Effortless English Archives

Automatic English For The People

Monday, May 30, 2005

Coming Soon

by AJ

Apologize for the long break in posts.... Ive been out of the classroom and thus not much to write. But Ill be back to teaching next week.

Ill be using an assortment of interactive reading, TPR Storytelling, and the movie technique in my classes.... and will be teaching university students exclusively (yeah!!).

Im also contemplating a method vs. method study. Ive got two fundamental English courses. I may teach one with the recommended skill building approach and another with comprehensible input based methods.... then compare the two classes improvement on a pre/post C-Test, the midterm, and the Final.

More to come very soon.....

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Management Matters

by AJ

I used to shun management issues, organization issues, and politics. I figured Id focus my energy on what happens in the classroom and ignore the rest.

That was a foolish mistake. Ive come to realize that organizational issues are important. This is a BIG issue that has a BIG impact in the classroom. Time after time I come across the same story-- impassioned and excellent teachers who are undercut by bureaucrats, micromanagers, and organizational rigidity.

Tohru, for example, must struggle constantly with the mandated curriculum in his High School classes. The organization, rather than help and support excellence, actively works against it. What greatness he accomplishes is DESPITE the school system.

It was the same at McEnglish... and at many schools throughout the world, public and private. Teachers in most countries have taken my naive approach... they disengage from organizational issues and pretend the class is a protected bubble. Of course they know its not, but most shun the messiness of management.

I will shun it no longer. Ive become deeply interested in organization and group dynamics.. and in the following questions:

How can we design organizational networks that inspire, inflame, and empower?

How can we break down the member/client ("customer") barrier?

How can we replace authority and control with autonomy and support?

How can we, as a group, accomplish magnificent things?

How do we kill the idea of "boss"? Totally. Completely.

How do we kill the idea of "employee"? Totally. Completely.

How do we create self-organizing systems? Organic. Evolutionary. Dynamic. Flowing?

How do we design organizations that serve people (members and clients)... rather than ones that people must serve?


The Fresh Cup Corporate Takeover

by AJ

My favorite coffee shop in Bangkok, the "Fresh Cup", has been taken over by corporate goons. The large hotel that owns its building has decided to own and manage the shop themselves.

Already, after just two days, the place is losing charm and quality. The goons first act was to cut corners. They "let go" several of the staff members-- super friendly people who always made me feel welcome. They also changed the recipe for the wholewheat buns... theyve cut the amount of whole wheat used and increased the amount of white flour in order to lower the cost. The result: bland bread that tastes like the crap you buy at 7-11.

The staff that remains has changed too. They are being constantly harassed and micro-managed. A manager from the hotel now perches in the shop, eyeing the employees for "mistakes". These corporate goons have no experience with coffee or a coffee shop, but that doesnt stop them from assuming an air of authority and arrogance.

The result: The staff seem miserable. They dont chat with customers the way they used to. The place feels colder... more impersonal.

So why am I writing about this on a teaching blog? Because Ive seen this same process in many schools: micro-managing, arrogant authority, clueless "experts",...

....and the results are likewise the same: passion, spirit, and excellence are killed. Mediocrity triumphs. (And no doubt, profits soar).


Sunday, May 15, 2005

A Shame

by AJ

A friend of mine is enrolled in an intensive TEOFL preparation course. The course focuses on teaching vocabulary... which is fine. But this is done through memorizing lists of English words and their Thai translations. The course also uses lots and lots of mini-test exercises.

My friend showed her book to me and I was apalled. It looked mind-numinbly boring. Truly horried. I found it obtuse, so I can only imagine its effect on a non-native speaker.

My friend then asked my advice... how could she do a better job of studying. I tried to relay information about Free Voluntary Reading. I told her to find fairly easy books and magazines in English and read for fun as much as possible. She seemed skeptical so I tried to tell her about research on Free Voluntary Reading... how students in FVR programs outperform students in TEOFL prep courses.

But I dont think she's going to change anything. As Krashen noted, one of the big obstacles to more effective language teaching are the conditioned beliefs of the students themselves. Most have been programmed with a skill-building mindset. Ask them, and they will tell you that they want to study grammar (my friend told me, "I think I need to study grammar first, before I read". I groaned and tried to explain that research showed otherwise,.. but it was a lost cause).

