Douglas Fleming

[email protected]

I'm going to preface my remarks with a few personal anecdotes about my own teaching experiences in an attempt to emphasize how the 'methodology pendulum' has swung back and forth over the years. I believe that teacher autonomy is the rudder one uses to navigate through all of the storms of change that sweeps the profession. I might not be able to go into as much detail as I would like today about the erosion of professional autonomy (a trend in both general and SLE teaching). I was lucky enough to have been invited to speak at the BCTF's adult PSA conference before Christmas and make some connections between ESL teacher agency adult learners autonomy and classroom task design. You can get a pretty good idea of my overall philosophy (if I can use such a grandiose term) of education if you take a look at the notes for the keynote that I have posted to my website.

I took my TESL certificate at Vancouver Community College in 1984 at a time when grammar was an anathema. Our instructors told us to never teach grammar explicitly; or, if we must, to teach it in a cursory manner at the end of a lesson. After graduation and a brief stint in an audiolingual program, I went to work for a settlement ESL program in Ontario. After a few years of classroom experience, I discarded the precepts I had learnt at VCC in favor of an approach in which I taught explicit grammar for half the lesson and engaged the students in communicative activities for the second. At that time I worked for one of the many programs offered by the Toronto Board of Education in which we retained our jobs only if we retained our students. If the students were unhappy, they simply walked to another class in the neighborhood.

I quickly found that I had to offer students what they wanted if I was going to avoid my own walk to the unemployment insurance office. I used two texts: Dixson's (1983) Graded Exercises in English before coffee break and Hadfield's (1990) Communicative Games, after. This was exactly the opposite from what I had picked up at VCC. If you don't know it, Dixson's text is a classic (and incredibly boring) set of cloze exercises, the worst possible kind of thing that should be employed in strictly communicative classroom. However, the students loved it for its clear summary of grammar rules and straightforward exercises. At the time I thought that the students were wrong in their preferences and taught with a guilty conscience. However, as I have found through practice that this general approach works! The students told me again and again how much they liked it. Now, I think that there are better texts now in the market now which achieve the same thing that Dixson provided without the extreme decontextualisation. I make extensive use of Schenberg's (1994) Focus on grammar and Berish and Thibaudeau's (1995) Grammar connections, for example. However, the point remains that students will often tell you that want grammar instruction. The cognitive approach explains why students have good reasons for this preference.

Luckily, I worked a long time for a public employer that allowed me to make independent professional decisions. Many teachers did not (and increasingly) do not have this kind of autonomy. This kind of autonomy is important given the swings that have occurred in SLE.

Historically, most second language education theorists and program administrators have regarded instructors as technical implementers of fully developed curricula with few formal responsibilities for curriculum writing. Detailed teaching materials and methodological manuals have more often than not accompanied theoretical innovations for language instruction. Some examples of the texts in this tradition prior are Berlitz�s (1899) The Berlitz Method and Sweet�s (1899)The Practical Study of Languages.

I hope that you recognize the names of Maximilian Berlitz and Henry Sweet (Shaw's model for Henry Higgins). I do not bring their names up in an attempt to criticise them. Not at all! Both men worked among lower class and immigrant speakers of English. Nevertheless, their curricula was quite top-down and did represent the all-too common belief in the inequitable separation of theorists and practitioners.

Palmer (1922) was one of the first major SLE theoreticians to describe language instructors as having a formal role in curriculum implementation. Through his principles of �proportion� and a �multiple line of approach�, Palmer counseled instructors to choose materials and teaching strategies appropriate to specific circumstances and objectives. These principles were the concrete expression of Palmer�s strong advocacy for professionalism among language instructors, "which he, more than any other single individual, had helped to bring about" (Howatt, l984. p.230).

