985). Review of J. W. Oller and P. A. Richard-Amatos Methods that work
[Book review]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 249251.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (1). English Language
Teaching Journal, 39, 212.
Tanner, R., & Green, C. (1998). Tasks for teacher education. London: Longman.
80
TESOL QUARTERLY
Thornbury, S. (1996). Teachers research teacher talk. English Language Teaching

Journal, 50, 279288.
Thornbury, S.(1997). About language: Tasks for teachers of English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Toolan, M. (1997). What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such
terrible things about it? Language and Literature, 6, 83103.
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review article: The theory and practice of critical
discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136151.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford,
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge, England:
Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation.
Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance.
81
Current Issues in the Teaching of

Grammar: An SLA Perspective
ROD ELLIS
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
The study of how learners acquire a second language (SLA) has helped
to shape thinking about how to teach the grammar of a second
language. There remain, however, a number of controversial issues.
This paper considers eight key questions relating to grammar pedagogy
in the light of findings from SLA. As such, this article complements
Celce-Murcias (1991) article on grammar teaching in the 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly, which considered the role of grammar in
a communicative curriculum and drew predominantly on a linguistic
theory of grammar. These eight questions address whether grammar
should be taught and if so what grammar, when, and how. Although
SLA does not afford definitive solutions to these questions, it serves the
valuable purpose of problematising this aspect of language pedagogy.
This article concludes with a statement of my own beliefs about
grammar teaching, grounded in my own understanding of SLA.
his article identifies and discusses a number of key issues relating to

the teaching of grammar in a second language (L2) and, by drawing
on theory and research in SLA, suggests ways to address these problems.
It points to a number of alternative solutions to each problem, indicating
that more often than not there are no clear solutions currently available.
The aim, therefore, is not to identify new solutions to existing controversies, nor even to present new controversies. Rather it addresses within
the compass of a single article a whole range of issues related to grammar
teaching, problematises these issues, and by so doing, provides a counterweight to the advocacy of specific, but also quite limited, proposals for
teaching grammar that have originated in some SLA quarters. However,
I conclude with a statement of my own position on these issues.
The questions that will be addressed are
1. Should we teach grammar, or should we simply create the conditions
by which learners learn naturally?
2. What grammar should we teach?
83
3. When should we teach grammar? Is it best to teach grammar when

learners first start to learn an L2 or to wait until later when learners
have already acquired some linguistic competence?
4. Should grammar instruction be massed (i.e., the available teaching
time be concentrated into a short period) or distributed (i.e., the
available teaching time spread over a longer period)?
5. Should grammar instruction be intensive (e.g., cover a single grammatical structure in a single lesson) or extensive (e.g., cover many
grammatical structures in a single lesson)?
6. Is there any value in teaching explicit grammatical knowledge?
7. Is there a best way to teach grammar for implicit knowledge?
8. Should grammar be taught in separate lessons or integrated into
communicative activities?
DEFINING GRAMMAR TEACHING

Traditionally, grammar teaching is viewed as the presentation and
practice of discrete grammatical structures. This is the view promulgated
in teacher handbooks. Ur (1996), for example, in her chapter titled
Teaching Grammar has sections on presenting and explaining grammar and grammar practice activities. Hedge (2000) in her chapter
titled Grammar similarly only considers presenting grammar and
practising grammar. This constitutes an overly narrow definition of
grammar teaching. It is certainly true that grammar teaching can consist
of the presentation and practice of grammatical items. But, as will
become apparent, it need not. First, some grammar lessons might consist
of presentation by itself (i.e., without any practice), while others might
entail only practice (i.e., no presentation). Second, grammar teaching
can involve learners in discovering grammatical rules for themselves
(i.e., no presentation and no practice). Third, grammar teaching can be
conducted simply by exposing learners to input contrived to provide
multiple exemplars of the target structure. Here, too, there is no
presentation and no practice, at least in the sense of eliciting production
of the structure. Finally, grammar teaching can be conducted by means
of corrective feedback on learner errors when these arise in the context
of performing some communicative task. The definition of grammar
teaching that informs this article is a broad one:
Grammar teaching involves any instructional technique that draws learners
attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them
either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension
and/or production so that they can internalize it.
84
TESOL QUARTERLY
SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR?

This question was motivated by early research into naturalistic L2
acquisition, which showed that learners appeared to follow a natural
order and sequence of acquisition (i.e., they mastered different grammatical structures in a relatively fixed and universal order and they
passed through a sequence of stages of acquisition on route to mastering
each grammatical structure). This led researchers like Corder (1967) to
suggest that learners had their own built-in syllabus for learning grammar. In line with this, Krashen (1981) argued that grammar instruction
played no role in acquisition, a view based on the conviction that
learners (including classroom learners) would automatically proceed
along their built-in syllabus as long as they had access to comprehensible
input and were sufficiently motivated. Grammar instruction could contribute to learning but this was of limited value because communicative
ability was dependent on acquisition.
There followed a number of empirical studies designed to (a)
compare the order of acquisition of instructed and naturalistic learners
(e.g., Pica, 1983), (b) compare the success of instructed and naturalistic
learners (Long, 1983) and (c) examine whether attempts to teach
specific grammatical structures resulted in their acquisition (e.g., White,
Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991). These studies showed that, by and
large, the order of acquisition was the same for instructed and naturalistic learners (although there were some interesting differences1), that
instructed learners generally achieved higher levels of grammatical
competence than naturalistic learners and that instruction was no
guarantee that learners would acquire what they had been taught. These
results were interpreted as showing that the acquisitional processes of
instructed and naturalistic learning were the same but that instructed
learners progressed more rapidly and achieved higher levels of proficiency. Thus, some researchers concluded (e.g., Long, 1988) that
teaching grammar was beneficial but that to be effective grammar had to
be taught in a way that was compatible with the natural processes of
acquisition.
Subsequent research, such as Norris and Ortegas (2000) metaanalysis of 49 studies, has borne out the overall effectiveness of grammar
teaching. Further, there is evidence that, contrary to Krashens (1993)
continued claims, instruction contributes to both acquired knowledge
(see Ellis, 2002a) as well as learned knowledge. There is also increasing
1
For example, Pica (1983) notes that some structures (e.g., plurals) were used more
accurately by instructed learners and some (e.g., Verbing) by naturalistic learners. In other
structures (e.g., articles) there was no difference.
CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR
85
evidence that naturalistic learning in the classroom (as, e.g., in immersion programmes) does not typically result in high levels of grammatical
competence (Genesee, 1987). In short, there is now convincing indirect
and direct evidence to support the teaching of grammar. Nevertheless,
doubts remain about the nature of the research evidence. Many studies
(including most of those reviewed by Norris and Ortega) measure
learning in terms of constrained constructed responses (e.g., fill in the blanks,
sentence joining, or sentence transformation), which can be expected to
favour grammar teaching. There is only mixed evidence that instruction
results in learning when it is measured by means of free constructed
responses (e.g., communicative tasks). Also, it remains the case that
learners do not always acquire what they have been taught and that for
grammar instruction to be effective it needs to take account of how
learners develop their interlanguages. As we will see, there is controversy
regarding both how interlanguage development occurs and how instruction can facilitate this.
WHAT GRAMMAR SHOULD WE TEACH?

Assuming, then, that grammar teaching can contribute to interlanguage
development, the next logical question concerns what grammar we
should teach. This question can be broken down into two separate
questions:
1. What kind of grammar should we base teaching on?
2. Which grammatical features should we teach?
Linguistics affords a broad selection of grammatical models to choose
from, including structural grammars, generative grammars (based on a
theory of universal grammar), and functional grammars. Traditionally
syllabuses have been based on structural or descriptive grammars.
Structural syllabuses traditionally emphasised the teaching of form over
meaning (e.g., Lado, 1970). Though the influence of structural grammars is still apparent today, modern syllabuses rightly give more attention to the functions performed by grammatical forms. Thus, for
example, less emphasis is placed on such aspects of grammar as sentence
patterns or tense paradigms and more on the meanings conveyed by
different grammatical forms in communication. Some attempt was once
made to exploit the insights to be gleaned from generative theories of
grammar (see, e.g., Bright, 1965), but in general, syllabus designers and
teachers have not found such models useful and have preferred to rely
on modern descriptive grammars, such as Celce-Murcia and Larsen-
86
TESOL QUARTERLY
Freemans (1999) Grammar Book. This resource is especially valuable

because it not only provides a comprehensive, clear, and pedagogically
exploitable description of English grammar but also identifies the kinds
of errors that L2 learners are known to make with different grammatical
structures. Such information is important because it helps to identify
which structures and which aspects of a structure require special
attention. The Grammar Book is also ideal in that it presents information
not only about linguistic form but also about the semantic and discoursal
meanings realised by particular forms. As VanPatten, Williams, and Rott
(2004) emphasise, establishing connections between form and meaning
is a fundamental aspect of language acquisition. Thus, any reference
grammar that fails to describe the form-meaning connections of the
target language must necessarily be inadequate. In general, then, the
choice of which type of grammar to use as a basis for teaching is not a
major source of controversy; descriptive grammars that detail the formmeaning relationships of the language are ascendant.
In contrast, the choice of which grammatical structures to teach is
controversial. Two polar positions can be identified and various positions
in between. At one end of this continuum is Krashens minimalist
position. Krashen (1982) argues that grammar teaching should be
limited to a few simple and portable rules such as 3rd persons and past
tenseed that can be used to monitor output from the acquired system.
He bases his argument on the claim that most learners are only capable
of learning such simple rulesthat more complex rules are generally
not learnable or, if they are, are beyond students ability to apply through
monitoring. Krashens claim, however, is not warranted. There is now
ample evidence that many learners are capable of mastering a wide
range of explicit grammar rules. Green and Hecht (1992), for example,
found that university-level students of English in Germany were able to
produce clear explanations for 85% of the grammatical errors they were
asked to explain, while overall the learners in their study (who included
secondary school students) managed satisfactory explanations for 46%
of the errors. Macrory and Stone (2000) reported that British comprehensive school students had a fairly good explicit understanding of the
perfect tense in French (e.g., they understood its function, they knew
that some verbs used avoir and some tre, they were familiar with the
forms required by different pronouns, and they were aware of the need
for a final accent on the past participle). Hu (2002) found that adult
Chinese learners of English demonstrated correct metalinguistic knowledge of prototypical rules of six English structures (e.g., for the definite
article specific reference constituted the prototypical rule) but were less
clear about the peripheral rules for these structures (e.g., generic reference).
At the other pole is the comprehensive position: Teach the whole of
87
the grammar of the target language.2 This is the position adopted by

many course book writers (e.g., Walter & Swan, 1990) or authors of
grammar practice materials (e.g., Murphy, 1994). Such a position would
also seem unwarranted because learners are clearly capable of learning a
substantial amount of the L2 grammar without instruction and because
most teaching contexts have limited time available for teaching grammar
so some selection is needed.
What then should selection be based on? The answer would seem
obviousthe inherent learning difficulty of different grammatical structures. The problem arises in how to determine this. To begin with, it is
necessary to distinguish two different senses of learning difficulty. This can
refer to (a) the difficulty learners have in understanding a grammatical
feature and (b) to the difficulty they have in internalising a grammatical
feature so that they are able to use it accurately in communication. These
two senses relate to the distinction between learning grammar as explicit
knowledge and as implicit knowledge, which is discussed later. Clearly,
what is difficult to learn as explicit knowledge and as implicit knowledge
is not the same. For example, most learners have no difficulty in grasping
the rule for English third persons but they have enormous difficulty in
internalising this structure so they can use it accurately. These two senses
of learning difficulty have not always been clearly distinguished in
language pedagogy, with the result that even when the stated goal is the
development of implicit knowledge, it is the anticipated difficulty
students will have in understanding a feature that guides the selection
and grading of grammatical structures. Third persons, for example, is
typically taught very early in a course.
How then has learning difficulty been established? Traditionally,
factors such as the frequency of specific structures in the input and their
utility to learners have been invoked (Mackey, 1976), but these factors
would seem to have more to do with use3 than with inherent cognitive
difficulty. Here I consider two approaches that have figured in attempts
to delineate cognitive difficulty.
1. Teach those forms that differ from the learners first language (L1).
2. Teach marked rather than unmarked forms.
2
Of course, it is not possible to specify the whole grammar of a language. Though the
grammar of a language may be determinate, descriptions of it are certainly not. The Longman
A Grammar of Contemporary English (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1972) ran to 1081
pages (excluding index and bibliography) but doubtlessly does not account for all the known
facts of English grammar. Nevertheless, there is a recognized canon of English structures that,
in the eyes of syllabus designers and textbook writers, constitutes the grammar of English.
3
Structures like English articles that are very frequent in the input can impose considerable
learning difficulty. Structures such as English conditionals may be very useful to learners but are
also difficult to learn.
88
TESOL QUARTERLY
The first approach was, of course, the one adopted in many early
structural courses based on a contrastive analysis of the learners L1 and
the target language. Although the contrastive analysis hypothesis as
initially formulated is clearly not tenable (see Ellis, 1985, chapter 2), SLA
researchers still generally agree that learners transfer at least some of the
features of their L1 into the L2. For example, there is ample evidence
(Trahey & White, 1993) to show that French learners of English produce
errors of the kind Mary kissed passionately John because French permits an
adverb to be positioned between the verb and the direct object.
Nevertheless, contrastive analysis does not constitute a sound basis for
selecting grammatical structures. In many teaching contexts, the learners come from mixed language backgrounds where it would be impossible to use contrastive analysis to tailor grammar teaching to the entire
group because the learners have different L1s. Also, we simply do not yet
know enough about when difference does and does not translate into
learning difficulty, and in some cases, learning difficulty arises even
where there is no difference.
The second approach, however, is also problematic. Markedness has
been defined in terms of whether a grammatical structure is in some
sense frequent, natural, and basic or infrequent, unnatural, and deviant
from a regular pattern (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985). Thus, the use of
an infinitive without to following make, as in He made me follow him can be
considered marked because make is one the few verbs in English that
takes this kind of complement and because this pattern occurs only
infrequently. The general idea is that we should teach the marked
features and leave the learners to learn the unmarked forms naturally by
themselves. The problem is that, as the definition suggests, markedness
remains a somewhat opaque concept, so that it is often difficult to apply
with the precision needed to determine which structures to teach.
The selection of grammatical content, then, remains very problematic. One solution to the kinds of problems I have mentioned is to base
selection on the known errors produced by learners. In this respect, lists
of common learner errors such as those available in Turton and Heatons
(1996) Longman Dictionary of Common Errors and Swan and Smiths (2001)
Learner English: A Teachers Guide to Interference and Other Problems are
helpful.
The problems of selection probably explain why grammatical syllabuses are so similar and have changed so little over the years; it is safer to
follow what has been done before. Of course the selection of what to
teach will also depend on the learners stage of development. The
problems that the learners stage of development involve are discussed in
subsequent sections.
89
WHEN SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR?

There are two competing answers to this question. According to the
first, it is best to emphasise the teaching of grammar in the early stages of
L2 acquisition. According to the second, it is best to emphasise meaningfocused instruction to begin with and introduce grammar teaching later,
when learners have already begun to form their interlanguages. I will
briefly consider the arguments for both positions.
A key premise of behaviourist theories of language learning is that
error like sin needs to be avoided at all costs (Brooks, 1960). This
premise holds that once learners have formed incorrect habits, they will
have difficulty eradicating them and replacing them with correct habits.
Thus, it is necessary to ensure that learners develop correct habits in the
first place. This was one of the key premises of the audiolingual method
(Lado, 1964). Other arguments can be advanced in favour of beginning
to teach grammar early. The alternative to a form-focused approach
emphasises meaning and message creation, as in task-based language
teaching (Skehan, 1998), but many teachers believe that beginning-level
learners cannot engage in meaning-centred activities because they lack
the necessary knowledge of the L2 to perform tasks. Thus, a formfocused approach is needed initially to construct a basis of knowledge
that learners can then use and extend in a meaning-focused approach.
Finally, current connectionist theories of L2 learning, which give primacy to implicit learning processes based on massive exposure to the
target language, also provide a basis for teaching grammar to beginners.
N. Ellis (2005) has suggested that learning necessarily commences with
an explicit representation of linguistic forms, which are then developed
through implicit learning. He suggests that teaching grammar early is
valuable because it provides a basis for the real learning that follows. This
seems to echo Lightbowns (1991) metaphor, according to which grammar instruction facilitates learning by providing learners with hooks
which they can grab on to. The idea behind this metaphor is that a
conscious understanding of how grammatical features work facilitates
the kind of processing (e.g., attention to linguistic form) required for
developing true competence.
The argument against teaching grammar early on derives from
research on immersion programmes (e.g., Genesee, 1987), which shows
that learners in such programmes are able to develop the proficiency
needed for fluent communication without any formal instruction in the
L2. For example, learners of L2 Spanish do not need to be taught that
adjectives follow nouns in this language; they seem to be able to learn
this naturalistically from exposure to communicative input (Hughes,
1979). Similarly, learners of L2 English can master simple relative clauses
90
TESOL QUARTERLY
(e.g., clauses where the relative pronoun functions as subject and the
clause is attached to a noun phrase following the verb). There is ample
evidence to show that learners can and do learn a good deal of grammar
without being taught it. This being so, why bother to teach what can be
learned naturally? A second reason for delaying grammar teaching to
later stages of development is that early interlanguage is typically
agrammatical (Ellis, 1984; Perdue & Klein, 1993). That is, learners rely
on a memory-based system of lexical sequences, constructing utterances
either by accessing ready-made chunks or by simply concatenating
lexical items into simple strings. Ellis (1984) gives examples of such
utterances in the early speech of three classroom learners:
Me no (= I dont have any crayons)
Me milkman (= I want to be the milkman)
Dinner time you out (= It is dinner time so you have to go out)
Such pidginised utterances rely heavily on context and the use of

communication strategies. They are very effective in simple, contextembedded communication. Arguably, it is this lexicalised knowledge that
provides the basis for the subsequent development of the grammatical
competence needed for context-free communication. This, then, is a
strong argument for delaying the teaching of grammar until learners
have developed a basic communicative ability.
In general, I have favoured the second of these positions (see Ellis,
2002b). Given that many classroom learners will not progress beyond the
initial stages of language learning, it seems to me that a task-based
approach that caters to the development of a proceduralised lexical
system and simple, naturally acquired grammatical structures will ensure
a threshold communicative ability and, therefore, is to be preferred to an
approach that insists on grammatical accuracy from the start and that, as
a consequence, may impede the development of this communicative
ability. Task-based language teaching is possible with complete beginners
if the first tasks emphasise listening (and perhaps reading) and allow for
nonverbal responses. However, it is possible that such an approach can
be usefully complemented with one that draws beginners attention to
some useful grammatical features (e.g., past tenseed in English) that
they might otherwise miss. This is the aim of input-processing instruction
(VanPatten, 1996, 2003), which is discussed later.
91
SHOULD GRAMMAR TEACHING

BE MASSED OR DISTRIBUTED?
This question is logically independent of the preceding question. That
is, irrespective of when grammar teaching commences, we need to
consider whether it should be concentrated into a short period of time
or spread over a longer period. Remarkably little research has addressed
this question.
The research that has been undertaken reports on the relative effects
of massed and distributed language instruction on general language
proficiency rather than the effects on grammar learning. Collins, Halter,
Lightbown, & Spada (1999) summarise the available research as follows:
None of the language program evaluation research has found an advantage
for distributed language instruction. Although the findings thus far lead to
the hypothesis that more concentrated exposure to English may lead to better
student outcomes, the evidence is not conclusive. (p. 659)
Collins and colleagues then report their own study of three intensive ESL
programmes in Canada, one (the distributed programme) taught over
the full 10 months of one school year, one (the massed programme)
concentrated into 5 months but taught only to above average students,
and the third (the massed plus programme) concentrated into 5 months,
supplemented with out of class opportunities to use English and taught
to students of mixed ability levels. The main finding was that the massed
and especially the massed-plus students outperformed the distributed
programme students on most of the measures of learning, including
some measures of grammatical ability, although this finding might in
part be explained by the fact that the massed programmes provided
more overall instructional time.
Collins et al.s study points to the need for further research, especially
through studies that compare massed and distributed instruction directed at specific grammatical structures. Ideally such a study would
compare short periods of instruction in a particular structure spread
over several days with the same amount of instruction compressed into
one or two lessons.4 Received wisdom is that a cyclical approach to
grammar teaching (Howatt, 1974) is to be preferred because it allows for
the kind of gradual acquisition of grammar that is compatible with what
is known about interlanguage development. However, the results of
4
Given the problems that arise in controlling extraneous variables in evaluations of entire
programmes, it might prove much easier to conduct rigorous studies of massed and distributed
learning when these are focused on specific grammatical structures.
92
TESOL QUARTERLY
Collins et al.s study suggest, at the very least, that such a position needs
to be investigated empirically. Here, then, is an issue about which
nothing definitive can be said at the moment.
SHOULD GRAMMAR TEACHING

BE INTENSIVE OR EXTENSIVE?
Intensive grammar teaching refers to instruction over a sustained period
of time (which could be a lesson or a series of lessons covering days or
weeks) concerning a single grammatical structure or, perhaps, a pair of
contrasted structures (e.g., English past continuous vs. past simple).
Extensive grammar teaching refers to instruction concerning a whole range
of structures within a short period of time (e.g., a lesson) so that each
structure receives only minimal attention in any one lesson. It is the
difference between shooting a pistol repeatedly at the same target and
firing a shotgun to spray pellets at a variety of targets. Instruction can be
intensive or extensive irrespective of whether it is massed or distributed.
The massed-distributed distinction refers to how a whole grammar
course is staged, while the intensive-extensive distinction refers to
whether each single lesson addresses a single or multiple grammatical
feature(s).
Grammar teaching is typically viewed as entailing intensive instruction. The present-practise-produce (PPP) model of grammar teaching,
which underlies most discussions of grammar teaching in teacher
handbooks (see, e.g., Hedge, 2000; Ur, 1996), assumes an intensive focus
on specific grammatical structures. Although such discussions acknowledge that learners readiness to acquire a specific structure limits the
effectiveness of teaching (no matter how intensive it is), they also assume
that with sufficient opportunities for practice, learners will eventually
succeed in automatising the structures they are taught. As Ur says, the
aim of grammar practice is to get students to learn the structures so
thoroughly that they will be able to produce them correctly on their
own (p. 83). Thus, the idea that practise makes perfect is the primary
justification for the intensive approach. Practise, however, must involve
both drills and tasks (i.e., opportunities to practice the target structure in
a communicative context).
It is perhaps less easy to see how grammar teaching can comprise
extensive instruction. A teacher would probably not elect to present and
practise a whole range of grammatical structures within a single lesson.
Extensive grammar instruction of a kind, however, has always had a place
in grammar teaching. Some 30 years ago, while teaching in a secondary
school in Zambia, I regularly gave lessons where I illustrated and
93
explained some of the common errors that I had observed my students

making in their written compositions. Similarly, in the context of taskbased teaching, some teachers have been observed to note the errors
that learners make and then to address them when the task is over
(Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004). However, extensive grammar
teaching can occur within a learning activity, not just as some kind of
postscript. Teachers provide corrective feedback in the context of both
form-focused and meaning-focused lessons, and although feedback in
form-focused lessons may be directed primarily at the structure targeted
by the lesson, in the meaning-focused lessons it is likely to be directed at
whatever errors learners happen to make. Studies of corrective feedback
(e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ellis, Batsurkmen, & Loewen, 2001) demonstrate that in communicative lessons a wide variety of grammatical forms
are addressed incidentally through corrective feedback.
There is little doubt now that intensive grammar lessons can be
effective. Though earlier research showed that learners do not always
learn what they are taught, especially when learning is measured in terms
of spontaneous production (e.g., Kadia, 1987), more recent research
(e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1999) indicates that even if learners are not
ready to learn the targeted structure, intensive grammar teaching can
help them progress through the sequence of stages involved in the
acquisition of that structure. In other words, teaching a marked structure
intensively can help learners learn associated, less marked structures
even if it does not result in acquisition of the marked structure. Intensive
instruction also helps learners to use structures they have already
partially acquired more accurately (e.g., White, Spada, Lightbown, &
Ranta, 1991).
There are also theoretical arguments and some empirical evidence in
favour of an extensive approach. Cook (1989) has argued from the
perspective of universal grammar that learners require minimal evidence
to set a particular parameter for the grammar they are learning. Other
researchers have emphasised the importance of negative evidence through
corrective feedback for grammar learning by adults. Loewen (2002) has
shown that even very brief episodes of corrective feedback are related to
correctness on subsequent tests. In that study, Loewen identified the
errors that teachers addressed incidentally in the context of communicative language teaching and then developed tailor-made tests, which he
administered to the learners who made the specific errors either one day
or two weeks later. These tests showed that the learners were subsequently often able to identify and correct their own errors.
There are pros and cons for both intensive and extensive grammar
instruction. Some structures may not be mastered without the opportunity for repeated practice. Harley (1989), for example, found that
anglophone learners of L2 French failed to acquire the distinction
94
TESOL QUARTERLY
between the preterite and imparfait past tenses after hours of exposure
(and presumably some corrective feedback) in an immersion programme
but were able to improve their accuracy in using these two tenses after
intensive instruction. However, intensive instruction is time consuming
(in Harleys study the targeted structures were taught over a 6-month
period), and thus, time will constrain how many structures can be
addressed. Extensive grammar instruction, on the other hand, affords
the opportunity to attend to large numbers of grammatical structures.
Also, more likely than not, many of the structures will be addressed
repeatedly over a period of time. Further, because this kind of instruction involves a response to the errors each learner makes, it is individualized and affords the skilled teacher real-time opportunities for the kind
of contextual analysis that Celce-Murcia (2002) recommends as basis for
grammar teaching. However, it is not possible to attend to those
structures that learners do not attempt to use (i.e., extensive instruction
cannot deal effectively with avoidance). Also, of course, it does not
provide the in-depth practise that some structures may require before
they can be fully acquired.
Arguably, grammar teaching needs to be conceived of in terms of both
approaches. Therefore, grammar teaching needs to be reconceptualised
in teacher handbooks to include the kind of extensive treatment of
grammar that arises naturally through corrective feedback.
IS THERE ANY VALUE IN TEACHING

EXPLICIT GRAMMATICAL KNOWLEDGE?
The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge was mentioned briefly earlier. Explicit knowledge consists of the facts that speakers
of a language have learned. These facts are often not clearly understood
and may be in conflict with each other. They concern different aspects of
language including grammar. Explicit knowledge is held consciously, is
learnable and verbalisable, and is typically accessed through controlled
processing when learners experience some kind of linguistic difficulty in
using the L2. A distinction needs to be drawn between explicit knowledge as analysed knowledge and as metalinguistic explanation. Analysed
knowledge entails a conscious awareness of how a structural feature works,
while metalinguistic explanation consists of knowledge of grammatical
metalanguage and the ability to understand explanations of rules. In
contrast, implicit knowledge is procedural, is held unconsciously, and can
only be verbalized if it is made explicit. It is accessed rapidly and easily
and thus is available for use in rapid, fluent communication. Most SLA
researchers agree that competence in an L2 is primarily a matter of
implicit knowledge.
95
Whether there is any value in teaching explicit knowledge of grammar

has been and remains today one of the most controversial issues in
teaching grammar. To make sense of the different positions relating to
the teaching of explicit knowledge, it is necessary to consider three
separate questions:
1. Is explicit knowledge of any value in and of itself?
2. Is explicit knowledge of value in facilitating the development of
implicit knowledge?
3. Is explicit knowledge best taught deductively or inductively?
I partly addressed the first question when I considered what grammar
to teach. I noted that researchers disagree over learners ability to learn
explicit knowledge, with some (e.g., Krashen, 1982) seeing this as very
limited and others (e.g., Green & Hecht, 1992) producing evidence to
suggest that it is considerable. There is, however, a separate issue related
to the first question. This issue concerns the extent to which learners are
able to use their explicit knowledge (whatever that consists of) in actual
performance. Again, one position is that this ability is limited. Krashen
argues that learners can only use explicit knowledge when they monitor,
which requires that they are focused on form (as opposed to meaning)
and have sufficient time to access the knowledge. There is also some
evidence that teaching explicit knowledge by itself (i.e., without any
opportunities for practising the target feature) is not effective. Studies by
VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) and Wong (2004) indicate that experimental groups that received explicit information alone performed no
differently on interpretation and production tests than a control group
did. But other positions are also possible. I have argued that explicit
knowledge is used in the process of formulating messages as well as in
monitoring and that many learners are adroit in accessing their explicit
memories for these purposes, especially if the rules are, to a degree,
automatised. However, this does require time. Yuan and Ellis (2003)
showed that learners grammatical accuracy improved significantly if
they had time for on-line planning while performing a narrative task, a
result most readily explained in terms of their accessing explicit
knowledge.
Irrespective of whether explicit knowledge has any value in and of
itself, it may assist language development by facilitating the development
of implicit knowledge. This issue is addressed by the second of the two
questions. It concerns what has become known as the interface hypothesis,
which addresses the role explicit knowledge plays in L2 acquisition.
Three positions can be identified. According to the noninterface position
(Krashen, 1981), explicit and implicit knowledge are entirely distinct
with the result that explicit knowledge cannot be converted into implicit
knowledge. This position is supported by research suggesting that
96
TESOL QUARTERLY
explicit and implicit memories are neurologically separate (Paradis,

1994). The interface position argues the exact opposite. Drawing on skilllearning theory, DeKeyser (1998) argues that explicit knowledge becomes implicit knowledge if learners have the opportunity for plentiful
communicative practice. The weak interface position (Ellis, 1993) claims
that explicit knowledge can convert into implicit knowledge if the
learner is ready to acquire the targeted feature and that this conversion
occurs by priming a number of key acquisitional processes, in particular
noticing and noticing the gap (Schmidt, 1990). That is, explicit knowledge
of a grammatical structure makes it more likely that learners will attend
to the structure in the input and carry out the cognitive comparison
between what they observe in the input and their own output. These
positions continue to be argued at a theoretical level. Although there is
plentiful evidence that explicit instruction is effective in promoting L2
learning (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2000) no published study has directly
tested whether explicit knowledge converts directly into implicit knowledge or simply facilitates its development. One reason for the lack of
research is the problem of measurement, that is, the difficulty of
ascertaining which type of knowledge learners employ when they perform a language task or test.
The three positions support very different approaches to language
teaching. The noninterface position leads to a zero grammar approach,
that is, it prioritizes meaning-centred approaches such as immersion and
task-based teaching. The interface position supports PPPthe idea that
a grammatical structure should be first presented explicitly and then
practised until it is fully proceduralised. The weak interface position also
lends support to techniques that induce learners to attend to grammatical features. It has been used to provide a basis for consciousness-raising
tasks that require learners to derive their own explicit grammar rules
from data they are provided with (Ellis, 1993; Fotos, 1994). It is likely that
all three approaches will continue to attract supporters, drawing on
different theories of L2 acquisition and citing research that lends
indirect support to the preferred approach. It is unlikely that this
controversy will be resolved through research in the near future.
The third question assumes there is value in explicit knowledge and
addresses how best to teach it. In deductive teaching, a grammatical
structure is presented initially and then practised in one way or another;
this is the first P in the present-practise-produce sequence. In inductive
teaching, learners are first exposed to exemplars of the grammatical
structure and are asked to arrive at a metalinguistic generalisation on
their own; there may or may not be a final explicit statement of the rule.
A number of studies (see Erlam, 2003, for a review) have examined the
relative effectiveness of these two approaches to teaching explicit knowledge. The results have been mixed. For example, Herron and Tomosello
97
(1992) found a clear advantage for inductive instruction, Robinson

(1996) found that a deductive approach was more effective, while Rosa
and ONeill (1999) found no significant difference in effectiveness.
Erlams (2003) own study revealed a significant advantage for the group
receiving deductive instruction. Perhaps the main lesson to be learned
from the research to date is the need for a differentiated approach to
both researching and teaching explicit knowledge. It is likely that many
variables affect which approach learners benefit most from, including
the specific structure that is the target of the instruction and the
learners aptitude for grammatical analysis. Simple rules may best be
taught deductively, while more complex rules may best be taught
inductively. Learners skilled in grammatical analysis are likely to fare
better with an inductive approach than those less skilled.
IS THERE A BEST WAY TO TEACH

GRAMMAR FOR IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE?
To answer this question it is necessary to identify the instructional
options for teaching grammar. I have attempted this in a number of
publications (e.g., Ellis 1997, 1998, 2002b).5 I will consider just two: the
difference between input-based and production-based instruction and
between different types of corrective feedback.
The case for the input-based option is based on a computational
model of L2 acquisition, according to which acquisition takes place as a
product of learners comprehending and processing input. Such approaches, when directed at grammar, seek to draw learners attention to
the targeted structure(s) in one or more ways: simply by contriving for
numerous exemplars of the structure(s) to be present in the input
materials, by highlighting the target structure(s) in some way (e.g., by
using bold or italics in written texts), or by means of interpretation tasks
(Ellis, 1995) directed at drawing learners attention to form-meaning
mappings. VanPatten (1996, 2003) has developed a version of the inputbased option that he calls input processing instruction. This is directed at
helping learners to overcome the default processing strategies that are a
feature of interlanguages (e.g., assuming that the first noun in a
sentence is always the agent). A case for the output-based option can be
found in both skill-building theory (see previous discussion) or in a
sociocultural theory of L2 learning, according to which learning arises
5
I distinguish between psycholinguistic and methodological options (cf. Ellis, 1998).
Psycholinguistic options are related to some model of L2 acquisition. Methodological options are
evident in instructional materials for teaching grammar. Here I consider only psycholinguistic
options.
98
TESOL QUARTERLY
out of social interaction which scaffolds learners attempts to produce

new grammatical structures (Ohta, 2001). A number of studies have
compared the relative effectiveness of input-based and production-based
instruction, with mixed results, resulting in ongoing debate about the
relative merits of these two options (VanPatten, 2002; DeKeyser, Salaberry,
Robinson, & Harrington, 2002). It may be that, in classrooms, this
comparison is ultimately meaningless because, in practise, both options
are likely to involve input-processing and production. For example, it is
quite conceivable that in an input-based approach, individual students
silently produce the target structure, while in a production-based approach, an utterance produced by one student serves as input for
another. It is, therefore, not surprising that both options have been
shown to result in acquisition.6
There is a rich descriptive literature on corrective feedback (i.e.,
teacher responses to learner errors) but remarkably few studies have
investigated the relative effects of different types of feedback on acquisition. Key options are (a) whether the feedback is implicit or explicit and
(b) whether the feedback is input or output based. Implicit feedback occurs
when the corrective force of the response to learner error is masked, for
example, a recast, which reformulates a deviant utterance correcting it
while keeping the same meaning:
NNS: Why he is very unhappy?
NS: Why is he very unhappy?
NNS: Yeah why is very unhappy? (Philp, 2003)
Or, as in this contrived example, a request for clarification:

NNS: Why he is very unhappy?
NS: Sorry?
NNS: Why is he very unhappy?
Explicit feedback takes a number of forms, such as direct correction or

metalinguistic explanation. There is some evidence that explicit feedback is more effective in both eliciting the learners immediate correct
use of the structure and in eliciting subsequent correct use, for example,
in a post-test (Carroll & Swain 1993; Lyster 2004). But some evidence and
6
There is also controversy regarding how to measure the effectiveness of these two (and
other) instructional options. Norris and Ortega (2000) have shown that the effectiveness of
instruction varies depending on whether it is measured using metalinguistic judgements,
selected response, constrained constructed response, or free constructed response. Most SLA
researchers (and teachers, too, perhaps) would consider the last of these the most valid
measure. Ellis (2002a) reviewed a number of studies that examined the effects of different kinds
of instruction on learners free constructed responses, reporting that instruction can have an
effect on this type of language use.
99
some strong theoretical reasons exist to support implicit feedback (see

Long 1996, in press). Indeed, this type of feedback is more compatible
with the focus-on-form approach discussed earlier because it ensures that
learners are more likely to stay focused on meaning. However, as
Muranoi (2000) notes, implicit feedback is probably more effective when
it is targeted intensively at a preselected form than when it occurs
extensively in incidental focus on form. In the latter, explicit attention to
form may be more effective.
Input-based feedback models the correct form for the learner (e.g., by
means of a recast). Output-based feedback elicits production of the correct
form from the learner (e.g., by means of a request for clarification).
Again, there is disagreement about the relative effectiveness of these two
feedback options and no clear evidence for choosing between them.
Some descriptive studies have shown that output-based feedback is more
likely to lead to learners correcting their own initial erroneous utterances in what is referred to as uptake. However, uptake is not the same as
acquisition.
In short, although considerable progress has been made toward
identifying those instructional options that are likely to be of
psycholinguistic significance, as yet, few conclusions can be drawn about
which ones are the most effective for acquisition. It is possible to point to
studies and theoretical arguments that suggest that each of the major
options discussed can contribute to acquisition.
SHOULD GRAMMAR BE TAUGHT

IN SEPARATE LESSONS OR INTEGRATED INTO
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES?
In Ellis (2001) I considered three broad types of form-focused
instruction, as shown in Table 1. Focus on forms refers to instruction
involving a structure-of-the-day approach, where the students primary
focus is on form (i.e., accuracy) and where the activities are directed
intensively at a single grammatical structure. This approach, then,
involves teaching grammar in a series of separate lessons. Focus on form
entails a focus on meaning with attention to form arising out of the
communicative activity. This focus can be planned, where a focused task is
required to elicit occasions for using a predetermined grammatical
structure, as, for example, in Samuda (2001). In this approach, attention
to the predetermined grammatical structures will also be intensive.
Alternatively, focus on form can be incidental, where attention to form in
the context of a communicative activity is not predetermined but rather
occurs in accordance with the participants linguistic needs as the activity
100
TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 1
Types of Form-Focused Instruction
Type
1. Focus on forms
2. Planned focus on form
3. Incidental focus on form
Primary Focus
Form
Meaning
Meaning
Distribution
Intensive
Intensive
Extensive
Note. This table is adapted from Ellis (2001, p. 17).
proceeds. In this approach, it is likely that attention will be given to a

wide variety of grammatical structures during any one task and thus will
be extensive. Focus on form implies no separate grammar lessons but
rather grammar teaching integrated into a curriculum consisting of
communicative tasks.
There is considerable theoretical disagreement regarding which of
these types of instruction is most effective in developing implicit knowledge. Long (1988, 1991) and Doughty (2001) have argued strongly that
focus on form is best equipped to promote interlanguage development
because the acquisition of implicit knowledge occurs as a result of
learners attending to linguistic form at the same time they are engaged
with understanding and producing meaningful messages. Other researchers, however, have argued that a focus-on-forms approach is
effective. DeKeyser (1998), for example, has argued that grammatical
structures are learned gradually through the automatisation of explicit
knowledge and that this can be achieved by means of a focus-on-forms
approach. This approach acknowledges the value of teaching explicit
knowledge and subsequently proceduralising it by means of activities
(drills and tasks) that practise behaviours (i.e., involve meaning) rather
than structures. It is worth noting, however, one point of agreement in
these different positions: Instruction needs to ensure that learners are
able to connect grammatical forms to the meanings they realise in
communication. So far, the debate has addressed the difference between
focus on form and focus on forms. There has been little discussion of the
relative merits of planned and incidental focus on form. In effect, this
discussion would involve a consideration of whether instruction should
be intensive or extensive, a question we have already considered.
CONCLUSION
Grammar has held and continues to hold a central place in language
teaching. The zero grammar approach was flirted with but never really
101
took hold, as is evident in both the current textbook materials emanating

from publishing houses (e.g., Whitney & White, 2001) and in current
theories of L2 acquisition. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that
teaching grammar works.
Although there is now a clear conviction that a traditional approach to
teaching grammar based on explicit explanations and drill-like practice
is unlikely to result in the acquisition of the implicit knowledge needed
for fluent and accurate communication, there continues to be disagreement regarding what should replace this. It seems appropriate, then, to
finish with a statement of my own beliefs about grammar teaching,
acknowledging that many of them remain controversial:
1. The grammar taught should be one that emphasises not just form
but also the meanings and uses of different grammatical structures.
2. Teachers should endeavour to focus on those grammatical structures
that are known to be problematic to learners rather than try to teach
the whole of grammar.
3. Grammar is best taught to learners who have already acquired some
ability to use the language (i.e., intermediate level) rather than to
complete beginners. However, grammar can be taught through
corrective feedback as soon as learners begin to use the language
productively.
4. A focus-on-forms approach is valid as long as it includes an opportunity for learners to practise behaviour in communicative tasks.
5. Consideration should be given to experimenting with a massed
rather than distributed approach to teaching grammar.
6. Use should be made of both input-based and output-based instructional options.
7. A case exists for teaching explicit grammatical knowledge as a means
of assisting subsequent acquisition of implicit knowledge. Teaching
explicit knowledge can be incorporated into both a focus-on-forms
and a focus-on-form approach. In the case of a focus-on-forms
approach, a differentiated approach involving sometimes deductive
and sometimes inductive instruction may work best.
8. An incidental focus-on-form approach is of special value because it
affords an opportunity for extensive treatment of grammatical
problems (in contrast to the intensive treatment afforded by a focuson-forms approach).
9. Corrective feedback is important for learning grammar. It is best
conducted using a mixture of implicit and explicit feedback types
that are both input based and output based.
102
TESOL QUARTERLY
10. In accordance with these beliefs, grammar instruction should take

the form of separate grammar lessons (a focus-on-forms approach)
and should also be integrated into communicative activities (a focuson-form approach).
Many (if not all) of these statements are open to challenge. They
constitute a personal interpretation of what the research to date has
shown. It may also seem that I am hedging my bets by encompassing a
wide number of options and that I am suggesting that anything goes. It
is certainly true that I do not believe (and do not think the research
demonstrates) that there is just one preferred approach to teaching
grammar. The acquisition of the grammatical system of an L2 is a
complex process and almost certainly can be assisted best by a variety of
approaches. But what is important is to recognize what options are
available, what the theoretical rationales for these options are, and what
the problems are with these rationales. This is the starting point for
developing a personal theory of grammar teaching.
The fact that so much controversy exists points to the need for more
research. One of the greatest needs is for research that addresses to what
extent and in what ways grammar instruction results in implicit knowledge. Ideally, this would require methods of measuring acquisition that
tap into learners ability to use the grammatical structures they have
been taught in communication (especially oral communication). Studies
that employ such methods are still few and far between. Another need is
for longitudinal studies that investigate the effects of instruction over
time. Although most recently published studies include delayed posttests, they typically incorporate instructional treatments of a relatively
short duration. Longitudinal studies that employ qualitative as well as
quantitative methods will help to show not just if there is a delayed effect
for instruction but also its accumulative effect. The effects of corrective
feedback, for example, are most likely to become evident gradually when
learners are repeatedly exposed to feedback on the same grammatical
structures. Further research, even if it does not succeed in providing
clear-cut answers to the questions raised in this article, will deepen our
understanding of the issues involved and afford better defined provisional specifications (Stenhouse, 1975), which teachers can experiment
with in their own classrooms.
THE AUTHOR
Rod Ellis is a professor in the Department of Applied Language Studies and
Linguistics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has published widely in
the field of SLA. His latest books are Analyzing Language Learning and Planning and
Task Performance in a Second Language.
103
REFERENCES
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25,
243272.
Bright, J. (1965). Patterns and skills in English. Arusha, Tanzania: Longman.
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt Brace &
World.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar through context and
through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar
teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book (2nd ed.). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Collins, L., Halter, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and distribution of
time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655680.
Cook, V. (1989). Universal grammar theory and the classroom. System, 17, 169182.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and
practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 4263). Cambridge, England:
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets
processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPattens Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 805824.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206257). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87
105.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused
instruction and second language learning (pp. 146). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit
knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,
223236.
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language
104
TESOL QUARTERLY
curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in

second language classrooms (pp. 1734). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, H. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281318.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the
acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323351.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual
education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Green, P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 19, 331359.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England:
Herron, C., & Tomosello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided
induction. French Review, 65, 708718.
Howatt, T. (1974). The background to course design. In J. Allen & S. P. Corder
(Eds.), The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics: Vol. 3. Techniques in applied
linguistics (pp. 123). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in
second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347386.
Hughes, A. (1979). Aspects of a Spanish adults acquisition of English. Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin, 4, 4965.
Kadia, K. (1987). The effect of formal instruction on monitored and spontaneous
naturalistic interlanguage performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 509515.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lado, R. (1970). Lado English series: Book 1. Montreal, Canada: Centre Educatif et
Culturel.
Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the effect of
instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 197
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in
meaning-focused ESL lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Auckland, New Zealand.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review
of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues
in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115141). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching
methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language
research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3952). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
105
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (in press). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems
in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399432.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
3766.
Mackey, W. (1976). Language teaching analysis. London: Longman.
Macrory, G., & Stone, V. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense
in French: The relationship between knowledge and use. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 5582.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating
formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language
Learning, 50, 617673.
Murphy, R. (1994). English in use: A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate
students (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed)., Implicit and explicit learning of
languages (pp. 393419). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1993). Concluding remarks. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult second
language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Vol. 2. The results (pp. 253272).
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Non-native speakers noticing of
recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99126.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different
conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465497.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary
English. London: Longman.
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.
London: Longman.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental
rule-search conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Rosa, R., & ONeill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake and the issue of awareness. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511556.
Samuda, V. (2001). Getting relationship between form and meaning during task
performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning and assessment (pp. 119140).
Harlow, England: Pearson.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and
106
TESOL QUARTERLY
developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language