So responisble teachers have yet another role to play. Not only must we use techniques that are effective... we must re-educate our students. We must teach them about the processes of language acquisition. We must present the research... as simply as possible, yes.. but we must do it.


Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Comprehension vs. Skill Building

Quote from SusanOhanian.Org:

The Comprehension Hypothesis is supported by a substantial amount of research. This research contains an interesting result: When studies compare students given a "comprehension" approach (lots of meaningful reading) with those who are given skills, the readers not only do better on tests of reading comprehension, they also do just as well on tests of skills! (Krashen, 1999). This pulls the rug out from under the argument that skills need to be drilled and that they need to come first.

The same result is true in second language acquisition research. Those who are provided with more comprehensible input in second and foreign language classes do better on all tests related to real communication. On grammar tests, there is usually no difference between the groups, and occasionally the comprehensible input students actually do better (Krashen, 1994a).

Monday, May 09, 2005

AN EFL Program Outline

[Excellent article by Krashen... happy to say it mimics our own Effortless Acquisition Curriculum]

by SD Krashen


One component of EFL needs to be orientation, a brief explanation of language acquisition theory. As noted earlier, our goal is to develop independent, or autonomous acquirers. Knowing how language is acquired will help ensure that this will occur. It is also important to tell students something about the philosophy underlying our practice because the approach outlined here is radically different from traditional approaches; we need to justify our pedagogy to students and in some cases to their parents.

Orientation can be done in the primary language fairly early in the EFL student’s language career and can be covered in more detail at advanced levels in English. S.Y. Lee (1998) included an introduction to language acquisition in an English course at the university level, with excellent results.

Stage 1: Natural Approach and Graded Readers

Aural comprehensible input will be provided, as is done in Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1983), Total Physical Response (Asher, 2000), and Total Physical Response Storytelling (Ray and Seely, 1998) methodology. Activities can include games, dance, sports and projects. The best activities are those in which students are completely absorbed, in a sense forgetting that they are using another language (for suggestions, see Brown and Palmer, 1988).

Stage 1 also includes reading: At this level, students read very easy texts, such as graded readers, language experience texts (story dictated by student to teacher, teacher writes out story), and newspapers written for EFL students. The only criterion for texts is that they be compelling. They need not provide cultural information or "make you a better person." Some reading can be done as sustained silent reading, as students become independent readers.

Level 2: Light Reading

The focus of level 2 is "light" authentic reading, that is, comics, graphic novels, and easy sections of the newspapers, with continuing reading of graded readers and books specially adapted for second language acquirers.

Class discussion includes the cultural background of some assigned readings as well as readings done in small groups (literature circles). Background readings are provided in the first language when appropriate, e.g. comparison to similar genres in the first language. Class also includes teachers reading to the class from level 2 reading material as a means of providing additional comprehensible input and stimulating interest in books.

Sustained silent reading (SSR) is provided, about ten minutes per day. Students can read anything in English they like (within reason), including graded readers and other reading material from level 1. They are not "accountable" for what they read during SSR.

Some orientation can be done at this level, in the students’ first language. This will consist of a brief introduction to language acquisition theory or "how language is acquired," illustrated by case histories of successful and unsuccessful second language acquisition.

The formal study of grammar can begin here, with a focus on aspects of grammar that are useful for editing. Instruction will also include the use of a grammar handbook and the spellcheck function of the computer.

Level 3: Popular Literature

Reading at level 3 focuses on contemporary and light popular literature, including some current best sellers, popular magazines, and viewing of "lighter" films. Class discussion focuses on current culture and how values are expressed in current popular literature, e.g. gender roles, humor, how films and novels comment on issues of the day, the role of "gossip" magazines and newspapers, etc.

SSR continues, again allowing students to select their own reading, which can include reading at "lower levels."

Grammar study at this level can expand to include some "linguistics," i.e. language universals and language change.

I predict that many students will be "autonomous" by this time, able to understand a considerable amount of input outside the classroom. Additional study of English after this level could be made optional, and/or move in other directions, that is, more specific to different professions and interests.

Level 4: Contemporary Serious Literature.

This level includes the heavier and more "serious" works of current interest published in English, as well as films, newspapers, and literary and philosophical magazines. The approach will at first be "narrow," focusing on the work of one author or genre, e.g. the works of Kurt Vonnegut, plays by Neil Simon. As before, SSR can include lighter reading. Only after students have experienced several authors or genres in depth will the "survey" be done.