Despite the influence of Palmer and later advocates of professionalism such as Strevens (1977), however, most SLE theory this past century has been obsessed with �methods� that have downplayed the role of teachers in curriculum development. As Stern (1983) illustrated in his survey of language teaching theories, most 20^th century ESL theoretical approaches have strictly admonished teachers to adopt single pedagogical methodologies. It has only been since the relatively recent break with the �methods approach� that language-teaching theorists have been able to discard simple formulas (Stern, l983). There were many consequences of the �methods approach�. One of the more serious, as Pennycook (1989) pointed out, is how it helped maintain inequalities between SLE theorists and practitioners. The strict distinction between instructors and experts (such as curriculum designers) blurred when the methods approach fell out of favor in the early 1980s.

Now, I'm not going to survey in any great detail the various 'methods approaches' that have fallen out of favour since the 1980's. Brown (2002) and Nunan (1991) have done fairly good jobs of this. These methods, as they point out, have become increasing irrelevant to most of our practice. Of course, it is questionable as to how important many of them ever were. Bits and pieces of, say, Total Physical Response, are still used by a few practitioners out there (I've got a couple of TPR exercises in one of binders, myself). However, by enlarge few teachers in my experience have been active adherents to any one particular set of methods. In my 20 years as a teacher, administrator and curriculum developer I can only think of one teacher who made extensive use of suggestopedia, for example.

It is certainly true that most ESL teachers have actively used the "eclectic" approach, a term first coined by Wilga Rivers as early as 1968. Essentially, when you peel back the onion, the "eclectic approach" is an articulation of the fact that language learning and language teaching are too complex for the prescriptive attitudes that methods developers brought to the table. Nunan (1991) is pretty good on this point.

There are too many variables involved in human language behaviour for an endorsement of any one method. I've been very lucky to have taught in a wide variety of situations and can tell you that flexibility is the key quality as an ESL teacher that you must possess. Since the systems theories articulated in general education by Tyler in 1949, it has been recognised that one must tailor (yuck, yuck!) pedagogical planning to the students one faces.

Singular approaches to language teaching are especially irrelevant if you take a cognitive view of language learning. Cognitive approaches, in a nutshell, take the view that language is learnt through complex mental processes and not through habit formation. In your assigned reading, Sandra Fotos (2001) points out that modern cognitive approaches in second language education owe much to Chomsky's rationalist view of language development.

In any case, it's interesting to note how various paradigms in the development of our profession have tended to exaggerate the supposed evils found in those that previously existed.

refer to previous lecture on historic trends in ESL methodology (note the overlap: communicative approach and Ellis)

The treatment of grammar has long been the touchstone for much of SLE curriculum development. It has been, after all, the subject matter for most language teaching historically and is what much of the general public regard as synonymous with it. Although things are changing rather quickly (as I can attest to given my recent experiences with Japanese and Korean public school teachers through the Surrey School Districts International TEOSL training programs), most EFL programs still are mired, in my opinion, in the excess treatment of abstract explicit grammar instruction.

Grammar has been, of course, one of the most contentious aspects of SLE. I can recall the (almost physical) disputes that occurred when the original LINC curriculum documents I worked on for the federal government were released for consideration at a TESL Ontario conference in 1991. The writing team that I was a member of was denounced by two York University profs (who shall remain nameless!) for including references to discrete grammar points in our documents. I was an MA student at the time and thought that my academic career (at least the potential of it at York) was finished! How things change! After the conference, we removed those references to grammar in the curriculum guidelines we eventually wrote. However, subsequent revisions put them back in (I wish I had the time to tell you about the politics that went into those decisions!).

But in any case Hymes�s (1971) notion of communicative competence expanded the pedagogical conception of language beyond mere grammar. It was subsequently further articulated by Canale and Swain (1980) into a highly influential four-part language competency model:

• linguistic: the more purely language elements; structures and grammar
• socio-cultural: the social and cultural content and assumptions underlying language use
• strategic: what strategies a user of the language utilises to overcome difficulties or enhance communication
• discoursal: what forms of discourse and conventional use is the communication framed in

There have been revisions and adaptations of this model over the years (most notably the combining of discoursal and linguistic competencies in various Cdn curriculum guidelines), but it has stood the test of time.

This expansion of the content of second language education beyond grammar can also be seen in a number of influential curriculum models that are also in the tradition of the communicative approach, such as Stern's four syllabi model (language, culture, communicative activities and general language education). As you can see, grammar (especially in the descriptive sense) in the communicative approach is just one aspect of language and ESL pedagogy.