Journal, 83, 122.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learner English: A Teachers guide to interference and other
problems (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second
language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181204.
Turton, J., & Heaton, N. (Eds.). (1996). Longman dictionary of common errors. London:
Longman.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755
804.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teachers guide to second language
acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495510.
VanPatten, B., Williams, J., & Rott, S. (2004). Form-meaning connections in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walter, C., & Swan, M. (1990). The new English Cambridge course. Cambridge, England:
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and
question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416432.
Whitney, N., & White, L. (2001). Team up: Students book 1. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information
and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), From input to output: A teachers guide
to second language acquisition (pp. 187205). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on
fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1
27.
107
Current Perspectives on
Teaching the Four Skills
ELI HINKEL
Seattle University
Seattle, Washington, United States
This article presents an overview of recent developments in second

language (L2) teaching and highlights the trends that began in the
1990s and the 2000s and are likely to continue to affect instruction in
L2 skills at least in the immediate future. Also highlighted are recent
developments in instruction as they pertain specifically to the teaching
of L2 speaking, listening, reading, and writing. In the past 15 years or
so, several crucial factors have combined to affect current perspectives
on the teaching of English worldwide: (a) the decline of methods, (b)
a growing emphasis on both bottom-up and top-down skills, (c) the
creation of new knowledge about English, and (d) integrated and
contextualized teaching of multiple language skills. In part because of
its comparatively short history as a discipline, TESOL has been and
continues to be a dynamic field, one in which new venues and
perspectives are still unfolding. The growth of new knowledge about
the how and the what of L2 teaching and learning is certain to continue
and will probably remain the hallmark of TESOLs disciplinary maturation.
oday, it is a truism to say that each era in the history of second

language (L2) teaching has been marked by expansions of knowledge and pivotal advancements in disciplinary theory and practice. One
unfortunate side effect of ongoing disciplinary innovation and a search
for the best teaching method is what Richards (2005) referred to as the
theoretical flavor of the month (n.p.), alluding to recurrently fashionable theories of language learning and use that claim to be based on the
findings of current research. However, implicit in a view of the ongoing
development of L2 teaching is an expectation that what is current,
innovative, and central in L2 pedagogy today is likely to become a
stepping-stone in the expansion and refinement of disciplinary knowledge. This overview of the current perspectives in L2 teaching highlights
the trends that began in the 1990s and the 2000s and are likely to
continue to affect instruction in L2 skills at least in the immediate future.
In the current dynamic perspectives on foundational L2 skills, four
109
overarching themes can be identified: the decline of methods, the

significance of both bottom-up and top-down skills in L2 learning, the
applications of new knowledge about the English language to L2
pedagogy, and the teaching of integrated and multiple skills in context.
The overview begins with these four trends, which are the hallmarks of
current pedagogy in all L2 skills.1 Recent developments in instruction
are then highlighted as they pertain specifically to the teaching of L2
speaking, listening, reading, and writing.
FOUR THEMES IN CURRENT L2 PEDAGOGY

Several crucial factors have combined to shift current perspectives on
L2 teaching: (a) the decline of methods, (b) a growing emphasis on both
bottom-up and top-down skills, (c) new knowledge about English, and
(d) integrated and multiple skills taught in context. These factors have
had a profound influence on classroom instruction and curriculum
development in practically all L2 skills and across learner proficiency
levels.
Decline of Methods
Recognition of the essential roles of the teacher and the learner and of the need
for situationally relevant language pedagogy has brought about the decline of
methods, with their specific philosophies and prescribed sets of classroom procedures.
As early as the mid-1980s, a small number of researchers and methodologists began to voice growing apprehension about the worldwide
applicability of any particular method to the enormous diversity of
learners and learning needs. Since that time, many L2 professionals have
come to see specific teaching methods as overly prescriptive and inapplicable in divergent learning contexts (e.g., Brown, 2001; Kumaravadivelu,
2003, 2005). For example, although communicative skills can occupy a
high priority for ESL students who need to interact in their L2, for EFL
learners, communicating in English may have a reduced value relative to
preparing for entrance exams or tests for securing employment. The
past two decades have seen a shift in the responsibility for curricular and
1
The 25th anniversary issues of TESOL Quarterly reflected the general trend of treating the
foundational language skills separately. A broad overview such as this one may well represent an
innovation in itself to evince the maturation of L2 teaching as a discipline as well the influential
expansion of integrated instructional models (discussed in the section Integrated and Multiple
Skills Taught in Context).
110
TESOL QUARTERLY
instructional decisions from the prevailing teaching methods to classroom teachers and learners, who are best suited to implement appropriate, relevant, and effective instruction (e.g., Breen & Littlejohn, 2000).
For instance, Larsen-Freeman (2000) recommends that teachers practice principled eclecticism and create their own teaching methods by
blending aspects of others in a principled manner (p. 183).
The centrality of key learner variables, such as learning needs and
goals, as well as cognitive processing and resources has been widely
recognized in research and pedagogy (e.g., see Bialystok, 2002; Fotos,
2001). Investigations into the social, cultural, economic, and political
contexts of L2 learning have provided much insight into populations of
learners and their specific learning goals. While some may need to speak
and write in L2 academic and professional settings, others set out to
develop L2 conversational or reading skills for different purposes. Such
fundamental factors as who given L2 learners are, why and where these
individuals undertake to learn an L2, and what their available resources
are (e.g., time, cognitive, financial) should and often do determine how
particular L2 skills are taught and learned (e.g., Breen, 2001; Breen &
Littlejohn, 2000).
Bottom-Up and Top-Down Skills

Based on recent research on the role of cognition in L2 learning, L2 pedagogy
in practically all skills has come to recognize the importance of both accuracy and
fluency 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 carried out
to determine whether exposure to and communicative interaction in the
L2 enables learners to attain L2 speaking facilities that address fluency
and accuracy in language production (e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990;
Schmidt, 1993; Swain, 1991). Research findings demonstrate that, without explicit and form-focused instruction, extensive exposure to meaning-based input does not lead to the development of syntactic and lexical
accuracy in an L2. Currently, in the teaching of the four skills, curricula
and instruction strive to achieve a balance between the linguistic and the
schematic aspects of learner language development. At present, practically all teacher education textbooks on the essentials of language
instruction include material on how to address both bottom-up and topdown abilities (e.g., Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2002; Brown, 2001; Carter
& Nunan, 2001; Celce-Murcia, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nunan,
1999, 2003).
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS
111
New Knowledge About English

The analyses of large spoken and written English language corpora have
allowed much insight into how native speakers of English use language features in
real life and across various dialects. New empirical knowledge about the English
language has had an important influence on curricula and content in L2
pedagogy.
The findings of corpus analyses have identified variations of language
features in spoken or written registers and across several types of genres,
such as academic or journalistic prose, as well as formal or conversational
speech. These analyses of real-life language in use have delved into, for
example, the frequencies and patterns of syntactic, morphological,
lexical, pragmatic, or discoursal features that tend to occur in particular
types of text (see Conrad, 2005, for a detailed overview).
Applications of corpus analyses findings to L2 teaching, however, have
not been without controversy. Some language corpora are specifically
created and analyzed with the intent to benefit L2 instruction and
improve the efficiency of learning. For example, studies of vocabulary
frequencies and ranges in introductory university courses across such
diverse disciplines as economics, history, and biology are very useful in
teaching academically bound or professional L2 learners (e.g., Hazenberg
& Hulstijn, 1996; Nation, 1990, 2001). Other analyses of English language corpora are primarily focused on the empirical study of language
to obtain detailed descriptions of its properties that can be applied to the
refinement of language theories. Some prominent experts in L2 teaching and linguistics have questioned the value of applying corpus findings
to L2 teaching. For instance, according to Widdowson (1990, 2000,
2003) and Cook (1997, 1998), learners in EFL settings, who in effect
have few opportunities to interact with native speakers of English, do not
need to be particularly concerned with the frequencies of linguistic
features in native speaker corpora. These authors also argue that, in
many cases, corpus findings are too culturebound and narrowly specific
to a particular variety of English to be useful for learners who have no
access to that culture or variety. Furthermore, the issues of difficulty,
learnability, usefulness, relevance, and pedagogical sequencing have to
be taken into account in corpus-based L2 teaching and instructional
materials (e.g., Aston, 1995; for a discussion, see also Conrad, 2005).
Many L2 methodologists believe, however, that corpus findings can make
L2 teaching far more effective and efficient by identifying the language
features that learners must know to achieve their learning goals (e.g.,
Byrd, 2005; Byrd & Reid, 1998; Conrad, 2000).
112
TESOL QUARTERLY
Integrated and Multiple Skills Taught in Context

In an age of globalization, pragmatic objectives of language learning place an
increased value on integrated and dynamic multiskill instructional models with a
focus on meaningful communication and the development of learners communicative competence.
In many locations around the world, learning English has the objective of learners gaining access to technical, educational, or professional
opportunities (Canagarajah, 2002, 2005). Commonly accepted perspectives on language teaching and learning recognize that, in meaningful
communication, people employ incremental language skills not in
isolation but in tandem. For example, to engage in a conversation, one
needs to be able speak and comprehend at the same time. To make
language learning as realistic as possible, integrated instruction has to
address a range of L2 skills simultaneously, all of which are requisite in
communication. For instance, teaching reading can be easily tied to
instruction on writing and vocabulary, and oral skills readily lend
themselves to teaching pronunciation, listening, and cross-cultural pragmatics (Hinkel, 2001; Lazaraton, 2001; McCarthy & OKeeffe, 2004).
Integrated and multiskill instruction usually follows the principles of
the communicative approach, with various pedagogical emphases, goals,
instructional materials, activities, and procedures playing a central role
in promoting communicative language use. At present, the models for
integrated teaching with a communicative focus include an extensive
array of curricula and types of instructional models, such as content
based (including theme based), task based, text based (also called genre
based), discourse based, project based, problem based, literature based,
literacy based, community based, competency based, or standards based
(and this is not a complete list by any measure). In fact, Richards and
Rodgers (2001) note that, as long as instruction engages learners in
meaningful communication and enables them to attain the curricular
objectives, the range of models and teaching materials compatible with
integrated language teaching is unlimited (p. 165).
It is safe to say, however, that few movements in foreign language (FL)
and L2 teaching take place without contest, and integrated language
instruction is certainly no exception. Currently, task-based and contentbased instruction are probably among the most widely adopted integrated models. However, some leading specialists in L2 teaching and
applied linguistics have maintained that the superiority of, for example,
task-based instruction over traditional teaching has not been demonstrated empirically and that to date research has had little to say about its
effectiveness (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Seedhouse, 1999; Swan,
2005; Widdowson, 1990, 1993, 2003). Critics also contend that in many
113
ESL and EFL situations worldwide, the implementation of content-based

and task-based instruction may be simply inappropriate and impractical
(e.g., Swan, 2005; Ur, 1996). For example, FL or L2 proficiency cannot
be developed when learning is limited to 13 hours of classroom
instruction and input (e.g., Lightbown, 2000; Lightbown & Spada, 1990).
Additionally, when instruction in content areas, such as science or math,
is carried out in English in EFL settings, teachers often find it difficult to
maintain expertise in both English and the subject matter, and learners
who need to prepare for examinations often concentrate only on school
subjects without much interest in learning the language. In task-based,
multiskill instruction, with its focus on the development of language
fluency, issues of content or linguistic accuracy are of secondary importance, thus limiting the usefulness of the task-based model for schooling
and academic preparation (see Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Widdowson,
1990, 2003). Based on their experience, however, many L2 teachers and
curriculum designers believe that integrated FL/L2 instruction can
increase learners opportunities for L2 purposeful communication,
interaction, real-life language use, and diverse types of contextualized
discourse and linguistic features, all of which have the goal of developing
students language proficiency and skills (for detailed discussion, see,
e.g., Ellis, 2003; Fotos, 2001, 2002; Snow, 2005).
The remainder of this article delves into a more detailed overview of
the prevailing currents in the teaching of the L2 foundational skills:
speaking, listening, reading, and writing. This traditional division has the
sole purpose of easing the readers navigation through the articles
contents, and 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 reflected
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 they can identify and correct production problems at the fast pace of
a real conversational exchange. 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 & OKeeffe, 2004). Thus, speaking in an L2 requires fluency,
114
TESOL QUARTERLY
accuracy, and a sufficient lexicogrammatical repertoire for meaningful

communication to take place.
In the 1990s, many researchers concluded that exposure to and
communicative interaction in an L2 enables learners to attain L2
speaking fluency. However, the extent of fluency development was not
matched by learners syntactic and lexical accuracy in oral production
(e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Schmidt, 1993; Swain, 1991). These and
many other studies demonstrated that although, for example, immersion
learners can speak fluently and with ease, their speech contained
numerous grammatical, lexical, and pragmalinguistic errors.
Within communicative and task-based approaches to teaching, various
methodological modifications in L2 speaking pedagogy have been
proposed that permit an integration of fluency and accuracy foci (e.g.,
Fotos, 2002). For instance, according to Ellis (2003), the task-based
teaching of L2 speaking skills has built-in opportunities for online
planning that result in more accurate and complex uses of language.
Ellis explains that carefully designed tasks can foster the development of
various aspects of L2 oral production: Narratives and descriptions can be
effective in fluency-focused teaching, and, for example, debates and
problem-solving tasks can promote increased grammatical and lexical
complexity in learner language use. Another advantage of using tasks in
L2 oral instruction is that rehearsal (or task repetition) affords learners
an opportunity to accommodate the competing cognitive demands of
fluency, accuracy, and linguistic complexity. For example, advance planning and rehearsals of content and formulation, that is, what to say and
how to say it, lead to substantial improvements in the amount of spoken
discourse and in grammatical, lexical, and articulatory accuracy. In
content-based and task-based instruction, contextualized uses of specific
grammar structures and vocabulary can be emphasized to connect the
subject matter and language learning activities (for a thorough overview,
see Snow, 2005).
Speaking Integrated With Other Language Skills

Speaking and Pronunciation
The rapid pace of the internationalization of English has led to
changing perspectives on the teaching of pronunciation. In general
terms, as Tarone (2005) points out, the goal of pronunciation teaching
has shifted from targeting a nativelike accent to targeting intelligibility,
that is, the degree to which the listener understands the speakers
utterance. In an age when English has become a primary medium for
international communication, most cross-cultural interactions take place
115
between nonnative speakers of English rather than between native and

nonnative speakers (e.g., Canagarajah, 2005; Jenkins, 2000, and this
issue). Thus, today, L2 pronunciation pedagogy has the objective of
helping learners achieve overall intelligibility rather than drastic accent
modification (e.g., McKay, 2002). To this end, teaching has to address
the issues of segmental clarity (e.g., the articulation of specific sounds),
word stress and prosody, and the length and the timing of pauses. The
current approach to teaching pronunciation is generally based on three
principled criteria: (a) Pronunciation and intonation are taught in
context and in conjunction with speaking skills, (b) instruction in
pronunciation serves broader communicative purposes, and (c) the
teaching of pronunciation and intonation is based on realistic rather
than idealistic language models (e.g., Chun, 2002).
Speaking and Pragmalingistic Skills

As an additional outcome of increased global mobility and the
internationalization of English, instruction in L2 speaking skills has been
placing a greater emphasis on the sociocultural features of communication and oral production. The 1990s saw a remarkable growth of
publications associated with the importance of L2 sociocultural and
pragmalinguistic competence. For this reason, current oral pedagogy
has the objective of enabling nonnative speakers to communicate
effectively and to negotiate cross-cultural interactional norms successfully (Kasper & Roever, 2005; McKay, 2002). The teaching of L2
sociopragmatic skills elucidates the issues of power in communication,
such as the impact of social status, social distance, and linguistic register
on L2 speech.
At present, pedagogy on L2 sociopragmatic norms of speaking typically incorporates effective communication strategies; discourse organization and structuring; conversational routines (e.g., small talk); conversational formulae (e.g., forms of address); and speech acts, such as
requests, refusals, compliments, or clarification questions (e.g., McKay,
2002; Yule & Tarone, 1997). According to Kaspers (2001) overview of
several empirical studies on teaching L2 pragmatics, explicit teaching
and direct explanations of the L2 form-function connections represent a
highly productive means of helping learners improve their L2
sociopragmatic skills. For example, turn the radio down and could you please
turn the radio down have the same function (request) but different
pragmalinguistic forms, and, depending on the context, one is likely to
be more effective than the other. Implicit instruction in various communication tactics and appropriate language uses (i.e., when pragmatic
features are practiced in context without descriptions and explanations)
116
TESOL QUARTERLY
can be far less effective than explicit explanations and teaching (see
Kasper & Roever, 2005, for further discussion).
Linguistic Features of Spoken Register

Analyses of English language corpora, as noted earlier, have been able
to identify the specific lexical and grammatical features that distinguish,
for example, oral and written discourse, or casual conversations and
formal speech. Noticing and analyzing divergent linguistic features
frequently encountered in, for example, conversations or university
lectures are useful in teaching both speaking and listening for interactional, academic, or vocational purposes (see also Celce-Murcia &
Olshtain, 2000; Master, 2005). In fact, curricula that attend to the
distinctions between conversational and formal oral production can
prepare learners for real-life communication in EFL and ESL environments alike (Lazaraton, 2001).
TEACHING LISTENING
During the 1970s, listening pedagogy largely emphasized the development of learners abilities to identify words, sentence boundaries,
contractions, individual sounds, and sound combinations, that is, bottom-up linguistic processing. The 1980s saw a shift from the view of L2
listening as predominantly linguistic to a schema-based view, and listening pedagogy moved away from its focus on the linguistic aspects of
comprehension to the activation of learners top-down knowledge. In
top-down processing, aural comprehension hinges on listeners abilities
to activate their knowledge-based schemata, such as cultural constructs,
topic familiarity, discourse clues, and pragmatic conventions (e.g., CelceMurcia, 1995; Mendelsohn, 1994; Rost & Ross, 1991). In the practice of
teaching L2 listening, however, neither approacha focus on bottom-up
or top-down processingproved to be a resounding success: Learners
who rely on linguistic processing often fail to activate higher order L2
schemata, and those who correctly apply schema-based knowledge tend
to neglect the linguistic input (e.g., Tsui & Fullilove, 1998; Vandergrift,
2004).
Advances in the studies of spoken corpora and conversation analysis
have illuminated the complexity of oral discourse and language. The
findings of these analyses have made it evident that, in many cases,
employing authentic language in listening instruction can be of limited
benefit because of a variety of constraints, such as the fast pace of speech,
specific characteristics of spoken grammar and lexicon (e.g., incomplete
117
sentences and ellipses, as in he did what?), cultural references and

schemata, and dialectal colloquial expressions. Although L2 pedagogy
continues to underscore the value of authentic teaching materials, the
research on the effectiveness of L2 listening instruction broadly recommends learner training in metacognitive strategies to facilitate the
development of L2 aural abilities.
In L2 listening pedagogy, two complementary approaches reflect
current perspectives on more effective learning. One emphasizes the
integrated teaching of listening for communication and in conjunction
with other L2 skills, such as speaking, sociopragmatics, grammar, and
vocabulary. The other moves to the foreground the learners use of
metacognitive and cognitive strategies to bolster the learning process
(Mendelsohn, 1994; Rost, 2005; Vandergrift, 1999, 2004).
Listening Integrated With Other Language Skills

Listening, Discourse, and Linguistic Skills
Generally speaking, a variety of techniques in L2 listening instruction
have withstood the test of time and are largely recognized as essential, for
example, prelistening, making predictions, listening for the gist or the
main idea, listening intensively, and making inferences. These teaching
strategies can be useful in a broad range of teaching contexts and can
meet diverse learning needs. For instance, prelistening activities can be
employed in teaching learners to notice the cultural schema and to raise
their awareness of the effect of culture on discourse organization,
information structuring, and pragmatics (see, e.g., Rost, 2005; Vandergrift,
2004). In addition, learning to listen to conversations provides a fruitful
venue for focusing on morphosyntax, lexical parsing, and phonological
variables, thus adding new dimensions to the teaching of grammar and
vocabulary. Analyses of L2 conversations can similarly emphasize L2
sociocultural norms and pragmatics to expand learners repertoire of
common speech acts and discourse structuring. As has been mentioned,
the teaching of pronunciation skills is also ubiquitously integrated with
both speaking and listening instruction.
The linguistic and schema-driven staples of teaching listening have
found applications in current integrated approaches, such as task-based
or content-based instruction (see Snow, 2005, for overviews). The design
of listening practice can incorporate a number of features that make the
development of L2 listening abilities relevant and realistic. Listen-and-do
tasks, for instance, represent a flexible source of listening input for
beginning or intermediate learners. According to Ellis (2003), the
118
TESOL QUARTERLY
content of tasks can be easily controlled in regard to their linguistic and

schematic variables, such as frequent occurrences of target syntactic and
lexical structures in the context of a meaning-focused task (also referred
to as enriched input), such as grammar constructions, words and phrases,
or conversational expressions. Academic listening tasks and note-taking
are an age-old technique for teaching more advanced learners. Taped
(or live) listening selections, such as academic lectures, can be designed
to concentrate on specific topics and contents with directed grammar
and vocabulary loads, and cultural and discourse schemata, integrated
with reading, writing, and speaking practice.
Teaching Listening and Teaching Strategies

In the 1990s, in addition to linguistic and schematic considerations in
L2 listening, a number of studies identified the difficulties learners
experience when coping with comprehension problems and making
inferences. Researchers have also been interested in the metacognitive
and cognitive strategies of successful L2 listeners (e.g., Rost & Ross, 1991;
Vandergrift, 1999, 2004). The findings of these investigations have led L2
listening experts to advocate the teaching of metacognitive and cognitive
strategies specifically for L2 listening comprehension. The most important difference between skills and strategies is that strategies are under
learners conscious control, and listeners can be taught to compensate
for incomplete understanding, missed linguistic or schematic input, or
misidentified clues (see Rost, 2005, for a discussion).
Thus, current L2 listening pedagogy includes the modeling of
metacognitive strategies and strategy training in tandem with teaching
L2 listening. A consistent use of metacognitive strategies is more effective
in improving learners L2 listening comprehension than work on listening skills alone (e.g., Vandergrift, 2004). The key metacognitive strategies widely adopted in L2 listening instruction include planning for
listening, self-monitoring the comprehension processes, evaluating comprehension, and identifying comprehension difficulties (e.g., see Rost,
2005, for a discussion). Learners at beginning and intermediate levels of
proficiency may benefit from instruction that concentrates on bottom-up
and top-down listening processes, together with selective strategy training. For more advanced learners, an addition of cognitive strategies,
such as discourse organization, inferencing, elaboration, and summation, also represent an effective approach to teaching listening (Rost,
2001; Rost & Ross, 1991).
119
TEACHING L2 READING
Recent research has shed a great deal of light on the processes and the
learning of L2 reading. Similar to L2 listening, L2 reading entails both
bottom-up and top-down cognitive processing, and in the 1980s, the
prevalent approach to teaching sought to activate learners L1 reading
schemata and prior knowledge to foster the development of L2 reading
skills. Over time, however, it has become evident that, despite many years
of schooling and exposure to L2 reading and text, not all learners
succeed in becoming proficient L2 readers. In his important overview of
reading research, Eskey (1988) examines what he called a strongly topdown bias (p. 95) in L2 reading pedagogy and neglect of learners weak
linguistic processing skills. Eskeys analysis explains that L2 readers are
fundamentally distinct from those who read in their L1s and that
essential knowledge of the language of the text (p. 96) is required
before learners can successfully process the L2 reading schema. The
primacy of the bottom-up processing in L2 reading and the need for
teaching the language in L2 reading are similarly noted by Paran (1996),
Birch (2002), and Koda (2005), who view the top-down reading skills as
additive or compensatory once fluent bottom-up processing is achieved.
Reading Integrated With Other Language Skills

The bottom-up processing of reading involves a broad array of distinct
cognitive subskills, such as word recognition, spelling and phonological
processing, morphosyntactic parsing, and lexical recognition and access
(e.g., Eskey, 2005). The reader needs to gather visual information from
the written text (e.g., letters and words), identify the meanings of words,
and then move forward to the processing of the structure and the
meaning of larger syntactic units, such as phrases or sentences. A
number of studies, such as those by Koda (1999), Chikamatsu (1996),
and Shimron and Savon (1994), have shown that visual processing of
words and letters represents a cognitively complex task. These and other
researchers found that readers whose L1 orthographies (e.g., Chinese,
Japanese, or Hebrew) are markedly distinct from the L2 orthography
may be slowed down in their reading progress by the need to attain
fluent L2 word recognition before they can acquire text-processing skills.
Furthermore, positive L1-to-L2 transfer of reading skills does not occur
when the writing systems in the two languages are fundamentally
different (e.g., Birch, 2002; Koda, 1999, 2005). On the other hand, L2
120
TESOL QUARTERLY
readers word-processing skills develop significantly faster when L1 and

L2 orthographies are similar (as in English and Spanish).
The findings of L2 reading research on the key role of bottom-up
processing, word recognition fluency, and the recognition of the
morphophonemic structure of words and phrases have led to substantive
shifts in reading and literacy instruction to young and adult L2 learners
alike. For example, in 1999, the far-reaching National Literacy Strategy
in the United Kingdom introduced work on phonics, word recognition,
and graphic knowledge prior to sentence and text levels of instruction.
In teacher education, current methodology textbooks reflect the
change in the perspectives on teaching L2 reading, literacy, and writing
(see also the section Teaching Writing). Such influential publications as
those by Celce-Murcia (2001), Carter and Nunan (2001), McKay (1993),
Nunan (1999, 2003), and Wallace (1992) contain at least a chapter on
teaching bottom-up reading skills usually followed by instruction in topdown and strategic reading. For example, Ediger (2001) cautions that L1
reading skills do not readily transfer to an L2. In the case of young
school-age and older learners alike, teachers need to begin with work on
the visual appearance of words (e.g., a sight-word approach, p. 157), soundletter relationships (e.g., the look-say approach, p. 157), and the development of word recognition fluency before delving into top-down skills in
both reading and writing. Similarly, Wallace (2001) reviews research on
fostering the learners ability to decode words as a prerequisite to
reading. Based on the conclusions of various studies, Wallace explains
that a strong link exists between phonemic awareness, the ability to
process words automatically and rapidly, and reading achievement (p.
23). In her practical book for teachers, Birch (2002) advocates teaching
L2 reading by beginning with processing letters, then moving forward to
the English spelling system, morphophonemics, and vocabulary learning. According to Birch, although both bottom-up and top-down processing skills are necessary to learn to read in an L2, the reading
fundamentals must be in place before top-down instruction can benefit
learners.
Reading and Vocabulary

In other venues, the foundations-first perspective on L2 reading
pedagogy also extends to todays views on teaching and learning vocabulary. Enormous amounts of research carried out in the past two decades
have been devoted to the role of vocabulary in L2 reading as well as to
vocabulary learning and acquisition. Although in the 1970s and 1980s
the teaching and learning of vocabulary was considered to be largely
secondary to the teaching of other L2 skills, at present a great deal more
121
is known about the connections between L2 reading and vocabulary

knowledge (e.g., Nation, 1990, 2001). For instance, Hu and Nation
(2000) indicate that an L2 reader needs to understand approximately
98% of the unique words in such texts as short novels or academic
materials. In real terms, this represents about 5,000 word families (a
family is a base word with its related words and their inflected forms, e.g.,
child, children, childhood). On the other hand, according to Hazenberg
and Hulstijn (1996), the vocabulary range in introductory university
textbooks largely overlaps with that in the general corpus of frequent
words. Therefore, irrespective of their aspirations to enter universities,
L2 learners need to acquire a substantial vocabulary to achieve competencies in practically all L2 skills, such as reading, writing, listening, and
speaking (e.g., Coady & Huckin, 1997). In general terms, a vocabulary of
approximately 2,000 words may serve as an essential base needed for
daily interaction and speaking, whereas 5,000 base words are typically
considered to be a minimal L2 learning goal to comprehend texts
intended for a general, nonspecialist audience (Nation, 1990; see also
Hulstijn, 2001, for an overview).
The techniques for teaching vocabulary have also been thoroughly
examined. Among other prominent publications, Nations (2001, 2005)
work highlights significant trends in productive and efficient vocabulary
teaching. In the past two decades, a vast body of research has established
that explicit teaching represents the most effective and efficient means
of vocabulary teaching. Researchers have also voiced caution that
incidental learning leads to significantly lower rates of vocabulary
retention and that a word needs to be encountered 1220 times to be
learned from context (e.g., Coady, 1997). According to Nation (2005)
and Hulstijn (2001), research has 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
approach 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 reading or
listening, have to meet the following conditions: interest, 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 rate of learning.
Extensive Reading and Reading Fluency Development

A pedagogical approach usually referred to as extensive reading (or
sustained silent reading) has been very popular among reading teachers
122
TESOL QUARTERLY
and methodologists. Extensive reading is based on the principles adopted

in L1 reading and literacy instruction, and, intuitively, it can be appealing because of its emphasis on reading large amounts of material for
enjoyment. In fact, Eskey (2005) points out that the relationship
between reading and vocabulary is well documented and reciprocal (p.
567), and the more one reads, the larger his or her language base
becomes. The goal of extensive reading is to read relatively quickly and
to understand general ideas rather than to focus on the details. It is
generally recognized that extensive reading can provide learners with
exposure to new and old vocabulary and facilitate the development of
reading fluency (e.g., Coady, 1997; Eskey, 2005; Nation, 2001). According to Hu and Nation (2000), the usefulness of extensive reading is
contingent on the density of unknown words, which should not exceed 1
for every 50 words of text. Also, vocabulary should recur at fairly regular
intervals to promote retention. For less proficient learners, graded or
simplified readers with controlled vocabulary loads may be the optimal
choice, even though many teachers dislike graded reading materials. As
Nation (2005) mentions, Without graded readers, reading for a second
language learner would be one continuous struggle against an overwhelming vocabulary level (p. 588).
TEACHING L2 WRITING
Although in the 1980s much in the teaching of L2 writing was based
on L1 writing research, in the past two decades, a number of publications
have emerged to address the important differences that exist between
learning to write in ones L1 and in ones L2 (e.g., Hinkel, 2002; McKay
& Wong, 1996; Silva, 1993). Based on his synthesis of 72 studies, Silva
(1993) concludes that significant differences exist between practically all
aspects of L1 and L2 writing. He emphasizes that the learning needs of
L2 writers are crucially distinct from those of basic or proficient L1
writers and that L2 writing pedagogy requires special and systematic
approaches that take into account the cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic
differences between L1 and L2 writers. Similarly, Hinkels (2002) largescale empirical analysis of L1 and L2 text showed that even after years of
ESL and composition training, L2 writers text continues to differ
significantly from that of novice L1 writers in regard to most linguistic
and rhetorical features. Even advanced and trained L2 writers continue
to have a severely limited lexical and syntactic repertoire that enables
them to produce only simple text restricted to the most common
language features encountered predominantly in conversational discourse (Hinkel, 2003).
123
Writing Integrated With Other Language Skills

As with L2 reading, L2 writing pedagogy has begun to pay increasing
attention to the integration of bottom-up and top-down skills because
learners need both if they are to become proficient L2 writers. Many
prominent researchers, such as Cope and Kalantzis (1993, 2000) and
Johns (1997), have pointed out that learners can achieve social access
and inclusion through a facility with language and writing. Achieving
proficiency in writing requires explicit pedagogy in grammar and lexis
and is important because ones linguistic repertoire and writing skills
often determine ones social, economic, and political choices. Such
experts in L2 teaching as Celce-Murcia (2001), Christie (1998), and
Martin (1992) have similarly argued that a lack of instruction in L2
grammar and lexis disadvantages L2 learners in their vocational, academic, and professional careers and ultimately reduces their options.
These researchers have continued to emphasize the importance of
language quality in L2 writing because grammar and lexis are inextricable from meaning in written discourse and because L2 writers are
ultimately evaluated based on their control of language and text construction in their written discourse.
To address the shortfalls of the writing pedagogy widely adopted in
the 1980s, the practice of L2 writing instruction has begun to take a more
balanced view of learning to write in an L2 (Silva & Brice, 2004). For
instance, Frodesen (2001) states that the wholesale adoption of L1
composition theories and practices for L2 writing classes seems misguided in light of the many differences between first and second
language writers, processes, and products (p. 234).2 According to
Frodesen, the neglect of language instruction for L2 writers is most
prevalent in the United States, where many continue to believe that
comprehensible input is sufficient for language acquisition. Frodesen
and other experts, such as Birch (2005), Byrd (2005), Byrd and Reid
(1998), and McKay (1993) point out that curriculum design in L2
writing instruction has to include grammar and vocabulary to enable L2
writers to communicate meaningfully and appropriately. With this objective in mind, prominent current positions advocate the integration of
grammar and vocabulary curricula with L2 writing instruction.
2
In the teaching of rhetoric and writing, the process/product debate originated in the late
19th and early 20th century, when English departments were formally separated from, for
example, philosophy departments in many U.K. and U.S. universities. These debates have
continued unabated for more than a century now, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they aided in the
institutionalization of composition studies in the United Statesbut not in other countries.
124
TESOL QUARTERLY
New insights into the properties of written and spoken texts, combined with the growing recognition that L2 writing requires a substantial
range of grammar and lexical skills, have led to considerable modifications in L2 writing instruction. At present, the grammatical and lexical
features needed to construct formal academic writing and discourse are
discussed and foregrounded (often under the umbrella term academic
literacy) in many teacher education textbooks, such as those by Adger,
Snow, and Christian (2002), Birch (2005), Brown (2001), Byrd and Reid
(1998), Carter and Nunan (2001), Celce-Murcia (2001), Celce-Murcia
and Olshtain (2000), Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), Hinkel (2004), Liu
and Master (2003), and Weaver (1996).
Teaching Writing to Young Learners

Along these lines, the current approaches for teaching L2 writing to
school-age children are similarly based on the premise that learners
need to attain fundamental proficiency in spelling and in letter and word
recognition, followed by a focus on the syntactic parsing of morphemes,
phrases, and sentences (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000). During the
subsequent stages of learners writing development, more complex tasks
are introduced to include emotive (or personal) writing, for example,
narratives that tell about personal experiences, letters to friends, and
diaries. Then instruction begins to advance to school-based writing,
usually integrated with reading as well as with grammar and vocabulary
learning (Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2002; Birch, 2005; Schleppegrell,
2004).
Integrated and Content-Based Teaching of Writing

Much of the current integrated instruction in L2 writing, grammar,
and vocabulary takes place in conjunction with reading, content-based,
and form-focused instruction to improve the overall quality of L2 prose
(e.g., Cope, & Kalantzis, 1993; Hedgcock, 2005; Williams, 2005). For
example, to promote learners noticing of how particular grammar and
lexis are employed in authentic written text and discourse, teachers can
select readings from a wide array of genres, such as narrative, exposition,
or argumentation. Based on reading content, practice in text analysis
can become a useful springboard for an instructional focus on the
specific uses of grammar structures and contextualized vocabulary.
Similarly, instruction can address the features of written register by
bringing learners attention to the situational variables of language in
context, such as e-mail messages, news reports, or written academic
prose, and their attendant linguistic and discourse features (CelceCURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS
125
Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Hinkel, 2002, 2003, 2004; Larsen-Freeman,

2002; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992).
Another integrated approach to teaching writing together with reading is rooted in the foundations of the systemic functional linguistics and
genre theory that examines the uses of language in texts written for
particular, mostly academic and specific, purposes. Genre-based instruction seeks to enable L2 learners to analyze academic discourse while
reading and to produce academic writing that adheres to the sociocultural norms of a particular academic (or professional) genre (e.g.,
Christie, 1998; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993, 2000; Martin, 1992). However,
use of a genre-centered approach in educational contexts has not been
without controversy. Many experts believe that genres and their linguistic
features may be subjective, vaguely defined, unstable, or even irrelevant
to diverse types of ESL/EFL learners (for detailed discussion, see, e.g.,
Silva & Brice, 2004; Widdowson, 2003).
A FINAL WORD
In part due to its comparatively short history as a discipline, TESOL
continues to be a dynamic field, one in which new venues and perspectives are still unfolding. In the past two decades or so, to a great extent,
the innovations in the teaching of L2 skills have been driven by (a) new
knowledge about the learner and the English language, (b) a greater
balance in the teaching of both bottom-up and top-down L2 skills, and
(c) a proliferation of integrated instructional models. The purposes for
which people learn English today have also evolved from a cultural and
educational enterprise to that of international communication. The
growth of new knowledge about the how and the what of L2 teaching
and learning are certain to continue and will probably remain as
hallmarks of TESOLs disciplinary maturation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For their insightful and helpful comments on early drafts of this article, I express my
sincere gratitude to Marianne Celce-Murcia, University of California, Los Angeles,
Sandra McKay, State University of San Francisco, Sandra Fotos, Senshu University,
and Ken Benoit, Seattle University, whose suggestions for revisions were instrumental
in fine-tuning the final version. Additionally, Suresh Canagarajah and two anonymous reviewers provided very useful feedback and comments that helped develop
the final version.
126
TESOL QUARTERLY
THE AUTHOR
Eli Hinkel has taught ESL and applied linguistics, as well as trained teachers, for
more than 20 years and has published numerous books and articles on learning
second culture, and second language grammar, writing, and pragmatics. She is also
the editor of Lawrence Erlbaums ESL and Applied Linguistics Professional Series.
REFERENCES
Adger, C., Snow, C., & Christian, D. (2002). What teachers need to know about language.
McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Aston, G. (1995). Corpora in language pedagogy: Matching theory and practice. In
G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.
257270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 user. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the
L2 user (pp. 145165). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Birch, B. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Birch, B. (2005). Learning and teaching English grammar, K12. White Plains, NY:
Prentice Hall.
Breen, M. (Ed.). (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in
research. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Breen, M., & Littlejohn, A. (Eds.). (2000). Classroom decision-making. Cambridge:
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.
Byrd, P. (2005). Instructed grammar. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 545562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrd, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Grammar in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp.
134150). London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1995). Discourse analysis and the teaching of listening. In G. Cook
& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of
H. G. Widdowson (pp. 363377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd
ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 403432.
Christie, F. (1998). Learning the literacies of primary and secondary schooling. In
F. Christie & R. Misson (Eds.), Literacy and schooling: New directions (pp. 4773).
London: Routledge.
Chun, D. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady &
T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 225237). Cambridge:
127
Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for
pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st
century? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 548560.
Conrad, S. (2005). Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 393410). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51, 224231.
Cook, G. (1998). The uses of reality: A reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal, 52, 5763.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to
teaching writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. New York: Routledge.
Ediger, A. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In M. CelceMurcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 153169).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language
problems of second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.),
Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eskey, D. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 563580). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 267284).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In
E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 135154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 233248). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second language
vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied
Hedgcock, J. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Building awareness and practical skills for cross-cultural communication in ESL/EFL. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (3rd ed., pp. 443458). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L2 and L1
academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275301.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and
grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403430.
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning:
128
TESOL QUARTERLY
A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),

Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258287). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics,
22, 502530.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding
skills. Modern Language Journal, 83, 5164.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.),
New perspectives on grammar teaching in second and foreign language classrooms (pp.
Lazaraton, A. (2001). Teaching oral skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 103115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429448.
Liu, D., & Master, P. (2003). Grammar teaching in teacher education. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Master, P. (2005). Research in English for specific purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 99116). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCarthy, M., & OKeeffe, A. (2004). Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 2643.
McKay, S. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McKay, S., & Wong, S. L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent
immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 577608.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the secondlanguage learner. San Diego: Dominie Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
129
Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 581596).
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford:
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions. English Language Teaching
Journal, 50, 2534.
Richards, J. C. (2005, March). How research informs and influences teaching materials.
Paper presented at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit, San
Antonio, TX.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rost, M. (2001). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second
language teaching and learning (pp. 503528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language Learning, 41, 235273.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149156.
Shimron, J., & Savon, T. (1994). Reading proficiency and orthography: Evidence
from Hebrew. Language Learning, 44, 527.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The
ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657677.
Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied
Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and
content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 693712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1991). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize
second language learning. In E. Kellerman, R. Phillipson, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood
Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogical research (pp. 23450).
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.
Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 485502). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsui, A. B., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432451.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. English Language Teaching Journal, 53, 168176.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
130
TESOL QUARTERLY
teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 2128). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1993). Perspectives on communicative language teaching: Syllabus
design and methodology. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on
Language and Linguistics 1992: Language, communication, and social meaning (pp.
501507). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2000). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics,
21, 325.
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating L2 reference: Pros and cons. In G. Kasper
& E. Kellerman (Eds.), Advances in communication strategy research (pp. 1730). New
York: Longman.
131
English for Specific Purposes:

Teaching to Perceived Needs and
Imagined Futures in Worlds of Work,
Study, and Everyday Life
DIANE D. BELCHER
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
This overview of the current state of English for specific purposes (ESP)
begins by surveying ongoing debates on key topics: needs assessment
and its goals, specificity in instructional methods, and the role of subject
knowledge in instructor expertise. Two strands of current theory and
research are next surveyed, namely, genre theory and corpus-enhanced
genre studies, and critical pedagogy and ethnographies, followed by
examples of research and theory-informed pedagogical strategies for
literacy and spoken discourse. Topics in need of further inquiry are
suggested.
The reason we have an English program starting is . . . the hotels focusing on

more guest services . . . and trying to . . . have each employee be a host to each guest
rather than Oh its the front desk job to . . . greet people and if Im a housekeeper
I can just . . . say hello and thats it. . . . The way the company put it to show our
Aloha. . . . Sometimes we get . . . ah . . . negative comments cards . . . they say
things like . . . I asked for this and I didnt get it but mostly is like and cant you
even get staff that speak English?
Hotel human resources perspective
Simple English like go see doctor yeah? then . . . ah . . . meet a friend you know.
. . . I just want learn the simple English . . . you know when we go travel we need
English. . . .
Hotel housekeepers perspective ( Jasso-Aguilar, 1999, pp. 4143)
133
or those who are at all familiar with the approach to English language
teaching known as English for specific purposes, or ESP (also known
as LSP1), the descriptors likely to spring to mind probably include such
terms as needs-based, pragmatic, efficient, cost-effective, and functional: a view
of ESP encapsulated by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) in the statement,
Tell me what you need English for and I will tell you the English that you
need (p. 8). For those of a more critical bent, however, ESP may conjure
up more critically evaluative terms such as accommodationist,
assimilationist, market-driven, and even colonizingsuggesting
that ESP is too often untroubled by questions of power, by whose needs
are served by programs such as that for the hotel housekeepers cited
earlier. The mental associations may be somewhat different again,
though, for those immersed in ESP practice today, engaged with ESPs
growing body of research and theory, and ever-diversifying and expanding range of purposes: from the better known English for academic
purposes (EAP) and occupational purposes (EOP), the latter including
business, medicine, law, but also such fields as shipbuilding and aviation,2
to the more specific-mission-oriented ESP that Master (1997) has labeled
English for sociocultural purposes, for example, for AIDS education,
family literacy, and citizenship, or for those with highly specialized needs,
such as learners who are incarcerated or who have a disability ( Johnstone,
1997; Master, 2000). Those familiar with all of these permutations may
understandably find ESP increasingly difficult to summarily describe (or
dismiss). What once looked to many like a straightforwardly needsoriented, a- or pan-theoretical (aligned with no particular theory but
employing many), and, some would add, ideologically oblivious approach, now, like the constantly changing learning targets it addresses, is
itself becoming harder and harder to capture in anything like a single
stop-action frame. Contributing to the complexified picture of ESP are
more methodologically, technologically, and theoretically enriched assessments of language use and learner needs, and a growing array of
means to meet them, in a glocalized world (Robertson, 1995), where local
and global needs meet and merge, collide and conflict, and new
culturally and linguistically hybrid thirdness[es] (Mauranen, 2001, p.
51) emerge. ESP can now, for instance, with its multiple analytical
1
Teachers of English have no monopoly on specific-purpose instruction, an approach
employed for the teaching of many languages other than English, and often referred to,
consequently, as language/s for specific purposes (see Johnstone, 1997; Swales, 2000). However,
because this article focuses on English-language instruction, the narrower term English for
specific purposes will be used throughout.
2
The goals of EAP and EOP are not always easily separable. Consider, for example, EALP,
English for academic legal purposes, for law students; EABP, English for academic business purposes, for
business students; or EAMP, English for academic medical purposes, for students in the health
sciences. The specific purposes can generate a seemingly endless string of acronyms.
134
TESOL QUARTERLY
methods, discern the needs of hotel workers at one particular site (e.g.,
a Waikiki hotel) in more detail than ever before, yet with awareness of
how this picture is alternately enhanced and blurred by the perspectives
of multiple stakeholders (e.g., transoceanic tourists, a transnational
hotel industry, and the locally situated learners themselves). In the
following sections, I look at some of the major challenges ESP specialists
face today in attempting to meet the needs of people hoping to more
fully participate in school, work, and neighborhood communities; survey
how research, theory, and reflective practice can increase awareness of
what learners needs are and how to address them; and consider a
number of looming issues on which further inquiry could benefit ESP,
but probably everyone in ELT (English language teaching) as well.
PROBLEMATIZING A PURPOSE-DRIVEN,
PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH
Although hard to pin down, ESP does have some prominent distinguishing features on which many involved in ESP would likely agree.
Needs assessment, content-based teaching methods, and content-area
informed instructors have long been considered essential to the practice
of specific-purpose teaching, yet how these concepts are defined and
realized at the teaching site has been and continues to be the subject of
much debate.
Reassessing Needs Assessment:

Which Needs and Whose Goals?
Like other educational endeavors, ESP assumes there are problems,
or lacks, that education can ameliorate, but unlike many other educational practices, ESP assumes that the problems are unique to specific
learners in specific contexts and thus must be carefully delineated and
addressed with tailored-to-fit instruction. ESP specialists, therefore, are
often needs assessors first and foremost, then designers and implementers
of specialized curricula in response to identified needs. It is probably no
exaggeration to say that needs assessment is seen in ESP as the foundation on which all other decisions are, or should be, made. Because of this
emphasis on needs, the dividing lines in ESP between researchers and
teachers, or curriculum designers, materials developers, and teachers,
are frequently blurred. Since even the earliest days of ESP (the 1960s),
practitioners have viewed assessment of specific needs as requiring
research skills and creative approaches to novel situations, and needs
assessment itself has been seen as in need of continual reassessment.
ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES: TEACHING TO PERCEIVED NEEDS
135
Among the groundbreaking early insights of ESP practitioners, perhaps most significant was the realization that teacher intuition and
knowledge of language systems were insufficient, and that understanding of language use in specific contexts was essential (Dudley-Evans & St.
John, 1998; Robinson, 1991). Though this understanding initially took
the form of frequency counts of lexicogrammatical features, or
lexicostatistics (Swales, 1988, p. 189), this approach was succeeded by
consideration of macro-level discourse features and rhetorical motivations. Whole text analysis, with exemplar texts from the learners fields of
study or work, and often informed by the perspectives of subject-area
specialists (see Selinker, 1979), not the ESP professional working in
isolation, has become common in ESP.
Because target language description alone provides limited direction
to classroom practitioners, needs analysis evolved (in the 1970s) to
include deficiency analysis, or assessment of the learning gap (West,
1997, p. 71) between target language use and current learner proficiencies.
Just as ESP professionals were determined not to decide a priori what
language features to teach, they also decided not to make assumptions
about individuals language abilities vis--vis specific language varieties or
tasks. Though obviously a deficit conceptualization of the learner,
deficiency assessment enabled teaching English to specified people
(Robinson, 1991, p. 5), or specific learners in specific situations rather
than a generalized language learner.
Since the 1980s, however, many ESP specialists have questioned
whether collecting expert- and data-driven objective information about
learners is enough (Tudor, 1997). Many wondered whether ESP specialists should also tap into the ongoing subjective needs of learners: their
self-knowledge, awareness of target situations, life goals, and instructional expectations (Tudor, 1997). Inspired by the learner-centered
movement (Nunan, 1988), ESP became more learning-centered (Hutchinson
& Waters, 1987), focusing not just on what people do with language but
how they learn it and encouraging learner investment and participation.
As helpful as the combined objective and subjective foci on individual
learners in specific contexts are, some in ESP have also felt the need to
know more about those contexts, or target discourse communities, and
not just from a text-linguistic, language audit vantage point but from a
more social perspective as well (Robinson, 1991). Douglas (2000) sums
up this more complex view of context, or discourse domain, as
dynamic, continually changing . . . constructed by the participants in a
communicative situation (p. 89). Such a view of context requires the
kind of emic perspective gained not just through surveys, interviews, and
text analysis, but also case studies and community ethnographies
(Robinson, 1991).
136
TESOL QUARTERLY
Although clearly a crucial step forward, acknowledging context as

socially constructed has not satisfied everyone. Discourse domains do
not, after all, exist in vacuums (Pennycook, 1997). Any community is part
of larger socioeconomic and political systems, with members holding
multiple race, class, and gender subject positions. Along with this more
layered view of context has come greater awareness of the conflicting
perspectives of privileged members and novices and of learners as
members of many other communities beyond work and studyas
parents, consumers, citizens, members of vernacular communities
(Canagarajah, 2002), and of communities they dream of joining (cf.
Cadmans, 2002, p. 101, reinterpretation of EAP as English for academic
possibilities).
No longer viewed, ideally, as one-shot, presessional data collection,
needs assessment is now more often seen as a matter of agreement and
judgment not discovery, negotiated by learners, other community
members, and instructors inevitably influenced by ideological preconceptions (Robinson, 1991, p. 7, citing Lawson, 1979). Equally if not
more important has been the more recent recognition that learners, as
reflective community members, should be empowered to participate in
needs assessment alongside ESP professionals (Benesch, 2001; Johns,
1997).
In Search of Needs-Meeting Methods:

Which Means to What Ends?
If ESP specialists have set and implemented their own needs-clarifying
research agendas, they could also be described as methodological free
thinkers. Some, such as Hutchinson and Waters (1987), have even
claimed that there is . . . no such thing as an ESP methodology (p. 18).
ESP is often seen as a materials-driven rather than methods-driven
enterprise (see, e.g., Master, 1997), with preference given to materials
that authentically represent the communities in which learners seek
membership. Yet authenticity has long been a vexed term: One persons
authenticity may not be anothers. Widdowsons (1979) observation is
commonly invoked: Authenticity resides not in texts but in the interaction between texts and intended contexts. According to this reasoning,
texts taken out of context are inauthentic as soon as they enter the
classroom. Yet, although many ESP specialists may agree that context is
important, they may also feel that contexts can be more or less authentic
(or simulated), often with the help of so-called authentic tasks (see
Bhatia, 1993; Ferguson, 1997, on text/task relationships, but see also
Corbett, 2003, p. 42, on authentic target-language materials as valuable
137
cultural artifacts without need of simulacrum). Texts, as classroom

materials, can be viewed as exhibiting varying degrees of authenticity:
from clearly authentic materials found in the target discourse community, to semi-authentic materials produced by the ESP practitioner, to
obviously inauthentic textbooks mass-produced by publishers. Even
textbooks, though, can be more or less authentic and specific in their
conceptualization of learner-audience needs (see Harwood, 2005, who
cites Swales & Feak, 2000, as an exemplar from the more specific end of
the textbook spectrum).
It can be argued, however, that still more fundamental decisions drive
materials selection than definitions of authenticity. Many assert that the
overarching approach of ESP is content-based instruction, or CBI
(Crandall & Kaufman, 2002; Master, 1997), and that ESPs reach extends
beyond its traditional focus on adults to children in CBI programs, with
target-language-medium instruction in subject areas (Master, 1997;
Robinson, 1991). Content, though, like authenticity, is open to interpretation. Does CBI simply mean theme based, using any relevant, potentially
high-interest topics teachers feel comfortable with (Stoller, 2002)? Or,
should content be more narrowly defined and CBI more directly related
to the target discourse community, for example, business cases as the
content in language classes for business students? The one prerequisite
of appropriate content on which most CBI/ESP teachers would likely
agree is that it not consist of information about language but instead
function as a carrier of language (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998), a
means of making language use meaningful ( Johns, 1997), thus enhancing language acquisition and task performance (Carson, Taylor, &
Fredella, 1997).
Yet one might well next ask, what guides the choice of carrier content
and related content-based tasks? The choice is likely guided by how the
language and task-proficiencies learners need are conceptualized: whether
narrowly, as immediately useful domain-specific language and related
tasks, or more widely, as common-core language and language-learning
strategy for an ever-expanding realm of unpredictable domains and tasks
(see Bloor & Bloor, 1986). Arguments frequently advanced for a wideangle approach, especially for EAP, include recent corpus-linguistic
findings that a core of 2,000 basic high frequency words together with
570 reasonably frequent academic words will give close to 90% coverage
of the running words in most academic texts (Coxhead & Nation, 2001,
p. 260). If this is the case, then any subject-area content that the
instructor chooses should serve the purposes of most language learners,
at least in EAP, and, of course, language-learning strategies, such as
intensive and extensive reading, can be taught with any carrier content.
Narrow-anglers, on the other hand, argue that if any content will do,
why not choose content that is most relevant to learners goals and most
138
TESOL QUARTERLY
likely to motivate learners (see Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001)? Corpus

linguists have also pointed out that technical terms, though a small
percentage of the total vocabulary of academic texts, can be crucial to
task performance, for example, fluent reading and learning through
meaning (Coxhead & Nation, 2001). Also in support of the narrow angle
approach is the observation that there are many ways for ESP instructors
to compensate for their limited field-specific knowledgea reason often
given for avoiding the narrower route. Among the more popular
compensatory strategies are team teaching with a content-area specialist
(Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998), taking a sustained (one subject area per
term) content-based approach with lower-grade-level materials (Weigle
& Nelson, 2001), and linking language and subject-area classes ( Johns,
1997).
To many ESP practitioners, however, the wide versus narrow approach
debate is a nonissue because instructional decisions should have more to
do with the learners themselves than with instructor preference or
beliefs: lowliteracy level adults and undergraduates without majors, for
instance, may benefit from a wide-gauge approach (Hirvela, 1998, but
see also Hyland, 2002), while other learners, such as, graduate students,
pilots, or nurses, may gain most from a narrower approach. Also, as
Murray and McPherson (2004) have found, instructors are not always
good judges of what will interest and motivate their own students. At the
very least, such findings support an argument for allowing learners a
voice in content selection.
Rescripting Instructional Roles: Who Teaches Whom?

If there were a television reality show called The ESP Apprentice, with
prizes in the form of ESP faculty appointments, it seems unlikely that
multitudes of ELT professionals would vie to appear on it, especially
considering the ESP ideal: combined needs assessor, specialized syllabus
designer, authentic materials developer, and content-knowledgeable
instructor, capable of coping with a revolving door of content areas
relevant to learners communities. Few graduate programs prepare
students for the challenges of ESP (especially in the United States), and
as humanities majors more often than not, many language teachers may
find the technical content areas of such ESP learners as chemical
engineers or air traffic controllers unfamiliar, uninteresting, and even
intimidating. Abbott (1983) no doubt spoke for many when wondering
in how many content areas, realistically speaking, any instructor could
acquire even a laymans outline knowledge (p. 35).
How much subject knowledge is enough for ESP instructors, especially
when taking a narrow-angled approach, is still very much an open
139
question. Some have argued that it is enough to know about an area, its
values, epistemological bases, and preferred genres (Ferguson, 1997). In
a similar vein, Dudley-Evans (1997) and Robinson (1991) have suggested
that, rather than deep content knowledge, the most critical qualifications to cultivate are respect for learner knowledge and perspectives,
intellectual curiosity and flexibility, and enjoyment of improvisational
problem-solving. Others have noted, however, that since outsiders can
only approximate what community insiders know and do, and perhaps
not very successfully (White, 1981; Zuck & Zuck, 1984), they may actually
do more harm than good in attempting a narrow-gauge approach.
Robinson (1991) and Crofts (1981) argue that ESP specialists should not
attempt to be pseudoteacher[s] of subject matter, (Robinson, p. 87)
but teachers of things not learned as part of courses in . . . specialisms
(Crofts, p. 149). It is, of course, concern with limited content knowledge
that often drives the urge to collaborate, the team teaching and linked
classes referred to earlier. Yet some view even this solution (i.e., collaboration) as far from perfect (Goldstein, Campbell, & Cummings, 1997),
and institutional constraints and unwillingness of would-be collaborators
can be major obstacles to teaching partnerships. Dual professionalism,
training in both the target subject area, for example, law or medicine,
and applied linguistics (Feak & Reinhart, 2002) would seem to provide
the best of both worlds but requires a breadth and depth of commitment
to two fields that few are willing to make.
A learner-centered solution to the content knowledge dilemma has
been offered by Dudley-Evans (1997), who feels it essential for ESP
teachers to learn how to learn from and with their students, engaging
with them in genuinely participatory explorations of discourse domains.
Benesch (2001), at the same time, warns of being overly respectful of
subject knowledge, especially that of content experts, whose handling of
content may fail to factor in the needs of second language learners or of
such so-called minorities as female students. Snow (1997), likewise,
suggests that ESP/EAP professionals can be valuable resources to subject
specialists, who may not know how to help L2 learners even when they
want to. Perhaps even more than others in ELT, ESP practitioners,
because of their work with field-specific discourse, need to remind
themselves that they are far from lacking a content area of their own.
WHAT THEORY AND RESEARCH HAVE TO OFFER

Though ESP has a reputation for being eclectic in its use of theory and
has long valued practitioner research, this does not mean that ESP
professionals have not been informed by research and theoretical
developments beyond their own immediate instructional contexts. Cur140
TESOL QUARTERLY
rent ESP curriculum and materials design owes much to genre theory,
especially as enhanced by corpus linguistics, and ESPs conceptualizations
of both the learners goals and its own as a field owe much to recent
contributions from critical pedagogy and ethnography.
Genre Theory and Corpus Data

Although ESP is itself considered a school of genre studies, it has
willingly embraced, in its usual eclectically pragmatic way, the insights of
two other schools of genre theory known as the Sydney School and New
Rhetoric (see Belcher, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Johns, 2002). Both the
Sydney School and New Rhetoric, along with influential ESP genre
theorists such as Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993), have been instrumental in moving ESP toward a more sociorhetorical view of genre, or as
Bawarshi (2003) says, away from a container view of genre as only
transparent and innocent conduits that individuals use to package their
communicative goals (p. 23).
The Sydney School has contributed arguably the most systematically
theoretical grounding of all the major approaches to genre (Hyland,
2004), informed as it is by Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics
(SFL, see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), that is, interested in context as
well as text, and field and tenor, or ideational and interpersonal
discourse dimensions, as well as mode, or generic channel. Also noteworthy about the Sydney School is its commitment to bringing genres of power,
or literacies of the privileged, to children and low-literacy adult immigrants, populations ESP had not traditionally focused on (Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993; but see also Pennycook, 1997). Sydney School pedagogy
addresses these populations needs with Vygotskian scaffolding, or
staged, SFL-informed instruction that moves from the assistance of more
knowledgeable others to gradually more independent text generation
(Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Feez, 2002).
The New Rhetoric School, in contrast, has been still more interested
in context and greatly inspired by theories of situated cognition and
cognitive apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Millers (1984) New
Rhetorical redefinition of genre as typified rhetorical actions based in
recurrent situations (p. 159) has been especially influential in encouraging an appreciation of how people enact and are enacted by [genres]
(Bawarshi, 2003, p. 22). Perhaps not surprisingly, New Rhetoric puts
relatively little faith in explicit instruction, seeing immersion in target
situations as essential for genuine acquisition of genres (Freedman,
1993). While the Sydney School has had much to offer genre-based ESP
pedagogy, especially in EAP, New Rhetoric has shed more light on the
genred spaces EOP focuses on, the stabilized-for-now (Schryer, 1993, p.
141
200) shapes, uses, and acquisition processes of genres in a multitude of

professional sites (Hyland, 2004; Swales, 2004).
Genre scholars, thus, tend today to view genre as more contextual
than simply textual, dynamic than static, varied than monolithic, and
interesting in its shaping of and being shaped by people (Bawarshi, 2003;
Bhatia, 2004). Mindful of these recent developments, Swales (2004)
argues that the concept of genre serves us most productively as metaphor. Genres can be seen as frames for social action (Bazerman, 1997,
p. 19; italics added), chains of sequential communicative events, sets of
related occupational and institutional practices, networks of intertextuality,
and purposeful activity systems, or spheres of communication, that human
actors engage in, affected by and affecting countless other systems
(Bawarshi, 2003; Swales, 2004). This increasingly complex conceptualization of genre, and of life as genrefied (Swales, 2004), clearly affords a far
fuller view of the world in which learners must function than the
templates and taxonomies that many may still too readily think of when
they think of genre.
Considering genre theorys top-down, contextualized, sociorhetorical
view of discourse, it might seem that the more bottom-up, relatively
decontextualized, and lexicogrammatically atomized (L. Flowerdew,
2005b, p. 324) view of language use offered by computer-enabled corpus
linguistics would be at odds with genre theorys more macro-level
perspective. Flowerdew (2005b; see also Swales, 2004), however, has
pointed out, that the two approaches, in fact, have much to offer each
other. Especially promising, Flowerdew (2004, 2005b) and others (e.g.,
Connor & Upton, 2004) note, are small corpus studies of academic and
professional genres, of whole (not partial) expert and learner texts,
compiled, hand-tagged for move structure (rhetorical stages) and qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed by ESP specialists familiar with the
texts contexts, producers, and intended audiences. The speed with
which corpus data can now be compiled and analyzed pushes ESP still
farther in directions it has valuedaway from intuitive laundry lists of
common core features (Hyland, 2002, p. 392) and toward empirically
based understanding of language used for specific purposes.
Critical Pedagogy and Ethnography

Just as genre theory and corpus studies may at first glance seem an
unusual pairing, critical pedagogy may also initially appear the polar
opposite of ESP itself, considering the pragmatic efforts of ESP to help
learners succeed in established, often exclusionary and hierarchical,
communities. Although many ESP professionals may see meeting learn-
142
TESOL QUARTERLY
ers needs as empowering, in a world where English opens doors to

technology, research findings, and educational and job opportunities,
critical pedagogists (e.g., Canagarajah, 2002; Pennycook, 1997; Phillipson,
1992) may see such efforts as a form of domination, supporting the
spread of English, and thus strengthening, in EFL settings, the hold of
the developed world on the less developed (but see also Seidlhofer,
2004), and in ESL settings, aiding and abetting a too pervasive meltingpot process that effaces cultural identity. In fact, however, some EAPexperienced critical pedagogists, perhaps most notably Pennycook (1997)
and Benesch (2001), have constructed conceptual bridges between
critical and pragmatically needs-based perspectives on pedagogy.
Pennycook (1997) offers the concept of critical pragmatism as a muchneeded change of course, or in Morgan and Ramanathans (2005) terms,
invigoration (p. 156), for ESP/EAP, turning it away from its superficially
neutral, norms-reinforcing vulgar pragmatism, ideologically nave in its
service to the status quo. More than a utilitarian approach to language,
critical pragmatism requires awareness of the role of English in the
spread of particular forms of culture and knowledge (Pennycook, 1997,
p. 258). The critically aware practitioner neither simply abandons
language teaching nor continues trusting that ELT will open doors
without closing any, but instead gives priority to helping learners
appropriate English for their own purposesto accept, resist, and even
push back, to glocalize the global, asserting ownership of English in
forms useful in users own communities.
Benesch (2001), similarly, suggests that a more critical approach
requires expansion of needs analysis to include rights analysis, which is
much more than a reactive determination of learner needs based on
institutional or expert expectations. Acknowledging that learners and
their instructors should not completely ignore target situation needs,
Benesch encourages a language curriculum enriched by a framework
for understanding and responding to power relations that instills
learners with confidence in their right and ability to challenge unreasonable and inequitable arrangements (p. 108). Such a learning outcome is only likely, Benesch observes, if instructors themselves discover
what is possible, desirable, and beneficial at a certain moment with a
particular group of students (p. 109), that is, if instructors engage in
rights analysis.
Critically aware qualitative research, or ethnographic thick description
(Geertz, 1983), often for the sake of needs assessment, is also heightening awareness of the need for a more critically pragmatic ESP conscious
of what Brandt and Clinton (2002) call the limits of the local (p. 337),
that is, of a perspective so focused on the local context that tensions
among different immediate and remote forces at play are ignored
143
(Reder & Davila, 2005, p. 174).3 For example, in her study of hotel
maids language needs, Jasso-Aguilar (1998) used critically-aware methodology, which included working alongside the hotel maids in her study,
and discovered a mismatch between the language actually needed to
perform the usual hotel housekeeping duties and the welcoming aloha
language that the hotel corporation felt the maids needed. The increased
language skills desired by hotel management clearly had more to do with
wanting to increase business than with meeting either the actual immediate work-related needs or long-term goals of the hotel housekeepers.
In another ethnographic account, Storer (1999) too identified conflicting perspectives on the needs of learners, in this case, Thai bar-based
sex workers. One morally righteous perspective would deny the bar
workers language instruction that might encourage them to stay in the
bars. The business-minded bar managers had another view, discouraging
the workers from using language to negotiate safer interactions with
foreigners. The workers themselves were only too aware of the risks, to
life and livelihood, of being unable to establish ground rules with their
clients. Storer, like Jasso-Aguilar (1998), emphasizes the value of seeing
learners needs emically, from their vantage point, which includes
gaining an understanding of the pressures that others demands place
on them.
The ESP class itself can also be a site of ongoing critical qualitative
exploration of more and less transparent contexts. Bosher and Smalkoski
(2002), for example, found that discussing language needs in class with
immigrant nursing students and reading their journals placed their
language learning needs in a larger context, a culturally influenced
gendered space, where, as one student put it, there are things the
female wont talk about as it is ok with the male (p. 70), all of which
underscored a need for assertiveness training. Similarly, qualitative
research methods, including ongoing evaluation by the students themselves of their own strengths and weaknesses, and the authors own close
observation of his students struggles with assignments helped Holmes
(2004) understand why an imported genre-based EAP curriculum was so
ineffective at a school in Eritrea. Accessible, relevant, engaging materials
and tasks were developed only after local needs and interests, as well as
the impact of years of deprivation, were taken into account.
3
We should note that ethnography has also been very productively used, especially in
combination with textual analysis, in genre studies (Corbett, 2003), and genre analysis has
proven to be a powerful tool for critical discourse analysts (Fairclough, 1995). Corpus
linguistics, too, in the service of critical discourse analysis (see, e.g., Sotillo & Wang-Gempp,
2004), holds enormous potential for increasing critical awareness of the needs of ESP learners
and the means of empowering them.
144
TESOL QUARTERLY
THEORY- AND RESEARCH-INFORMED ESP PEDAGOGY

Although I have separately surveyed genre theory and corpus-enhanced genre studies, and critical pedagogy and ethnographies, they
need not be seen as mutually exclusive, especially with respect to
pedagogical implications. Genre theorists (e.g., Bawarshi, 2003; Devitt,
2004; Hyland, 2004; Swales, 2004) have more recently expounded on the
critical consciousness-raising capability of genre-based pedagogies. It is
not uncommon for contemporary genre theorists to speak of ethical
responsibility to, in Bawarshis (2003) words, make . . . genred
discursive spaces . . . visible . . . for the sake of enabling students to
participate in these spaces more meaningfully and critically (p. 18).
Critical pedagogists, at the same time, have pointed to the need for
learner empowerment and agency not just in literacy practices, the
primary focus of much genre study, but in face-to-face (or virtually faceto-face) communication as well (see Auerbach, 2000; Benesch, 2001).
Academic Literacies: Promoting

Learner Autonomy and Decentered Authority
Given the multitude of genres that confront learners just in academia
alone, not to mention their careers and other avenues of life, the
pedagogical task of deciding which genres to focus on is a daunting one.
Devitt (2004) has suggested one reasoned way to cope with this situation:
Rather than attempting to teach specific genres, we teach critical
awareness of how genres operate so that they [students] . . . learn the
new genres they encounter with rhetorical and ideological understanding (p. 194). Devitt reasons that focusing learners attention first on
antecedent genres (p. 202), or familiar genres such as personal letters
or wedding announcements, will equip them with a learning strategy, a
meta-awareness of the benefits and constraints of genre, which can be
applied to all new genres they meet.
Although concurring with Devitt (2004) on the advantages of introducing homely genres first, Johns (1997, p. 38) is interested in
promoting more than critical awareness. Focused primarily on the needs
of at-risk undergraduates, Johns aims at jump-starting acquisition of
literacy genres required for academic survival. Although again like
Devitt, Johns urges equipping students with genre-learning strategies,
she also encourages broader and deeper ethnographies of classroom
and authentic genres, with students compiling reading and writing
portfolios comprised of genre samples and their own genre performances and analyses. A primary goal, Johns (2001) argues, should be to
145
destabilize the students rather limited theories of genres by revealing

that there is a very large world beyond the academic essay (pp. 7071).
Johns and others use of academic literacy portfolios for undergraduates in EAP classes has a still more basic motivation: the realization that
reading and writing are similar and synergistic sociocognitive processes,
both involving the construction of meaning, and that it makes little sense
to approach them pedagogically as discrete modalities. Literacy portfolios and reading-to-write tasks in general have been further encouraged
by observations such as Carson and Lekis (1993) that reading can be,
and in academic settings nearly always is, the basis for writing (p. 1).
More recently, Hirvela (2004) has called attention to the impact that
writing can have on reading, noting that activities such as summarizing,
synthesizing, and responding, not only can tell us much about students
as L2 readers but can also help the students themselves become more
aware of what they learn as they read and be more likely to read and
reread texts purposefully, analytically, and critically.
For L2 graduate students, Hirvela (1997) advises an approach similar
to Johns strategy with EAP undergraduates: compilation of disciplinary
portfolios, for which students follow Swales and Feaks (1994; see also
2004) advice to examine and report back (p. 87) on genres in their
own fields of study, where they, not their EAP instructor, are the content
experts. Hyland (2002) points out that if classes in which such ethnographic work is done are disciplinarily heterogeneous, the specificity of
their circumstances can be exploited through the opportunity to
compare various disciplinary observations, thus nudging the students
toward the realization that communication does not entail adherence
to a set of universal rules but involves making rational choices based on
the ways texts work in specific contexts (p. 393). Lee and Swales (2006)
have taken the learner-as-disciplinary-ethnographer model into more
high tech realms by helping L2 graduate students produce what, in
effect, are electronic portfolios. After compiling their own corpora of
electronically retrieved professional texts and self-authored texts, the
students were taught to concordance and analyze them, thus gaining
both technical and discourse analytical skills likely to benefit them
throughout their school and professional careers. Lee and Swales argue
that use of such learner-produced corpora effectively decenters language
standards away from the authority of the native speaker, teacher, grammar
text, and stylistic conventions by facilitating students discoveries about
language use with texts, written and spoken, generated by professionals
in their fields, not all of whom are necessarily native speakers (p. 71).
In another pilot concordancing course for L2 graduate students, Starfield
(2004) likewise concluded, after observing her students use of the
courses software, that this technicist learning strategy can be empowering:
146
TESOL QUARTERLY
What I found exciting was that she [one of Starfields students] was using the
concordancing strategy to develop her ability to insert herself into the text
she was writing. There was a sense that she was lessening the very unequal
relations of power that positioned her as a foreign student with poor English
skills and was beginning to occupy her research space as someone who has a
history with its own discourses to bring to the Australian academy. (pp. 152
153)
SPEECH GENRES AND OTHER

DIALOGIC FUNCTIONALITIES:
REAL TIME, REAL LIFE NEGOTIATION
While written (and hence read) genres may be the chief currency of
academia, the means by which the greatest amounts of knowledge are
communicated and assessed, more immediately dialogic genres, or speech
genres, to use Bakhtins (1986) term to underscore their interactional
quality, also have significant roles to play inside and outside of academia.
Many of the means of negotiating with more powerful others that
Benesch (2001) fostered in her own linked EAP classes can, in fact, be
seen as speech genres: raising questions in class, querying faculty during
office hours, questioning the rationale of a syllabus or assignments. No
longer the relatively neglected area it once was in ESP, spoken discourse
now has a wealth of new technology-enhanced resources. One especially
noteworthy example of these is the Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English (MICASE; English Language Institute, 2002), a public
database of over 150 speech events, including such interactions as
dissertation defenses, advising sessions, and seminar discussions. Such
resources (see also Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd, & Helt, 2002) offer new
ways of studying and teaching spoken genresand understanding how
less powerful initiates can negotiate them.
Not all of the new resources for teaching spoken discourse involve
technology. Face-to-face human interaction itself becomes a resource
when authentic interaction opportunities are built into curricula in the
form of community-based service learning, or participatory learning
communities, in which learners actively participate in making their own
lives and worlds better (Auerbach, 2000, p. 146). As Johns (2001)
remarks, community-based projects can offer students a chance to
assume a mentoring role with less proficient others that encourages
articulation of subject matter and literacy knowledge for the benefit of
both the mentees and the mentors themselves. Johns observes that such
projects at her own university have proved to be powerful metacognition
and confidence builders, especially noticeable in the student-mentors
147
poised oral presentations on university life to large audiences of both

faculty and younger students. Flowerdew (2005a) tells of another approach in Hong Kong for tertiary EAP students, who chose a real-world
university problem to investigate, address, and report on orally. The inclass presentation project was often a report on real world action, with
students feeling empowered by having taken their suggestions, for
example, for more Mandarin instruction for business-inclined biology
students, to the university authorities. Starfield (2001) has called for
more instructional practices of this kind, focused on the strategies of
students discursive empowerment, in order to help our students
develop . . . the linguistic and critical abilities to negotiate the complex
sociopolitical learning environments in which they find themselves (p.
146).
Outside of academia, technology facilitates ESP learners participation in their communities in some unexpected ways. Garcia (2002)
reports on a union-sponsored English program for immigrant textile
workers in Chicago that focused on more than their factory-floor oral
communication needs by target[ing] the gaps in other areas of their
work and nonwork lives, such as the need for training in computer use,
which learners identified as important for professional mobility and
personal growth (p. 170). Computer training proved a potent motivator
for language learning. Outcomes of this program, interestingly, however,
were measured not by increased phonological or grammatical control,
although shop-floor communication breakdowns decreased, but in increased union solidarity, participation in union meetings and contract
negotiations, and use of union services. Boudin (1993) reports a very
different connection between technology and community involvement
in her account of a course for incarcerated women that used a Freirean
problem-posing approach and AIDS awareness as the content. The
students wrote, produced, and videotaped a play, which not only
motivated their own critical reflection and language and literacy learning, but also became a community-building tool (Auerbach, 2000, pp.
145), a means of reaching out to and dialoguing with the entire prison
community. The discursive strategies and communication skills development supported by such approaches as just discussed are clearly aimed at
producing more than linguistically proficient workers (or inmates): They
serve as gateways to more confident, able, and likely participation in
discourse communities both narrow and wide.
FURTHER INQUIRY
Considering the already extensive scope of ESPits numerous and
varied sites all over the world of EAP and EOP practice based on teacher
148
TESOL QUARTERLY
research (see Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991, on the international appeal

and practice of ESP)it may appear odd to call for more diversity in ESP
research, but a case can be made for certain research areas as having
received far less attention than they deserve. The reasons for this neglect
probably have more to do with resource distribution than with any
prioritization based on research needs (see Canagarajah, 1996).
Although there have been numerous studies of academic and professional genres, the ESP gaze has been focused more often on written than
spoken genres and on products rather than processes. Perhaps because
of ESPs traditional interest in materials development and literacy
( Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991), textual description has remained popular and useful among ESP specialists. The time sensitive nature of most
ESP needs analysis, curriculum development, and the very real-world
needs of learners, may have militated against the more time-consuming
investigations of processes and contexts, and of more ephemeral spoken
interactions, which are difficult to capture. However, technology, such as
digitized video and audio-streaming, is now helping address the latter
gap in particular, by facilitating recording, archiving, and analysis of
speech events (Murray, 2005). We should note too that computermediated communication, with its hosts of new hybrid written/spoken
genres, such as blogs and vlogs (Web logs and video logs), is also
providing increasingly varied, appealing, and accessible but still largely
underexamined means of motivating both oral and literate L2
proficiencies. It remains to be seen (and researched) to what extent
specific-purpose language learning, particularly in areas where learners
have few opportunities for exposure to target language use, can be
catalyzed by Internet access and involvement in such interactive e-forums
as subject-specific discussion groups, chatrooms, and live journals (see Six
Apart, 2005). Warschauer (2003) argues for the need to consider a very
complex matrix of resourcesphysical and digital as well as human and
socialwhen examining technology use for any educational purposes
(see, e.g., his analysis of the Hole-in-the-Wall experiment in New Delhi,
2003, p. 1).
Another reason that texts and literacy have so often been the object of
ESP research attention has to do with the dominance of EAP (see Johns
& Dudley-Evans, 1991, and the Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
especially its premiere issue, Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). EAP professionals, often situated in higher education, are likely to be better
positioned than EOP professionals to do research (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001). Thus, though EOP spans an enormous number of domains,
much less evidence of EOP than EAP knowledge construction appears in
print, and when it does, the focus is often on business, law, and medicine,
among the most lucrative professions. The move toward more informal
publication on personal or community Web pages, with less gate keeping
149
and demand for formal research genres, may make a difference, but the
visibility of such sites may remain limited in the foreseeable future.
Resources also help explain the continuing influence of the center
countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada),
where most so-called international journals are published. Although
published ESP research is among the most diverse in origin and
consumption in ELTwith issues of English for Specific Purposes now often
dominated by contributions from noncenter countries, and more readers of the journal outside the center than in itthe opportunities for
sharing ESP knowledge and practices in refereed forums are still limited.
As others have noted, when many of the superior, but localized, ESP
projects are not discussed in international publications, [it is] a great loss
for teachers and materials designers everywhere ( Johns & DudleyEvans, 1991, p. 303; see also Swales, 1988). Projects such as Muangsamais
(2003) use of Internet resources to revitalize an EAP curriculum for
premedical students in Thailand have the potential, with greater visibility, to benefit many, perhaps especially those in noncenter communities
where material resources may be meager. A promising development,
however, is the start-up of new journals based in noncenter countries,
such as the Review of Applied Linguistics in China and ESP in Taiwan, which
will be especially appreciative of local perspectives but not limited to
local audiences, given the possibility of electronic distribution. Certainly
having more refereed publication opportunities available beyond a
limited number of prestigious center journals will be a welcome
development.
Thus it is not surprising that the center influences not only who but
what gets published. ESP prides itself on investigating a broad range of
specific varieties of English, but these varieties are related mainly to
domain not linguacultural background (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 230).
Variety seldom refers to World Englishes in published ESP research.
Seidlhofer (2001), who is herself addressing the need for more attention
to lingua franca English through a corpus project, observes that there
has been very little empirical work [anywhere in ELT] . . . on the most
extensive contemporary use of English worldwide . . . among non-native
speakers (p. 133). Nickerson (2005), with ESP and especially business
purposes in mind, adds to this agenda the need for research that is not
exclusively focused on English but that examines its use as one of a
number of languages in contexts where being multilingual is the norm.
Further attention to varieties of English as an international language
may help ESP rethink its conceptualization of expertise, or proficient
specialist language use, long the target of ESP research efforts. How
often are domain experts and native or native-like speakers synonymous
in ESP studies? Again with multilingual international business contexts
in mind, Nickerson (2005) calls attention to another needed develop150
TESOL QUARTERLY
ment, a shift in focus away from proficiency to strategic communicationstrategies that are communicatively effective regardless of whether
the speaker/writer is a native or non-native speaker (p. 369). Perhaps
with this shift would come more attention to the strategic competence
needs, or deficiencies, of center English speakers communicating with
noncenter-English-speaking interlocutors. In an interesting turning of
the tables, global English is now returning to the center morphed into
new glocalized forms spoken by those in positions of power. At a
Japanese-owned auto plant in the Midwestern United States, for example, on-site ESP classes have been offered for the English-speaking
Japanese managers, but, to my knowledge, no one has demanded classes
on communication strategies useful for American workers conversing
with Japanese English-speaking managers. As Seidlhofer (2001) has
trenchantly remarked, uncoupling English from its native speakers
holds the exciting, if uncomfortable, prospect of bringing up for
reappraisal just about every issue and tenet in language teaching which
the profession has been traditionally concerned with (p. 152). Accustomed as they are to addressing newly identified learner needs and their
own needs in new pedagogical contexts, ESP professionals should be
able to face the prospect of reappraising the role of English language
teaching in a rapidly glocalizing world with a ready array of professional
resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their supportive and
helpfully challenging feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
THE AUTHOR
Diane Belcher is associate professor and director of graduate studies in the
Department of Applied Linguistics/ESL at Georgia State University. She currently
co-edits the journal English for Specific Purposes and a teacher reference series titled
Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers. She has also guest-edited several
issues of the Journal of Second Language Writing.
REFERENCES
Abbott, G. (1983). Training teachers of EST: Avoiding orthodoxy. ESP Journal, 2, 33
36.
Auerbach, E. R. (2000). Creating participatory learning communities: Paradoxes and
possibilities. In J. K. Hall & W. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language
teaching (pp. 143163). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bawarshi, A. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer. Logan: Utah State University
Press.
151
Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop &
H. Ostrum (Eds.), Genre and writing (pp. 1926). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 24, 165186.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing
in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 948.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1986). Languages for specific purposes: Practice and theory
(CLCS Occasional Paper No. 19). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College, Dublin Centre
for Language and Communication Studies.
Bosher, S., & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum development:
Designing a course in health-care communication for immigrant students in the
USA. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 5979.
Boudin, K. (1993). Participatory literacy education behind bars: AIDS opens the
door. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 207232.
Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on
literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 337356.
Cadman, K. (2002). English for academic possibilities: The research proposal as a
contested site in postgraduate genre pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 1, 85104.
Canagarajah, S. (1996). Nondiscursive requirements in academic publishing,
material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435472.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards
a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 2944.
Carson, J., & Leki, I. (1993). Introduction. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the
composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 17). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Carson, J., Taylor, J., & Fredella, L. (1997). The role of content in task-based EAP
instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom (pp.
367370). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2004). Introduction. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.),
Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 18). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to
teaching writing (pp. 6389). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Coxhead, A., & Nation, P. (2001). The specialised vocabulary of English for academic
purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for
academic purposes (pp. 252267). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Crandall, J., & Kaufman, D. (2002). Content-based instruction in higher education
settings: Evolving models for diverse contexts. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.),
Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 112). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Crofts, J. (1981). Subjects and objects in ESP teaching materials. In L. Selinker,
E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic and technical purposes (pp. 146
153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
152
TESOL QUARTERLY
Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge, England:
Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). Five questions for LSP teacher training. In R. Howard &
G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp. 5867). Clevedon, England:
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary
approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
English Language Institute. (2002). Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Author. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from
www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Feak, C., & Reinhart, S. (2002). An ESP program for students of law. In T. Orr (Ed.),
English for specific purposes (pp. 724). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. Johns
(Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 4372). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferguson, G. (1997). Teacher education and LSP: The role of specialised knowledge.
In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp. 8089). Clevedon,
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In
J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic
purposes (pp. 824). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to
understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton
(Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 1133).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, L. (2005a). Integrating traditional and critical approaches to syllabus
design: The what, the how and why?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
4, 135147.
Flowerdew, L. (2005b). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches
to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 321332.
Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of
new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 222251.
Garcia, P. (2002). An ESP program for entry-level manufacturing workers. In T. Orr
(Ed.), English for specific purposes (pp. 161174). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York:
Basic Books.
Goldstein, L., Campbell, C., & Cummings, M. C. (1997). Smiling through the
turbulence: The flight attendant syndrome and writing instructor status in the
adjunct model. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom
(pp. 331339). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar.
(3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 4, 149161.
Hirvela, A. (1997). Disciplinary portfolios and EAP writing instruction. English for
Specific Purposes, 16, 83100.
Hirvela, A. (1998). Review of Myra Shulmans Journeys through literature [Book review].
English for Specific Purposes, 17, 320326.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
153
Holmes, J. (2004). Intertextuality in EAP: An African context. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 3, 7388.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered
approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific
Purposes, 21, 385395.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP issues and directions [Special issue].
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1).
Jasso-Aguilar, R. (1999). Sources, methods, and triangulation in needs analysis: A
critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 2746.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge,
Johns, A. (2001). An interdisciplinary, interinstitutional, learning communities
program: Student involvement and student success. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic
writing programs (pp. 6172). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Johns, A. (2002). Introduction. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in
scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297314.
Johnstone, R. (1997). LSP teacher education (foreign languages): Common and
specific elements. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp.
Lawson, K. (1979). Philosophical concepts and values in adult education. Milton Keynes,
England: Open University Press.
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students:
Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for
Master, P. (1997). ESP teacher education in the USA. In R. Howard & G. Brown
(Eds.), Teacher education for LSP (pp. 2240). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Master, P. (2000). Responses to English for specific purposes. Washington, DC: Office of
English Language Programs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Descriptions or explanations? Some methodological issues in
contrastive rhetoric. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 4354).
Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham Press.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151167.
Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education:
Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151169.
Muangsamai, P. (2003). EFL learning/writing development in the Internet environment: A case-study from pre-medical students perspectives. Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University.
Murray, D. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of
Murray, D., & McPherson, P. (2004). Using the Web to support language learning. Sydney,
Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts.
English for Specific Purposes, 24, 367380.
154
TESOL QUARTERLY
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Reder, S., & Davila, E. (2005). Context and literacy practices. Annual Review of Applied
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In
M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 2544).
London: Sage.
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioners guide. New York: Prentice Hall.
Schryer, C. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10, 200234.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English
as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133158.
Selinker, L. (1979). On the use of informants in discourse analysis and language for
specialized purposes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 17, 189215.
Six Apart. (2005). LiveJournal. San Francisco: Author. Retrieved December 16, 2005,
from http://www.livejournal.com/
Snow, M. A. (1997). Teaching academic literacy skills: Discipline faculty take
responsibility. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom
(pp. 290304). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Sotillo, S., & Wang-Gempp, J. (2004). Using corpus linguistics to investigate class,
ideology, and discursive practice in online political discussion. In U. Connor &
T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.
91122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Starfield, S. (2001). Ill go with the group: Rethinking discourse community in
EAP. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for
academic purposes (pp. 132147). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Starfield, S. (2004). Why does this feel empowering?: Thesis writing, concordancing,
and the corporatising university. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical
pedagogy and language learning (pp. 138157). Cambridge, England: University of
Cambridge Press.
Stoller, F. (2002). Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content-based course.
In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education
settings (pp. 109124). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Storer, G. (1999). Working the bars. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 367374.
Swales, J. (1988). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book for the development of English
for science and technology. New York: Prentice Hall.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,
Swales, J. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 5976.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, England:
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for
nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
155
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in todays research world: A writing guide. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and
skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tudor, I. (1997). LSP or language education? In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.),
Teacher education for LSP (pp. 90102). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. (2001). Academic writing for university examinations. In
I. Leki (Ed.), Academic writing programs (pp. 121136). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
West, R. (1997). Needs analysis: State of the art. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.),
Teacher education for LSP (pp. 6879). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
White, G. (1981). The subject specialist and the ESP teacher. Lexden Papers, 2, 914.
Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Zuck, L., & Zuck, J. (1984). The main idea: Specialist and non-specialist judgements.
In A. Pugh & J. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes (pp. 130135).
London: Heinemann Educational.
156
TESOL QUARTERLY
Current Perspectives on Teaching