This level, and the next, can be repeated several times, focusing on different authors and genres.

At this stage, language acquisition theory can be done in some detail, reading original works in English.


For the remainder of the article, see SDKrashen.com

Error Correction- Ineffective

[More good stuff from SDKrashen.com]

by Stephen Krashen


The correction controversy is closely related to the grammar controversy. As I understand it, correction helps us fine-tune and adjust our consciously learned grammar rules. In his review of the literature, Truscott (1996) has concluded that correction has no effect on grammatical accuracy; in a previous ETA paper, I also reviewed this research and came to similar conclusions – correction only seems to help when students are tested on tests in which the conditions for Monitor use appear to be met, e.g. a grammar test.

Another way of determining whether grammar correction is effective is to look at studies in which students are corrected on their writing and then are asked to rewrite the same paper, taking the corrections into consideration. I have found four studies of this kind. In three studies, Fathman and Whalley (1990), Ashwell (2000), and Chandler (2003), subjects were fairly advanced students of EFL who had had considerable instruction in formal grammar, and who, we can assume, believed in conscious learning. In a fourth, Gascoigne (2004), subjects were first year university students in the US studying French. In these studies, the students had the advantage of having the corrections in front of them and had plenty of time. Because the paper was already written, students did not have to think about meaning at all but could focus on form, and they were graded on their grammatical accuracy. In these cases, correction was given the maximum chance to work; all conditions for the use of the conscious Monitor were met. Even under these optimal conditions, the impact of correction was very modest.

Subjects in Fathman and Whalley (1990) were intermediate ESL college students in the US. Students wrote compositions that described a series of pictures. We examine here two groups that were corrected: One group received correction only, the other correction plus feedback on content. Correction was limited to grammar, and consisted "solely of underlining all grammar errors (e.g. verb forms, tenses, articles, agreement). Thus students were told the location of their errors only and were not given information on the kinds of errors or shown the correct forms" (p. 182). Students wrote their compositions in class (they were given 30 minutes), the corrected versions were returned "a few days later" (p. 182) and students were given 30 minutes to rewrite.

Students wrote approximately the same number of words on each version, about 220 words in the first draft and about 250 words in the correct draft. They were able to correct only about half of their errors.

Ashwell (2000) compared the effect of correction on form with comments on content to determine if there was an optimal order (which should come first). Here, I focus only on the effect of correction, ignoring whether correction came before or after comments on form. I focus specifically on two of the subconditions. In both, subjects wrote 500 word compositions outside of class, and errors were then corrected, with correctors spending 12 minutes on each paper. The correction was "indirect feedback," that is, "underlining or circling grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors or … using cursors to indicate omissions" (p. 233). Students had a full week to return their revised papers. The assignment was part of regular classwork.

In both conditions, students were able to correct only about one third of their errors (table 2).

Students clearly paid attention to the corrections. For all conditions of the study, students acted on 75% of the formal corrections, and 88% of the formal changes they made were in response to the corrections.

One of the conditions in Chandler (2003) also appears to be a case of students’ rewriting the same paper after correction. In this study, students were taking advanced ESL classes at a music conservatory in the US, and all "had had quite a bit of training in English grammar" (p. 272). Students had every reason to be careful: Accuracy in writing was a component of their grade in the class. Students had several days to make corrections.

Students wrote about eight pages of text and received four different kinds of feedback. In the "correction" condition ("full correction" in table 3), students were provided with the correct form, in the "underline" condition only the location of errors was indicated, as in the previous two studies. In the "describe" condition, a margin note was written indicating the kind of error made in the line it was made (e.g. "punc"), but the precise location was not given. All abbreviations had previously been explained in class and students received a list of the abbreviations. Finally, in the underline/describe condition, both the kind of error made and its precise location were indicated.

As indicated in table 3, with full correction students were able to correct nearly 90% of their errors. It should be noted, however, that all students had to do was copy the teacher’s correction. The other conditions produce results that are quite similar to what we have seen before.

Summary of Correction Studies

These studies represent the most optimal conditions for correction to work: All students were university-level and were able to understand grammar. All were motivated to do well, in some cases grades were at stake. All had plenty of time, from 30 minutes to one week to make corrections and all had access to their grammar texts. All they were asked to do was rewrite their own corrected essay. Thus, all conditions for Monitor use were met.