This led to a deemphasis on the explicit teaching of grammar. The pendulum swung way out to the point where training programs (like the one I graduated from) endorsed the view that little or no explicit grammar instruction should occur in SLE.

Rod Ellis (1997) provides a good summary of the extreme position adopted by such theorists as Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982):

"�Zero option� refers to the proposal advanced by a number of SLA researchers and applied linguists�that grammar instruction should be abandoned in favour of creating opportunities for natural language use of the kind found in untutored settings�The zero position entails not only a rejection of planned intervention in L2 learning (i.e., by presenting and practicing grammatical features) but also of unplanned intervention (i.e. incidental error correction).

"Krashen (1982: 74) refers to error correction as a �serious mistake�. He argues that it puts students on the defensive and encourages then [sic] to avoid using difficult constructions for fear of making mistakes. Also it may disrupt the focus on communication.

As Ellis (1997) pointed out however,

"In recent years the zero position has been challenged. First, the theoretical grounds for the position have been disputed. A number of researchers�have argued that the kind of explicit knowledge which typically results from formal grammar instruction can convert, through practice, into the kind of implicit knowledge that is required for use in communication. This has become known as the Interface Hypothesis.

Other researchers�have argued that grammar instruction may not cause acquisition to take place, but may facilitate it by providing the learner with a conscious understanding of grammatical constructs that can be exploited later when the learner is ready to acquire these features�the Delayed-Effect Hypothesis.

Ellis (1985) summarised the research on explicit grammar instruction available at the time in the following way:

• research has focused on two areas: rate of success and route (sequence of structures)
• many research finds contract each other
• samples are often very limited
• research methodology is far from uniform
• most research is morpheme- based and longitudinal
• most studies attempt to compare students receiving formal instruction and those not

studies focusing on rate of success

• some studies concluded that formal instruction increased the rate of success; others �proved� the opposite
• great difficulty in determining the role that motivation plays
• little treatment of what actually went on in the classrooms in question; what did the teachers actually do?
• only one major study examined the absolute effect of instruction; its findings were inconclusive
• many anecdotal accounts exist of individual students benefiting from formal instruction, but little in the way of valid stats

studies focusing on route

• there is little evidence that the natural route of acquisition is effected by formal instruction
• little evidence that the communicative use of language is effected, either
• language use is effected when the learner has the time to monitor this use
• when learners are required to use structures beyond their current competence, distorted forms often result; these may adversely effect further acquisition

In the context of this research, Ellis (1985) formulated three general theoretical positions in regards to grammar that various SLA theorists have adhered to:

1) Strong Interface Position (McLaughlin, 1978)

• practice turns explicit knowledge of the language directly into implicit knowledge (controlled by automatic processing)
• practice involves supplying the learner with opportunities to produce targeted structures so as to increase implicit knowledge
• common position held by most audio-linguists

2) Non-Interface Position (Krashen, Terrell)

• there are many cases of acquisition where no learning (formal instruction) has taken place
• students often cannot produce the structures in communicative situations even though they have excellent explicit knowledge of these structures
• even the nest learners can only state a limited number of rules, far fewer than the number of structures they can produce

therefore:

• there is no interface between learning and acquisition
• explicit instruction might help learners in certain kinds of language performance in terms of their ability to monitor this performance
• learners benefit from being in the classroom through the use of �comprehensive input� (teacher talk) and by given the opportunity for meaningful practice of the communicative use of language
• in normal language use, the learner does not have the time to make use of explicitly understood grammar (at least in oral communication); it is only when the learner can attend to form that explicit grammar knowledge can be put to use

There is very little use for explicit grammar instruction, in Krashen�s view, other than aesthetic appreciation, advanced organisation (Terrell) and monitoring output.