World Englishes and English
as a Lingua Franca
JENNIFER JENKINS
Kings College
London, England
The purpose of this article is to explore recent research into World

Englishes (henceforth WEs) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF),1
focusing on its implications for TESOL, and the extent to which it is
being taken into account by English language teachers, linguists, and
second language acquisition researchers. After a brief introduction
comparing the current situation with that of 15 years ago, I look more
closely at definitions of WEs and ELF. Then follows an overview of
relevant developments in WEs and ELF research during the past 15
years, along with a more detailed discussion of some key research
projects and any controversies they have aroused. I then address the
implications of WEs/ELF research for TESOL vis--vis English language
standards and standard English, and the longstanding native versus
nonnative teacher debate. Finally, I assess the consensus on WEs and
ELF that is emerging both among researchers and between researchers
and language teaching professionals. The article concludes by raising a
number of questions that remain to be investigated in future research.
s I was about to deliver a paper at a British university a few months

ago, the conference organiser hesitated midway through introducing me, pointed to the phrase World Englishes on the biographical
information I had provided, and asked whether the plural form was a
mistake. I mention this incident purely to highlight how unusual it has
become in recent years for those working in the TESOL and applied
linguistics profession anywhere in the world to query the -es and, by the
same token, how far knowledge about the spread of English has
advanced among the profession. Back in 1991, when TESOL Quarterly
1
Put simply, WEs is used in this article to refer to the indigenized varieties of English in their
local contexts of use. ELF refers to English when it is used as a contact language across linguacultures whose members are in the main so-called nonnative speakers. Further elaboration on
these terms is provided in the next section.
157
had its last anniversary, by contrast, WEs as a topic was notable for its
absence in the 25th anniversary issues. Where it had any presence at all,
this was either by implication or as a peripheral issue in articles devoted
to other subjects. The only article that prioritised WEs to any noticeable
degree in 1991 was written by Douglas Brown, part of which explored a
number of sociopolitical issues relating to the spread of English. Even
there, however, WEs was not mentioned by name, but was discussed
under the somewhat ambiguous rubric of English as an international
language (I will discuss this term later).
By coincidence, 1991 was also the year in which Braj Kachru responded to Randolph Quirk in a cross-Atlantic disagreement that
subsequently became known as the English Today debate (see Seidlhofer,
2003, which presents a number of major controversies between prominent scholars in the field of applied linguistics). Their opposing positions were labelled by the two protagonists themselves as liberation
linguistics (Quirk, 1990, referring to Kachrus position) and deficit linguistics (Kachru, 1991, referring to Quirks position). We will return to this
issue later in the discussion of English language standards. For now,
suffice it to say that the controversy attracted the attention of a wider
audience of TESOL professionals not traditionally interested in WEs and
was no doubt in part responsible for their growing awareness of the
subject. This awareness has, in turn, been reflected in journals such as
TESOL Quarterly, which, in the period since 1991, have published an
increasing number of articles whose authors consider the teaching and
learning of English in relation to the realities of the languages current
spread and use. Equally significant is the fact that whereas in 1991 WEs
and ELF were neglected in the TESOL Quarterly anniversary issues, they
have been assigned a dedicated slot in this 40th anniversary issue. Also
worth mentioning in this regard is a recent issue of TESOL Quarterly
edited by John Levis (2005), in which pronunciation is approached from
a variety of WEs and ELF perspectives rather than, as is more often the
case, as an isolated feature of second language (L2) English acquisition
whose only desirable endpoint is a so-called native-like accent.
On the other hand, as will become clear, much work remains to be
done, even at the level of theorising, let alone in practice. Articles
oriented to WEs still tend to be the exception rather than the rule in
TESOL Quarterly, while nothing at all was published on ELF until 2003,
and then only in the Brief Reports and Summaries section (a short piece
by Mauranen discussing her corpus of ELF in academic settings). And
the same is true of comparable TESOL and applied linguistics journals
published in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.
This is bizarre considering the fact thatas countless scholars have
pointed outspeakers of WEs and ELF vastly outnumber those of
158
TESOL QUARTERLY
English as a native language (ENL) and even those of English as a second

(immigrant) language (ESL)2 and English as a foreign language (EFL).3
WES, ELF, AND WORLD STANDARD ENGLISH

As Bolton (2004, p. 367) points out, there are three possible interpretations of the expression World Englishes. Firstly, it serves as an umbrella
label covering all varieties of English worldwide and the different
approaches used to describe and analyse them. Secondly, it is used in a
narrower sense to refer to the so-called new Englishes in Africa, Asia, and
the Caribbean (Kachrus outer circle).4 In this article, I am using the term
in this narrower sense. Thirdly, it is used to represent the pluricentric
approach to the study of English associated with Kachru and his
colleagues, and often referred to as the Kachruvian approach, although
there is considerable overlap between this and the second interpretation
of the term. The first use is also sometimes represented by other terms,
including World English (i.e., in the singular), international English(es), and
global English(es), while the second is in fact more commonly represented
by the terms nativised, indigenised, institutionalised, and new Englishes or
English as a second language. And still other terms are currently in
circulation (see Erling, 2005; McArthur, 2002, 2004). Despite the range
of interpretations of the term World Englishes and its alternatives, however, the links between them are so strong, and the field now so well
established, that there seems to be little confusion over the intended
reference.
The same cannot be said, by contrast, for ELF, despite Larry Smiths
visionary work on English as an international language dating way back
to the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Smith, 1976, 1983). One complication
2
This use of ESL should not be confused with another frequent use of the term, that is, to
describe the English use of speakers for whom it is an indigenized language in countries such
as India, Nigeria, and Singapore.
3
As was pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, there is considerable overlap between ELF
users and EFL learners, partly because many of those who start out thinking they are learning
English as a foreign language end up using it as a lingua franca.
4
For ease of reference, I am using Kachrus well-known three concentric circle model of the
spread of English (see, e.g., Kachru, 1985, 1988, 1992). Although this model is still used
regularly by many WEs and ELF scholars (myself often included) as the standard framework, a
number of scholars have suggested that it requires some updating as a result of changed
circumstances since the 1980s. Comments have been made and/or alternatives suggested by,
among others, Crystal (2003), Graddol (1997), Kandiah (1998), Modiano (1999a, 1999b),
Seidlhofer (2002), Toolan (1997), Tripathi (1998), and Yano (2001). Kachru (2005) has
responded at length to some of these comments and suggestions (as outlined in Jenkins, 2003),
describing them as misrepresentations of the models characteristics, interpretations and
implications (Kachru, p. 220).
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING WORLD ENGLISHES
159
for ELF is the fact that international English is sometimes used as

shorthand for English as an international language, or EIL, itself an
alternative term for ELF. Used in this way, it can be misleading because,
as Seidlhofer (2004) points out, it suggests that there is one clearly
distinguishable, codified, and unitary variety called International English, which is certainly not the case (p. 211). Thus, in one sense
(Boltons second), international English is used to refer to the local
Englishes of those nonmother tongue countries where it has an
intranational institutionalised role, although some researchers (e.g.,
Grlach, 1990; Trudgill & Hannah, 2002) also include the mother
tongue English countries (Kachrus inner circle) in their definitions. On
the other hand, international English is also used in another sense (not
discussed to by Bolton) to refer to the use of English as a means of
international communication across national and linguistic boundaries
(primarily, but not exclusively, across the countries of Kachrus expanding
circle). These two meanings, as Seidlhofer (2004) observes, are therefore
in complementary distribution (p. 210). It is because of the potential
for confusion of the word international that ELF researchers prefer the
term English as a lingua franca to English as an international language,
although to add to the confusion, both terms are currently in use.
A further problem relates to the so-called phenomenon of World
Standard (Spoken) English (W(S)SE). This is a hypothetical, monolithic
form of English that scholars such as Crystal (e.g., 2003), Grlach (e.g.,
1990),5 and McArthur (e.g., 1987, 1998) believe is developing of its own
accord, although Crystal (2003) considers that U.S. English does seem
likely to be the most influential in its development (p.188). This form
recalls Quirks (1985) single monochrome standard form (p. 6; see
also Quirk, 1995) based on the native speaker English that he advocates
for nonnative speakers of English regardless of their communicative
context. (I will return to this notion later.)
Unfortunately, some WEs scholars assume that ELF (EIL) refers to the
same phenomenon as WS(S)E and then criticise ELF (EIL) for promoting a monocentric view of English based on American or British norms
rather than a pluricentric view based on local norms. However, nothing
could be further from the truth. Firstly, far from prioritising inner circle
norms, ELF researchers specifically exclude mother tongue speakers
from their data collection. Indeed, in its purest form, ELF is defined as a
contact language used only among nonmother tongue speakers. For
example, according to House (1999), ELF interactions are defined as
interactions between members of two or more different linguacultures in
5
Grlach refers to it as International English, thus contributing to the confusion over the term
English as an international language pointed out by Seidlhofer.
160
TESOL QUARTERLY
English, for none of whom English is the mother tongue (p. 74, italics added).
The majority of ELF researchers nevertheless accept that speakers of
English from both inner and outer circles also participate in intercultural communication (albeit as a small minority in the case of inner
circle speakers), so do not define ELF communication this narrowly. In
their search to discover the ways in which ELF interactions are sui
generis, as House (1999, p.74) puts it, they nevertheless restrict data
collection to interactions among nonmother tongue speakers. And if
the point is reached when ELF forms can be codified, they believe that as
far as ELF interactions are concerned, any participating mother tongue
speakers will have to follow the agenda set by ELF speakers, rather than
vice versa, as has been the case up to now. This is a very long way from
Crystals proposed WS(S)E, whose main influence will (he believes) be
American English.
Secondly, it is not the case that ELF research, like WS(S)E, is
proposing the concept of a monolithic English for the entire world.
Although ELF researchers seek to identify frequently and systematically
used forms that differ from inner circle forms without causing communication problems and override first language groupings, their purpose is
not to describe and codify a single ELF variety. The existence of ELF is
not intended to imply that learners should aim for an English that is
identical in all respects. ELF researchers do not believe any such
monolithic variety of English does or ever will exist. Rather, they believe
that anyone participating in international communication needs to be
familiar with, and have in their linguistic repertoire for use, as and when
appropriate, certain forms (phonological, lexicogrammatical, etc.) that
are widely used and widely intelligible across groups of English speakers
from different first language backgrounds. This is why accommodation is
so highly valued in ELF research. At the same time, ELF does not at all
discourage speakers from learning and using their local variety in local
communicative contexts, regardless of whether this is an inner, outer, or
expanding circle English.
The tensions nevertheless remain, and some scholars of outer circle
Englishes continue to contest the legitimacy of ELF, much as the
legitimacy of outer circle Englishes was contested in the past (see
Seidlhofer, in press-a, for possible reasons). Such scholars continue to
describe the expanding circle Englishes indiscriminately as EFL varieties,
in other words, English learned as a foreign language for use in
communication with native speakers. For example, Bolton (2004), in his
survey of the worlds Englishes, outlines Kachrus three circle model,
which characterises expanding circle varieties as norm-dependent (p.
376, i.e., dependent on British or American norms), without further
comment and does not mention ELF (or EIL) at all. Thus, he ignores the
fact that the three circle model is not designed to deal with the
161
characteristic functioning of the language in the Expanding Circle, as a

lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2002, p. 202). One frequent and misplaced
criticism of ELF made by WEs scholars is that it supposedly ignores the
pluricentric nature of English. For example, in the call for papers for
their edited collection (Rubdi & Saraceni, in press), the editors claimed
that
an alternative viewpoint to EIL is one which acknowledges the polymorphous
nature of the English language worldwide, identifying different varieties
under a World Englishes paradigm, [whose emphasis] is not on prescribing
either a reduced or extended form of standard English, but on questioning
the very concept of standard, and on advocating a pluricentric model rather
than a monolithic one.6
Kachru (1996a, 2005) in fact argues against the entire notion of ELF on
the basis that the term is not being used in its original sense, and that it
is loaded (2005, p. 224), although he does not explain how.
Despite the controversy surrounding ELF research, the phenomenon
seems slowly to be gaining recognition in East Asia, Europe, and to a
lesser extent, Latin America. (Later in this article, I discuss controversies
emanating from inner and expanding circle sources.) It is also beginning to gain the approval of sociolinguists in the way that the outer circle
Englishes have already done. Whether in another 15 years, it will have
made progress comparable to that made by the indigenized Englishes
over the past 15, and whether either ELF or WEs will have made greater
inroads into TESOL practice, remains to be seen.
OVERVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

IN WES AND ELF RESEARCH
Regardless of the relatively limited uptake of WEs and ELF research
findings by TESOL practitioners and even fewer mainstream second
language acquisition (SLA) researchers, productivity with potential
relevance for SLA has been growing apace. As Y. Kachru7 (2005) points
out, researchers . . . are interested in all aspects of the emergence,
grammars, sociolinguistics, ideological issues, creative literatures, and
teaching and learning (p. 157). WEs has been concerned with these
issues for around three decades. However, during the period in question,
research activity has increased substantially. Y. Kachru (2005, pp. 157
159) neatly categorises WEs research interests as follows: the historical
6
7
162
Seidlhofer (in press-a) is responding directly to this accusation against ELF/EIL.

Unless Y. Kachru is specified, references to Kachru are to B. B. Kachru.
TESOL QUARTERLY
background to the spread of English; the linguistic processes responsible

for features among varieties; the sociocultural contexts of English use;
intelligibility both across varieties and within indigenized varieties in
their local settings, together with the role of code-mixing and codeswitching; the impact of English on local languages, or Englishization and,
conversely, the impact of local languages on English, or nativization;
bilingualism and multilingualism; literary creativity in institutionalised
settings; the functional allocation of varieties within English-using communities; the communicative needs of users which underlie observed
linguistic differences; and, most relevant to the context of this article, the
teaching and learning of English in the outer and expanding circles. In
each of these categories, there is a growing body of publications, some of
which will be singled out in the following discussion.
Starting with corpus-based research, most corpora to be collected
have tended to focus on British and American Englishes. However, this
15-year period is noteworthy for the small but growing availability of
corpora that include outer circle Englishes, with expanding circle
corpora in the pipeline. For example, the International Corpus of
English (ICE) project draws on 18 countries from both inner and outer
circles (cf. Greenbaum & Nelson, 1996). One of the few corpus projects
drawing exclusively on the expanding circle, Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), will be discussed at greater length
later.
This period has also seen an increase in dictionaries and grammars of
different Englishes such as The Macquarie Dictionary (1997), which
includes words from a range of Southeast Asian Englishes. Other such
descriptions are included in the large number of book-length treatments
of WEs that add to the existing body of scholarly books in the field, such
as Kachrus earlier volumes (e.g., 1982, 1986), and Platt, Weber, and Ho
(1984). Like these older works, many of the recent books deal with
Englishes in the Asian context. For example, the Hong Kong University
Press has published a series including Pennington (1998) and Bolton
(2002) on Hong Kong English; Adamson (2004) on China English;
Stanlaw (2004) on Japanese English; and Kachru (2005) on the Asianness
in Asian Englishes (p. xv).8 In the same period, Kachrus groundbreaking
1982 volume was republished in a revised and updated edition (1992).
Other important books on Asian Englishes published in this period
include Pakirs (1992) collection of studies of Singapore English lexis,
Brown, Deterding, and Ee Ling (2000), and Deterding, Brown, and Ee
Ling (2005), both on the pronunciation of Singapore English, and
Bolton (2003) on China English. Meanwhile, a number of edited
8
Although not a book-length treatment, Shim (1999) represents an important early stage in
the description and codification of South Korean English.
163
collections (e.g., Ho & Ward, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2002) cover a range of

Asian Englishes along with implications for their teaching and learning.
European Englishes have lagged some way behind their Asian counterparts in terms of research. This lag has been caused at least in part, it
seems, by an assumption that European Englishes (along with the other
so-called foreign Englishes) are not legitimate varieties because they did
not arise through colonisation and have not undergone a process of
institutionalisation.9 Regardless of their perspective on the legitimacy
question, some researchers have recently been attempting to redress the
balance. As a result, the teaching, learning, and use of English in Europe
has been brought onto centre stage in a number of edited collections,
such as Cenoz and Jessner (2000), Gnutzmann (1999), Gnutzmann and
Intemann (2005), Lesznyk (2004), and Meierkord (1996). There are as
yet no entire books covering English in Latin America. However, an issue
of the journal World Englishes has been devoted to this neglected subject
(Berns & Friedrich, 2003). Meanwhile Phillipson (2003) takes a more
critical look at the current role of English in Europe and its potential to
threaten the vitality of the smaller European languages.
Speakers of European Englishes are typically also speakers of ELF, to
the extent that they learn and use English more for interlinguacultural
communication than to communicate with speakers who share the their
first linguaculture (or, for that matter, with native English speakers). The
same is true of many English speakers in other regions of the world, such
as parts of East Asia (e.g., China, Japan, Korea, and Thailand) and
throughout Latin America. Despite the fact that those who use English
primarily as a lingua franca are thought to constitute the worlds largest
group of English speakers, research into ELF only began around 1990.
As a result, ELF has so far been the exclusive focus of very few dedicated
books (e.g., Jenkins, 2000, on pronunciation issues, and McKay, 2002, on
pedagogical matters). However, two more books are in the pipeline
( Jenkins, in press; Seidlhofer, in press b), and numerous articles have
been written on the subject during the past decade. These include
Lowenberg (2002), whose research focus had hitherto been the outer
circle, but who demonstrates that the linguistic processes involved in ELF
are, in essence, no different from those involved in language change in
the inner and outer circles.
Since 1991, there has also been a dramatic increase in broader-based
9
The problem seems to afflict European and Latin American Englishes to a greater extent
than noninstitutionalised Asian Englishes such as China English and Japanese English. The
Asian Englishes technically fall into the same (noninstitutionalised) category as European and
Latin American Englishes, yet this has not prevented book-length publications featuring them.
On the other hand, the fact that they are the subjects of books does not necessarily mean that
they are accepted as legitimate varieties of English.
164
TESOL QUARTERLY
publications dealing with the spread of English. Cheshire (1991), for

example, presents a number of empirical studies of nativised and mother
tongue Englishes. Trudgill and Hannah (2002) in their fourth, and most
comprehensive, edition describe the features of a similar range of
Englishes mainly, but not entirely, on the basis of their own observations.
McArthur (2002) includes discussions of ELF and noninstitutionalised
varieties such as Euro-English in his wide-ranging but less detailed (in
terms of features) guide. A number of volumes dealing with WEs in the
Kachruvian sense also cover a broad range of WEs (e.g., Smith &
Forman, 1997; Thumboo, 2001), while other broadly based volumes
focus on teaching-related issues (e.g., Candlin & Mercer, 2001; Kelly Hall
& Eggington, 2000). Some publications take a more historical perspective. These include two popularising accounts, McCrum, ONeill, and
Cran (2002, originally 1986) and Crystal (2003, originally 1997), both of
which have been criticised for their perceived triumphalism (see, e.g.,
Phillipsons 1999 critique of Crystal, 1997). More scholarly historical
approaches include Crystal (2004), McArthur (1998), and Watts and
Trudgill (2002). On the other hand, apart from a short historical
introduction, Graddol (1997), looking forward rather than back, is
currently working on a new publication that will revisit his 1997 book and
suggest new ways of understanding the future role of English.
Others researching WEs during the past 15 years have adopted a more
critical stance toward the spread of English. The genre could be said to
date back to the publication of Bailey (1991), although as Bolton (2004)
points out, the discourse on world English(es) changed gear dramatically in 1992 with the publication of Phillipsons book Linguistic Imperialism (p. 384). Pennycook (1994) had a similar impact, and these two
authors together have been influential in establishing the agenda for
the critical discussion of world English(es) (Bolton, p. 385), one which
has recently begun to filter through to (some members of) the TESOL
profession even in English mother-tongue countries. Other important
publications in this vein have followed, including Parakrama (1995),
Pennycook (1998), Canagarajah (1999), Holborow (1999), De Swaan
(2001), Kubota (2002), Tollefson (2002), and Mair (2004). The critical
linguists can be divided into anti-imperialists such as Phillipson, who
would prefer English(es) not to be the most widely used world language,
and those such as Canagarajah and Parakrama, whose concern, like
Kachrus, is more with resisting the hegemony of native speaker standards and appropriating English for their own local use. Taking a very
different approach, though one which shares some common ground
with that of the latter group of critical linguists, is Brutt-Griffler (2002),
who presents the spread of WEs as resulting from the agency of its non
mother tongue speakers rather than from their passivity and exploitation. This is a position that she shares with ELF researchers.
165
Demonstrating the view that WEs and ELF can no longer be considered optional extras, some editors are starting to include them as
independent entries in their handbooks of applied linguistics, second
language acquisition, and language teaching and learning. See, e.g., the
entries by Bolton (2004), Gnutzmann (2004), Y. Kachru (2005), and the
review article by McArthur (2001). The same perspective underpins the
appearance of books on WEs and ELF designed for study in English
linguistics and teacher training programmes at university level (e.g.,
Jenkins, 2003; Kirkpatrick, in press; Melchers & Shaw, 2003). During the
past 15 years, too, three dedicated journals, World Englishes, English WorldWide, and English Today, have been supplemented by others such as Asian
Englishes (published in Tokyo). Overall, then, it is evident that the WEs
seeds sown by the Kachrus and others in the 1980s have blossomed and
flourished during the past 15 years, and that ELF, too, has more recently
become a vibrant area of study. The implications of this vast WEs and
ELF activity for TESOL practice and SLA research are profound.
SOME KEY RESEARCH

PROJECTS AND CONTROVERSIES
As I pointed out in the previous section, WEs and ELF research during
the past decade and a half has been prolific. This large body of work
means that I will be able to single out only a very small proportion for
more detailed discussion. Even selecting from those that have the most
direct relevance to TESOL is no easy matter and (like all such selections)
is bound in any case to be partial in reflecting my own personal
preferences. Having said that, I believe that certain projects stand out in
their significance for the teaching of English. In the case of WEs, these
projects relate to challenges to interlanguage theory and to work
exposing and resisting linguistic imperialism. In the case of ELF, the
projects concern empirical descriptions of this emergent phenomenon
currently being carried out in East Asia and Europe.10 However, the
division into WES and ELF relates more to the geographic orientation of
the researchers than to the object of the research itself because the two
areas overlap considerably and are mutually relevant. As almost always
occurs when old paradigms are challenged and/or new approaches
suggested, all these projects are proving controversial.
Starting with research of those working in the field of WEs, the first
10
This is not to minimise the importance of other work, particularly the linguistic and
sociolinguistic profiles of Englishes in both outer and expanding circles that have, hitherto,
been relatively unexplored. These include Boltons (2002) and Josephs (2004) work on Hong
Kong English, Boltons (2003) on China English, and Stanlaws (2004) on Japanese English.
166
TESOL QUARTERLY
project to be considered is not strictly speaking research so much as

scholarly debate. I refer here to the challenge which has been taking
place since the early 1990s to the concept of interlanguage (IL), a
challenge which I believe has as much relevance for ELF and expanding
circle varieties of English as it does for the Englishes of the outer circle.
According to IL theory (e.g., Selinker, 1972, 1992), a second language
speakers competence lies on an interlanguage continuum at some point
between their first language (L1) and their second language (L2), in this
case, English. Any differences between their output and standard British
or American English are to be regarded as errors caused mainly by L1
interference (or, less pejoratively, transfer), while the point at which these
so-called errors become fixed within the individual learners repertoire is
attributed to a phenomenon known as fossilization. Apparently not
influenced by the findings of WEs scholars in the intervening period,
Selinker reproduced his IL theory in expanded form in 1992. It seems to
have been this recycling of the theory, and particularly his applying of
fossilization to WEs contexts, that stimulated the renewed and strengthened challenge to the theory by a group of WEs scholars (e.g., Kachru,
1996b; Y. Kachru, 1993, 1994; Kachru & Nelson, 1996; S. N. Sridhar,
1994; Sridhar & Sridhar, 1994).
The main arguments presented against IL theory are that outer circle
English speakers are not attempting to identify with inner circle speakers
or to produce the norms of an exonormative variety of English grounded
in an inner circle experience. Such norms, they contend, are irrelevant
to the sociolinguistic reality in which members of the outer circle use
English, and attempts to label the English of whole speech communities
as deficient and fossilized are thus unjustifiable because these labels
ignore the local Englishes sociohistorical development and sociocultural
context. In a nutshell, they are the result of a monolingual bias that is
unable to comprehend the bilingual experience. Brutt-Griffler (2002)
has recently added to the debate by arguing that a major problem with
traditional SLA is its focus on individual acquisition and IL error, rather
than acquisition by entire speech communities and new varieties. This
critique is as relevant to ELF and the emerging Englishes of the
expanding circle as it has always been for the outer circle varieties.
Other important challenges to the mainstream SLA perspective share
common ground with the critique of interlanguage theory. For example,
a number of scholars have recently investigated the role of identity in
language learning: Norton (1997, 2000) and Block (2003) bring issues of
power, ownership, and identity into the equation; Norton Pierce (1995;
Norton, 2000) considers identity and investment in language learning;
Kramsch and Lam (1999) examine issues of identity and voice; and Lin,
Wang, Nobuhiko, and Mehdi (2002) investigate developing hybrid
English speaker identities. Further challenges to SLA have come from
167
the sociocultural theorists such as Lantolf (2000), who consider such

issues as the transformative agency of L2 learners; from Cook (1999,
2002b) and Firth and Wagner (1997), who critique the native speaker
goal of traditional SLA and TESOL; from Drnyei and Csizr (2002),
who question the widely accepted meaning of integrativeness in the light
of WEs; and from Mufwene (2001), who considers the roles of language
contact and accommodation in a much more profound and insightful
way than SLA researchers have ever done.
Despite the accumulating evidence against IL theory, the literature on
teaching English still regularly contains advice for teachers in both outer
and expanding circles on how to reduce IL errors and how to reverse
fossilization, while the testing of English remains wholly predicated on
the concept. There is still little if any awareness among TESOL practitioners and SLA researchers11 that learners may be producing forms
characteristic of their own variety of English, which reflect the
sociolinguistic reality of their English use, whatever their circle, far better
than either British or American norms are able to.
A second WEs project, this time empirical, concerns the controversial
phenomenon known as linguistic imperialism. As mentioned earlier,
Phillipsons (1992) book, Linguistic Imperialism (based on the analysis of
documents and interviews with linguistic scholars) had a major impact
both on subsequent WEs research and, at least in theory, on the TESOL
profession. In fact the phrase linguistic imperialism is now almost a
household word among teachers and applied linguists, regardless of
their orientation to it. Taking up the theme of linguistic imperialism, and
drawing on his ethnographic research, Canagarajah (1999) demonstratedthis time from an insider perspectivehow linguistic imperialism can be challenged and resisted in practice and the language
appropriated for local use. He carried out his research in an outer circle
context (the Sri Lankan Tamil community), but as he points out, it is also
relevant to a number of expanding circle countries, such as South Korea
and Vietnam, who have come under the neo-imperialist thrusts of
English-speaking center communities (p. 4). Indeed, as the use of
English continues to expand globally, and its influence on nonmother
tongue communities of either circle grows, Canagarajahs example of
practical ways of appropriating English during the learning and teaching
process could become increasingly relevant to the lives of English users
of either circle.
11
A very small number of SLA publications are, nevertheless, beginning to mention the
need to consider sociolinguistic influences. Mitchell and Myles (2004), for example, include a
final chapter on sociolinguistic perspectives. Even here, however, their purpose is to explore the
sociolinguistic factors involved in learners achievement (or not) of the assumed target, that is,
native-like English, rather than to consider other targets altogether.
168
TESOL QUARTERLY
However, the linguistic-imperialist view of the spread of English has

not gone uncontested. Whereas Canagarajah and others take linguistic
imperialism as a given and consider how to resist it, still others such as
Bisong (1995), Brutt-Griffler (2002), and House (in press) do not
believe it has (or had) a major role in the spread of English in the first
place. Canagarajahs book has nevertheless received wide acclaim, perhaps in part because it is grounded in firsthand experience and because
of its pro-active approach to the linguistic imperialism it identifies. On
the other hand, although it has run to several reprints, Phillipsons book
has received approbation and criticism in roughly equal measure, the
latter perhaps provoked by its rhetorical style (see Berns, Barrett, Chan,
Chikuma, Friedrich, Hadjidimos, et al., 1998).
Despite the widespread distribution of the research into linguistic
imperialism, it has not so far led to noticeable changes in English
teaching and teacher education policy. The best that can be said to date
is that it has raised many teachers and teacher educators awareness of
the extent to which the spread of English works in native speakers
interests and sometimes marginalises nonnative speakers. And on a small
scale, it does seem that efforts are being made to reduce the nativespeakerist element in some teaching materials (e.g., by the inclusion of
more nonmother tongue speakers).
The final research projects relate to ELF. As mentioned earlier, a
number of studies into ELF in different regions and in relation to
different linguistic levels have been carried out. These studies include
Deterding and Kirkpatrick (2005), on the pronunciation of East Asian
ELF; House (1999), on the pragmatics of ELF; Jenkins (2000), on ELF
phonology; James (2000), on ELF in the Alpine-Adriatic region;
Kirkpatrick (2004), on East Asian ELF; and Mauranen (2003), on spoken
academic ELF. Probably the largest, most advanced, and best known ELF
research project to date is Seidlhofers corpus, VOICE. Seidlhofer, in a
groundbreaking paper (2001), pointed out the conceptual gap in
relation to uses of English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle and
argued forcefully for descriptions of ELF and, possibly, its eventual
codification. VOICE is her means of putting this into practice.
Although the corpus aims to provide a basis for research into any
aspect of ELF, Seidlhofer (2004) herself has focused so far on ELF
lexicogrammar, presumably because of its importance to language
pedagogy. Her objective is to find out which items are used systematically
and frequently, but differently from native speaker use and without
causing communication problems, by expert speakers of English from a
wide range of L1s. The research so far has, she says,
brought to light certain regularities that at least point to some hypotheses. . . .
In particular, typical errors that most English teachers would consider in
169
urgent need of correction and remediation, and that consequently often get
allotted a great deal of time and effort in English lessons, appear to be
generally unproblematic and no obstacle to communicative success. (p. 220)
The following are some of the potential salient features of ELF

lexicogrammar that Seidlhofer (2004, p. 220) has identified in VOICE:
non-use of the third person present tenses (She look very sad)
interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (a book
who, a person which)
omission of the definite and indefinite articles where they are
obligatory in native speaker English and insertion where they do not
occur in native speaker English
use of an all-purpose question tag such as isnt it? or no? instead of
shouldnt they? (They should arrive soon, isnt it?)
increasing of redundancy by adding prepositions (We have to study
about . . . and can we discuss about . . . ?), or by increasing
explicitness (black colour vs. black and How long time? vs,
How long?)
heavy reliance on certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as
do, have, make, put, take
pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in native
speaker English (informations, staffs, advices)
use of that-clauses instead of infinitive constructions (I want that we
discuss about my dissertation)
On the other hand, one of the main causes of communication
breakdown that Seidlhofers research has identified, is unilateral idiomaticity
(Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 220). This occurs when one speaker uses a native
speaker idiomatic expression such as an idiom, phrasal verb, or metaphor, that the interlocutor does not know.
Obviously the implications of ELF research for TESOL are far
reaching. At the time of writing, however, ELF is proving highly controversial, among those who share Quirks deficit linguistics frame of mind12
as well as among those WEs scholars who mistake ELF for a version of
World Standard English. So although ELF reflects the sociolinguistic
reality of the largest group of English users, that is, the majority of those
in the expanding circle, it may prove difficult to put it into practice.
12
Many of the aspects of ELF that are found controversial, however, are based on
misconceptions of the nature of ELF (see Seidlhofer, in press a; in press b).
170
TESOL QUARTERLY
IMPLICATIONS FOR TESOL

From what has been said so far, it will be evident that the research into
WEs and ELF has immense implications for TESOL practice in all three
circles and above all in terms of the kind of language we teach. The
debate between the monocentrists and pluricentrists, or what Bolton (2004)
calls the centrifugal and centripetal view of English (p. 368), over the
(in)appropriateness of native-speaker standard English began before the
period in question, but it accelerated with the English Today debate and
Kachrus (1992) call for a paradigm shift (p. 362; repeated in Kachru,
1996b; see also Kachru & Nelson, 1996). The discussion then moved on
apace with Widdowsons (1994) widely quoted commentary on the
ownership of English, which brought the issues home even more starkly to
native-speaking teachers in the United States and United Kingdom.
One of the most recent critiques of the weaknesses in the monocentrist
centrifugal perspective on English is that of Seidlhofer (2005), in which
she revisits Quirks (1985, 1990) position on standard English and
demonstrates how prevalent it still is today. She points out in particular
that standard English is extremely difficult to define,13 and that there is
therefore considerable confusion and disagreement about what standard
English actually is. She goes on to argue that in terms of numbers of
speakers and domains of use, an insistence on StE [standard English] as
the only option for all purposes is . . . difficult to justify (p. 159), a
perspective which she characterises as Anglo-Saxon attitudes (p. 167).
Seidlhofer makes a strong case for the rights of expanding as well as
outer circle speakers to develop their own norms rather than continuing
to defer to those of the so-called educated native speaker. An important
development in this respect is recent work demonstrating how teachers
and students accommodate other varieties of English into their multilingual classrooms (see, e.g., Heller, 1999; Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001).
Despite the strength of the counter arguments, the belief in native
speaker ownership persists among both native and nonnative speakers
teachers, teacher educators and linguists alike, although it is often
expressed with more subtlety than it was in the past. Even the sociolinguist
Trudgill (in press), an unlikely supporter of either native speaker
ownership or exonormative standards, contends that even if native
speakers do not own English, there is an important sense in which it
stems from them, especially historically, and resides in them (italics
added). If a sociolinguist can retain the attachment to the native speaker
standard implied in Trudgills comment, then it is not surprising that a
13
In fact the closest I can find to a definition is that of Honey (1997), who argues that
standard English is the variety used by educated native speakers and that the way to identify an
educated native speaker is from their use of standard English: a circular argument indeed.
171
similar position is still held by the majority of English teachers, teacher

educators, and SLA researchers, not to mention the ELT examination
boards and publishing industry. It is telling that Widdowson (2003, 2004)
needed to return to the ownership and standard English issue 10 years
later in two important books on English language teaching.
Seidlhofer (2005) argues that much of the problem results from a
mismatch between the meta level, where WEs and ELF scholars are
asserting the need for pluricentrism, and grassroots practice, where
there is still (unquestioning) submission to native-speaker norms (p.
170). However, the situation seems to me to be even more serious,
especially for ELF because many academics (e.g. SLA researchers,
applied linguists and the like) are conducting a counter discourse at the
meta level. The indications are that much more progress, particularly in
empirical and descriptive work, will have to be made before the
implications of WES and ELF research are widely acknowledged even in
theory, but especially at the practical level, in terms of the relevance of
varieties other than standard American or British English.
Another critical debate of this period that remains stuck at the meta
level concerns the relative merits of native and nonnative teachers of
English, itself a product of the various discourses on the concept of the
native speaker. See, for example, Leung, Harris, and Rampton (1997) and
Rampton, (1990, 1995), who argue against the native-nonnative distinction as contrasted with, for example, Davies (2002) and Mukherjee
(2005), who are broadly in favour of the distinction.
With standard American or British English being the only varieties
considered worth learning in many parts of the world, then equally,
those considered best-placed to teach English in those places are its
native speakers. It is this perspective which informs the so-called English
villages recently established in Japan and Korea, where learners are
immersed in native speaker English for weeks at a time. It also underlies
schemes to bring native speaker teachers to parts of East Asia, for
example, the NET scheme (Hong Kong), the JET scheme ( Japan), and
similar schemes being devised for Korea and Thailand. Such teachers
may have little or no training other than a short preservice course, and
few have experience of teacher education. As a result, their knowledge of
the language and their teaching skills can compare badly with those
gained in lengthy university degrees by nonnative teachers. But again,
much of the discussion takes place at the meta level (see, e.g., Braine,
1999; Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001; Cook, 2002a; Seidlhofer, 1999),
while employers continue to argue that they are obliged to provide the
(native speaker) teachers that learners (and in many cases, their parents)
prefer.
Some progress has nevertheless been made since 1991, such as the
establishing of the Nonnative English Speakers in TESOL Caucus. At the
172
TESOL QUARTERLY
same time, there has been more research into the concerns of nonnative
teachers. See, for example, Kamhi-Steins (1999) discussion of ways in
which nonnative teacher educators can become agents of curriculum
change (p. 157), and Nemtchinovas (2005) survey of the largely
positive evaluation by learners and host teachers of the strengths of
nonnative teachers. The extent to which such initiatives manage to alter
attitudes of nonnative and native speakers alike toward nonnative
teachers and their varieties of English nevertheless remains to be seen.
Finally, the principal methodology of Western-led TESOL for the past
30 years, so-called communicative language teaching, with its heavy bias
toward Western communicative styles and mores, has received its most
serious challenge to date from Leung (2005; see also Luk, 2005). Again,
it remains to be seen whether this challenge will translate into what
Holliday (1994) describes as appropriate methodology for learners in
different (and very often, non-Western) contexts of language learning
and use.
EMERGING CONSENSUS AND