3) Weak Interface Position (Long (1991)

• explicit instruction is a �consciousness-raising� activity the enhances input
• compromise between the other two positions; start of the focus on form approach
• facilitates �noticing� and �noticing the gap�
• helps combine structured syllabi with those that are functional or task based
• two types of consciousness-raising activities exist:

1. for comprehension, helping the learner to intake (recognise and understand features of the input)
2. for explicit knowledge, helping a learner learn about the structure metalinguistically

In summary, Ellis believes that:

1. Grammar instruction results in faster learning and higher levels of second language grammatical accuracy
2. Grammar instruction directed at a feature that learners not ready for will not acquired implicitly
3. Grammar instruction directed at a grammatical feature that learners are ready for will be acquired implicitly

"Explicit knowledge can convert directly into implicitly knowledge under certain fairly stringent circumstances related to a learner�s stage of development."

Long (1991) and Ellis (1997) have been some of the main proponents of focus on form, which can be summarised as follows:

"The focus on form approach considers grammar to be heterogeneous, meaning that some grammar points are easy to explain and easy to apply, and other points are difficult if not impossible to apply. This method proposes that the real problem is that grammar instruction in both approaches is limited to a small set of pedagogical practices. A focus- on form pedagogy profitably mixes explicit and implicit techniques depending on the grammar item and the communicative task" (Kennedy, 2004)

 It's interesting to note here that H. Douglas Brown has included an entire chapter on focus on form in the latest (2001) edition of his Teaching by principles. This approach is so new that it rated scarcely a mention in the earlier, first, edition of this popular teacher training manual.

During my talk today, I have described the pendulum swings in the profession, particularly when it comes to treatments of grammar instruction. However, I do believe that this pendulum is subject to gravity (as any earth-bound pendulum must be) and is slowing in its movement. The swings are not as extreme as they once were and have begun to reach an grounded equilibrium. There are more connections now between practitioners and theorists in the field and this faculty's commitment to an MA program in Applied Linguistics is an example of this trend.

Let me now review some of the main points that Fotos (2001) makes in the assigned chapter for today's lesson in order to emphasis how the cognitive approach promotes more even-handed and balanced curriculum processes than has existed previously in the profession.

Now, I might quibble with some of Sandra Fotos's remarks in the article that was assigned this week to some extent, especially in her assessment of the influence of psychological disciplines on SLE. In my own research, I am struggling with what I believe to be the over-influence of motivational psychology on learner identity and acculturation theories. In that regard, I feel that there has been too much influence from the psychological disciplines and not enough from the sociological. But, as I say, these are mere quibbles. In her chapter, Fotos done an excellent job of mapping out the underlying theories that have contributed to cognitive approaches in the field, particularly when she reviews the connections between language and thought.

As Fotos points out, there is considerable recent research support for an eclectic approach that places grammar instruction within a communicative framework. She stresses the need to distinguish between classroom activities that are either:

• Meaning focused

That concentrate on purely communicative activities, or

• Form-focused

That draw attention to the way language forms are used in discourse

Meaning based activities essentially are related to the development of fluency and form-based activities are related to the development of accuracy.

Fotos notes that for older children and adults cognitive capabilities become more important for any form of learning and relates. This is related to the most important aspect of cognitive theory: that learning is not compartmentalised into specialised areas of the brain for say, language use, but is rather, as Tomsello describes it, " a complex mosaic of social and social communicative activities closely related with the rest of human psychology" (1998).

This speaks to the oft-cited observations by ESL teachers that adult learners need grammar instruction. I can tell you as a long-time practitioner, that the vast majority of learners do not think that you are doing your job unless you teach some grammar during the course of your lessons.

Fotos describes three components of a cognitive lesson-planning model:

In which models of the target language are provided for learners in a way that makes them comprehensible. Thus, teachers should provide scaffolding such as simplifying and limiting and slowing down input. This is in the interests of helping learners to notice the input to be processed. Teachers must be prepared to make the focus of their lessons clear, especially when students have difficulty distinguishing when you are focusing on form and when you are focusing on meaning. (You know, nothing impresses a student more than to have your lesson plan up on the board at the beginning of the lesson: as I found in teaching pre-service teachers at UBC, this is as true in general education as it is in SLE)

• Central processing

This is something of a black box (as Patrick Allen, one of my professors at OISE used to day), but Fotos points out that the mind processes information in two directions simultaneously. Bottom-up processing essentially consists of decoding specific bits of input. Top-down processing takes the context of one's learning and ascribes meaning to what we have decoded.