REMAINING ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
Despite the somewhat pessimistic impression I may have given, the
past 15 years has undoubtedly seen some progress in terms of an
emerging consensus both among WEs and ELF researchers, and (to a
more limited extent) in responses from teachers, applied linguists, SLA
scholars, and others to their research. In particular, there is a growing
consensus among researchers on the importance of language awareness
for teachers and teacher trainers and educators in all three circles (see,
e.g., Bolton, 2004; Canagarajah, 2005b; Seidlhofer, 2004). Teachers and
their learners, it is widely agreed, need to learn not (a variety of) English,
but about Englishes, their similarities and differences, issues involved in
intelligibility, the strong link between language and identity, and so on.
Awareness raising fits well with another area of broad agreement
among WEs and ELF researchers: the need for a pluricentric rather than
monocentric approach to the teaching and use of English. This approach, it is believed, would enable each learners and speakers English
to reflect his or her own sociolinguistic reality, rather than that of a
usually distant native speaker.14 To this end, it is gratifying to observe that
the study of the subject World Englishes is growing around the world, on
14
The same applies to L2 speakers of English who happen to be living in inner circle
environments. The critical question to ask is, with whom do L2 speakers of English (want to)
interact? This is a crucial question for TESOL in countries such as the United States and the
United Kingdom, but one that is rarely asked.
173
both undergraduate and masters university programmes (less so on

teacher training programmes), although the paradigm shift has not yet
started to filter though into language teaching itself, where much more
needs to be done to raise learners awareness of the diversity of English.
For less proficient learners this awareness raising could involve exposure
to a range of WEs and ELF varieties, while for more proficient learners,
it could include discussion of the reasons for the spread of English, the
development of diverse standards, the relationship between language
and identity, and the like. This exposure is likely to encourage learners
confidence in their own English varieties, and in turn reduce the
linguistic capital that many learners still believe native-like English to
possess. However, as Holliday (2005) demonstrates, such a shift in
attitudes and practices will not be implemented without a struggle.
Awareness raising and pluricentricity both link to another area of
growing consensus among researchers: the importance of accommodation skills. Instead of speaking a monolithic variety of English, it is
considered more important for speakers of WEs and ELF to be able to
adjust their speech in order to be intelligible to interlocutors from a wide
range of L1 backgrounds, most of whom are not inner circle native
speakers. See, for example, Jenkinss (2000) empirical demonstration of
the role of accommodation in intercultural communication. Again, this
consensus remains largely in the realm of theory and is yet to be
considered seriously by the majority of practitioners.
Many issues and questions nevertheless remain for the future, but I
have space to mention only a few. One of the most pressing problems will
be to find a way of incorporating a WES-ELF perspective into testing
(Canagarajah, 2005a). Solving this problem will involve devising the
means to distinguish between learner error and local variety, thus
enabling testers to recognise systematic forms from outer and expanding
circle Englishes as correct where they happen to differ from inner circle
forms. It will also involve finding ways of identifying accommodation, so
that candidates are able to adjust their English for the purposes of
showing solidarity with, or promoting intelligibility for, an interlocutor,
without the risk of being penalised because their resulting speech does
not defer to native speaker norms. Both pluricentrism and accommodation in the teaching and testing of English are logical developments of
WES and ELF research and far more relevant to the majority of learners
than the acquisition of native-like competence. For, as Canagarajah
(2005b) points out, new competencies [are] required for communication and literacy in todays world, so that a single dialect of English fails
to equip our students for real-world needs (p. xxv).15 But until the
15
Ironically, a number of publications for learners (e.g., dictionaries) that are based on
inner circle corpora still persist in describing their contents as real English. In fact, nothing
174
TESOL QUARTERLY
examination boards acknowledge the importance of these new competencies, teachers and curriculum planners will not do so either, for fear
of jeopardising their students examination prospects. In this respect,
the examination boards are unlikely to be spurred into action by much
of what is written on testing, which tends to fall back on acceptance of a
native-speaker standard, despite the authors expressions of sympathy
with a WEs perspective. Davies, Hamp-Lyons, and Kemp (2003) are a
case in point (and see Tickoos 2004 response).
Related to the testing issue is the need to abandon the native speaker
as the yardstick and to establish empirically some other means of
defining an expert (and less expert) speaker of English, regardless of
whether they happen to be a native or nonnative speaker. By the same
token, inner circle ELT and applied linguistics publishers will need to
find ways of promoting a more WES-ELF perspective in their teaching
materials and books for teachers (see Matsuda, 2003). In a similar vein,
editors of mainstream applied linguistics journals need to acknowledge
the lack of empirical evidence showing the relevance of native speaker
norms for international intelligibility and learn to recognise written
norms that do not conform to those of an inner circle variety (see
Ammon, 2000; Hu, 2004). In all these cases, further research into WES
and ELF will provide invaluable support to those who are being asked to
make such major shifts in perspective. Finally, to enable WES and ELF
research to progress optimally over the next 15 years, we need to find
ways of bringing WES and ELF scholars together in recognition of their
shared interests, whatever their circle or research focus.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Suresh Canagarajah and three anonymous reviewers for their
very helpful suggestions and perceptive comments on an earlier draft of this article.
THE AUTHOR
Jennifer Jenkins is a senior lecturer in applied linguistics at Kings College London,
England, where she teaches World Englishes, phonology and phonetics, and
sociolinguistics, and supervises doctoral research in World Englishes. She has been
researching English as a lingua franca for more than 15 years and is currently writing
her third book on the subject.
could be further from the truth as far as the majority of learners future communication needs
are concerned.
175
REFERENCES
Adamson, B. (2004). Chinas English. A history of English in Chinese education. Hong
Kong SAR, China: University of Hong Kong Press.
Ammon, U. (2000). Towards more fairness in international English: Linguistic rights
of non-native speakers. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language. Equity, power, and
education (pp. 111116). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bailey, R. W. (1991). Images of English. A cultural history of the language. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Berns, M., Barrett, J., Chan, C., Chikuma, Y., Friedrich, P., Hadjidimos, O.-M., et al.
(1998). (Re)experiencing hegemony: The linguistic imperialism of Robert
Phillipson. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 271282.
Berns, M., & Friedrich, P. (Eds.). (2003). Special issue on English in South America:
A different kind of difference [Special issue]. World Englishes, 22(2).
Bisong, J. (1995). Language choice and cultural imperialism: A Nigerian perspective.
ELT Journal, 49, 122132.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, Scotland:
University of Edinburgh Press.
Bolton, K. (Ed.). (2002). Hong Kong English. Autonomy and creativity. Hong Kong
SAR, China: University of Hong Kong Press.
Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of
applied linguistics (pp. 369396). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A., Deterding, D., & Ee Ling, L. (Eds.). (2000). The English language in
Singapore. Research on pronunciation. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied
Linguistics.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, England:
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. (2001). Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World
Englishes, 20, 99106.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
Canagarajah, S. (2005a, July). Changing communicative needs, shifting pedagogical
priorities, revised assessment objectives. Paper presented at featured symposium on
The Assessment of World Englishes, 14th World Congress of Applied Linguistics,
Madison, WI.
Canagarajah, S. (2005b). Introduction. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in
language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Candlin, C. N., & Mercer, N. (2001). English language teaching in its social contexts: A
reader. London: Routledge.
Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language.
Cheshire, J. (Ed.) (1991). English around the world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, V. (2002a). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user
(pp. 327343). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2002b). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
176
TESOL QUARTERLY
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England:

Crystal, D. (2004). The stories of English. London: Penguin.
Davies, A. (2002). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Davies, A., Hamp-Lyons, L, & Kemp, C. (2003). Forum on norms and testing. World
Englishes, 22, 571584.
De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Deterding, D., Brown, A., & Ee Ling, L. (Eds.). (2005). English in Singapore: Phonetic
research on a corpus. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Deterding, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2005). The effects on intelligibility of pronunciation
features in an emerging ASEAN English lingua franca. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Drnyei, Z., & Csizr, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421462.
Douglas Brown, H. (1991). TESOL at twenty-five: What are the issues? TESOL
Erling, E. J. (2005). The many names of English. English Today, 81, 4044.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.
Gnutzmann, C. (Ed.). (1999). Teaching and learning English as a global language.
Tbingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.
Gnutzmann, C. (2004). English as a lingua franca. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 357359). London: Routledge.
Gnutzmann, C., & Intemann, F. (Eds.). (2005). The globalisation of English and the
English language classroom. Tbingen, Germany: Narr.
Grlach, M. (1990). Studies in the history of the English language. Heidelberg, Germany:
Carl Winter.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: British Council.
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (Eds.). (1996). Special issue on studies on the
International Corpus of English (ICE) [Special issue]. World Englishes, 15(1).
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity. A sociolinguistic ethnography.
London: Longman.
Heller, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2001). (Ed.). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic
difference. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Ho, W. K., & Ward, C. (Eds.). (2000). Language in the global context. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Holborow, M. (1999). The politics of English. London: Sage.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, England:
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford,
Honey, J. (1997). Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies.
London: Faber & Faber.
House, J. (1999).Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in
English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann
(Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language (pp. 7389). Tbingen,
Germany: Stauffenburg.
House, J. (in press). Unity in diversity: English as a lingua franca for Europe. In
C. Leung & J. Jenkins (Eds.). Reconfiguring Europe: The contribution of applied
linguistics. London: Equinox.
177
Hu, X. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American and
other World Englishes. English Today, 78, 2633.
James, A. (2000). English as a European lingua franca: Current realities and existing
dichotomies. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a
third language (pp. 2238). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. New models, new
norms, new goals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (in press). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford, England:
Joseph, J. E. (2004). Case Study 1: The new quasi-nation of Hong Kong. In Language
and identity (pp. 132161). Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1982). The other tongue. English across cultures. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The
English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.),
English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 1130).
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1988). Teaching World Englishes. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 12, 1, 3, 4, 8.
Kachru, B. B. (1991). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today, 25,
313.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other
tongue. English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 355365). Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1996a). English as lingua franca. In H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, Z. Stary, &
W. Wlck (Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Volume 1 (pp. 906913). Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Kachru, B. B. (1996b). The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes, 15, 241255.
Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong SAR, China:
University of Hong Kong Press.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71102). Cambridge,
Kachru, Y. (1993). Interlanguage and language acquisition research. [Review of the
book Rediscovering interlanguage]. World Englishes 12, 265268.
Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795800.
Kachru, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 155173).
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1999). Preparing non-native professionals in TESOL: Implications for teacher education programs. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in
English language teaching (pp. 145158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kandiah, T. (1998). The emergence of new Englishes. In J. A. Foley, T. Kandiah,
A. Fraser Gupta, L. Alsagoff, H. C. Lick, L. Wee et al. (Eds.), English in new cultural
contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 73105). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kelly Hall, J., & Eggington, W. G. (2000). The sociopolitics of English language teaching.
Kirkpatrick, A. (Ed.). (2002). Englishes in Asia: Communication, identity, power and
education. Melbourne: Language Australia.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2004). English as an ASEAN lingua franca: Implications for research
and language teaching. Asian Englishes, 6, 8291.
178
TESOL QUARTERLY
Kirkpatrick, A. (in press). World Englishes: Implications for international communication

and English language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Lam, W. S. E. (1999). Textual identities: The importance of being
non-native. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp.
Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In
D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 1328).
London: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford,
Lesznyk, A. (2004). Communication in English as an international lingua franca: An
exploratory case study. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand.
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealized native speaker, reified
ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543560.
Levis, J. (Ed.). (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation
teaching [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3).
Lin, A., Wang, W., Nobuhiko, A., & Mehdi, R. (2002). Appropriating English,
expanding identities, and re-visioning the field: From TESOL to teaching English
for glocalized communication (TEGCOM). Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 1, 295316.
Lowenberg, P. (2002). Assessing English in proficiency in the expanding circle. World
Englishes 21, 431435.
Luk, J. (2005). Voicing the self through an other language: Exploring communicative language teaching for global communication. In Canagarajah, S. (Ed.),
Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 247267). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mair, C. (Ed.). (2003). The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in
postcolonial cultural studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
The Macquarie dictionary. (1981). Sydney, Australia: The Macquarie Library.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an
international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 719729.
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings.
McArthur, A. (1987). The English language. English Today 11, 913.
McArthur, A. (1998). The English languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McArthur, A. (2001). World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties,
and standards. Language Teaching, 34, 120.
McArthur, A. (2002). The Oxford guide to English. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
McArthur, A. (2004). Is it world or international or global English, and does it matter?
English Today, 79, 315.
McCrum, R., ONeill, R., & Cran, W. (2002). The story of English (3rd ed.). London:
Faber.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
approaches. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Meierkord, C. (1996). Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker Diskurs. [English as a medium of
intercultural communication: Investigations into nonnative-/nonnative speaker discourse.]
Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes. London: Arnold.
179
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London:
Arnold.
Modiano, M. (1999a). International English in the global village. English Today, 58,
2234.
Modiano, M. (1999b). Standard English(es) and educational practices for the
worlds lingua franca. English Today, 60, 313.
Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mukherjee, J. (2005). The native speaker is alive and kickinglinguistic and
pedagogical perspectives. Anglistik, 16, 723.
Nemtchinova, E. (2005). Host teachers evaluations of nonnative-English-speaking
teacher traineesa perspective from the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 235
261.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. London: Longman.
Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 931.
Pakir, A. (Ed.). (1992). Words in a cultural context. Singapore: UniPress.
Parakrama, A. (1995). De-hegemonizing language standards. Learning from (post)colonial
Englishes about English. Houndmills, England: Macmillan.
Pennington, M. C. (Ed.). (1998). Language in Hong Kong at centurys end. Hong Kong
SAR, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Phillipson, R. (1999). Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal loud and
clear. Applied Linguistics, 20, 265276.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London:
Routledge.
Platt, J. Weber, H., & Ho, M. L. (1984). The new Englishes. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Quirk, R. (1985). The English language in a global context. In R. Quirk & H. G.
Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and
literatures (pp. 16). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 21, 310.
Quirk, R. (1995). Grammatical and lexical variance in English. London: Longman.
Rampton, B. (1990). Displacing the native speaker: Expertise, affiliation, and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44, 97101.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London:
Longman.
Rubdi, R., & Saraceni, M. (in press). English in the world: Global rules, global roles.
London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle.
World Englishes, 18, 233245.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English
as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133158.
Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Habeas corpus and divide et impera: Global English and
applied linguistics. In K. Spelman Miller & P. Thompson (Eds.), Unity and diversity
in language use (pp. 198217). London: Continuum.
180
TESOL QUARTERLY
Seidlhofer, B. (Ed.). (2003). Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford, England:

Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Standard future or half-baked quackery? In C. Gnutzmann &
F. Intemann (Eds.), The globalisation of English and the English language classroom
(pp. 159173). Tbingen, Germany: Narr.
Seidlhofer, B. (in press-a). English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it
isnt. In R. Rubdi & Saraceni, M. (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles.
London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, B. (in press-b). Explaining English as a lingua franca. Oxford, England:
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209
231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Shim, R. J. (1999). Codified Korean English: Process, characteristics and consequence. World Englishes, 18, 247258.
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal, 7,
3843.
Smith, L. E. (1983). (Ed.). Readings in English as an international language. Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Smith, L. E., & Forman, M. L. (1997). World Englishes 2000. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii & the East-West Center.
Sridhar, S. N. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 800805.
Sridhar, S. N., & Sridhar, K. K. (1994). Indigenized Englishes as second languages:
Towards a functional theory of second language in multilingual contexts. In R. K.
Agnihotri & A. L. Khanna (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Sociocultural and
linguistic aspects of English in India (pp. 4163). London: Sage.
Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong SAR,
China: Hong Kong University Press.
Thumboo, E. (Ed.). (2001). The three circles of English: Language specialists talk about the
English language. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Tickoo, A. (2004). What do we mean by bias, Englishes, Englishes in testing, and
English language proficiency? Comment 2. World Englishes, 23, 321322.
Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toolan, M. (1997). Recentring English: The chosen tongue. English Today, 52, 310.
Tripathi, P. (1998). English: The chosen tongue. English Today, 56, 5558.
Trudgill, P. (in press). Native-speaker segmental phonological models and the
English lingua franca core. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyn & J. Przedlacka (Eds.),
English pronunciation models: A changing scene. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (2002). International English (4th ed.). London: Arnold.
Watts, R., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (2002). Alternative histories of English. London:
Routledge.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377389.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford,
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A perspective on recent trends. In A. P. R. Howatt & H. G.
Widdowson, A history of English language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 353372). Oxford,
Yano, Y. (2001). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20, 119131.
181
Perspectives on Technology in
Learning and Teaching Languages
RICHARD KERN
University of California
Berkeley, California, United States
Rapid evolution of communication technologies has changed language

pedagogy and language use, enabling new forms of discourse, new
forms of authorship, and new ways to create and participate in
communities. The first section of this article identifies and discusses
four key issues arising from the recent technology-related literature
(the status of CALL, its theoretical grounding, its cultural embeddedness,
and its effectiveness). The second section synthesizes research findings
from three current areas of research: computer-mediated communication, electronic literacies, and telecollaboration. The third section
develops implications for teaching and research, highlighting the
importance of the teacher, new understandings of language and
communication, critical awareness of the relationships among technology, language, culture, and society, and new trends in research methods.
e live, work, learn, and play in a rapidly changing communication

landscape. Cell phones transmit text messages and photos as well
as voice, small digital cameras take sound videos as well as stills,
handheld personal digital assistants allow us to connect to the Internet
from any location served by a wireless network, webcams provide visual
contact between Internet interlocutors. Images, animation, color, and
visual design interact with language in Web-based communication.
E-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, Usenet groups, MOOs, blogs, and
wikis enable new forms of discourse; new forms of authorship; new forms
of identity construction; new ways to form, choose, and maintain
learning communities and affinity groups that cross national boundaries.
How do these changes affect the ways we learn, use, and teach languages?
This article explores some of the issues involved in addressing that
question, identifying what we have learned so far and what we have yet to
understand. Although space does not permit an exhaustive research
review (for recent reviews, see Chapelle, 2003; Kern, Ware, & Warschauer,
2004; Salaberry, 2001; Thorne & Payne, 2005; Warschauer & Kern, 2000;
183
Zhao, 2003), I focus on key issues arising from the recent technologyrelated literature (mostly from the past 5 years). The first section
outlines four controversies related to information and communication
technologies: the status of CALL, theoretical grounding for technologybased teaching and research, notions of effectiveness, and the cultural
neutrality of computer environments. The second section presents
research findings from three current areas of research: computermediated communication, electronic literacies, and telecollaboration. I
conclude by considering implications for teaching and future research.
First, however, a note on what I mean by technology. A truly comprehensive overview of technology and language learning would have to include
the technologies of writing, sound recording, film, and video. However,
because these technologies have become somewhat invisible or normalized (Bax, 2003, p. 23), I will restrict my discussion to digital technology.
In this article, that means principally computers, although the rapid
functional convergence of computers, televisions, telephones, and other
telecommunications devices leads to the first controversy: how to label
this area of research.
CONTROVERSIES
Should CALL Still Be Called CALL?
The following two definitionsthe first from 1997 and the second
from 2005indicate important changes in perspective:
Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) may be defined as the search for
and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning. (Levy, 1997, p. 1)
CALL means learners learning language in any context with, through, and
around computer technologies. (Egbert, 2005, p. 4)
Whereas the first definition prioritizes applications of the computer in

its information structure, the second definition not only prioritizes
learners learning language but also broadens the potential types of
relationships between computer technologies and language learning.
Given the high level of integration of digital technology in peoples
everyday lives in many (but not all) parts of the world, Warschauer
(1999a) has argued that the term computer-assisted language learning has
outgrown its usefulness as a construct for teaching and research. The
problem, Warschauer states, is that a CALL framework posits the
computer as an outside instrument rather than as part of the ecology of
184
TESOL QUARTERLY
language use (n.p.). While this may have been fine in the early days of
CALL when computers were used to perform structural drills, it is no
longer appropriate when online communication has become a normal
part of daily life. For Warschauer, the use of computers should not be
framed as a special case but rather as an integral aspect of language
learning and language use:
The truly powerful technologies are so integrated as to be invisible. We have
no BALL (book-assisted language learning), no PALL (pen-assisted language learning), and no LALL (library-assisted language learning). When
we have no CALL, computers will have taken their place as a natural and
powerful part of the language learning process. (Warschauer, 1999a, n.p.)
Bax (2003) agrees, but views normalisation (p. 23) as an end goal of
CALL rather than a current reality, given the still incomplete integration
of computer technology and education. For Bax, the success of CALL
integration will be marked by the disappearance of the term CALL.
Another dimension of the question has to do with differentiating
computers from other tools. It is revealing to note that in the introduction to CALL Research Perspectives (Egbert & Petrie, 2005), Egbert does
not explicitly mention computers in her CALL equation:
learners
language
context
one or more tools
tasks/activities
/ peers and teachers
CALL
(with their thoughts, behaviors, motivations,

experiences, and understandings)
(including its status and structure)
(physical and temporal environment and the
social, economic, cultural, and linguistic
influences)
(and the affordances the tool provides)
(content, structure, and organization)
(or others who can affect the process)
(Egbert, 2005, p. 5)
Egbert generalizes the computer to tool status. The epistemological

question for our profession, then, is whether computers can be broadly
treated as tools, and if so, whether we need to have a special category for
computer-assisted language learning.
A third dimension of the question has to do with the evolution of
technology itself. As suggested in the introduction, the rapid convergence of functionality across digital devices, and our growing reliance on
such devices for communication, means we may soon need to refer
broadly to information and communication technologies rather than
specifically to computers in our research.
PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
185
Which Theories?
Another controversy related to technology and language learning
research has to do with the appropriate theoretical grounding for the
field. Chapelle, in her groundbreaking (1997) article titled CALL in the
Year 2000: Still in Search of Research Paradigms?, argues that although
CALL research understandably draws on theories from diverse disciplines, general theories from fields like psychology, computational
linguistics, and educational technology will lack the specificity needed to
design and improve CALL pedagogy. What we need, she argues, is to
ground CALL in instructed SLA theories. Chapelle recommends the
interactionist approach to SLA (see Pica, 1994) as a particularly productive basis for generating hypotheses, and discourse analysis as a primary
research method to explore what she considers two essential questions:
What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL
activity? and How good is the language experience in CALL for L2
learning? (p. 22). Chapelle acknowledges that these are not the only
questions that one could ask about CALL, but she argues that real
progress in CALL depends on alignment with the questions and methods of instructed SLA researchers (p. 28).
Writing 8 years later, Chapelle (2005) cites a substantial body of CALL
research in the interactionist tradition and concludes that the use of
discourse and interactionist perspectives for the study of CALL has
helped to place CALL research on more solid grounding relative to
other areas of applied linguistics (p. 63).
Though this is certainly true, Egbert and Petrie (2005), the editors of
Chapelles (2005) chapter, argue for the current need to re-enlarge the
theoretical palette. Claiming that books currently used in CALL teacher
education courses generally address only one theoretical foundation
(e.g., interactionist) or one research methodology (e.g., discourse analysis) (p. ix), their goal is to present a variety of ways to think about and
conduct research on computers and language learning. Egbert (2005)
explains that multiple theoretical perspectives are particularly important
in times of rapid change (a) as social and cultural contexts of technology
use expand; (b) as technologies diversify, both in terms of devices and in
terms of modes of expression and interaction; and (c) as the goals,
content, and structure of CALL pedagogy evolve.
For example, one significant limitation of interactionist SLA theory is
that it deals exclusively with linguistic dimensions and lacks provision for
dealing with cultural dimensions of language learning. Because crosscultural exploration is one of the important goals of many project-based
applications of CALL (e.g., Brander, 2005; Furstenberg, 2003; Gray &
Stockwell, 1998; Kern, 1996; Osuna, 2000), alternative theoretical frameworks are needed.
186
TESOL QUARTERLY
Sociocultural theory, like interactionist SLA, emphasizes the importance of learner interaction, but it is interested less in negotiationevoked adjustments in input than in the social and cultural situatedness
of learner activity, learners agency in co-constructing meanings (as well
as their own roles), and the importance of mediation by tools and signs.
ORourke (2005) points out that features of computer-mediated environments are not fixed givens but are often negotiated, sometimes
subverted, by their users (p. 434), and from this perspective many
conventional interactionist CALL studies appear overly reductionist (p.
435). Sociocultural theory has grounded a considerable number of
computer-mediated communication studies (e.g., Belz, 2002; Darhower,
2002; Osuna, 2000; Thorne, 2003; Warschauer, 1999b, 2005) and some
researchers (e.g., ORourke, 2005) have profitably added a sociocultural
dimension to interactionist approaches. In a somewhat similar vein, Felix
(2005) argues for social constructivist paradigms that incorporate cognitive constructivist elements.
Systemic-functional linguistics offers another framework for CALL
research, especially in studies involving advanced level learners (Mohan
& Luo, 2005). Analysis of field, tenor, and mode is particularly important
in understanding registers and genres for different purposes across
diverse computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments. Mohan
and Luo argue that the rapidly changing social dynamics and conventions of CMC are much better addressed by a systemic-functional
approach than by an SLA framework (p. 95).
Anthropology, and particularly ethnographic research methodology,
is becoming an especially relevant discipline as more and more technology-mediated language learning and language use takes place (a)
outside of educational institutions and even outside of educational
frameworks, and (b) across diverse social, cultural, socioeconomic, and
political contexts. Key examples are Warschauers (1999b) research in
Hawaii and in Egypt (Warschauer, Said, & Zohry, 2002), Miller and
Slaters (2000) work in Trinidad, and Lams (2000, 2003, 2004) research
in Chinese-American adolescent communities.
Since multimedia authoring arrived on the scene, semiotic theories
(e.g., Halliday, 1978; Kress, 2003; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Peirce,
1966) have been increasingly relied on to deal with relationships among
visual, audio, and textual modes of signification (see the section in this
article on electronic literacies).
In considering this issue, it is important to bear in mind that SLA is
itself informed by a rich variety of theoretical frameworks and has
consistently resisted a single overarching theory (Kramsch, 2000). Maintaining theoretical grounding in SLA is imperative, but this grounding
need not mean privileging any single paradigm of SLA. Given the
complexity and diversity of goals, contexts, and problems in CALL
187
research, a one size fits all approach will not work. Rather, on the micro
level of the individual study researchers should rigorously work within
the SLA paradigm that most adequately suits their particular research
questions, and on the macro level they should look to the synergy of
multiple perspectives and paradigms to best inform their understanding
and future research.
Questions of Effectiveness
Do computers improve language learning? This question has traditionally driven CALL research. It is considered an important question
because it is tied to funding decisions and curricular overhaul. It is not,
however, a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no, any
more than we could answer a similar question about the effectiveness of
books, films, newspapers, or study groups. As with other learning
resources, we need to refine the question to examine the myriad ways in
which computers are being used, by whom, in what contexts, and for
what purpose. When these parameters are pinned down, the answer is
sometimes yes, often no, sometimes yes for some learners but not for
others.
In his recent literature review and meta-analysis, Zhao (2003) identifies three problems with assessing the effectiveness of technology. First is
the problem of defining what counts as technology (videos, CALL
tutorials, and chat rooms, for example, are obviously very different). The
second problem is separating a technology from its particular uses.
Because any given technology may be used in a variety of ways, some
effective, some not, it is difficult to generalize about the effectiveness of
a technology itself. The third issue has to do with the effects of other
mediating factors, such as the learners, the setting, the task(s), and the
type of assessment. Zhao attempted to address these issues by performing a meta-analysis of stringently selected studies published between
1997 and 2001. Including technologies ranging from video to speech
recognition to web tutorials, Zhao found a significant main effect for
technology applications on student learning. However, Zhaos analysis
was limited to only nine studies that provided sufficient data for a metaanalysis (whereas his original search showed almost 400 technologyrelated language studies published during the period). Moreover, Zhao
points out that most studies had small sample sizes, seldom used random
sampling, and were often directed by the students teachers, introducing
the possibility of a Pygmalion effect.
Although Zhao conducted his meta-analysis meticulously, it is hard to
know how to interpret and make use of his positive finding. As Zhao
himself points out and others have echoed (e.g., C. Jones, 1986), it is not
188
TESOL QUARTERLY
the technology per se that is effective or ineffective but the particular

ways in which the technology is used.
These days, given the common presence of computers in many
institutions of learning, we may be past the point of deciding whether or
not to use computers in language teaching. But we still need to know
how to make the best uses of them to accomplish specific goals.
Moreover, it is important to ask what it means to use computers for
learning and using a language, that is, to reflect critically on the social,
cognitive, cultural, as well as educational implications.
If we look at language learning from a broad semiotic perspective, we
will be less interested in whether learners successfully acquire a particular linguistic structure and more interested in how they attempt to deal
(sometimes successfully, other times less so) with specific communicative
situations and with the linguistic, cognitive, social, and material resources available to them. This perspective puts the accent on learners
agency and teacher responsibility rather than on the effect of technology
itself. Questions of overall effectiveness limit us to yes-no-maybe answers
that are sometimes hard to interpret without thick description of the
context, content, people, and procedures involved. Looking at effectiveness also inadequately accounts for the symbolic or prestige dimension
of using computers (i.e., the computers association with progress can
lead some programs and schools to promote CALL activities regardless
of whether they are shown to improve student learning). In sum, the
complexity of the issues involved in technology and language learning is
pushing us to look beyond gross decontextualized measures of effectiveness to understand effectiveness in terms of the specifics of what people
do with computers, how they do it, and what it means to them.
Computers and Culture

Some pundits like Negroponte (1995) and Rheingold (1993) portray
computers as culturally neutral tools, offering universally adaptable
media fostering global communication and, ultimately, global communities. A number of researchers, however, contend that digital technologies, as cultural products shaped by cultural environments, cannot be
culturally neutral, and they have begun to study the cultural particularities of computer-mediated environments.
Reeder, MacFadyen, Roche, and Chase (2004), for example, identify a
foundational but invisible culture of efficiency reflected in the design of
WebCT (a widely used course management system) and similar Internetbased communication platforms. This culture values speed, reach, openness, quick response, questions/debate and informality in communication (p.
92). R. H. Jones (2004) notes that young computer users almost never
189
use [computers] to do only one thing at one time (p. 27) and that what
he (following Scollon, Bhatia, Li, & Young, 1999) calls polyfocality (i.e.,
simultaneously following multiple attentional tracks) seems to be part
of the very ethos of new communication technologies (p. 27). Bowers
(2000) decries the proliferation of decontextualized data on the Internet
and suggests that computer-mediated communication should be viewed
as a degraded form of symbolic interactionone that reinforces the
rootless individual who is comfortable with the expressions of selfcreation that the computer industry finds profitable to encourage (p.
47). Putting a more positive spin on the question, Kramsch, ANess, and
Lam (2000) find that although the computer medium imposes it own
aesthetic logic on the creation of the material (p. 95), it promotes an
enhanced sense of agency among users: authorship becomes the
privilege of any language user, at equal par with any other (p. 96).
What may be natural values to those who are well socialized into
computer culture, may seem quite foreign to those who are not.
Hawisher and Selfes (2000) collection of essays on computer-based
literacy practices from countries around the world explores the interaction between global computer uses and local cultures. For example,
Dragona and Handa (2000) suggest that the logic and navigational
procedures of hypertext are not universally intuitive and may be a mode
of thinking that reflects cognitive constructs and connections that are
particularly English (p. 53). They speculate that the novelty of multimodal
texts may short-circuit peoples critical sensibilities and make the texts
appear more as pure information and pure entertainment rather
than a medium fraught with cultural baggage (p. 53).
Reeder et al. (2004) found that learners online self-introduction
postings differed significantly in terms of their underlying notions of
how identity is established online and attributed these differences to the
gap between the individual learners communicative culture and that of
the computer (p. 93). They concluded that the kind of e-tools for
communication and education such as bulletin boards, which cater to
publicity, and learning platforms such as WebCT, which are based on the
notion of Western-style efficiency, are not necessarily appropriate tools
for international groups of learners, even though one of the main
driving forces of Internet-based learning is internationalization of education (p. 100).
Thatcher (2005) found that his Ecuadorian students were frustrated
using e-mail and hypertext because these media lacked familiar social
cues. One student, who reported that I lose all the emotion on email
and the Internet . . . I cannot communicate all that I want to, ended up
using the telephone instead so that she could be more herself (p. 289).
On the positive side, however, Thatcher notes that the lack of physical
context in e-mail and hypertext permitted more abstract group discus190
TESOL QUARTERLY
sions, which many of his students found more objective, reasoned,

and productive (p. 289). Thatcher speculates that the use of e-mail and
the Internet might ultimately foster a less collective approach in other
forms of Ecuadorian communications, including standard writing.
Ess (2005) discusses the idea of CMC as computer-mediated colonialization, that is, the notion that CMC technologies impose Western
values and practices on peoples whose cultural values and communicative preferences are very different (p. 162). However, he does not
capitulate to a black and white distinction between a homogeneous
McWorld and a fragmented plurality of disconnected cultures and
people (p. 162). Rather, he argues that by studying the values and
communicative preferences embodied in Western CMC technologies we
can succeed in developing models for middle grounds . . . that conjoin
global connectivity with a plurality of local cultural identities (p. 162).
As educators, we need to recognize two points. First, because computer environments have their specific cultures, we need to attend to
both the positive and negative valences of the value categories we create
and think with. When do speed and informality become glibness? When
does polyfocality become distractedness? When does agency become
rootless individualism? Second, we need to recognize that computer
cultures are subject to transformation not just by hardware and software
design but also by computer users. As more and more people from
different cultural backgrounds, speaking languages other than English,
come to use computers, the communicative cultures of computer
environments will change correspondingly.
CURRENT RESEARCH
The role of technology in CALL can be thought of in terms of the
metaphors of tutor, tool, and medium.1 In the tutor role, computers can
provide instruction, feedback, and testing in grammar, vocabulary,
writing, pronunciation, and other dimensions of language and culture
learning (for a pedagogical and SLA-based discussion of research, see
Chapelle, 1998). Voice interactive CALL (e.g., Ehsani & Knodt, 1998)
can also simulate communicative interaction. In the tool role, computers
provide ready access to written, audio, and visual materials relevant to
the language and culture being studied. They also provide reference
1
These metaphors extend Levys (1997) distinction between tutor and tool roles of the
computer in CALL, which he in turn derived from Taylors (1980) distinction of tutor, tool, and
tutee roles. Whereas Levy would categorize CMC applications as tools, it seems to me that
medium (or environment) better reflects how users think about chat, instant messaging, e-mail,
and other media.
191
tools such as online dictionaries, grammar and style checkers, and

concordances for corpus analysis. The Internet and databases can serve
as tools for research. In the medium role, technology provides sites for
interpersonal communication, multimedia publication, distance learning, community participation, and identity formation.2
Although CALL research originally focused on tutorial applications,
in the past 10 years or so the general trend in CALL research has been
toward tool and especially medium roles. Hubbard and Siskin (2004)
point out that despite its marginalization from the pedagogical mainstream, tutorial CALL is very much alive and well at specialist conferences. Debunking common myths about tutorial CALL, Hubbard and
Siskin argue convincingly for its significant promise for developing
learners conscious knowledge of the language, for improving listening
and reading comprehension, and for improving pronunciation. Although tutorial CALL is not currently a dominant area of research, it
nevertheless represents an important area to observe in the future.3
Recent tool-oriented CALL research has been predominantly in the
area of concordancing and corpus analysis.4 Corpus analysis provides
data on the real-world contexts of the occurrence of words and collocations across various genres, registers, and language varieties. Pedagogically it can be used to support data-driven learning, that is, a learnercentered, form-focused approach aimed at consciousness raising
(Rutherford, 1987), in which students are encouraged to make and test
hypotheses about language features based on corpus evidence. A number of books on corpus linguistics have appeared recently (e.g., Granger,
1998; Granger & Petch-Tyson, 2003; Hunston, 2002; Partington, 1998),
and a special issue of Language Learning & Technology (Tribble & Barlow,
2
These categories are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Some of the most ambitious
technology-based projects, for example Furstenbergs A la rencontre de Philippe, Dans un quartier
de Paris, and Cultura (Furstenberg & Levet, 1999; Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001;
Furstenberg, Murray, Malone, & Farman-Farmaian, 1993), combine elements from all three
metaphors.
3
A sampling of recent studies of tutorial CALL include the following topics: voice interactive
CALL (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998), error correction (Heift, 2004), using software to teach
intonation and prosody (Hardison, 2005; Levis & Pickering, 2004), listening comprehension
(Zhao, 1997), and glossing and multimedia annotations (Al-Seghayer, 2001; Chun & Payne,
2004; Chun & Plass, 1997; L. C. Jones & Plass, 2002).
4
Corpus linguistics developed in the 1960s when linguists began to use computers to
develop concordances for text analysis. Whereas the 1961 Brown Corpus of Standard American
English consisted of 500 American texts and included a million words (W-3 Corpora Project,
1998), todays corpora are vast by comparison. For example, the Cobuild Bank of English
corpus now includes hundreds of millions of words of English text from British, U.S.,
Australian, and Canadian sources (Collins Cobuild Bank of English, 2004). Most corpora
focus on written language, but several corpora are dedicated to spoken English (e.g., the
London-Lund Corpus, the IBM/Lancaster Spoken English Corpus, the British National
Corpus).
192
TESOL QUARTERLY
2001) is devoted to the topic. So far, however, empirical research on

corpora and language learning outcomes has been sparse. Like tutorial
CALL, this is an area to watch in the future.
The bulk of current research focuses on technology as medium, and
most studies can be roughly grouped into three areas: CMC, electronic
literacies, and telecollaboration. This line-up reflects the current dominance of interactionist SLA, discourse analysis, and sociocultural theory
in discussions of technology-mediated language learning.
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
The forms and functions of CMC have been explicated most notably
by Murray (1988, 1989, 1996, 2000), Herring (1996, 1999, 2001), and
Crystal (2001). It is clear that CMC is not a single, uniform genre of
language use, but rather a constellation of genres related partly to the
particular medium (e.g., instant messaging, e-mail, chat groups, blogs,
MOOs) and partly to the particular social and cultural contexts of a
given act of communication.
Although certain CMC environments such as Wimba (see http://
www.horizonwimba.com) allow speech, the bulk of CMC is still currently
written via keyboard. CMC ranges along a continuum from productoriented forms resembling paper-based writing (e.g., Web sites, most
e-mail) on one end to more process-oriented interactive discourse that
shares many features of speech (e.g., chat, instant messaging) on the
other end (Baron, 2000, p. 158). Blogs and wikis would be situated in
between, and MOO discourse would be variably placed, depending on
the nature of the particular session. On the product-oriented end of the
continuum, messages are composed as wholes before being released to
their readership. On the process-oriented end, utterances may be more
fragmentary, and multiple participants can communicate spontaneously
and simultaneously (even contributing comments at the same moment),
and several turns may be required to accomplish a single message.
Communicative motivation or purpose tends to vary along the continuum as well: The product end is biased toward information exchange,
whereas the process end is biased toward phatic communion (Malinowski,
1923), reinforcing social contact in and of itself. The interactive and
fragmentary nature of chat and instant messaging makes them seem
somewhat speech-like. However, unlike spoken discourse, the binary on/
off nature of the communication does not allow backchanneling (uhhuh, right, shaking of head, etc.) from a partner while one is communicating. CMC lacks backchanneling because information is communicated principally in textual form, making it a leaner overall medium than
face-to-face communication, where auditory, tactile, olfactory as well as
193
visual channels operate, allowing eye contact, context perception, gestural and prosodic information, and thereby enriching communication
(Herring, 1996; Reeder et al., 2004).5 The relative leanness of CMC
creates a different dynamic from spoken communication, and this
difference may well be significant for language learning contexts that are
exclusively CMC based (e.g., tandems).
From a teaching perspective, CMC clearly brings issues of register and
genre to the fore. Many observers note that CMC language is often less
correct, less complex, less coherent than other forms of language use.
Herring (2001) points out that nonstandard features are generally not
due to inattentiveness or not knowing the standard forms but are often
deliberate choices to minimize typing effort, to imitate speech or sounds,
or to be inventive (p. 617). Warner (2004) echoes this perspective,
demonstrating the importance of language play in online communication. Crystal (2001) adds that simplification (e.g., omission of prepositions, copulas, auxiliary verbs) is not just a matter of typing economy but
likely represents dialect features, reflecting the pressure to accommodate many diverse group members (p. 188). Sometimes accommodations go beyond simplification and become multicultural hybrid forms.
For example, Lam (2004) documents the socialization of two bilingual
immigrant Chinese girls experiences in a chat room in which the
participants develop a hybrid language variety that distinguishes them
from both their English-only peers and their Cantonese-only peers.
Similarly, Bloch (2004) shows how Chinese learners of English drew on
Chinese rhetorical tradition when communicating in a Usenet group in
English, thereby creating a hybrid form of English for that particular
context.
Koutsogiannis and Mitsikopoulou (2004) point out, however, that the
hybrid vernacular varieties that learners develop in CMC environments
may not have much in common with the language that needs to be
learned in school contexts. As they put it, the global media of the
Internet may well allow immigrants the opportunity of language socialization in a less stifling environment than that of the average school, but
we must bear in mind that this process will involve forms of literacy which
may differ significantly from traditional forms of school literacy (p. 84).
Furthermore, because language learners may not have any intuitions
about what constitutes standard versus nonstandard forms, they may end
up learning the nonstandard forms rather than the standard ones
(Crystal, 2001, p. 237). From a pedagogical standpoint, this difficulty
with distinguishing forms raises the issue of teaching students how to use
5
Speech and visual communication are becoming increasingly possible as audioconferencing
and Webcams now provide audiovisual contact. See Lamy (2004) and Blake (2005).
194
TESOL QUARTERLY
different registers appropriately in different communicative contexts

(see Electronic Literacies, in this article).
As noted earlier, interactionist SLA theories have been especially
influential in CMC studies. CMC provides learners with the opportunity
for social interaction, but because the interaction takes place primarily in
writing, it also provides learners with ample opportunity to focus on form
and content. A number of studies have explored the question of how
best to promote meaning negotiation online. Comparing jigsaw, information-gap, and decision-making tasks, Blake (2000) found that the
jigsaw tasks proved the best at promoting negotiations online. Smith
(2003), on the other hand, found that decision-making tasks supported
online negotiation more than jigsaw tasks. Knight (2005), experimenting
with face-to-face versus e-mail performance of a hybrid jigsaw and
decision-making task, found that, to preserve interactional benefits, faceto-face tasks have to be modified in CMC contexts (in this case,
staggering of information). Smith (2005) studied the relationship between negotiation routine complexity, degree of uptake (i.e., learner
responses to corrective feedback), and acquisition of vocabulary in a chat
environment. He found that the complexity of negotiation routines did
not influence uptake and that degree of uptake bore no relationship to
vocabulary learning. Smith hypothesizes that uptake may play a diminished role in CMC and that we may need to attend to more subtle
indications of acquisition in CMC environments.
Unlike early CALL studies that tended to test technologies, current
studies more often test SLA-derived hypotheses and thus represent a
considerable evolution in the field. All told, by introducing new genres
of communication, CMC has complexified and problematized our
notions of interaction, registers, negotiation of meaning, and uptake. As
we move toward increasing degrees of multimodality in CMC environments (e.g., Blake, 2005; Lamy, 2004; Levy & Kennedy, 2004), we can
expect to see communication dynamics continue to change.
Electronic Literacies
Given the predominantly text-based nature of CMC, reading and
writing are obviously key modes of online language use. However,
because the Internet (a) introduces multimedia dimensions that go
beyond print textuality, (b) alters traditional discourse structures, (c)
introduces new notions of authorship, and (d) allows users to participate
in multicultural learning communities, it requires a complexified view of
literacy that goes well beyond the skills of encoding and decoding texts.
To address the wide array of conventions, genres, and skills in
computer use, Warschauer (2003) argues for the need to develop
195
electronic literacies (i.e., computer literacy, information literacy, multimedia literacy, CMC literacy). Warschauer (1999b) studied how people used
electronic literacies in four contexts: an ESL course for international
graduate students at a public university, an ESL class for international
undergraduate students at a private Christian college, a Hawaiian
language course for undergraduates at a public university, and a community college English class enrolling mostly immigrants and second
language learners. He found that the sociocultural context in these
settings significantly shaped the nature of online teaching and learning.
Contrary to the view that technology will in and of itself transform
learning, Warschauer found instead that technology had an amplifying
effect, reinforcing teachers underlying instructional approach, whether
it was based on second language writing as a form of discipline,
liberation, vocation, or apprenticeship.
Another of Warschauers key findings was how seriously learners took
learning new semiotic skills in online media, as compared to completing
computer-based instructional tasks. Warschauers notion of electronic
literacies thus developed as an alternative to the concept of CALL when
applied to online instruction. Shetzer and Warschauer (2000, 2001)
further refined the notion of electronic literacies, as well as a pedagogy
focused on issues of communication, construction of knowledge, research, and autonomous learning.
Lam (2000) presents an ethnographic case study of Almon, a Chinese
immigrant teenager who felt negatively about his English ability despite
living in the United States for 5 years. Through instant messaging (ICQ)
and then through creating his own Web site about a Japanese pop music
idol, Almon discovered his own expressivity in English as well as a
newfound solidarity with his Internet peers. Lam argues that by appropriating, rearticulating, and redesigning discourses and narrative roles for
his own purposes, Almon developed a new identity that had not been
available to him in his immediate community and school in the United
States. A key contribution from this study is the notion of textual identity
for understanding how texts are composed and used to represent and
reposition identity in networked computer media. In her larger dissertation study, Lam (2003) presents three additional case studies of Chinese
immigrant youths, showing how they also came to occupy new social
positions and identities by appropriating new discourses in online
environments. Lams research is important because it considers not only
how social contexts shape language use in online environments but also,
and most important, how online communication shapes social contexts
and participants identity formation. Furthermore, her work draws
attention to the ways in which language functions in relation to other
forms of online semiosis.
One important area of electronic literacies is dealing with multimedia.
196
TESOL QUARTERLY
Whereas early multimedia language environments were developed by

teachers (e.g., Chun & Plass, 1996), it is increasingly common that
students themselves author their own multimedia documents. Kress
(2003) defines multimodal texts as texts made up of elements of modes
which are based on different logics (p. 46), that is, texts that integrate
writing, speech, images, color, sound, animation, and that therefore
combine logics of time and space.
Digital storytelling is just one example of multimedia authoring in
which textualization is a central concern. Digital storytelling involves
developing filmic narratives using video, photographs, drawings, animation, voice, text, and music. Hull and Nelson (2005) report on the Digital
Underground Storytelling for You(th) (DUSTY) Project in West Oakland, California, which makes multimedia composing tools available to
children and adults who would not otherwise have access, and showcases
local authors digital stories at local theaters and other public venues.
Digital stories take the form of autobiographical narratives, poems, raps,
reports, interviews, social commentary, or re-adaptations of stories or
movies. Hull and Nelson draw on Peircian semiotic theory as well as
Labovian narrative theory to study the respective logics of modalities and
how they function synergistically in digital storytelling. They are particularly interested in the blendings between new and old textual forms and
find that digital stories have much more in common with traditional
narratives than they do with associative digital forms like hypertext.
Nelson (in press) argues for the need to develop broader semiotic
approaches to L2 composition. Based on Kresss (2003) notions of
transformation, transduction, and synaesthesia, Nelson works on composition principles via digital storytelling with first-year university ESL
students. His analysis identifies a number of benefits of multimedia
authoring, including resemiotization through repetition, recognition of
language topology, and new forms of authorship. Drawbacks he noted in
his study included genericization of expression and over-accommodation
of audience.
Does multimedia authoring improve learners language use in terms
of accuracy, fluency, and appropriateness in offline contexts? We dont
know. But the value of such projects may be found elsewhere. Nelson, for
example, is not looking at language learning in the traditional sense of
acquisition of morphosyntax or vocabulary, or even academic writing.
Rather, he is looking at learners acquisition of a metacommunicative
ability to reflect broadly on signifying practices and specifically on
textualization, considering language as just one dimension of semiosis.
As Warschauer (2002, 2004) has argued, technology in English
language teaching is now less about using computers as tools to teach
English effectively and more about teaching English to help people use
computers effectively. What is important about literacy on the Internet is
197
not just the ability to read and write in comprehensible language but also
the ability to negotiate new roles and identities. Identity construction
and socialization are inherently intertwined with language and can have
either a facilitating effect (e.g., Lams subjects) or a constraining effect
(e.g., when limited to local community or school setting) on the
resources learners come to acquire and use.
Telecollaboration
A recent development in network-based language teaching is a shift in
focus from single classrooms to long-distance collaborations involving
two or more classrooms, often in different countries. This shift expands
the focus from language learning to an emphasis on culture (i.e.,
intercultural competence, cultural learning, and cultural literacy).
Intercultural projects have the potential to enhance learners communication skills and to enrich their knowledge of another culture, as well
as to provide a context for viewing ones own culture from another
groups perspective. A number of recent studies have explored the
viability of online telecollaboration for developing intercultural competence and understanding. Some of these studies have found positive
results through student self-reports, interviews, or surveys (Furstenberg
et al., 2001; Kinginger, 2000; Meskill & Ranglova, 2000; Mller-Hartmann,
2000; von der Emde, Schneider, & Ktter, 2001). Other studies indicate
that intercultural contact in and of itself does not naturally lead to
cultural understanding (Belz, 2002, 2003; Coleman, 1998; Fischer, 1998;
ODowd, 2003; Ware, 2003, 2005), and some have questioned whether
online contact can reduce stereotypes and prejudice (Ware & Kramsch,
2005). Several studies have identified potential impediments to crosscultural understanding, such as social and institutional constraints and
resource accessibility (Belz, 2002; Belz & Mller-Hartmann, 2003; ODowd,
2003).
In showing that intercultural understanding does not necessarily
emerge from online interaction, these studies point to a number of
questions: What kind of cultural contact is afforded by the technological
medium? If the medium itself changes the ways in which communication
takes place, what does it mean to be a competent communicator in a
virtual world? A number of scholars have explored these questions,
showing that differences in communicative genres (Hanna & de Nooy,
2003; Kramsch & Thorne, 2001), medium (Thorne, 2003), task type
(Salaberry, 2000; Smith, 2003), linguistic style (Belz, 2003), academic
cultures (Belz & Mller-Hartmann, 2003), and institutional and cultural
characteristics (Belz, 2002) can all affect the degree to which language
learners can negotiate meaning and cultural understanding. These
198
TESOL QUARTERLY
factors signal the important role of the teacher, who is familiar with both
cultures and who can set appropriate goals and tasks, monitor communication, and assist in negotiating communicative difficulties.
Sometimes the problem is not one of miscommunication but of what
Ware (2003, 2005) calls missed communication. Ware explored the factors
that contributed to limited interactional involvement in a telecollaborative
project linking German students of English and American students of
German. She found that in the wake of misunderstandings, students
tended to avert joint development of topics and instead to revert to a
task-based approach to their assignments (cf. Belz, 2003). Although both
groups of students participated beyond course expectations, they engaged in surprisingly little real interpersonal interaction (as marked by
response to direct questions, use of second person pronouns, elaboration, etc.). In a qualitative analysis of student attitudes, Ware found that
time pressures and institutional constraints negatively influenced students communicative choices, leading to disengagement, or missed
opportunities for intercultural learning. The key significance of Wares
findings is that many forms of CMC can actually facilitate missed
communication. For example, the delayed response time and the lack of
social consequences for dropping topics in many online contexts allows
participants to be less active conversational partners. Furthermore,
expectations about appropriate communication in the online medium
may pose challenges for learners developing intercultural competence;
an online discourse norm that often favors speed and brevity over
sustained attention may impede their ability to engage in communication at a deep level of intercultural inquiry.
Language competence per se does not appear to be a key variable in
the success of intercultural exchanges. Hanna and de Nooy (2003) point
out that linguistic accuracy and politeness do not get one very far in an
online forum in a foreign language. More important is a willingness to
be socialized into and to follow the online communitys discourse rules.
More generally, a key ingredient for successful intercultural exchanges
appears to be personal involvement. ODowd (2003) reports variable
success of a year-long e-mail exchange between classes in Spain and
Britain but notes that successful pairs tended to invest a lot of time in
their messages. Specifically, they were sure to include personal (i.e., offtask) messages, to acknowledge their partners comments, and to respond to their questions. They also tended to take the sociopragmatic
rules of each others language into account and included questions that
encouraged feedback and reflection. Students were more interested
(and tended to write more, to learn more, and to change their attitudes
toward the other culture) when they received reactions from partners
after having explained aspects of their own culture. (In the Belz and
Ware studies, German students had wanted more personal involvement
199
from the Americans, who tended to be more task-oriented in their selfpresentations.) ODowd also stresses the importance of teacher involvement and close guidance throughout all phases of a project.
Taken together, these studies point to (a) the importance of investigating what successful participation means in different contexts (e.g., different
CMC contexts, different cross-cultural contexts, different pedagogical
contexts), (b) the importance of the personal in intercultural projects
learners sensitivity to one anothers cultural identities and communicative styles, and (c) the importance of teacher involvement in discerning,
explaining, and reflecting on culturally contingent patterns of interaction with their students.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND RESEARCH

Teaching
There is consensus in CALL research that it is not technology per se
that affects the learning of language and culture but the particular uses
of technology. This emphasis on use highlights the central importance of
pedagogy and the teacher. Success in CMC, multimedia authoring, and
distance-learning projects has been repeatedly shown to depend largely
on teachers efforts in coordinating learners activities (Belz, 2003;
Mller-Hartmann, 2000; ODowd, 2003; Parks, Huot, Hamers, & H.Lemmonier, 2003), structuring language and content learning (Levy,
1997), and helping learners to reflect critically on language, culture, and
context (Kern, 2000; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Belz and Mller-Hartmann
(2003) emphasize the need to move beyond reductive accounts of the
teacher as a guide on the side and stress the importance of the teacher in
identifying and explaining culturally contingent patterns of interaction
in electronic discourse.6
Technology-based language teaching is not a method but is integrated
into various pedagogical approaches. Most research to date has focused
on communicative task-based, project-based, and focus-on-form approaches in CMC environments, but the literature has begun to address
uses of corpora in data-driven learning. Because the dynamics of
interaction (and feedback-uptake relationships) in online environments
differ from those in face-to-face interaction, teachers must be prepared
for new ways of structuring tasks, establishing exchanges, guiding and
6
For practical classroom activities and projects involving technology, see Boswood (1997),
Dudeney (2000), Hanson-Smith (2000), Swaffar, Romano, Markley, & Arens (1998), Warschauer
(1995), and Warschauer & Kern (2000).
200
TESOL QUARTERLY
monitoring interaction, and evaluating performance, not to mention

mastering the relevant computer applications. In the area of intercultural CMC exchanges, success has been mixed, but a number of
researchers have made recommendations for optimal results. For example, Furstenberg and her colleagues (2001) identify three essential
ingredients for project success: (a) an equal degree of commitment on
the part of all teachers involved, (b) agreement on what will be the
central focus (e.g., a particular theme), and (c) continual attention to
logistics (e.g., scheduling, Web site maintenance). Mller-Hartmann
(2000) and ODowd (2003) add that the creation of personal relationships among learners, attention to curricular integration, and close
monitoring of student exchanges are also crucial to the success of
telecollaborative projects.
Educators using online environments to foster cross-cultural communication also need to consider how the different groups involved relate
to the electronic medium as a cultural tool of communication, to better
understand how social constraints and opportunities affect intercultural
communication (Lam, 2003; Thorne, 2003). Belz (2002) argues that
spontaneous clashes revealing cultural fault lines should not be smoothed
over or avoided but should be actively explored. Chapelle (2003)
reminds us that TESOL educators need to be critically aware of the
connections among technology, culture, and ideology, and specifically
about the ways in which technology amplifies and constrains aspects of
language learning and research (p. 9). Applied to pedagogy, this stance
is consistent with what Kling (1996) calls the heads-up view of computer
systems. Whereas a heads-in view focuses on the computer screen and the
vast amounts of information it can display, a heads-up view examines the
social choices of whether and how to computerize an activity, and the
relationships between computerized activity and other parts of our social
worlds (p. 2). An important component of developing a heads-up view
is familiarizing oneself with the relevant research literature.
Research
Whereas early CALL research generally sought out relatively simple
cause-effect relationships between human-computer interaction and
learning, current research seeks to understand complex relationships
among learners, teachers, content, and technology within particular
social and cultural contexts. Consequently, research on technology and
language learning has broadened the theoretical perspectives it draws
on. Although second language acquisition remains central, it now
increasingly overlaps with literacy studies, discourse analysis, sociocultural theory, sociolinguistics, and anthropology (especially ethnographic
201
methods). As a result, research has become on the whole less quantitative and more qualitative.
To maximize validity in CALL studies, Ortega (1997) urges researchers to diversify data sources, combining classroom and school observation, interviews, self-report data from questionnaires or think-aloud
protocols, and computer-collected data to seek relationships across selfreports, observed behavior, and linguistic performance. In multiclass
projects, Mller-Hartmann (2000) stresses the necessity that all teachers
collaborate in research teams. The triangulation of researchers perspectives will enhance the reliability of findings, especially when considering
learning processes that involve culture as well as language. Chapelle
(2003) also calls for creating teams for research and materials development by bringing together three types of people: technologically minded
people (to realistically assess technical issues and feasibility), socially
minded people (to deal with pragmatic and social dimensions), and
critically minded people (to deal with ethical implications). By doing
this, she argues, we can achieve the most balanced research. Given that
the vast majority of CALL studies have been of short duration (and many
have looked at very short-term treatments), it is crucial that researchers
pursue more longitudinal studies of long-term linguistic development
and intercultural competence.
A final methodological note concerns ethics in data collection, a
critical issue in all CMC research. Given the ease with which researchers
can collect data without subjects knowledge or consent and the fuzzy
boundaries between what is private and public on the Internet, it is
essential that researchers obtain participants informed consent. This
issue is discussed sporadically in the literature (e.g., Crystal, 2001;
Lotherington, 2005) but Frankel and Siang (1999) address it in depth.
Future Research
Transversal relationships: Over the past 15 years, we have learned a great
deal about the features of learner interactions and language use within
online environments, but we still know little about how those abilities
might be transferred across different environments, communicative
genres, and modalities. For example, does proficiency in e-mail carry
over to instant messaging or chat, or even to essay writing? What benefits
might multimedia authoring have for linguistic expression (or communicative potential)? Is there a relationship between, say, digital storytelling
and performance of writing or face-to-face speech?
Reading and writing electronically: We know something about different
genres and registers in various online environments, but we know less
202
TESOL QUARTERLY
about how the emergence of new discourse practices in CMC affects

reading and writing processes. How are our definitions of reading and
writing affected? How are people socialized into electronic literacy
practices and communities? What communicative, cognitive, and social
strategies do people use in CMC environments? What are the multimedia interpretation and authoring abilities that people acquire, and
how do they acquire them?
Curricular issues: We know the importance of teaching electronic
literacies, but what are the implications of electronic literacies for
curriculum? How might we need to reframe or reconceptualize learning
tasks? What are the implications for the way learners performance is
assessed?
Sociopolitical issues: We know that different groups of people have
different degrees and kinds of access to technology (Dutton, 2004;
Warschauer, 2003). What are the implications of differential access to
electronic literacy tools and the social capital needed to use them
effectivelyboth in educational institutions and in society at large? What
are the implications of commercial versus open-source software in terms
of peoples access to resources and how they make use of them?
CONCLUSION
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that The Web
has become the new normal in the American way of life (Rainie &
Horrigan, 2005, p. 59). Crystal (2001) muses that computer-mediated
language could become the communitys linguistic norm (p. 241). As
language educators, our job is to reflect on normsto explore their
underpinnings, their contexts of operation, and their implicationsnot
only to make the norms understandable to our students but also to
model for them the very process of reflecting critically on the social
practices they participate in and observe. Technology offers us a means
by which to make the familiar unfamiliar, to reframe and rethink our
conceptions of language, communication, and society. It is through this
process of analysis and reflection that we can best decide how we can and
should use technology in language learning and teaching.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My thanks to Stephen Cass, Franoise Sorgen Goldschmidt, and two anonymous
reviewers for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this article.
203
THE AUTHOR
Richard Kern is an associate professor of French and director of the French language
program at the University of California at Berkeley, in the United States. He teaches
courses in French language, linguistics, and foreign language pedagogy, and
supervises graduate teaching assistants. His research interests include language
acquisition, literacy, and relationships between language and technology.
REFERENCES
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary
acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202232.
Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where its heading.
London: Routledge.
Bax, S. (2003). CALLpast, present, and future. System, 31, 1328.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. The
Language Learning & Technology, 6, 6081.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural
competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 6899.
Belz, J. A., & Mller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners:
Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish
interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120136.
Blake, R. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO
Journal, 22(3), 497511.
Bloch, J. (2004). Second language cyber rhetoric: A study of Chinese L2 writers in an
online USENET group. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 6682.
Boswood, T. (Ed.). (1997). New ways of using computers in language teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity,
and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Brander, B. G. (2005). Considering culture in CALL research. In J. L. Egbert & G. M.
Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 141153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms?
Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 1943.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on
instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 2234.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied
linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. L. Egbert &
G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 5364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chun, D. M., & Payne, J. S. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory and
look-up behavior. System, 32, 481503.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with
multimedia. System, 24, 503519.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia
environments. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 6081.
204
TESOL QUARTERLY
Coleman, J. (1998). Evolving intercultural perceptions among university language

learners in Europe. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in
intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 4576).
Collins Cobuild Bank of English. (2004). Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://
www.collins.co.uk/books.aspx?group=153
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated
communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO
Journal, 19, 249277.
Dragona, A., & Handa, C. (2000). Xenes glosses: Literacy and cultural implications of
the Web for Greece. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the
World-Wide Web (pp. 5273). London: Routledge.
Dudeney, G. (2000). The Internet and the language classroom: A practical guide for teachers.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dutton, W. H. (2004). Social transformation in an information society: Rethinking access to
you and the world. Paris: UNESCO.
Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie
(Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Egbert, J. L., & Petrie, G. M. (Eds.). (2005). CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language
learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning
& Technology, 2(1), 4560.
Ess, C. (2005). Moral imperatives for life in an intercultural global village. In R. J.
Cavalier (Ed.), The impact of the Internet on our moral lives (pp. 161193). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for
combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85100.
Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching: Toward the creation of virtual
classrooms. Tbingen, Germany: Stauffenburg Medien.
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on
the Internet. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Also available from http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres
/main.htm
Furstenberg, G. (2003). Reading between the cultural lines. In P. Patrikis (Ed.),
Reading between the lines: Perspectives on foreign language literacy (pp. 7498). New
Furstenberg, G., & Levet, S. (1999). Dans un quartier de Paris [In a quarter of Paris].
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to
the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning &
Technology, 5(1), 55102.
Furstenberg, G., Murray, J. H., Malone, S., & Farman-Farmaian, A. (Artist). (1993). A
la rencontre de Philippe [Videodisc]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Granger, S. (Ed.). (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Longman.
Granger, S., & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.). (2003). Extending the scope of corpus-based
research: New applications, new challenges. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Gray, R., & Stockwell, G. (1998). Using computer mediated communication for
language and culture acquisition. On-CALL, 12(3). Retrieved December 12, 2005,
from http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/gray123.html
205
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language

and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hanna, B. E., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum:
Electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning &
Hanson-Smith, E. (Ed.). (2000). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hardison, D. M. (2005). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody training:
Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22,
175190.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (Eds.). (2000). Global literacies and the World-Wide Web.
London: Routledge.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2),
416431.
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, 4(4). Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu
/vol4/issue4/herring.html
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, &
H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612634). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Hubbard, P., & Siskin, C. B. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16(2),
448461.
Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality.
Written Communication, 22, 224261.
Hunston, S. (Ed.). (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C. (1986). Its not so much the program, more what you do with it: The
importance of methodology in CALL. System, 14, 171178.
Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern
Jones, R. H. (2004). The problem of context in computer-mediated communication.
In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse
analysis (pp. 2033). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to
explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration
in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii symposium (pp. 105119).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Kern, R., Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in
online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243260.
Kinginger, C. (2000). Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign
language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign
language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 2346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kling, R. (Ed.). (1996). Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
206
TESOL QUARTERLY
Knight, P. (2005). Learner interaction using email: The effects of task modification.
ReCALL, 17(1), 101121.
Koutsogiannis, D., & Mitsikopoulou, B. (2004). The Internet as a global discourse
environment: A commentary on Lam and Bloch. Language Learning & Technology,
8(3), 8389.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the
teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 311326.
Kramsch, C., ANess, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the
computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology,
4(2), 78104.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2001). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language
teaching (pp. 83100). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager
writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457482.
Lam, W. S. E. (2003). Second language literacy and identity formation on the Internet: The
case of Chinese immigrant youth in the U.S. Unpublished dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global
and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 4465.
Lamy, M.-N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in
synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16(2), 520538.
Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using speech
visualization technology. System, 32, 505524.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization.
Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection
and audio conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning &
Lotherington, H. (2005). Authentic language in digital environments. In J. L. Egbert
& G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 109127). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. Ogden
& I. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296336). London: Kegan Paul,
Trench & Trubner.
Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Curriculum innovation in TEFL: A study of
technologies supporting socio-collaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In
M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford,
England: Berg.
Mohan, B., & Luo, L. (2005). A systemic functional linguistics perspective on CALL.
In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 8796).
Mller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in
electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129147.
Murray, D. (1988). The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode
and medium switching. Language in Society, 17(3), 351373.
207
Murray, D. (1989). When the medium determines turns: Turn-taking in computer

conversation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Working with language: A multidisciplinary
consideration of language use in work contexts (pp. 319337). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Murray, D. (1996). Communicating for life: The social dimensions of computermediated communication. Applied Linguistics Forum, 16(2), 12; 79.
Murray, D. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated
communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 397421.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Nelson, M. E. (in press). Mode, meaning and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing.
Language Learning & Technology.
ODowd, R. (2003). Understanding the other side: Intercultural learning in a
Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118144.
ORourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO
Journal, 22, 433466.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction:
Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion.
Osuna, M. (2000). Promoting foreign culture acquisition via the Internet in a
sociocultural context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 323345.
Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J., & H.-Lemonnier, F. (2003). Crossing boundaries:
Multimedia technology and pedagogical innovation in a high school class.
Partington, A. (Ed.). (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language
research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Peirce, C. S. (1966). Selected writings. New York: Dover.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives.
Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. B. (2005, January 25). A decade of adoption: How the
internet has woven itself into American life. Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/148
/report_display.asp
Reeder, K., MacFadyen, L. P., Roche, J., & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in
cyberspace: Participation patterns and problematics. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 88105.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Teaching and learning. London:
Longman.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication
tasks: Learning objectives and technological capacities. The Modern Language
Journal, 84, 2837.
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and
teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 3956.
Scollon, R., Bhatia, V., Li, D., & Young, V. (1999). Blurred genres and fuzzy identities
in Hong Kong public discourse: Foundational ethnographic issues in the study of
reading. Applied Linguistics, 20, 2243.
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to networkbased language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based
language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171185). Cambridge, England:
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2001). English through Web page creation. In
208
TESOL QUARTERLY
J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on
English language teaching (pp. 429445). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model.
The Modern Language Journal, 87, 3857.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake,
and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL
Swaffar, J., Romano, S., Markley, P., & Arens, K. (Eds.). (1998). Language learning
online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom. Austin, TX: Daedalus
Group.
Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Columbia
Teachers College Press.
Thatcher, B. (2005). Situating L2 writing in global communication technologies.
Computers and Composition, 22(3), 279295.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Thorne, S. L., & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated
expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371397.
Tribble, C., & Barlow, M. (Eds.). (2001). Using corpora in language teaching and
learning [Special issue]. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3).
von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Ktter, M. (2001). Technically speaking:
Transforming language learning through virtual learning environments (MOOs).
The Modern Language Journal, 85, 210225.
W-3 Corpora Project. (1998). The Brown Corpus. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from
http://clwww.essex.ac.uk/w3c/corpus_ling/content/corpora/list/private/brown
/brown.html
Ware, P. D. (2003). From involvement to engagement in online communication: Promoting
intercultural competence in foreign language education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Ware, P. D. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in
a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64
89.
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching
German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89,
190205.
Warner, C. N. (2004). Its just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for
networking language learners. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Warschauer, M. (1999a). CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in
the language classroom. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://www.cilt.org.uk
/research/resfor2/warsum1.htm
Warschauer, M. (1999b). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language
education. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 453475.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos &
C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15
209
Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M.

Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 4151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts
and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., Said, G. R. E., & Zohry, A. (2002). Language choice online:
Globalization and identity in Egypt. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
7(4). Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4
/warschauer.html
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners control of speech rate on second language
comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 4968.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A
literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 727.
210
TESOL QUARTERLY
Expanding Horizons and

Unresolved Conundrums:
Language Testing and Assessment
CONSTANT LEUNG
Kings College
London, England
JO LEWKOWICZ
American University of Armenia
Yerevan, Armenia
Since the last TESOL Quarterly commemorative issue 15 years ago, there
have been too many important developments in language testing and
assessment for all of them to be discussed in a single article. Therefore,
this article focuses on issues that we believe are integrally linked to
pedagogic and curriculum concerns of English language teaching.
Although the discussion has been organized into two main sections, the
first dealing with issues relating to formal tests and the second to
broader concerns of assessment, we highlight the common themes and
concerns running through both sections in the belief that testing and
assessment are two sides of the same educational coin. In the first
section we address the issue of test authenticity, which underscores
much of language testing enquiry. We consider developments in the
fields understanding of this notion and suggest that relating test
authenticity to target language use may be necessary but insufficient
without considering authenticity as it is operationalised in the classroom. In the second section, acknowledging current concerns with
standardized psychometric testing, we broaden the discussion to issues
of validity, ethics, and alternative assessment. We first consider the
intellectual climate in which the debates on such issues has developed
and the relevance of these deliberations to pedagogy and curriculum.
We then discuss some of the key issues in current classroom-based
teacher assessment that are related to and can inform student second
language competence and teacher professional knowledge and skills.
We end by projecting how the current globalization of English may
affect the understanding of authenticity and how this understanding is
likely to affect testing and assessment practices worldwide.
211
n the 15 years since the last TESOL Quarterly commemorative issues, 25

Years as an International Family (Silberstein, 1991), there has been a
high and sustained level of research and development in English
language testing and assessment. The field is now served by two specialist
international journals, Language Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly. Articles on English language testing and assessment appear regularly in other applied linguistics, language education, and education
journals. And there are numerous books on language testing and
assessment in the current lists of the major publishing houses. In this
article, we discuss the prominent testing and assessment issues in the past
15 years or so that can be linked to the pedagogic and curriculum
concerns of English language teaching (ELT).
Some of the debates and developments we mention in this article, of
course, stretch back 30 or more years in one form or another. Our focus
certainly reflects our interests and perspectives, but we hope that this
discussion will promote further understanding of the shared concerns
and common foundations between testing and assessment, and pedagogy. It is not our intention to present a survey or a critical review of
developments in second language (L2) testing and assessment. (For
recent reviews, see Alderson & Banerjee, 2001, 2002; Bachman, 2000.)
In the educational measurement literature, assessment is a superordinate
term for all forms of assessment, and testing is a term for one particular
form of assessment. The form that has been most prevalent in ELT all
over the world in the past 50 or more years has been standardized,
psychometrically oriented testing. Tests such as the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language
Testing System (IELTS) are almost household names in professional
circles. However, the 1990s also saw a good deal of developmental work
in alternative conceptualizations and practices of assessment, such as
classroom-based teacher assessment and student portfolio assessment.
We have noticed that the terms testing and assessment have appeared
together in many recently published discussions on the expanding
conceptual bases of validity and ethics, indicating the authors awareness
of the need for precision in delineating intellectual perspectives and
research affiliations. In our discussion we maintain the distinction
between the terms testing and assessment where warranted. Our discussion
covers a variety of contexts in which the teaching, testing, and assessment
of EFL, ESL, and English as an additional language take place. We
attempt to be explicit about context when appropriate.
212
TESOL QUARTERLY
TESTING TIMES: IN SEARCH OF

AUTHENTICITY AND USEFULNESS
Test Task Authenticity
In 1991, Alderson, reviewing progress made in the field of psychometric language testing, asked, How far have we come? How far have we to
go? Fifteen years later, despite the mushrooming of interest in the field
of language testing, these rhetorical questions remain equally apt.
Although there is an increasing body of literature on ESL testing
covering theoretical issues as well as test design, the answers to such
fundamental questions as What is language ability? and How should test
scores be interpreted? are still on the current research and development
agenda. Does that mean we in the language testing and assessment
community have been walking on a treadmill, or can we point to
advances in understanding? In our view, the debate over the past 15 years
that is most relevant to ELT pedagogy and curriculum concerns test
authenticity.
We note in passing that the developments we describe in this article
are broadly in line with what was happening in education generally.
Discussions of ELT curriculum included considerable attention to the
types of texts and tasks that should be used to promote communication,
and in general education there was concern that students be engaged in
more complex, holistic tasks that provided an intellectual challenge and
for which the nature of the outcome was of paramount importance
(Carlson, 1991, p. 6). Yet these discussions remained to a large extent on
parallel tracks, failing to draw on each other.
Over the past 30 years, language ability and language use were
reconceptualised by theorists such as Savignon (1972, 1983), Canale and
Swain (1980), and Canale (1983, 1984). This reconceptualisation, perhaps the single most significant development in applied linguistics
during that period, laid the foundation for the communicative approach
and subsequently spurred the debate on authentic testing. This debate,
though well rehearsed, continues to the present. Initially it centered on
the issue of whether test tasks should and could mirror those in the real
world in the way proposed by Morrow (1979). The debate focused on the
nature of test input, that is, the perceived need to use reading and
listening texts extracted from real-life sources and to develop test tasks
that simulated the tasks that test takers could be expected to perform in
the real world outside the classroom or test situation. Authenticity, thus,
was seen as inherent in the testeither present or absentand no
regard was paid to the interaction that would arise between the test taker
and the test input. The language testing and assessment field now
EXPANDING HORIZONS AND UNRESOLVED CONUNDRUMS
213
recognizes this view of authenticity as oversimplified, one that did not go

unchallenged in the 1980s (see, e.g., Lewkowicz, 2000, for a fuller
discussion of this early debate).
The Bachman (1990) model, which views language as multicomponential, goes some way toward addressing the question of language
ability raised earlier. Building on the work of Hymes (1972), Canale and
Swain (1980), and others, Bachman proposed an interactional model of
language test performance in which language ability (language knowledge and metacognitive strategies) is seen as interacting with test
method (characteristics of the environment, rubric, input, expected
response, and the relationship between input and expected response) to
produce a performance that can be described and reported. This model
is perhaps the most widely adopted model of language ability in
language testing. It has provided a principled, systematic basis for the
development of language tests, such as the English proficiency test for
nonnative English language teachers in Australia (McDowell, 1995). Yet
the model has drawn criticism on the grounds of being difficult to
operationalize. As Widdowson (2003) points out, the model breaks
language competence down into multiple static components that
cannot account for the dynamic interrelationships which are engaged
in communication itself (pp. 169170).
A primary concern of test development is to ensure test usefulness.
For tests to be useful, Bachman and Palmer (1996) propose that
developers need to consider six test qualities: reliability, construct
validity, authenticity, interactiveness, impact, and practicality. Of these,
construct validity and reliability pertain specifically to tests, whereas the
others may be of concern for both language testing and language
pedagogy. These six qualities are regarded as complementary; no single
quality in its own right is more important than the others. Test developers need to reflect on and maximize each of these qualities according to
the requirements of the test being developed. In essence, therefore, the
importance of authenticity in the test development process has been
reappraised. At the same time, echoing Breens (1985) and Widdowsons
(1978, 1979) notion that the quality of learner outcome arising from the
input provided in pedagogic situations was of the essence, Bachman and
Palmers (1996) treatment of authenticity is more complex than that
conceived by early proponents of authenticity such as Morrow (1979) in
that they attempt to account for test takers involvement in test tasks. In
this view, tasks are not necessarily authentic or inauthentic in any
intrinsic and absolute sense. Authenticity can be seen in terms of the
extent to which a test or assessment task relates to the context in which
it would normally be performed in real life. Given the amount of time
people spend in formal education (up to one-third of their lives),
apparently contrived classroom language-learning tasks can appear
214
TESOL QUARTERLY
authentic to language learners and test takers. Authenticity is after all a

matter of perception, and research suggests that what some perceive as
authentic, others may view as inauthentic (Lewkowicz, 1997). Thus, for
many language learners, grammar exercises may be necessary real-life
activities for practising and consolidating their language knowledge.
Real language taken out of its original context would not be any more
authentic for these learners (or test takers)it would need to be
authenticated by them (Widdowson, 2003, p. 105).
Bachman and Palmer (1996) define authenticity as the degree of
correspondence of the characteristics of a given language test task to the
features of a TLU [target language use] task (p. 23), moving it away
from a simple one-to-one correspondence of test task to real-life task
toward a quality that can only be determined in relation to the
characteristics of the test takers, the TLU domain, and the test task (p.
39). In terms of test development, this approach requires that the test
developer identify the characteristics of TLU domain, from which test
takers language is to be sampled in the test situation. Identifying this
domain is itself no mean feat, especially when the test population is
heterogeneous. It is becoming increasingly difficult because the globalization of English has made the norms of written and spoken English
harder to specify. Experience has shown that, in practice, this abstract
notion of authenticity is thus quite difficult to describe in detail. This
difficulty may explain why the disjuncture persists between the theoretical understanding of authenticity and the ability to implement maximally authentic language tests. Nevertheless, Bachman and Palmer posit
that authenticity is important for two reasons. It is the feature of a test
that facilitates score interpretation, thus allowing generalizations to be
made from test to nontest situations (the ultimate purpose of any test). It
may also affect test taker perceptions of the test and, hence, on their
performance (p. 24). Lewkowicz (2000), however, questions this notion:
She found that test takers tend to be very pragmatic and more concerned
with the tests difficulty than with its authenticity.
Despite the considerable complexity, or because of it, the work on
authenticity has certainly been both intellectually stimulating and challenging, and it has fostered some changes in the way a task in testing is
operationalized. The foregrounding of authenticity was a breakthrough
that accelerated a number of major changes in the type of tasks included
in language tests (e.g., in the Communicative Use of English as a Foreign
Language [CUEFL] examination1) and brought with it greater harmony
1
This, Hargreaves (1987) reports, was the first large-scale examination that focused on
language use rather than language usage. It was the precursor to the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicates (UCLES) Certificates in Communicative Skills in English.
215
between testing practices and the way language was being taught.
Informed by changing classroom practices and the developments in
English for specific purposes and English for academic purposes, both
general- and specific-purpose tests of language have come to include
more authentic, performance-type tasks based on materials that were not
specifically designed for pedagogical or testing purposes. Thus, the
interest in authenticity in language testing can be seen as part of the
more general move in curriculum toward conceptualizing language
ability and language use in context. At the same time, however, discretepoint tests assessing individual skills continued (and continue) to be
popular in many of the major standardized examinations (e.g., TOEFL).
Unresolved Issues
Over the past 15 years, the types of tasks that are reportedly used in
test situations have changed significantly, with real performances in the
form of, for example, role plays and situated discussions becoming much
more prevalent (though as Alderson, 2004, cautions, reports on what is
happening in the field of language testing may not be representative of
what is happening worldwide). From a theoretical point of view, however,
the debate on test authenticity and test usefulness more generally has left
a number of questions unanswered. It has failed to adequately address
two persistent problems, both of which seem to relate to the multifaceted
nature of authentic testing.
First, performance tests that strive to be highly authentic are often
extremely complex. This complexity makes judging the degree of success
or failure of any performance susceptible to a variety of extraneous
influences that may affect the score awarded, thus opening up a
Pandoras box (McNamara, 1995). In particular, as McNamara points out
and Alderson and Banerjee (2002) reiterate, Bachmans (1990) model
has not accounted for social aspects of language performance, such as
the relationship during an oral proficiency test between the test taker
and interlocutors (other test takers in pair or group tests or the examiner
in an interview situation). Factors such as the asymmetrical relationship
between the tester and test taker(s) as well as the personality characteristics of the interlocutor and test taker may affect test performance and
the awarded score. Quite clearly, these considerations need to be taken
into account. Research in areas such as test-taker characteristics (e.g.,
Kunnan, 1995; OSullivan, 2000), candidates familiarity with test tasks
(e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Wigglesworth, 1997), personality types
(e.g., Berry, 2004), testwiseness (e.g., Storey, 1997), and interlocutor
behavior (e.g., Lumley & Brown, 1998) is informing the fields understanding of how these factors may affect test performances. However,
216
TESOL QUARTERLY
beyond the more comprehensive use of pair and group oral tests, there
is, as yet, little evidence that these factors are being taken into account in
live, high-stakes test situations. Rather than allowing for differences
among test takers, testing authorities such as UCLES seem to be trying to
limit possible variations or accommodations by standardizing the procedures in the name of fairness. They seem not yet to consider the fact that
such oral performances are essentially co-constructed through social
interaction and that all participants in the interaction are likely to affect
individual performances (e.g., A. Brown, 1995; Luoma, 2004).
The second problem, readily acknowledged by Bachman (2002), is
associated with an inability to account for task difficulty. This problem
seems to persist because all current models consider difficulty essentially
an artifact of test performance (p. 453), inseparable from test-taker and
test-task characteristics. Despite the extensive research into task difficulty
in language teaching and testing (for a discussion of task-based approaches to testing, see, e.g., Brown, Hudson, Norris, & Bonk, 2002;
Skehan, 1998), there is still little agreement about how to control for this
aspect of language in test situations. It may be that the difference in task
purpose in classroom and test situations is confounding the results
emerging from studies of task difficulty (Elder, Iwashita, & McNamara,
2002). It is hoped that the continuing efforts in this area, including work
using item response theory and Rasch analyses (see, e.g., McNamara,
1991; North, 1995a, 1995b) will advance the fields understanding.
Our account so far suggests that the search for authenticity has
encountered a number of complex issues that are far from being
resolved. Yet these knotty issues are closely related to classroom pedagogy. If authenticity were not reflected in test situations, it could have a
negative impact on classroom practice, reducing the range and type of
task employed. At present, testers seem to be focused on TLU tasks and
ways to best represent such tasks in a test situation, and bypassing the
pedagogic implementation of the concept of task in the classroom.
Perhaps classroom practice also needs to be brought into the process of
characterizing test tasks.
As the foregoing discussion shows, the development and widespread
adoption of Bachmans (1990) model over the past 15 years has provided
an anchor for test development and design. It has also brought to the
fore a number of outstanding issues concerning the nature of language
ability and how the language testing and assessment community collects
evidence of students ability to use language. Furthermore, it has
brought the discussions within teaching and testing closer together, at
least at the conceptual and theoretical level. Issues such as task specification and task difficulty are clearly of interest to both testers and teachers.
Yet, the Bachman model appears to have had much less impact on
achievement testing within the classroom than on large-scale proficiency
217
testing. Given the models complexity, this may not be surprising. What
goes on at the classroom level of test development, however, may not be
widely reported in the literature (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001), and the
language testing community may not be aware of all that is happening.
At this juncture, viewing authenticity as an integral aspect of test
usefulness may be more helpful than treating it as an entity in its own
right. Perhaps test developers should foreground the notion of construct
validity, that is, what testers are trying to measure (as perceived by
Messick, 1989, and discussed in greater detail in the section Assessment:
Broadening Concerns). This would bring us back to a consideration of
the central relationship between language ability and how that ability is
assessedput more precisely, the need to understand what language is
and what it takes to learn a language, which then becomes the basis for
establishing ways of assessing peoples ability (Alderson & Banerjee,
2002, p. 80).
ASSESSMENT: BROADENING CONCERNS

In the inaugural issue of Language Assessment Quarterly, Cumming
(2004) calls for broadening the scope of language assessment studies.
The interest in going beyond standardized language testing as the
default form of assessment has not occurred in an intellectual vacuum.
The common use of tests to make selection and placement decisions
about students, for instance, has long been known to have a margin of
error at the level of individual students. Wiliam (2001) calculates that,
for instance, for a test with scaled scores, an average score of 100, a
standard deviation of 15, and reliability of 0.75,
someone who scores 115 . . . might really have a true score of just 100 . . . or
as high as 130. . . . We must be aware that the results of even the best test can
be wildly inaccurate for individual students. (p. 18)
Spolsky (1997), drawing on the knowledge accumulated since the late

19th century concerning the inaccuracies in test or examination scores,
declares that my concern is . . . with the gatekeeping function itself, the
use of examination results to determine qualifications for positions or
for training for positions (p. 242). In addition to this caution about the
accuracy and reliability of standardized tests as a technical facility, test
developers acknowledged in the early 1990s that L2 testing as a domain
of expertise, indeed L2 education in general, knew little about the
nature of L2 proficiency development. In the same address to fellow
professionals mentioned earlier, Alderson (1991) had this to say: We
know very little about how, about how long it takes, under what
218
TESOL QUARTERLY
conditions, and therefore we know little about how to measure the

progress of learners. . . . We lack sensitive measures (p. 12).
Again, this perceived need to go beyond the affordances of the
established principles and technology of psychometric testing was not
confined to L2 testing and assessment. In relation to the developments
in educational measurement and assessment generally, Broadfoot (2005)
observes that we use what are a very blunt set of instruments to
intervene in the highly sensitive and complex business of learning (p.
127). Reflexive questioning of the nature and adequacy of ones own
professional knowledge and practice is clearly not restricted to the
language testing and assessment community.
Expanding the Concept of Validity