• Output

As Merrill Swain (1985) has noted, understanding one's output is important in language learning because you must be able to 'notice the gap' between the models of input you have been provided and the output you produce in order to correct your use of the language and develop accuracy.

Fotos also echoes a lot of the points that Skehan (1998) makes about the importance of tasks in language learning. Tasks turn declarative into procedural knowledge. In other words, one must use conscious knowledge in order for it to become automatic. Now, time doesn't allow me to go into detail about how literacy and adult learning principles can be utilised for task development in SLE. Let me simply refer you to that article that Pierre and I are publishing next month.

Ellis (1997) points out that there are reasons for teaching explicit grammar for its own sake:

• emphasising relative difficulty or usefulness (Widdowson's contribution)
• emphasising �markedness� (how common a structure is)
• remedial work (detailed examination and correction of individual fossilisation)
• However, there are two sets of problems related to structural syllabi:

a) Problems with immediate mastery (learning discrete points one after another)

• what is the natural order of acquisition? There is very little research on this
• how do you take individual learner differences into account?
• how do you assess these differences?
• how do you organise grammar content for a group of learners?
• how do you account for program or logistical differences?

b) Problems with gradual mastery (focus on comprehension/ spiralling)

• the spiral approach is hit and miss
• the above problems still exist

Ellis concludes that grammar is useful when combined with a functional or task-based curriculum. Stand alone grammar syllabi are not sufficient.

These problems can also be overcome by emphasising Pienemann�s (1999) distinction between:

• Input for production and
• Input for comprehension

And P�s recommendations in regards to the teachability hypothesis :

• not demand production that is impossible at a given stage (Vygotsky/ Krashen)
• not introduce deviant forms immediately
• not worry about the fact that general input can contain structures not intended for production

Fotos refers to the teachability hypothesis in her chapter and then describes the importance of pedagogical grammar (because of its emphasis on the various communication roles played by various points of grammar) in her example of explicit grammar instruction within a communicative lesson.

A more recent review chapter by our own Hossein Nassaji with Sandra Fotos (2004) provides a synopsis of the latest research on grammar instruction in the SLE classroom. By enlarge, the chapter shows how much of Rod Ellis' work has been substituted since he and Long first started to articulate the focus on form approach.

As Nassaji (1999) points out, focus on form can be achieved in the classroom either through deliberate design or through the process of teaching through communicative activities. A lot of research work now has to be done on achieving a proper balance between the two and on providing the optimal contexts for learning in the classroom.

My favourite example in how this balance can be achieved is dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990), which is essentially an expansion of traditional forms of grammar dictation activities into a group communicative task. In my experience, most students love grammar dictation. However, most teachers use the activity as a '10 minute helper'. I've always had great results when I've expanded it into dictogloss (or even further into a jigsaw variation: this works at any level of instruction, even at the teacher-training level!)

Nassaji and Fotos (2004) conclude that, although the many aspects of the nature of the form/ meaning relationship are not yet clear, it is important for SLE teachers to design activities that make:

• Learners notice and remain aware of linguistic forms
• Repeated meaning focuses exposure to input and
• Opportunities for output and practice

Now, I'm going to conclude my remarks this afternoon by returning to curriculum decision-making and teacher professionalism.

The thing that I hope you will notice about cognitive approaches is that they assume a fair degree of agency on the part of both learner and teacher. Cognition after all, is the faculty that we have for conceiving and constructing meaning. Agency and autonomy is implied.

For learners, this approach means one becomes less dependent on rote learning and more adept at understanding and manipulating linguistic forms in the context of actual communication.

For teachers, it means one must exercise professional agency in the interests of a balanced and thoughtful approach to lesson planning and task design that facilitates this developing learning autonomy.

Unfortunately, teaching as a professional activity has been under intense attack in recent years. As has been well-documented (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Apple, 1993; Larsen, 1983). the privileges that most educated or intellectual workers have traditionally enjoyed are being steadily eroded through processes intensification, chronic overloading, a greater reliance on outside expertise, and the systematic use of intensive supervision (usually marketed as accountability).