Value Bases of Assessment
A good deal of this reflexive thinking has been triggered by Messicks
(1989) groundbreaking work on validity, which has served as a point of
departure for alternative ways of conceptualising L2 assessment. Validity,
in traditional psychometric terms, refers to the extent or degree to which
a test measures what it has been designed to measure. The study of
validity has tended to focus on three aspects: construct validity, content
validity,2 and criterion validity.3 Of these three, construct validity is most
directly relevant to this discussion. Construct validity is a psychological
conceptan attribute, proficiency, ability, or skills that happens in the
human brain and is defined by established theories. For example, overall
English language proficiency is a construct ( J. D. Brown, 2000, p. 7).
For a test to claim construct validity, it has to demonstrate that it is
measuring the targeted construct. (For further discussion, see Alderson
& Banerjee, 2002; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; A. Brown, 1995.) This
conceptualization of construct is clearly based on the idea that a human
ability or a particular proficiency inheres in the individual.
If language proficiency is taken as a case in point, this view would
suggest that proficiency is something that resides within the individual
language user. In this view, the language testers job is to design an
appropriate instrumenta testto tap into this posited individual
ability or capability. In other words, testers can sample and observe
2
Content validity is concerned with the degree to which a test or a test item is representative
of the content of the test objective or specification (e.g. how much do the items on a speaking
test resemble the kind of spoken language the test is meant to sample?).
3
Criterion validity refers to the correlation of the test being validated with some wellrespected outside measure(s) of the same objectives or specifications ( J. D. Brown, 2000, p. 7).
219
peoples language performance and use this information to infer their

language proficiency. What people say (or write) during a test, so to
speak, represents what they know. But the viability of this neat, one-toone correspondence between what people do with language (observable
performance) and what they know (inferred proficiency or competence)
depends on the notion that using language is always a matter of selfexpression and that the self is indifferent or insensitive to the social, that
is, what others may say or do in the immediate context of language use
and in wider society. This seemingly arcane point about the nature of
language proficiency or competence, briefly touched on in our discussion of performance tests, in fact goes to the heart of language
assessment and language pedagogy.
Within the realms of psychometric testing principles, which assume
that qualities or traits reside in an individual, the job of a test is to
encourage the display of the target quality or qualities through some
form of performance. So if you wish to know whether your students can
produce a piece of written language for a specific purpose at a particular
level, your job is to devise a test to elicit the required performance.
McNamara (2001) asks provocatively, What if the direction of action is
reversed, so that the act of testing itself constructs the notion of language
proficiency? (p. 339). At one level, it seems obvious that tests and
assessment schemes do construct proficiency through rating scales
(criteria and level descriptors). Grammar items, for example, are assigned to different levels according to some form of ranking of difficulty,
appropriateness, or both. In everyday practice, these rating scales tend to
be treated as if they represented an objective reality, something natural
and real in the world. But a moments reflection shows that a good deal
of the objective reality has been filtered through social values. For
instance, the premium placed on the ability to use the definite article the
correctly and to use polite language appropriately in many language
assessment scales is deeply entrenched in the community values of
language teaching and assessment professionals, if nowhere else. For
language users unconcerned with measurement of grammatical control,
the omission or inconsistent use of the definite article in English may
suggest a lack of control of that particular grammar form, but it does not
necessarily mean a breakdown in communication; and politeness is
clearly a social preference, not an intrinsic language learning requirement.4 Any analysis of the existing proficiency rating scales and assessment frameworks would reveal different emphases and approaches in
respect to the different aspects of language development and language
4
Indeed, the growing literature in the field of English as lingua franca points to possible
alternative conceptualizations of phonological, grammatical, and pragmatic competences (e.g.,
Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2004).
220
TESOL QUARTERLY
skills. (See, e.g., Scott & Erduran, 2004, for a comparison of the ESL
Bandscales and ESL Standards for Pre-K12 Students.)
At the classroom level, researchers (e.g., Brindley, 1998, 2001) have
long recognised variations in the ways teachers operationalize and
interpret assessment descriptors. Davisons (2004) comparative study of
two groups of teachers in Hong Kong and in Melbourne, Australia,
provides a close-up picture of how published criteria in assessment
schemes can influence individual teachers decision making. The thinkaloud protocol of a Melbourne teacher, towards the end of marking a
piece of writing produced by an ESL student, shows this:
So, well total that [the marks given to different aspects of the writing
according to a particular set of marking criteria] and probably be horrified at
the high score hes got. Four highs which gives himthats a total of 16. Gives
him a B plus. My instinct now comes in and I think really hes not worth a B
plus. This now my subjectiveI would probably be more inclined to give him
a B. But Im going to be honest and Im going to give Vince a borderline B
plus. Which I think is generous and I think perhaps a B would have been a
much more appropriate mark. (p. 315)
This protocol shows a teacher wrestling with the difference between the
criteria-derived score and the subjective feel of a piece of student writing.
The decision to be honest and allow the consequence of criteriareferenced marking shows that student performance, and indeed achievement, can be constructed through the use of assessment schemes.
In the same study, Davison also discusses the apparent differences in
the ways teacher participants in Hong Kong and Melbourne used the
published assessment criteria. A majority of the teachers in Melbourne,
who were used to working with published assessment schemes, appeared
to juggle published criteria and professional judgment when coming to
a decision, but they had considerable (teacher) community support for
this delicate balancing act. The Hong Kong teachers seemed more
concerned with prioritizing different criteria (e.g., grammatical accuracy
and creativity). Davison suggests that this is not surprising given the
present reliance on norm-referencing . . . and the lack of any system-wide
common assessment criteria for evaluating work at school level (p. 320).
The situation was exacerbated by some schools choosing to value
accuracy and other formal features of writing while others preferred to
promote creativity.
Other researchers have observed that teacher variations can be
associated with wider social views and values. In a study of the models of
spoken English operated by elementary teachers in England, Leung and
Teasdale (1997) show that, when asked to judge video recorded,
noncontrived instances of language use by linguistic minority students, a
group of ESL teachers working in schools within a particular education
221
authority appeared to operate using criteria such as native-speaker-like and

accent, which were not in the official published assessment scheme. In
different ways, these findings suggest that, in addition to published
assessment schemes, teachers judgments are influenced by wider social
and community practices and values. (For a further discussion on
teacher mediation of assessment scales and criteria, see Arkoudis &
OLoughlin, 2004; Brindley, 1998; Leung, 1999, 2005a.) Values enter
into assessment in another, perhaps more ideological, sense. For instance, Johnson and Kress (2003) observe that, although real-life literacy
practices in societies such as Australia, Britain, and the United States are
increasingly multilingual and multimodal, recent official approaches to
pedagogy and assessment have tended to favour the traditional basics.
(Also see Wyatt-Smith & Cumming, 2003.) In different ways, these
studies all demonstrate that assessment, whether based on published
rating scales or based on wider community values, indeed constructs
proficiency.
The debate on the value bases of assessment has shown that language
proficiency is an artefact created at least in part after the image, as it
were, of the design of language assessment schemes. From the point of
view of ELT pedagogy and curriculum, any achievement benchmarks,
goals, and targets, if they are derived from a testing or assessment
framework, quite clearly should be evaluated critically with students
interests in mind. The need to be critically aware of the nature and
type(s) of knowledge and skills that different assessment frameworks
prioritize and foreground as criteria is particularly important at a time
when, for the purposes of public accountability and reporting progress,
many curriculum authorities in Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and
North America have introduced systemwide standards- and outcomesbased assessment schemes. Current examples of these systemwide assessment regimes include the statutory tests at the ages of 7, 11, and 14 in the
English National Curriculum and the legally required assessment schemes
developed under the aegis of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) in the
United States. The educational value of some of these schemes can be
questioned. McKay (2005) argues that governments may embrace standards as a managerial tool to raise standards by
(1) establishing competition between individuals, teachers, schools and
States, (2) commodifying the curriculum (making it measurable through
standards), and (3) measuring, publishing and then rewarding or punishing
achievement. (p. 244)
Recently, the Welsh Assembly Government (with devolved powers within

the British state) decided to abandon standardized tests at ages of 11 and
14 within Wales beginning in 2007. This decision came after the
222
TESOL QUARTERLY
publication of the Daugherty Report (Daugherty Assessment Review

Group, 2004), which, among other things, states that
it is clear that test preparation and practice, a narrowing of curriculum
coverage and styles of learning that contribute to good test performance have
become prominent features of the Year 6 experience of pupils in many
schools. . . . The Group has considered whether end-of-key-stage testing, in
terms of the hard data it gives us on pupil attainments and the targets it
gives some pupils to aspire to, is of sufficient value to compensate for the
evident impoverishment of pupils learning that is occurring at a critical stage
in their educational development. (Section 3.4)
Brindley (2001) reports a contentious case in Australia in which

researchers argued that literacy benchmark testing was having a dumbingdown effect on achievement because of the official desire to report
progress by focusing on reporting minimum standards, which in effect
meant including more easy items in tests. McKay (2005) also notes that,
in many educational jurisdictions, English-asa-mother-tongue assessment criteria have been inappropriately applied to L2 learners. In short,
systemwide standards- and outcomes-based assessment frameworks are
often introduced by dint of political arguments and ideological commitments. They are not necessarily motivated by sound educational or
pedagogic principles.
Ethics and Consequences of Assessment

Messicks (1989) article on validity embraces a concern for the
relevance of a test or an assessment to its intended purpose and its utility
in the social context for which it has been designed. From the point of
view of an expanded notion of validity, it is perhaps more significant that
Messick also highlights the social value implications of test score interpretations and the social consequences of using test scores in education
and other social contexts. During the second half of the 1990s, testing
and assessment researchers exerted strong efforts to explore the social
and ethical dimensions of assessment. Lynch (1997) discusses a number
of different types of ethical issues. For instance, the issue of consent
raises questions about the use of test scores for educational, social, and
administrative purposes that are not communicated to test takers. The
issue is whether test takers have been given the requisite information to
understand what is being done with their test scores. A related issue is
deception. Lynch asks, Is it morally deceptive to have an individual
engaged in an activity that he or she cannot clearly see as being directly
related to the ability supposedly being tested? (p. 317). In education
this kind of covert, extracurriculum assessment is as likely to be caused by
223
unreflective professional common sense as by the sins of commission.

For instance, Norton and Starfield (1997) found that, at a university,
subject departments (e.g., arts, science, and engineering) did not appear
to have a clear and collective position on the extent to which language
proficiency counted in content assessment. The following were two
responses from science staff to a research questionnaire:
Students are not penalised for small errors. They must be able to read and
write English at a level adequate to express biological concepts and information.
We believe that the expression and use of English for communication and
expression is important. We dont consciously take it into account. (p. 286)
Norton and Starfield (1997) suggest that, among other things, institutions develop a culture of accountability around assessment practices,
particularly with reference to the assessment of L2 students (p. 291).
Another ethical concern is the effect of a test or assessment framework
on pedagogy, in other words, washback. As Hamp-Lyons (1997) and
others have observed, washback can be beneficial or detrimental to
students learning. If teachers teach to the test or assessment requirements and the consequence is a narrowing of the curriculum, the effect
is educationally undesirable. On the other hand, if a particular testing or
assessment requirement leads to teaching practices that promote and
broaden learning, the effect is positive. These examples show that the
concern for values and social consequences has opened up new questions, many of which are deeply and directly connected to language
pedagogy and curriculum design. (For further discussion see Kunnan,
2000, Section 1.)
The discussion on ethics and social and educational consequences, in
one way or another, is about the impact of testing and assessment on
individual students, institutional practices, and educational policies.
Quite clearly, the impact of any testing and assessment regime ultimately
depends on the exercise of political power and social control. The
arguments for ethical testing and assessment, in a sense, have been
advanced from the perspective (and on behalf) of the test takers and
students who, hitherto, generally have not had much control over the
proceedings. In a mood of advocacy, Shohamy (2001) discusses the need
for democratic assessment that encourages test takers and students to
participate actively in the construction and use of tests and assessment
systems. In relation to language testing she argues that the field needs to
adopt a critical language testing perspective, which, among other questions, asks,
Who are the testers?
What are their agendas?
224
TESOL QUARTERLY
Who are the test-takers?

What are their contexts . . . ?
Who will benefit from the tests . . . ?
What will their results be used for?
What areas are being tested, and why . . . ? (p. 377)
Posing these questions sheds light on the exercise of power underlying

testing and assessment practices, thus making it easier to redress power
imbalances.
Bachman (2005) makes the point that the discussions on ethical
concerns and democratic and critical language assessment have been
important from an educational standpoint, but so far they have been an
addition to, rather than an integral part of, the consideration of validity.
In other words, the work on social values and consequences in L2
assessment that has been influenced by Messicks (1989) expanded
unitary concept of validity has in fact treated questions of ethics and use
separately from validity issues; we are . . . left with validity at one end and
consequences at the other, with no link between (Bachman, p. 7).
Bachman suggests that claims of validity and use should be investigated
in a procedure that has two connected stages. First, the tests validity
claim, the warranted interpretation of a test score, should be assessed
and established. Once that has been achieved, then the validity claim
itself becomes the datum for the assessment of use. The integral nature
of this two-stage procedure can be seen in some of the legitimation
criteria used for the assessment of use, for example,
Relevance (that the score-based interpretation is relevant to the decision to be
made). . . . Utility (that the score-based interpretation is actually useful for
making the intended decision). . . . Intended consequences (that the consequences
of using the assessment and making intended decisions will be beneficial to
individuals, the program, company . . . or to society at large). (Bachman, pp.
1819)
These considerations are likely to raise very interesting questions in

the future because, as Lynch and Shaw (2005) argue, depending on the
validity perspective, how educators define harm and coercion and the
degree of ethical responsibility that they attribute to those in the
assessment context may differ (p. 270). In other words, Bachmans
(2005) criteria for assessing legitimacy of use may themselves open up
further questions.
The work discussed in this section has direct implications for the way
the language assessment and testing community conceptualizes assessment generally, whether the topic is standardized testing or other forms
225
of assessment. In passing, we note that the impact of Messicks (1989)

expanded conceptualization of validity can be felt not just in L2 testing
and assessment but in educational assessment very generally. For instance, Broadfoot and Black (2004) note that during the past decade, the
limitations of the traditional concerns in assessment have been acknowledged and perspectives have been widened to include the social dimension. A wide range of approaches now exist in the assessment of different
subjects, but the underlying principle is the same, namely that educational assessment must be understood as a social practice, an art as much
as a science, a humanistic project with all the challenges this implies
(p. 8).
Classroom-Based Formative Assessment

Another important development in the past decade is the growing
interest among educators and policy makers in alternative forms of
assessment, such as student portfolio, work samples, and classroombased teacher assessment. In a context where awareness of the social
consequences of assessment is increasing, the recent attention to
classroom-based teacher formative assessment is not surprising, given the
key role it is meant to play in the teaching and learning process. Black
and Wiliams (1998) review of research literaturea massive undertaking covering 681 articles and chapters up to 1997provides quantitative evidence that innovations in formative assessment can lead to
improvement in the learning of students (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall,
& Wiliam, 2003, pp. 67). There is now a substantial body of literature on
formative assessment (for an overview, see Broadfoot & Black, 2004). So
what does formative assessment look like in the classroom? The Assessment Reform Group (2002) sets forth 10 principles of classroom practice
that include the following statement:
Assessment for learning should be part of effective planning of teaching and
learning. A teachers planning should provide opportunities for both learner
and teacher to obtain and use information about progress towards learning
goals. . . . Much of what teachers and learners do in classrooms can be
described as assessment. That is, tasks and questions prompt learners to
demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and skills. What learners say
and do is then observed and interpreted, and judgements are made about
how learning can be improved. These assessment processes are an essential
part of everyday classroom practice and involve both teachers and learners in
reflection, dialogue and decision making. (p. 2)
These principles have received strong professional endorsement and

have been incorporated, in various manifestations, in policy statements
226
TESOL QUARTERLY
in such diverse jurisdictions as Australia, England, and Hong Kong. In

relation to L2 education, the principles quoted above are intuitively
appealing, but the question now is, are there specific L2 issues in
formative assessment?
At least three main issues require attention. First, as shown by the
earlier discussion on the teachers in Hong Kong, Australia, and England,
teachers can interpret assessment criteria differently. So the idea that
teachers should observe what learners say and do, interpret their work,
and then provide guidance for improvement is an uncertain business.
Much depends on teachers knowledge of L2 development, their knowledge of students learning trajectories and preferences, and ultimately
the kind of assessment schemes they are working with. (For further
discussion on these points, see Leung, 2004, 2005a.) Teachers who teach
ESL students alongside English L1 students in mainstream subject
classrooms (e.g., state-sector schools in England) may face an even more
complex task: meeting the demands of the subject content learning and
the demands of L2 learning at the same time. For example, in a history
class, ESL students may simultaneously have to learn about a historical
event and have language learning needs. Teachers working in such
circumstances have to integrate the two sets of demands. (See Leung &
Mohan, 2004, for further discussion.)
Second, a teachers formative judgement may conceivably be incompatible with the requirements of a published official assessment scheme,
for either summative or formative purposes. For instance, in education
or school systems where ESL students are integrated into the mainstream
without an official complementary ESL curriculum, teachers are likely to
find themselves in this kind of intellectual and professional conflict if
they apply their own formative ESL assessment criteria to ESL students.
Furthermore, if, as is the case in a great many education systems in the
world today, standardized, summative assessment continues to have
higher status, and broader political endorsement and public recognition, any attempt to carry out formative assessment, possibly using an
alternative set of assessment criteria, would seem an effort not worth
making (see Leung, 2005c).
Third, the principles of formative assessment we have cited give an
impression that teachers readily adopt the kind of practice suggested.
But it is far from clear that this is the case. Broadfoot and Black (2004),
for instance, report some evidence suggesting that teachers do not
distinguish between formative and summative assessment and, in some
circumstances, may even resist reforms that challenge their preference
for summative assessment. Instead of assuming that all teachers will be
able to adopt a formative approach in recommended ways, it may be a
good idea to first find out what teachers think and do when carrying out
classroom assessment. Detailed observations of classroom practice, such
227
as those provided by Rea-Dickens (2001) and Gardner and Rea-Dickins

(2002), are much needed. At the heart of this assessment issue is a
question concerning teachers professional knowledge and skill, and the
educational values that inform their everyday professional practice.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

In this discussion we have attempted to show how some of the debates
and developments in the field of language testing and assessment are
related to some fundamental concepts and issues in ELT pedagogy and
curriculum. The search for authentic testing has broadened the concept
of task performance to include the part played by test takers (and others
involved). The inclusion of ethics and consequences in test validation
has led to not only greater knowledge of socially responsible ways of
using assessment outcomes, but also a growing awareness of the need to
link test validity and test use in an integrated way. The work in classroombased formative assessment has shown how intimately assessment is
connected to curriculum affordances and constraints, teacher knowledge, and teacher professionalism. The reflexive examination of social
values in assessment schemes has helped make explicit the curriculuminduced and socially constructed nature of language proficiency. All this
strongly suggests that work in testing and assessment is deeply relevant to
language pedagogy and curriculum development, and vice versa.
In a sense, this discussion has largely been retrospective. But we
cannot sign off without mentioning a rapidly developing real-world
phenomenon that will inevitably affect language testing and assessment
in the near future. For some time now, the field has understood that the
English language comprises different (codified) regional and national
varieties (e.g., Kachru, 1986, 1992). Some of these are recognized as
metropolitan native speaker varieties, such as Australian, British, and
North American, whereas others are regarded as nonnative varieties,
such as Indian, Nigerian, and Singaporean. The existence of these
Englishes has generated some very keen and interesting discussions on
specific features of the different varieties and on the contested notion of
native speaker (see Davies, 2003; Jenkins, 2000, for an overview). In terms
of English language testing, particularly high-stakes, large-scale proficiency testing administered by international bodies, it would be fair to
say that, in terms of language norms, language functions, and pragmatics,
the metropolitan native speaker varieties have held sway. But the growing
knowledge of English as lingua franca (ELF) in the past few years is
beginning to make this self-imposed normative insulation untenable.
ELF can be understood as both a medium for social interaction and a
constellation of language features (if not yet codified as stable varieties in
228
TESOL QUARTERLY
the conventional sense). The continuing spread of English in domains

such as international trade and supranational political development
(e.g., the European Union [EU]) now means that very often English is
the shared and chosen medium for communication in situations where
no native speaker of English is present. In this sense ELF, unlike the
more territorially bound concept of a variety of English (e.g., Australian
English or Indian English), is a use- and context-driven phenomenon
not primarily tied to any particular ethnic or racial group, nation, or
geographic space. The use of ELF in effect represents a kind of varietiesin-contact space where, without constant monitoring and control by
native speakers, English is potentially open to innovations, development,
and change. Seidlhofer (2004) observes that ELF has taken on a life of
its own, independent to a considerable degree of the norms established
by its native speakers (p. 212). Research in ELF has produced stable
descriptions of some discernible phonological, lexicogrammatical, and
pragmatic features (e.g., Jenkins, 2000; Meierkord, 2002; Seidlhofer,
2004; VOICE: The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, n.d.). In
addition, many of the ELF-medium interactions take place in what
House (1999) refers to as influential frameworks (p. 74) such as EU
political meetings and multinational business conventions.
The progressive establishment of a stable body of knowledge of ELF
features and the use of ELF in a wide range of contexts will no doubt
generate new momentum for a renewed debate on language norms and
the nature of language proficiency for teaching and assessment of
English (e.g., Brutt-Griffler, 2005; Davies, 2005; Leung, 2005b). The next
few years will very likely see a finer-grained discussion on greater
recognition of use- and context-referenced language norms to accommodate both ELF and local varieties of English in some types of
contextualized assessment of English. Brown and Lumleys (1998) attempt to take account of Indonesian English in the development of a test
of English for teachers is a good example of a recent attempt to
recognise the legitimacy of a local variety. In a world with accelerating
movements of peoples from diverse ethnolinguistic backgrounds, the
language testing and assessment community will in all likelihood need to
take a fuller account of local varieties, ELF, or both. Canagarajah (2005)
argues that in the hypothetical case of a Sri Lankan student moving to
New York to do graduate studies, a context-sensitive approach to
language testing and assessment will have to take into account proficiency in Black or Caribbean varieties for neighbourhood interaction,
Indian or Chinese varieties to understand some of the professors, and so
on. This scenario can be multiplied a thousandfold in every domain of
life. All this, however, does not mean that there is no place for the
metropolitan varieties, particularly the metropolitan standard English
variety that has been adopted in many existing tests. After all, as Davies
229
(2002) observes, standard English is (probably) best described and most

readily used globally for many purposes. But the case for maintaining a
universal English proficiency in assessment has been weakened.
The issues of World Englishes and ELF have returned us in a
roundabout way to where this discussion started, authenticity. Authenticity, whether in terms of task, test-taker perception, or language variety
and norms, seems likely to remain prominent in the future research
agenda.
THE AUTHORS
Constant Leung is a professor of educational linguistics in the Department of
Education and Professional Studies at Kings College London, and he is the director
of a masters program in English language teaching and applied linguistics. He has
written and published widely on additional and second language education and
language assessment issues.
Jo Lewkowicz is an associate professor and acting associate dean at the American
University of Armenia, where she teaches in the graduate TESOL programs. She has
taught in Hong Kong, China, Kenya, Egypt, and Poland. Her research interests
include language testing and postgraduate literacy.
REFERENCES
Alderson, C. (1991). Language testing in the 1990s: How far have we come? How
much further have we to go? In S. Anivan (Ed.), Current developments in language
testing (pp. 126). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Alderson, C. (2004). The shape of things to come: Will it be a normal distribution? In
M. Milanovic & C. Weir (Eds.), Studies in language testing: Vol. 18. European language
testing in a global context (pp. 126). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate & Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, C., & Banerjee, J. (2001). Language testing and assessment (Part I).
Language Teaching, 34, 213236.
Alderson, C., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part II).
Language Teaching, 35, 79113.
Arkoudis, S., & OLoughlin, K. (2004). Tensions between validity and outcomes:
Teacher assessment of written work of recently arrived immigrant ESL students.
Language Testing, 21, 284304.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved
June 13, 2005, from http://arg.educ.cam.ac.uk/CIE3.pdf
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England:
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring
that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17, 142.
Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453476.
Bachman, L. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 2, 134.
230
TESOL QUARTERLY
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, England:
Berry, V. (2004). A study of the interaction between individual personality differences and oral
performance test facets. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kings College London.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for
learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 5, 773.
Breen, M. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6, 60
70.
Brindley, G. (1998). Assessing in the AMEP: Current trends and future directions.
Prospect, 13(3), 5973.
Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and
emerging insights. Language Testing, 18, 393407.
Broadfoot, P. (2005). Dark alleys and blind bends: Testing the language of learning.
Broadfoot, P., & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of
Assessment in Education. Assessment in Education, 11, 727.
Brown, A. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupationspecific language performance test. Language Testing, 12, 115.
Brown, A., & Lumley, T. (1998). Linguistic and cultural norms in language testing: A
case study. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 7, 8096.
Brown, J. D. (2000). What is construct validity? JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG
Newsletter, 4(2), 710.
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J. M., & Bonk, W. (2002). An investigation of second
language task-based performance assessments. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2005, September). Striving to be the native speaker. Paper presented at
the British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Meeting, Bristol, England.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005, July). Changing communicative priorities, shifting pedagogical
priorities, revised assessment objectives. Symposium paper presented at the 14th World
Congress of Applied Linguistics, Madison, WI.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In
J. Richards & J. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 227). London:
Longman.
Canale, M. (1984). A communicative approach to language proficiency assessment in
a minority setting. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to
language proficiency assessment: Research and application (pp. 107122). Clevedon,
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 147.
Carlson, D. (1991). Changing the face of testing in California. California Curriculum
News Report, 163(3).
Cumming, A. (2004). Broadening, deepening, and consolidating. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 518.
Daugherty Assessment Review Group. (2004). Learning pathways through statutory
assessment: Key stages 2 and 3 (final report). Retrieved September 19, 2005, from
http://www.learning.wales.gov.uk/scripts/fe/news_details.asp?NewsID=1226
Davies, A. (2002, September). Whose English? Choosing a model for our language tests.
Plenary paper presented at the International Conference on Language Testing
and Language Teaching, Shanghai, China.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
231
Davies, A. (2005, September). Native or non-native speaker? A question of

language, culture or identity? Paper presented at the British Association for
Applied Linguistics Annual Meeting, Bristol, England.
Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL
teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools.
Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral
proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19,
347368.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second
language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299323.
Gardner, S., & Rea-Dickens, P. (2002). Focus on language sampling: A key issue in EAL
assessment (Occasional Paper No. 15). Watford, England: National Association for
Language Development in the Curriculum.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and validity: Ethical concerns. Language
Testing, 14, 295303.
Hargreaves, P. (1987). Royal Society of Arts: Examination in the communicative use
of English as a foreign language. In J. C. Alderson, K. Krahnke, & C. Stanfield
(Eds.), Reviews of English language proficiency tests (pp. 3234.). Washington, DC:
TESOL.
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in
English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzman
(Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language (pp. 7398). Tbingen,
Germany: Stauffenburg.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269293). London: Penguin Books.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new
norms, new goals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D., & Kress, G. (2003). Globalisation, literacy and society: Redesigning
pedagogy and assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 514.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of nonnative Englishes. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The
other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 4874). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kunnan, A. J. (1995). Test-taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling
approach. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate & Cambridge University Press.
Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.). (2000). Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected
papers from 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida. Cambridge,
England: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Leung, C. (1999). Teachers response to linguistic diversity. In A. Tosi & C. Leung
(Eds.), Rethinking language education: from a monolingual to a multilingual perspective
(pp. 225240). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and
Research.
Leung, C. (2004). Developing formative teacher assessment: knowledge, practice and
change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 1941.
Leung, C. (2005a). Classroom teacher assessment of second language development:
Construct as practice. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
learning and teaching (pp. 869888). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leung, C. (2005b). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
Leung, C. (2005c). English as an additional language policy: Issues of inclusive access
and language learning in the mainstream. Prospect, 20(1), 95113.
232
TESOL QUARTERLY
Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom
contextsassessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing,
20, 335359.
Leung, C., & Teasdale, A. (1997). Raters understanding of rating scales as abstracted
concept and as instruments for decision-making. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing, 6, 4570.
Lewkowicz, J. (1997). Investigating authenticity in language testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, England.
Lewkowicz, J. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: Some unanswered questions.
Lumley, T., & Brown, A. (1998). Authenticity of discourse in a specific purpose test.
In E. Li & G. James (Eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education (pp.
2233). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Lynch, B. K. (1997). In search of the ethical test. Language Testing, 14, 315327.
Lynch, B., & Shaw, P. (2005). Portfolios, power, and ethics. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 263
297.
McDowell, C. (1995). Assessing language proficiency of overseas-qualified teachers:
The English language skills assessment (ELSA). In G. Brindley (Ed.), Language
assessment in action (NCELTR Research Series No. 8). Sydney, Australia: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
McKay, P. (2005). Research into the assessment of school-aged language learners.
McNamara, T. (1991). Test dimensionality: IRT analysis of an ESP listening test.
McNamara, T. (1995). Modelling performance: Opening Pandoras box. Applied
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for
research. Language Testing, 18, 333349.
Meierkord, C. (2002). Language stripped bare or linguistic masala? Culture in
lingua franca conversation. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca
communication (pp. 109133). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp.
13103). New York: Macmillan.
Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? In
C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching
(pp. 143157). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 2001.
North, B. (1995a). The development of a common framework scale of descriptors of
language proficiency based on a theory of measurement. System, 23, 445465.
North, B. (1995b). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency
based on a history of measurement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Thames Valley
University, London.
Norton, B., & Starfield, S. (1997). Covert language assessment in academic writing.
OSullivan, B. (2000). Towards a model of performance in oral language testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, England.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom
assessment. Language Testing, 18, 429462.
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language
teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
233
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scott, C., & Erduran, S. (2004). Learning from international frameworks for assessment: EAL descriptors in Australia and the USA. Language Testing, 21, 409431.
Seidhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Shohamy, E. (2001). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18,
373391.
Silberstein, S. (Ed.). (1991). 25 years as an international family [Special issues]. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(14).
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based approaches to language testing. In E. Li & G. James
(Eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education (pp. 3449). Hong Kong:
Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Spolsky, B. (1997). The ethics of gatekeeping tests: What have we learned in a
hundred years? Language Testing, 14, 242247.
Storey, P. (1997). Examining the test-taking process: A cognitive perspective on the
discourse cloze test. Language Testing, 14, 214231.
TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.
VOICE: The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. (n.d.). Retrieved September
22, 2005, from http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford, England:
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on
oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85106.
Wiliam, D. (2001). Reliability, validity, and all that jazz. Education, 3(13), 1721.
Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Cumming, J. J. (2003). Curriculum literacies: Expanding
domains of assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 4759.
234
TESOL QUARTERLY
The Sociocultural Turn and

Its Challenges for Second Language
Teacher Education
KAREN E. JOHNSON
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
Although the overall mission of second language (L2) teacher education has remained relatively constant, that is, to prepare L2 teachers to
do the work of this profession, the fields understanding of that work
of who teaches English, who learns English and why, of the sociopolitical
and socioeconomic contexts in which English is taught, and of the
varieties of English that are being taught and used around the world
has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. This article examines
the epistemological underpinnings of a more general sociocultural turn
in the human sciences and the impact that this turn has had on the
fields understanding of how L2 teachers learn to do their work. Four
interrelated challenges that have come to the forefront as a result of
this turn are discussed: (a) theory/practice versus praxis, (b) the
legitimacy of teachers ways of knowing, (c) redrawing the boundaries
of professional development, and (d) located L2 teacher education.
In addressing these challenges, the intellectual tools of inquiry are
positioned as critical if L2 teacher education is to sustain a teaching
force of transformative intellectuals who can navigate their professional
worlds in ways that enable them to create educationally sound, contextually appropriate, and socially equitable learning opportunities for the
students they teach.
s TESOL Quarterly marks its 40th anniversary, the preparation of

teachers to teach English to speakers of other languages remains
complex and multifarious. Although the overall mission of second
language (L2)1 teacher education has remained relatively constant, that
is, to prepare L2 teachers to do the work of this profession, the fields
understanding of that workof who teaches English, of who learns
English and why, of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic contexts in
1
I use the term L2 throughout to refer to the teaching and learning of English as a second,
additional, or foreign language.
235
which English is taught, and of the varieties of English that are taught
and used around the worldhas changed dramatically over the past 40
years. Many factors have advanced the fields understanding of L2
teachers work, but none is more significant than the emergence of a
substantial body of research now referred to as teacher cognition (in L2, see
Borg, 2003; Freeman, 2002; Woods, 1996). This research has helped
capture the complexities of who teachers are, what they know and
believe, how they learn to teach, and how they carry out their work in
diverse contexts throughout their careers.
However, over the past 40 years, the ways in which educational
research has conceptualized teacher cognition, which has in turn
informed the activity of teacher education, has shifted dramatically. In
the mid-1970s, when research focused on teaching behaviors and the
student learning outcomes they produced (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974),
teacher education centered on ensuring that teachers had mastered the
content they were expected to teach and could deliver it through
efficient methods that led to greater gains in student achievement
(Hunter, 1982). In the mid-1980s, cognitive learning theories and
information-processing models shifted the focus of research to questions
about what teachers actually know, how they use that knowledge, and
what impact their decisions have on their instructional practices
(Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Teacher education continued to focus on
content knowledge and teaching practices, but teachers were conceptualized as decision makers and were expected to benefit from making
their tacit knowledge and decisions explicit (Clark & Peterson, 1986;
Freeman, 1991; Johnson, 1992).
Yet, once research began to uncover the complexities of teachers
mental lives (Walberg, 1977; also see Freeman, 2002), teacher educators
could no longer ignore the fact that teachers prior experiences, their
interpretations of the activities they engage in, and, most important, the
contexts within which they work are extremely influential in shaping how
and why teachers do what they do. The positivistic paradigm that had
long positioned teachers as conduits to students and their learning was
found to be insufficient for explaining the complexities of teachers
mental lives and the teaching processes that occur in classrooms. Rather,
an interpretative or situated paradigm, largely drawn from ethnographic
research in sociology and anthropology, came to be seen as better suited
to explaining the complexities of teachers mental lives and the various
dimensions of teachers professional worlds (see Elbaz, 1991). This shift
did not occur in isolation but was influenced by epistemological shifts in
how various intellectual traditions had come to conceptualize human
learning; more specifically, historically documented shifts from behaviorist, to cognitive, to situated, social, and distributed views of human
cognition (Cobb & Bower, 1999; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Paker
236
TESOL QUARTERLY
& Winne, 1995; Putman & Borko, 2000; for reviews of parallel shifts in
conceptualizations of language and second language acquisition [SLA],
see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Lantolf, 1996).
I begin my contribution to this 40th anniversary issue by highlighting
the epistemological underpinnings of a more general sociocultural turn
in the human sciences and the impact of this turn on how the field of L2
teacher education has come to understand L2 teacher cognition. I then
outline four interrelated challenges that have come to the forefront as
the field works to be epistemologically consistent with current understandings of how L2 teachers learn to do their work. I conclude by
arguing that, despite this sociocultural turn and the challenges it has
created for L2 teacher education, it has yet to infiltrate the positivistic
paradigm that continues to dominate the public discourse surrounding
the professional activities of L2 teachers. Coming to terms with the
epistemological gaps between how L2 teacher cognition is conceptualized, how L2 teachers are prepared to do their work, and how L2
teachers and their practices are constructed in the public settings where
they work will be critical to the advancement of L2 teacher education in
the TESOL profession.
THE SOCIOCULTURAL TURN

The epistemological stance of the sociocultural turn defines human
learning as a dynamic social activity that is situated in physical and social
contexts, and distributed across persons, tools, and activities (Rogoff,
2003; Salomon, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Although rooted
in divergent intellectual traditions, several compatible theories have
helped explicate this turn. Theories of situated cognition argue that
knowledge entails lived practices, not just accumulated information, and
the processes of learning are negotiated with people in what they do,
through experiences in the social practices associated with particular
activities (Chaiklin & Lave, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Moreover, social activities are regulated by normative ways of reasoning
and using tasks and other resources in collective activity, or what Lave
and Wenger (1991) have termed a community of practice. Thus, the
knowledge of the individual is constructed through the knowledge of the
communities of practice within which the individual participates.
Sociocultural theories also argue that the way in which human
consciousness develops depends on the specific social activities in which
people engage. However, in order to understand human learning, or
higher cognitive development, one must look at the social activities that
the individual engages in and see how they reappear as mental activities
in the individual (Leontev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985,
THE SOCIOCULTURAL TURN AND ITS CHALLENGES
237
1991; for L2, see Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Learning,
therefore, is not the straightforward appropriation of skills or knowledge
from the outside in, but the progressive movement from external,
socially mediated activity to internal mediational control by individual
learners, which results in the transformation of both the self and the
activity. And because social activities and the language used to regulate
them are structured and gain meaning in historically and culturally
situated ways, both the physical tools and the language practices used by
communities of practice gain their meaning from those who have come
before.
Critical social theories support the notion that social activities simultaneously reflect, create, and recreate historically situated ways of knowing,
social relations, and material conditions (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977;
Foucault, 1980; Habermas, 1998). Central to these theories is the role
that language plays in social practices (Fairclough, 1989; Gee, 1996), in
particular, how language is implicated in the ways in which social class,
race, sexuality, ethnicity, and linguistic identity are constructed and
reconstructed through human relationships, especially in terms of how
power and inequity are enacted in both social and institutional arrangements and the ideological discourses that support them (Pennycook,
1989, 2001). Knowledge and knowing, therefore, depend on point of
view, a sort of social positioning, that is constituted in and emerges out of
how the individual is constructed in different social and physical
contexts.
Despite the different ways in which these perspectives foreground and
background the dynamic between the social, the cognitive, and language, and despite the varied research agendas of the people who use
these perspectives in their work, the epistemological stance of the
sociocultural turn supports the notion that humans develop as participants in cultural communities and that their development can be
understood only in light of the cultural practices and circumstances of
their communitieswhich also change (Rogoff, 2003, pp. 34). Thus,
both participation and context are critical to human cognition. The
sociocultural turn stands in stark contrast to the cognitive learning
theories of the positivistic paradigm that defined learning as an internal
psychological process isolated in the mind of the learner and largely free
from the social and physical contexts within which it occurs (Lenneberg,
1967).
Historically grounded in the positivistic paradigm, L2 teacher education has long been structured around the assumption that teachers could
learn about the content they were expected to teach (language) and
teaching practices (how best to teach it) in their teacher education
program, observe and practice it in the teaching practicum, and develop
pedagogical expertise during the induction years of teaching. Yet the
238
TESOL QUARTERLY
emerging body of research on L2 teacher cognition has begun to

construct a very different characterization of how teachers learn to do
their work (see Borg, 2003, Freeman, 1996, 2002; Freeman & Johnson,
1998a; Golombek, 1998; Johnson & Golombek, 2003; Woods, 1996). This
research depicts L2 teacher learning as normative and lifelong, as
emerging out of and through experiences in social contexts: as learners
in classrooms and schools, as participants in professional teacher education programs, and later as teachers in the settings where they work. It
describes L2 teacher learning as socially negotiated and contingent on
knowledge of self, students, subject matter, curricula, and setting. It
shows L2 teachers as users and creators of legitimate forms of knowledge
who make decisions about how best to teach their L2 students within
complex socially, culturally, and historically situated contexts. And most
significantly, it exposes an epistemological gap between how L2 teacher
educators have traditionally prepared L2 teachers to do their work and
how L2 teachers actually learn to teach and carry out their work. To
redress this gap, in other words, for the activity of L2 teacher education
to be epistemologically consistent with the current conceptualization of
L2 teacher cognition, several interrelated challenges have come to the
forefrontchallenges that will by necessity reorient the ways in which L2
teachers are prepared to do their work.
Challenge 1. Theory/Practice Versus Praxis

Since the publication of the TESOL Quarterly special-topic issue on
English language teacher education (Freeman & Johnson, 1998b), a
public debate has continued over what should stand at the core of the
knowledge base of L2 teacher education (Bartels, 2004; Freeman &
Johnson, 2004, 2005a; Tarone & Allwright, 2005; Yates & Muchisky,
2003). Fundamental to this debate is whether the knowledge base should
remain grounded in core disciplinary knowledge about the nature of
language and language acquisition (Yates & Muchisky, 2003, p. 136) or
focus more centrally on how L2 teachers learn to teach and how they
carry out their work (Freeman & Johnson, 1998a). Some have charged
that any sort of repositioning would lead to greater attention to the
personal and experiential at the expense of the empirical and theoretical
(Yates & Muchisky, 2003). Others have argued that it would take away the
subject matter (i.e., language and how to teach it) that makes L2
teachers and their teaching unique (Tarone & Allwright, 2005) or erode
the authority and thus professionalism of L2 teachers (Widdowson,
2002). Counterarguments rebut that although it is certainly important
for L2 teachers to know about theories of language and SLA, the
cumulative effect of studying what language is and how it is acquired may
239
not necessarily translate into effective L2 teaching practices (Freeman &

Johnson, 1998a, 2004, 2005a; Johnson, 2003a). A similar position has
been articulated in general educational research, especially in U.S.-based
mathematics education, where teachers mathematical knowledge for
teaching, as opposed to knowledge of mathematics, has been found to
have a significant impact on student achievement (Hill, Rowan, & Ball,
2005).
Perhaps the traditional theory/practice dichotomy, which seems to
permeate this debate, is counterproductive in light of the sociocultural
turn outlined above. Instead of arguing over whether or not L2 teachers
should study, for example, theories of SLA as part of a professional
preparation program, attention may be better focused on creating
opportunities for L2 teachers to make sense of those theories in their
professional lives and the settings where they work (Freeman & Johnson,
1998a; 2004). From this perspective, the construct of praxis (Freire,
1970) is more suitable for the preparation of teachers because it captures
how theory and practice inform one another and how this transformative
process informs teachers work (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Edge & Richards,
1998; Simon, 1992).
A recent account of L2 teachers praxis is The TESOL Quarterly
Dialogues: Rethinking Issues of Language, Culture, and Power (Sharkey &
Johnson, 2003). In this collection of dialogues between TQ readers
(classroom teachers) and TQ authors (researchers), expert knowledge
(Kennedy, 1999) as codified in previously published TQ articles provides
TQ readers with theoretical constructs and multiple discourses through
which they express their emerging understandings of language, culture,
and power in L2 teaching. TQ readers actively link this expert knowledge
to their own experiential knowledge as they reframe the way they
describe and interpret their lived experiences. These new understandings enable TQ readers to reorganize their experiential knowledge, and
this reorganization creates a new lens through which they interpret their
understandings of themselves and their classroom practices. Thus,
praxis, as a form of expertise, has a great deal of experiential knowledge
in it, but it is organized around and transformed through theoretical
knowledge. Not only are teachers understandings of theory populated
with their own intentions and in their own voices (Bakhtin, 1981; Ball,
2000; Freeman, 1991), but teachers also become active users and
producers of theory in their own right, for their own means, and as
appropriate for their own instructional contexts (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1993; Johnson, 2003b).
From the epistemological stance of the sociocultural turn, knowledge
that informs activity is not just abstracted from theory, codified in
textbooks, and constructed through principled ways of examining phenomena, but also emerges out of a dialogic and transformative process of
240
TESOL QUARTERLY
reconsidering and reorganizing lived experiences through the theoretical constructs and discourses that are publicly recognized and valued
within the communities of practice that hold power. And, although
teachers do, in fact, engage in the sort of theorizing captured in the
construct of praxis, whether as part of officially sanctioned professional
development programs or through self-initiated professional activities, a
critical challenge for L2 teacher education is to create public spaces that
make visible how L2 teachers make sense of and use the disciplinary
knowledge that has informed and will continue to inform L2 teacher
education. Public spaces, such as Sharkey and Johnsons (2003) The
TESOL Quarterly Dialogues, help legitimize the complex ways in which
L2 teachers come to understand their experiences through the multiple
discourses that theory has to offer and highlight how teachers coconstruct and use knowledge that informs their practice.
Challenge 2. The Legitimacy of Teachers Ways of Knowing

If one accepts the notion that L2 teachers are users and creators of
knowledge and theorizers in their own right, then an additional challenge is to position teachers ways of knowing that lead to praxis as
legitimate knowledge in L2 teacher education. General educational
research indexes research on how teachers come to know what they
know as new scholarship (Schn, 1995; Zeichner, 1999) or practitioner
knowledge (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). This research typically
emerges out of questions posed by teachers in their work settings, and it
enables them to bring a new sense of meaning and significance to their
work. Largely ethnographic and descriptive in nature, this research has
positioned teachers ways of knowing as having the potential to infuse
the traditional knowledge base of teaching with insider knowledge that
includes the complex and multilayered understandings that teachers
possess as natives to their work settings (Clandinin, 1986; Clandinin &
Connelly, 1991, 1995; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, 1998, 1999; Johnson
& Golombek, 2002).
The reflective teaching movement (Lockhart & Richards, 1994; Schn,
1983; 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1996), action research (Edge, 2001;
Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Somekh, 1993; Wallace, 1998), and the
teacher research movement (Burns, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Edge & Richards, 1993; Freeman, 1998) have helped legitimize teachers
ways of knowing and ways of coming to know by highlighting the
importance of reflection on and inquiry into teachers experiences as
mechanisms for change in classroom practices. Although teacher research stems from teachers own desires to make sense of their classroom
experiences, it is defined by ordered ways of gathering, recollecting, and
241
recording information; documenting experiences inside and outside the

classroom; and creating written records of the insights that emerge.
Thus, teacher research positions teachers as investigators of and interveners in their own practice while making their investigations and
interventions, in essence their learning, visible to others.
Because this enterprise takes an emic perspective, in that it seeks to
capture the meanings and perspectives of teachers and their learning,
the use of narrative has emerged as a predominant means of understanding and documenting teachers ways of knowing (Carter, 1993; Doyle,
1997). Elbaz (1991) argues that
story is the very stuff of teaching, the landscape within which we live as
teachers and researchers, and within which the work of teachers can be seen
as making sense. This is not merely a claim about the aesthetic or emotional
sense of fit of the notion of story with our intuitive understanding of teaching,
but an epistemological claim that teachers knowledge in its own terms is
ordered by story and can best be understood in this way. (p. 3)
Equally important is the notion that narratives connect phenomena,

infuse them with interpretation, and thus uncover teachers interpretations of the activities they engage in. Therefore, narratives situate and
relate facts to one another, and the essence of truth is not static or a
given but in how phenomena are connected and interpreted (Doyle,
1997).
In order to recognize teachers ways of knowing as legitimate knowledge, L2 teacher education must accept the multiple forms that their
ways of knowing and their ways of coming to know may take. And
although teachers ways of knowing, by design, do not necessarily lead to
the development of generalized principles of what works, they place
teachers in the position of asking much more substantive questions, such
as these: For whom does their instruction work? Why? Who might be left
out? What are the social and educational consequences that their
instructional practices may have for the intellectual and social lives of the
students they teach? Moreover, simply legitimizing teachers ways of
knowing will not automatically lead to praxis. This will occur only when
teachers have multiple opportunities to connect their ways of knowing to
theory, both emic and etic, through modes of engagement that lead to
praxis and, more importantly, when they are deeply embedded in
communities of practice that seek to ask these more substantive questions.
Teachers ways of knowing that lead to praxis can enrich L2 teacher
education precisely because they are generated in and emerge out of
teachers lived experiences, they highlight the interconnectedness of
how teachers think about their work, they are deeply connected to the
problems of practice, and they are situated in the contexts in which such
242
TESOL QUARTERLY
problems are constructed. They reflect both the processes of teacher

learning and the impact of that learning on teachers classroom practices
and students opportunities for learning. And although they have value
for the individual teacher, they also have value for L2 teacher education
when they are made public, accessible, and open to review (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1993; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Johnson &
Golombek, 2002).
The end goal is the articulation, documentation, and public recognition of teachers ways of knowing that lead to praxis, as legitimate
knowledge and as legitimate ways of coming to know. The challenge for
L2 teacher education will be to position teachers as knowers and to
position their ways of knowing that lead to praxis alongside the disciplinary knowledge that has dominated the traditional knowledge base of L2
teacher education.
Challenge 3. Redrawing the Boundaries of

Professional Development
If one embraces the notion that teacher learning is social, situated in
physical and social contexts, and distributed across persons, tools, and
activities, then an additional challenge for L2 teacher education is to
redraw the boundaries that have typically defined professional development. This will entail looking at sites of teacher learning beyond visible
professional development activities such as course work, workshops, and
seminars for teachers organized by others to include teachers informal
social and professional networks and the extent to which their classrooms are sites for professional learning.
In some educational contexts, top-down professional development
models, in which innovations are imposed on teachers with little
attention to how to integrate them into existing classroom practices,
have begun to give way to alternative professional development structures that allow for self-directed, collaborative, inquiry-based learning
that is directly relevant to teachers classroom lives. Alternative structures
designed to foster and sustain teachers professional development, for
example, teacher inquiry seminars (part of the Teacher Knowledge
Project; see School for International Training, 2003), peer coaching
(Ackland, 2000), cooperative development (Edge, 1992), teacher study
groups (Burns, 1999; Clair, 1998; Dubetz, 2005), narrative inquiry (Bell,
2002; Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Golombek, 2002), lesson
study groups (Takemura & Shimizu, 1993), and critical friends groups
(Bambino, 2002), are all designed to create more equitable social roles
and typically take place in settings that are more connected to the daily
243
activities of teachers and students. Common to these structural arrangements is the recognition that participation and context are essential to
teacher learning, and therefore that the classrooms where teachers
spend the majority of their time represent legitimate sites for teacher
learning. In addition, they encourage teachers to engage in ongoing, indepth, and reflective examinations of their teaching practices and
students learning (Rogers, 2002) while embracing the processes of
teacher socialization that occur in classrooms, schools, and teachers
wider professional communities. Finally, they create both public and
private spaces for teachers to theorize about their work.
New technologies are also redrawing the boundaries of professional
development. The availability of online teacher certificate programs,
various configurations of online and face-to-face instruction, and the use
of synchronic and asynchronic computer-mediated communication
(CMC) tools such as online bulletin boards, chat rooms, and blogs, have
helped create virtual communities where teachers can engage in discussions about and inquiry into their own learning and the learning
environments that they seek to create for students. The integration of
CMC tools in L2 teacher education has been found to foster qualitatively
different forms of participation than face-to-face instruction does, create
more equitable social roles as teachers engage in inquiry about their own
learning and teaching, foster greater collaboration among teacher
learners, and decrease the sense of isolation L2 teachers in disparate
locations often experience (Kamhi-Stein, 2000a, 2000b). Although not a
panacea for the delivery of L2 teacher education, new technologies have
the potential to increase the power that teachers and their learners have
over their own learning or, as Cummins (2000) argues, the potential to
promote language learning in a transformative way when it is aligned
with a pedagogy oriented towards promoting collaborative relations of
power in the classroom and beyond (p. 539). However, critical to the
successful integration of new technologies in teacher learning is the
instructors role in organizing and facilitating what learners attend to in
CMC environments (see Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003; Ware & Kramsch,
2005).
An important caveat for redrawing the boundaries of professional
development is not to assume that simply creating alternative structures
will necessarily translate into significant and worthwhile change in
teachers practices (see Richardson, 1990). Critical to this challenge will
be systematic exploration into the kinds of participation these alternative
structures engender, their impact on teacher learning, and the kinds of
learning environments teachers in turn create to foster student learning.
Largely unexplored in the current research on L2 teacher cognition is
the relationship between teacher learning and student learning, a
dimension of the teaching-learning equation that is often misconstrued
244
TESOL QUARTERLY
as a causal conditional rather than a relationship of influence

(Freeman & Johnson, 2005b, pp. 7680). In other words, although
teaching does not necessarily cause student learning, there is clearly a
relationship of influence between what teachers learn, how they organize
their classroom activities, and what students learn from engaging in
those activities (Freeman & Johnson, 2005a; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005).
Understanding the complexities of this relationship will be critical to the
advancement of the research on teacher cognition in L2 teacher
education.
Finally, an equally important challenge will be getting school administrators and educational policy makers to recognize the legitimacy of
alternative forms of professional development and to provide the financial support that will enable teachers to sustain them over time. Because
professional development has long been assumed to happen outside of
teachers classrooms, redrawing the boundaries of professional development and demonstrating the utility of such experiences for both teacher
and student learning will be absolutely critical for the future of L2
teacher education.
Challenge 4. Located L2 Teacher Education

A fourth challenge for L2 teacher education is the recognition that
the professional development of L2 teachers takes place in ever-changing sociopolitical and socioeconomic contexts around the world. This
recognition calls into question the assumption that there can or should
be uniformity in what L2 teachers should know and be able to do. Both
the content and the activities of L2 teacher education must take into
account the social, political, economic, and cultural histories that are
located in the contexts where L2 teachers learn and teach. Context is not
necessarily limited to specific geopolitical boundaries but can be
sociopolitical, sociohistorical, and socioeconomic contexts that shape
and are shaped by local and global events, for example, the globalization
of English or the recognition of World Englishes.
Studies from around the globe find L2 teachers enacting their
practices in styles that suit the normative ways of teaching and learning
that are historically embedded in their local contexts (Canagarajah,
1999, 2005; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996; Li, 1998; Probyn, 2001; SimonMaeda, 2004). More specifically, although questions about the exportability of Western methods have been raised for some time (Burnaby &
Sun, 1989; Li, 1998; Scovel, 1986; Ting, 1987), ministries of education,
national educational policy makers, and other legislative bodies continue to set educational policies that import Western methods without
taking into account the local constraints that will ultimately affect the
245
extent to which L2 teachers are willing or able to implement curricular

innovations. As a case in point, South Koreas ministry of educations
sixth and seventh national curricula for public schools mandate that
communicative language teaching replace traditional grammar-translation
and audiolingual methods and that teachers teach English through
English using task-based activities that engage learners in meaningful
language use. Yet, both mandates fail to account for the limited oral
language proficiency of the local teaching force, the washback effect of
the grammar-translation-oriented examination system, and the normative ways of schooling that South Korean teachers and their students are
socialized into. Thus, English language teachers in South Korea have,
not surprisingly, been found to enact these curricula in very traditional,
noncommunicative ways (Kim, 2005; Li, 1998). The implication for
located L2 teacher education is not to expect L2 teachers to succumb to
the hegemonic practices that are imposed on them but, for example, to
expose L2 teachers to the pedagogical value of helping L2 students
create alternative identities (i.e., I dont need to sound like a native
speaker of English) or creating discursive spaces both inside (i.e., safe
houses; see Canagarajah, 2003) and outside (i.e., new technologies) the
classroom, where L2 students can try on new linguistic and cultural
identities in ways that support their L2 learning (Gebhard, 2004).
Located L2 teacher education must also enable L2 teachers to
scrutinize and navigate the consequences that broader macrostructures,
such as educational policies and curricular mandates, have on their daily
classroom practices. For example, the U.S. educational reform movement legislated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has created a
host of challenges for the assessment of and accountability for the
achievement of limited-English-proficient students. Although the act was
intended to raise the academic profile of English language learners to be
on par with their English-fluent counterparts, inconsistent classification
mechanisms, lack of clarity over how proficiency is defined, and undue
test performance pressure have created a contested and often contradictory work environment for L2 teachers and administrators (Abedi, 2004;
Freeman & Riley, 2005). High-stakes tests, such as the Test of English as
a Foreign Language (TOEFL), must also be scrutinized to ensure that
teachers professional judgments about the communicative abilities of
their L2 students are not trumped by the TOEFL scores students receive
(see Johnson, Jordan, & Poehner, 2005).
Located L2 teacher education begins by recognizing why L2 teachers
do what they do within the social, historical, and cultural contexts within
which they work and from there works to co-construct with L2 teachers
locally appropriate responses to their professional development needs.
Of course, this will be both a macro- and microenterprise because it
requires attending to the social and ideological structures that shape and
246
TESOL QUARTERLY
are shaped by the contexts in which L2 teachers live and work as well as
recognizing the complexities of classroom life and the relative autonomy
that can exist there. Equally important is the need for located L2 teacher
education to engage L2 teachers in the professional discourses and
practices that are evolving beyond their localities as a means to critique
their local knowledge and context. When L2 teachers engage in reflexive
inquiry, their local knowledge evolves out of an engagement with wider
professional discourses and practices and can lead to praxis (Canagarajah,
2002).
An additional element in creating locally appropriate responses to L2
teacher education is the close examination of the way L2 teachers are
constructed in their work settings and the relative status of L2 teaching
in those settings. Those who have explored how L2 teachers negotiate
their identities cite a combination of biographical and contextual factors
that keep those identities in a continual state of flux (Duff & Uchida,
1997; Mantero, 2004; Pavlenko, 2003; Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, &
Johnson, 2005). In addition, despite scholarly efforts at dislodging the
myth of the native speaker (Kachru, 1992; Kramsch, 1997; Medgyes,
1994), nonnative-speaking L2 teachers continue to face inequitable
hiring practices, hold marginalized teaching assignments, and be positioned as less competent than their expert-speaker counterparts (Arva &
Medgyes, 2000; Braine, 1999). Navigating and sustaining a sense of
professional expertise, regardless of ones linguistic biography, is critical
to how L2 teachers will ultimately position themselves and their work in
the contexts in which they teach ( Johnston, 1997; Tsui, 2004). Constructing locally appropriate responses to support the preparation and professionalism of L2 teachers will continue to be a challenge for L2 teacher
education. It will entail recognizing how changing sociopolitical and
socioeconomic contexts affect the ways in which L2 teachers are positioned, how they enact their teaching practices, and, most importantly,
the kinds of learning environments they are willing and able to create for
their L2 students.
THE INTELLECTUAL TOOLS OF INQUIRY

VERSUS THE POLITICS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Although the understanding of how L2 teachers learn to do the work
of this profession has enabled the field to think about the professional
development of L2 teachers in longitudinal and developmental terms, as
being both overt and covert, and as influenced by both participation and
context, most L2 teachers continue to work in institutions in which they,
their students, and their instructional practices are constructed by the
positivistic paradigm that defines good teaching in terms of student
247
performance on standardized tests and conceptualizes learning as internal to the learner. Compounding this predicament is the fact that most
L2 teachers are products of this same paradigm, having been socialized
into normative ways of thinking about L2 teaching and learning, and
then finding themselves in L2 classrooms that are largely regulated by
these same normative practices. Add to this the oppressive nature of
global educational policies and curricular mandates that hold teachers
accountable for student learning based on standardized assessment
instruments and dictate what content is to be taught, when, and how, and
it becomes painfully obvious that the politics of accountability has
infiltrated the public discourse surrounding L2 teaching, L2 learning,
and the professional preparation of L2 teachers. In light of these
realities, it is not surprising that L2 teachers struggle to reject a teach-forthe-test mentality, are frustrated by being positioned as managers of
curricula rather than as facilitators of the L2 learning process, and
increasingly feel professionally disempowered within the contexts in
which they work (for L1 see Cochran-Smith, 2005; for L2 see Gebhard,
2005; Gutierrez, Larson, & Kreuter, 1995).
For L2 teachers to work productively in an educational climate of
standardization and accountability, they need, now more than ever, to
function as transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1988; see also Pennycook,
1989, 2001). In other words, they need the intellectual tools to position
themselves as
professionals who are able and willing to reflect upon the ideological
principles that inform practice, who connect pedagogical theory and practice
to wider social issues, and who work together to share ideas, and exercise
power over the conditions of more humane life. (Giroux & McLaren, 1989,
p. xxiii)
More than a half-century ago, the progressive educational philosopher Dewey (1933) characterized the intellectual tools of inquiry as the
means by which humans make experience educative. He argued that it is
through the attitudes of open-mindedness (seeking alternatives), responsibility (recognizing consequences), and wholeheartedness (continual self-examination) that teachers come to recognize their own
assumptions about themselves as teachers, about their students, about
the curriculum they teach, and about the nature and impact of their
teaching practices. Foundational to the principles of reflective teaching
(Zeichner & Liston, 1996), when teachers inquire into their experiences
through these attitudes, the intellectual tools of inquiry enable them to
confront the taken-for-granted assumptions about what is and is not
possible within the context in which they teach, systematically problematize
their own everyday practices, and regularly ask the broader questions of
248
TESOL QUARTERLY
not just whether their practices work, but for whom, in what ways, and
why.
For L2 teachers to function as transformative intellectuals, the intellectual tools of inquiry must permeate all dimensions of their professional development experiences. Using these tools to inquire about their
professional identities, L2 teachers come to recognize their own beliefs,
values, and knowledge about language learning and language teaching
and become aware of their impact on classroom practices ( Johnson,
1999). Through such inquiry they come to terms with the fact that they
teach from somewhere; that their knowledge, beliefs, values, and practices are socially situated and socially constituted; and that those practices have social, cultural, and academic consequences for the lives of L2
students ( Johnston, 2003). Using the intellectual tools of inquiry to
investigate the disciplinary knowledge that is codified in journal articles
and scholarly books, L2 teachers reflect on and relate to such knowledge
in ways that foster an understanding of experience through the multiple
discourses of theory, and such inquiry cultivates the co-construction of
knowledge that informs their practice (Ball, 2000; Sharkey & Johnson,
2003). Using the intellectual tools of inquiry to investigate the English
language, L2 teachers develop an awareness of the integral nature of
language form, function, and use. Although knowledge about language,
its grammar, its phonology, and its semantics is insufficient if L2 teachers
lack knowledge of its use, function, and pragmatics (Andrews, 2001;
Widdowson, 2002), L2 teachers who are linguistically aware (Wright,
2002) or function as critical discourse analysts (Belz, 2004) can challenge
commonly held notions about standardized English ideology and
nativespeakerness (Cook, 1999; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996); recognize the
complex nature of multilingualism and language learner identity (Norton,
2000); and see how language teaching practices are related to broader
social, cultural, and political relations (Pennycook, 2001). Using the
intellectual tools of inquiry to investigate L2 students and their language
learning, L2 teachers build upon the linguistic and interactional competencies that L2 students bring to the L2 classroom (Gebhard, 2005;
Johnson, 1995), recognize the physical and symbolic tools that mediate
L2 student learning, and examine the relationship between how they
organize the social activities that constitute their classrooms and what L2
students learn (or do not learn) from engaging in those activities
(Freeman & Johnson, 2005b). Using the intellectual tools of inquiry to
investigate the institutionally sanctioned policies, curricular mandates,
and assessment practices that shape their work, L2 teachers not only
recognize how their daily practices constitute broader social and political
issues but also use such realizations to work against the consequences
that these macrostructures can have on their classroom activities and
thus students opportunities for L2 learning.
249
The emergence of the L2 teacher research movement (Burns, 1999;

Edge, 2001; Freeman, 1998; Wallace, 1998) has made significant inroads
in altering the nature of the activities in which L2 teachers are asked to
engage in their L2 teacher education programs and beyond, and this, in
itself, has helped challenge many of the unfair hierarchies that exist in
the TESOL profession. Using the intellectual tools of inquiry to investigate their professional worlds, L2 teachers come to understand the
ideological principles that inform the social practices that constitute
them, their students, and their teaching practicesin other words, the
complex social, cultural, political, and institutional factors that affect L2
teachers, L2 teaching, and L2 student learning. An overarching challenge for L2 teacher education is to ensure that whatever L2 teachers
inquire about, the substance of that inquiry will enable L2 teachers to
function as transformative intellectuals in the settings where they learn
and work. The substance of their inquiry must, according to Dewey
(1920/1962), take into account
observation of the detailed makeup of the situation; analysis into its diverse
factors; clarification of what is obscure; discounting of the more insistent and
vivid traits; tracing the consequences of the various modes of action that
suggest themselves; regarding the decision reached as hypothetical and
tentative until the anticipated or supposed consequences which led to its
adoption have been squared with actual consequences. This inquiry is
intelligence. (p. 164)
Looking ahead to the next 40 years of TESOL Quarterly, the field

should expect to no longer think about L2 teacher education as
something that is done to L2 teachers. Instead, the view of L2 teacher
education should be broader, one that encompasses externally sanctioned as well as internally initiated and controlled professional development experiences that L2 teachers engage in for their own purposes and
are, by their own design, appropriate for their contexts. A reclaiming of
professional development for teachers, by teachers, recognizes that they
have not only a right to direct their own professional development but
also a responsibility to develop professionally throughout their careers.
What is now known about how L2 teachers learn to do the work of this
profession has much to offer L2 teacher education. Redressing the
epistemological gap outlined here will no doubt help sustain an L2
teaching force of transformative intellectuals who can navigate their
professional worlds in ways that enable them to create educationally
sound, contextually appropriate, and socially equitable learning opportunities for the L2 students they teach.
250
TESOL QUARTERLY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Donald Freeman, Meg Gebhard, and Paula Golombek for their
careful reading and insightful feedback on earlier versions of this article.
THE AUTHOR
Karen E. Johnson is a professor of applied linguistics at the Pennsylvania State
University. Her research focuses on teacher learning in L2 teacher education, the
knowledge-base of L2 teacher education, and the dynamics of communication in L2
classrooms. She recently co-edited Teachers Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development
(2002), published by Cambridge University Press.
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 414.
Ackland, R. (2000). The review of peer coaching literature. Journal of Staff Development, 12, 2227.
Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon
pedagogical practice. Language Awareness, 10, 7590.
Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom.
System, 28, 355372.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Ball, A. F. (2000). Teachers developing philosophies on literacy and their use in
urban schools: A Vygotskian perspective on internal activity and teacher change.
In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research:
Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 226255). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 2527.
Bartels, N. (2004). Linguistic imperialism. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 128133.
Bell, J. S. (2002). Narrative inquiry: More than just telling stories. TESOL Quarterly,
36, 207213.
Belz, J. A. (2004). Discourse analysis and foreign language teacher education. In
N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education. (pp. 341364).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Belz, J., & Muller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81
109.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, C. (1997). Reproduction in education, society and culture
(R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers views of Western language teaching:
Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 219238.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. New York:
251
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,

Canagarajah, S. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity,
and Education, 1, 234259.
Canagarajah, S. (2003). Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical
learning. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning
(pp. 116137). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Lewes, England: Falmer Press.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.
Educational Researcher, 22(1), 512.
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and
context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 465492.
Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer
Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and
research. In D. A. Schn (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational
practice (pp. 258283). New York: Teachers College Press.
Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers professional knowledge landscapes. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255296). New York: Macmillan.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory
and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 415.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse?
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, 1936.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade
later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 1525.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In
H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169206). Cambridge,
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and
information technology: Toward a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 537548.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
Dewey, J. (1962). Reconstruction and philosophy. Boston: Beacon. (Original work
published 1920.)
Doyle, W. (1997). Heard any really good stories lately? A critique of the critics of
narrative in educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 9399.
Dubetz, N. (2005). Improving ESL instruction in a bilingual program through
collaborative, inquiry-based professional development. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.),
Language teacher education: International perspectives on research and practice (pp. 231
252
TESOL QUARTERLY
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers sociocultural identities
and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 451486.
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative development. ELT Journal, 46, 6270.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Edge, J., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers develop teachers research. Oxford,
England: Heinemann.
Edge, J., & Richards, K. (1998). Why best practice is not good enough. TESOL
Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers knowledge: The evolution of a discourse.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 119.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 19721977.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Freeman, D. (1991). To make the tacit explicit: Teacher education, emerging discourse, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 439454.
Freeman, D. (1996). The unstudied problem: Research on teacher learning in
language teaching. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in
language teaching (pp. 351378). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning
to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 113.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998a). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397417.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998b). Research and practice in English language
teacher education [Special-topic issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3).
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Common misconceptions about the quiet
revolution: A response to Yates and Muchisky. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 119127.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (2005a). Response to Language Teacher Learning
and Student Language Learning: Shaping the Knowledge Base. In D. J. Tedick
(Ed.), Language teacher education: International perspectives on research and practice
(pp. 2532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (2005b). Towards linking teacher knowledge and
student learning. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.) Language teacher education: International
perspectives on research and practice (pp. 7395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freeman, D., & Riley, K. (2005). When the law goes local: One states view on NCLB
in practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 264268.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy.
Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language
literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187210.
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacy: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning.
Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
253
Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers personal practical knowledge.
Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space:
Examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second language teachers
development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10, 307327.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In
D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 1546). New
York: Macmillan.
Gutierrez, K., Larson, J., & Kreuter, B. (1995). Cultural tensions in scripted classrooms: The value of the subjugated perspective. Urban Education, 29, 410442.
Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher,
31(5) 315.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical
knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 42, 371406.
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching (34th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of
preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 507535.
Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New
Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Johnson, K. E. (2003a). Response to Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL
Matters, 12(2), 34.
Johnson, K. E. (2003b). Rethinking knowledge, knowing, and knowers. In J. Sharkey
& K. E. Johnson (Eds.), The TESOL Quarterly dialogues: Rethinking issues of
language, culture, and power (pp. 15). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Narrative inquiry as professional
development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2003). Seeing teacher learning. TESOL
Johnson, K. E., Jordan, S. R., & Poehner, M. (2005). The TOEFL trump card: An
investigation of test impact in an ESL classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 2, 7194.
Johnston, B. (1997). Do EFL teachers have careers? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 681712.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues, and resources. Language
Teaching, 25, 114.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000a). Integrating computer-mediated communication tools
into the practicum. In K. E. Johnson (Ed.), Teacher education (pp. 119135).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000b). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education:
Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34,
423455.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Kennedy, M. (1999). Ed schools and the problem of knowledge. In J. Rath &
254
TESOL QUARTERLY
A. McAninch (Eds.), What counts as knowledge in teacher education? (pp. 2945).

Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Kim, E. (2005). Korean EFL teachers perceptions of and instructional practices within the
context of a curriculum innovation. Unpublished manuscript, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park.
Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112, 359369.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 199212.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom!
Language Learning, 46, 713749.
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford,
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
Lennenberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Leontev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Press.
Li, D. (1998). Its always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677703.
Lockhart, C., & Richards, J. C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mantero, M. (2004). Transcending tradition: Situated activity, discourse, and identity
in language teacher education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1, 143161.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, 2001.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Paker, M. J., & Winne, P. H. (1995). The place of cognition in explanations of
teaching: A dialog of interpretive and cognitive approaches. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 11, 121.
Pavlenko, A. (2003). I never knew I was a bilingual: Reimagining teacher identities
in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 251268.
politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589618.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Probyn, M. (2001). Teachers voices: Teachers reflections on learning and teaching
through the medium of English as an additional language in South Africa.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 249266.
Putman, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 415.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice.
Rogers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of
reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 230253.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schn, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
255
Schn, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schn, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 2734.
School for International Training. (2003). The Teacher Knowledge Projectmaking
teacher inquiry an integral part of professional development. Retrieved November 15,
2005, from http://www.sit.edu/tkp/
Scovel, T. (1986). The impact of foreign experts, methodology and materials on
English language study in China. Language Learning and Communication, 2, 8391.
Sharkey, J., & Johnson, K. E. (Eds.). (2003). The TESOL Quarterly dialogues:
Rethinking issues of language, culture, and power. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455498.
Simon, R. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Essays towards a pedagogy of possibility.
London: Bergin & Garvey.
Simon-Maeda, A. (2004). The complex construction of professional identities:
Female EFL educators in Japan speak out. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 405436.
Somekh, B. (1993). Quality in educational research: The contribution of classroom
teachers. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teacher research (pp. 26
38). Oxford, England: Heinemann.
Takemura, S., & Shimizu, K. (1993). Goals and strategies for science teaching as
perceived by elementary teachers in Japan and the United States. Peabody Journal
of Education, 68(4), 2333.
Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Language teacher-learning and student language
learning: Shaping the knowledge-base. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Language teacher
education: International perspectives on research and practice (pp. 523). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ting, Y. R. (1987). Foreign language teaching in China: Problems and perspectives.
Canadian and International Education, 16, 4861.
Tsui, A. (2004). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing
language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 4, 2144.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Walberg, H. (1977). Decision and perception: New constructs for research on
teaching effects. Cambridge Journal of Education, 7, 1220.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching
German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89,
190205.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2002). Language teaching: Defining the subject. In H. TrappesLomax & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in language teacher education (pp. 6681).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
256
TESOL QUARTERLY
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making, and

classroom practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T. (2002). Doing language awareness: Issues of language study in language
teacher education. In H. Trappes-Lomax & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in
language teacher education (pp. 113130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL
Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 415.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
257
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS

EDITORIAL POLICY
TESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, encourages submission of
previously unpublished articles on topics of significance to individuals
concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and
of standard English as a second dialect. As a publication that represents a
variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the
Quarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics, especially in the
following areas:
1. psychology and sociology of language
learning and teaching; issues in research
and research methodology
2. curriculum design and development;
instructional methods, materials, and
techniques
3. testing and evaluation

4. professional
preparation
5. language planning
6. professional standards
Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts that contribute to bridging theory and practice in the profession, it particularly
welcomes submissions drawing on relevant research (e.g., in anthropology,
applied and theoretical linguistics, communication, education, English
education [including reading and writing theory], psycholinguistics, psychology, first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and sociology) and addressing implications and applications of this research to issues
in TESOL. The Quarterly prefers that all submissions be written so that their
content is accessible to a broad readership, including those individuals who
may not have familiarity with the subject matter addressed. TESOL Quarterly
is an international journal. It welcomes submissions from English language
contexts around the world.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

Submission Categories
TESOL Quarterly invites submissions in five categories:
Full-length articles. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manuscripts of no more than 2025 double-spaced pages or 8,500 words (including references, notes, and tables). Submit three copies plus three copies of
an informative abstract of not more than 200 words. If possible, indicate the
number of words at the end of the article. To facilitate the blind review
process, authors names should appear only on a cover sheet, not on the title
page; do not use running heads. Submit manuscripts to the editor:
INFORMATION
FOR
TESOL QUARTERLY
Vol. CONTRIBUTORS
40, No. 1, March 2006
259
A. Suresh Canagarajah
Editor, TESOL Quarterly
Box B6247
Baruch College of the City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010 USA
The following factors are considered when evaluating the suitability of a
manuscript for publication in TESOL Quarterly:
The manuscript appeals to the general interests of TESOL Quarterlys
readership.
The manuscript strengthens the relationship between theory and practice: Practical articles must be anchored in theory, and theoretical articles
and reports of research must contain a discussion of implications or
applications for practice.
The content of the manuscript is accessible to the broad readership of the
Quarterly, not only to specialists in the area addressed.
The manuscript offers a new, original insight or interpretation and not
just a restatement of others ideas and views.
The manuscript makes a significant (practical, useful, plausible) contribution to the field.
The manuscript is likely to arouse readers interest.
The manuscript reflects sound scholarship and research design with
appropriate, correctly interpreted references to other authors and works.
The manuscript is well written and organized and conforms to the
specifications of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.).
Reviews. TESOL Quarterly invites succinct, evaluative reviews of professional
books. Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and a
brief discussion of the works significance in the context of current theory
and practice. Reviewers are encouraged to query the Reviews editor concerning their book of interest before writing the review. Submissions should
comprise no more than 1,000 words. Send one copy by e-mail to the Reviews
editor:
Reviews Editor
TESOL Quarterly
Box B6-247
Baruch College of the City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010
E-mail: Tesol_Quarterly@baruch.cuny.edu
260
TESOL QUARTERLY
Review Articles. TESOL Quarterly also welcomes review articles, that is,
comparative discussions of several publications that fall into a topical
category (e.g., pronunciation, literacy training, teaching methodology).
Review articles should provide a description and evaluative comparison of
the materials and discuss the relative significance of the works in the context
of current theory and practice. Reviewers are encouraged to query the
Reviews editor, concerning their books of interest before writing the review.
Submissions should comprise no more than 2,500 words. Submit two copies
of the review article to the Reviews editor at the address given above.
Brief Reports and Summaries. TESOL Quarterly also invites short reports on
any aspect of TESOL theory and practice. We encourage manuscripts that
either present preliminary findings or focus on some aspect of a larger study.
In all cases, the discussion of issues should be supported by empirical
evidence, collected through qualitative or quantitative investigations. Reports or summaries should present key concepts and results in a manner that
will make the research accessible to our diverse readership. Submissions to
this section should be 710 double-spaced pages, or 3,400 words (including
references, notes, and tables). If possible, indicate the number of words at
the end of the report. Longer articles do not appear in this section and should be
submitted to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly for review. Send one copy of the
manuscript each to:
John Flowerdew
John M. Levis
City University of Hong Kong
TESL/Applied Linguistics
83 Tat Chee Avenue
Department of English
Kowloon
Iowa State University
Hong Kong SAR China
Ames, IA 50011-1201 USA
Forum. TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and responses from readers
regarding specific aspects or practices of the profession. Responses to
published articles and reviews are also welcome in the Forum section.
Response articles should be no more than 1,500 words. The article will be
given to the author of the original article or review before publication for a
reply that will be published with the response article. Unfortunately, TESOL
Quarterly is unable to publish responses to previous exchanges. Contributions to the Forum should generally be no longer than 710 double-spaced
pages or 3,400 words. If possible, indicate the number of words at the end of
the contribution. Submit three copies to the TESOL Quarterly editor at the
address given for full-length articles.
Brief discussions of qualitative and quantitative Research Issues and of
Teaching Issues are also published in the Forum. Although these contributions are typically solicited, readers may send topic suggestions or make
known their availability as contributors by writing directly to the editors of
these subsections.
261
Research Issues:
Patricia A. Duff
Department of Language
and Literacy Education
University of British Columbia
2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
Canada
Teaching Issues:
Bonny Norton
Department of Language
and Literacy Education
University of British Columbia
2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
Canada
Special-Topic Issues. Typically, one issue per volume will be devoted to a

special topic. Topics are approved by the Quarterlys Editorial Advisory
Board. Those wishing to suggest topics or make known their availability as
guest editors should contact the editor of TESOL Quarterly. Issues will
generally contain both invited articles designed to survey and illuminate
central themes as well as articles solicited through a call for papers.
General Submission Guidelines

1. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.),
which can be obtained from the American Psychological Association,
Book Order Department, Dept. KK, P.O. Box 92984, Washington, DC
20090-2984 USA. Orders from the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, or
the Middle East should be sent to American Psychological Association,
Dept. KK, 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2E 8LU,
England. For more information, e-mail order@apa.org or consult http://
www.apa.org/books/ordering.html.
2. All submissions to TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a cover
letter that includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and an
evening telephone number. Where available, authors should include an
e-mail address and a fax number.
3. Authors of full-length articles, Brief Reports and Summaries, and Forum
contributions should include two copies of a very brief biographical
statement (in sentence form, maximum 50 words), plus any special
notations or acknowledgments that they would like to have included.
Double spacing should be used throughout.
4. TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-length
articles and 10 reprints of material published in the Reviews, Brief
Reports and Summaries, and Forum sections.
5. Manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned to
authors. Authors should keep a copy for themselves.
6. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly have not
been previously published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
7. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted to
TESOL Quarterly to indicate to the editor the existence of any work
262
TESOL QUARTERLY
already published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere)

by the author(s) that is similar in content to that of the manuscript.
8. The editor of TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorial
changes in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity
or style. The author will be consulted only if the editing has been
substantial.
9. The editors decisions are final.
10. The views expressed by contributors to TESOL Quarterly do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the Editorial Advisory Board, or TESOL.
Material published in the Quarterly should not be construed to have the
endorsement of TESOL.
Informed Consent Guidelines

TESOL Quarterly expects authors to adhere to ethical and legal standards for
work with human subjects. Although TESOL is aware that such standards
vary among institutions and countries, TESOL requires authors and contributors to meet, as a minimum, the conditions detailed below before
submitting a manuscript for review. TESOL recognizes that some institutions
may require research proposals to satisfy additional requirements. If you
wish to discuss whether or how your study meets these guidelines, you may
e-mail the managing editor of TESOL publications at tq@tesol.org or call
703-535-7852.
As an author, you will be asked to sign a statement indicating that you have
complied with Option A or Option B before TESOL will publish your work.
A. You have followed the human subjects review procedure established by
your institution.
B. If you are not bound by an institutional review process, or if it does not
meet the requirements outlined below, you have complied with the
following conditions.
Participation in the Research
1. You have informed participants in your study, sample, class, group, or
program that you will be conducting research in which they will be the
participants or that you would like to write about them for publication.
2. You have given each participant a clear statement of the purpose of your
research or the basic outline of what you would like to explore in
writing, making it clear that research and writing are dynamic activities
that may shift in focus as they occur.
3. You have explained the procedure you will follow in the research project
or the types of information you will be collecting for your writing.
4. You have explained that participation is voluntary, that there is no
penalty for refusing to participate, and that the participants may
withdraw at any time without penalty.
263
5. You have explained to participants if and how their confidentiality will

be protected.
6. You have given participants sufficient contact information that they can
reach you for answers to questions regarding the research.
7. You have explained to participants any foreseeable risks and discomforts
involved in agreeing to cooperate (e.g., seeing work with errors in
print).
8. You have explained to participants any possible direct benefits of
participating (e.g., receiving a copy of the article or chapter).
9. You have obtained from each participant (or from the participants
parent or guardian) a signed consent form that sets out the terms of
your agreement with the participants and have kept these forms on file
(TESOL will not ask to see them).
Consent to Publish Student Work
10. If you will be collecting samples of student work with the intention of
publishing them, either anonymously or with attribution, you have
made that clear to the participants in writing.
11. If the sample of student work (e.g., a signed drawing or signed piece of
writing) will be published with the students real name visible, you have
obtained a signed consent form and will include that form when you
submit your manuscript for review and editing (see http://www.tesol.org
/pubs/author/consent.html for samples).
12. If your research or writing involves minors (persons under age 18), you
have supplied and obtained signed separate informed consent forms
from the parent or guardian and from the minor, if he or she is old
enough to read, understand, and sign the form.
13. If you are working with participants who do not speak English well or are
intellectually disabled, you have written the consent forms in a language
that the participant or the participants guardian can understand.
GUIDELINES FOR QUANTITATIVE AND

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Because of the importance of substantive findings reported in TESOL
Quarterly, in addition to the role that the Quarterly plays in modeling research
in the field, articles must meet high standards in reporting research. To
support this goal, the Spring 2003 issue of TESOL Quarterly (Vol. 37, No. 1)
contains guidelines (pp. 157178) for reporting quantitative research and
three types of qualitative research: case studies, conversation analysis, and
(critical) ethnography. Each set of guidelines contains an explanation of the
expectations for research articles within a particular tradition and provides
references for additional guidance. The guidelines are also published on
TESOLs Web site (http://www.tesol.org/pubs/author/serials/tqguides.html).
264
TESOL QUARTERLY

Canagarajah 2006 TESOL at 40 - What Are The Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canagarajah 2006 TESOL at 40 - What Are The Issues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canagarajah 2006 TESOL at 40 - What Are The Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUARTERLY

TESOLs 40th Anniversary Issue

Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives:

Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar:

English for Specific Purposes:

Volume 40, Number 1 March 2006

Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes

Expanding Horizons and Unresolved Conundrums:

Volume 40, Number 1 March 2006

A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Assistant to the Editor

Editorial Advisory Board

is an international professional organization for those concerned

OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 20062007

2007 Convention Program Chair

When TESOL invited me to consider publishing a special issue to mark

This issue is made up of articles solicited from distinguished scholars and

TESOL at Forty: What Are the Issues?

This overview delineates the direction of pedagogical developments

e live in an age when metanarratives or grand theories that attempt

Brown (1991) employs the second metaphor, the problem-solution

REVISITING THE STORY

identity of the learner before we discuss motivation or empowerment.

learners develop counter-discourses and oppositional identities for voice

and shifting toward:

like gender, race, ethnicity, or ones immigrant and nonnative status

TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Focus on Subject Matter

the meaning, scope, and ramifications of international peace and

TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Focus on Sociopolitical and Geographical Issues

instruction before being fully mainstreamed into regular classes. U.S.

Whereas Kachrus model legitimizes each outer circle variety in

More important, we are learning that expanding circle communities

The centrality of inner circle communities to the life of English is

TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

In light of these changes, many TESOL professionals have started

BROADENING THE STORY

National boundaries have become porous as people, goods, and

different contexts. Rather than judging divergence as error, we should

SO WHAT IS THE STORY?

to continue inconclusively, with earlier controversies unresolved; second,

Howatt, 2004). Also, as at that time, English is integrated with other

TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

teaching. Perhaps we should all be licking our lips in anticipation, as

A DIFFERENT STORY, NEW METAPHORS

TESOL AT FORTY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

Lin, A. & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education

Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives:

Looking back at the past 15 years in the field of second language

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2006

debate involving disagreements between positivists and relativists over

THE CONTINUATION OF COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES

the language sciences. Though he points to what he sees as a new and

We wish to make clear, before going further, that we see nothing

THE ARRIVAL OF SOCIOCULTURAL

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

of activities our everyday lives comprise. Participation in these activities is