As Apple and Jungck (1992) have pointed out, teachers have been subjected to the process of intensification through a greater use of externally developed sets of behavioral objectives, assessment instruments, commercially produced classroom materials and externally controlled technologies. This process has resulted in a marked reduction in preparation time for teachers (Hargreaves, 1994), a trend which has lessened the abilities of dedicated teachers to be inventive, flexible, adaptable and responsive to student needs. This trend is no less evident for second language education (SLE) teachers than for those in other disciplines.

In British Columbia, this trend has meant that professional and autonomous (and well-paid) instructional workforces have been hit hard. The bottom line priorities of the current provincial government have resulted in massive recent changes in the settlement ESL workforce.

Now I don't really want to beat the drum today for better working conditions for teachers, although I am certainly in favor of that. My real point here is that professional and autonomous attitudes are key to the development of quality instruction that serves our students.

Many new curriculum documents are being put in place in adult ESL that are by enlarge prescriptive, unimaginative, pedagogically and unsound and archaic. They often exhibit simplistic notions of language methodology. Without the strong element of autonomy and professionalism facilitate, our programs will be in danger of becoming oppressive, irrelevant, mass-produced, and inefficient.

In short, cognitive approaches, especially when they are combined with experiential and task-based learning (which is something that Pierre and I address at length in our TESL Canada article), counters the view that "one size fits all" in ESL, an attitude that is becoming all too prevalent in our profession. Cognitive approaches provide a balance of activities in the classroom and help empower our learners. They are not a mere collection of techniques, but represent an important advance for the profession and our learners. Of course, history doesn't end here. We have to maintain professional autonomy and agency to keep building on our strengths.

Allen, J. P. B. & Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Teaching the communicative use of English. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power. NewYork: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. & Jungck, S. (l990). You don�t have to be a teacher to teach this unit: Teaching, technology and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 227- 251.

Berish, L., and S. Thibaudeau (1995). Grammar connections. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice Hall Regents,

Berlitz, M. D. (1899). Methode Berlitz: Partie Francaise deuxieme livre (Europeenne ed.). Berlin. Siegfried Cronbach.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (l980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1- 47.

Dixson, R. J. (1983). Graded Exercises in English. New York: Regents Publishing.

Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Hadfield, J. (1990). Intermediate Communication Games. Hong Kong: Thomus and Nelson and Nelson and Sons Ltd.

Hargreaves, A. (l994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers work and culture in the post-modern age. Toronto: OISE Press.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Kennedy, T. (2004). Teaching methods and correlation to learning in the language classroom. Retrieved January 12, 2005 from http://ivc.uidaho.edu/flbrain/learning.htm

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford ; New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach : language acquisition in the classroom (1st -- ed.). Oxford [Oxfordshire] ; New York

Larsen, N. (Ed.) (1983). The Discourse of power: Culture, hegemony, and the authoritarian state. Minneapolis: Institute for the Study of Ideologies and Literature.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.) Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Long (1991)

McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. In Language learning 28: 309- 32.

Nassaji, H. (1999). On integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian modern language review, 55: 385- 402.

Nassaji, H. and S. Fotos (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126- 145.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology : a textbook for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum : a study in second language teaching. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ontario Ministry of Education�s Continuing Education: A Resource Document

(l987).

Palmer, H. E. (l922). The principles of language study. London: Oxford University Press.

Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (l996) Canadian Language Benchmarks. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Pennycook, A. (l989). The concept of method, interested knowledge and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589- 618.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Rivers, W. M. (1968). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schenberg, I. (1994). Focus on grammar. New York: Copp Clark.

Skehen, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Strevens, P. D. (l977). New orientations in the teaching of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules on comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and C. Madden (Eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury.

Sweet, H. (1899). The practical study of languages. London: Dent.

Tomasello, M. (1998). The new psychology of language : cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.

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

Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Young, F. (2004), When good technology means bad teaching. Educause Centre for Applied Research.