When students are told only where the error is, they can only correct from 1/3 to 1/2 of their errors. They get better when given more information, but even when they are given the actual rule, and need only copy, they still miss 10% of the errors. This is hardly a compelling case for correction.

Ferris (2004) claims that successful editing of one’s text in the short term is "likely a necessary, or at least helpful, step on the road to longer term improvement in accuracy" (p. 54). It is considered a given that students’ accuracy improves when editing from one draft to the next. The "big question," according to Ferris, is whether correction helps students improve over time. My conclusion is that we have not even provided a positive answer to the "little question," whether correction under optimal conditions works even in the short- term.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Why delay gratification in language education?

Link to the Original Article

The following is a fantastic article from Stepen Krashen, who says it all so much better than I:

by Dr. Stephen Krashen
The Language Teacher, 28(7), 3-7. (2004)

The Comprehension Hypothesis is consistent with empirical research. The Skill-Building Hypothesis is not. The Comprehension Hypothesis allows immediate gratification, that is, interesting and comprehensible input from the beginning. The Skill-Building Hypothesis is a delayed gratification approach. Nevertheless, researchers continue to search for evidence for skill-building, and practitioners are reluctant to provide more comprehensible input in their classrooms.

A Delayed Gratification Hypothesis

We have made a serious error in language education: We have confused cause and effect. We have assumed that students first need to consciously learn their "skills" (grammar, vocabulary, spelling), and that only after skills are mastered can they actually use these skills in real situations. This assumption, the "Skill-Building Hypothesis," insists on delayed gratification. Only after hard and tedious work do we earn the right to actually enjoy the use of language.

The Alternative: Comprehensible input

There is an alternative. It hypothesizes that "skills," or mastery of the components of language, is the result of one particular aspect of language use, comprehensible input. It claims that grammatical competence and vocabulary knowledge are the result of listening and reading, and that writing style and much of spelling competence is the result of reading. The Comprehension Hypothesis does not require delayed gratification. It claims that we can enjoy real language use right away: we can listen to stories, read books, and engage in interesting conversations as soon as they are comprehensible. The Comprehension Hypothesis, in fact, insists on pleasure from the beginning, on acquirers obtaining interesting, comprehensible input right from the start. The path of pleasure is the only path. The path of pain does not work for language acquisition. I have referred to the Comprehension Hypothesis as the Input Hypothesis in previous writing, a term that I do not reject. But "Comprehension Hypothesis" appears to be more precise-it is comprehension that counts, not simply input. Smith (1975) made this clear in the title of his book, Comprehension and Learning, pointing out that they are closely related: In order to learn anything (using the term "learn" here in the more general sense, not as contrasted with "acquisition"), we must first understand it. Once we have understood it, we have learned it.

The evidence for this alternative hypothesis is strong. It has been shown that comprehensible-input based methods are very successful when compared to methods based on skill-building; this research includes beginning and intermediate foreign language teaching, and the consistent positive impact of free voluntary reading (Krashen, 2003).

Problems with the Skill-Building Hypothesis

There are serious problems with the Skill-Building Hypothesis: The effects of deliberate, direct skill-based instruction are very weak and fragile. Studies claiming to show a positive effect for grammar study show only that grammar study makes a limited contribution to competence: Subjects in all of these studies have been experienced "grammar learners," are given extensive training, and make only modest progress on tests that focus them on the target form, which are usually given immediately after the treatment (Krashen, 2003; Truscott, 1998). In terms of theory, the conditions for Monitor use (Krashen, 1982) are met in these studies.

The systems involved (grammar, spelling, vocabulary, etc) are too complex to be consciously learned.

Numerous cases exist of "acquisition without learning," cases of people who have reached very high levels of competence without skill-based instruction. There are, however, no known cases of high levels of proficiency without comprehensible input.

The skill-building hypothesis is an "output" hypothesis, that is, it demands that students produce language in order to acquire it. Actual output, according to skill-builders, serves two functions: (1) it exposes our errors, which can then be corrected, and corrections are supposed to lead to better rules, and (2) repeated output is supposed to help us solidify or "automatize" our knowledge of rules. But the amount of output we produce, either in speech or writing, is far too small to account for more than a small fraction of what we eventually acquire. In addition, correction is infrequent and studies show that it has either no effect or a weak effect, with its impact only evident in studies in which students are able to focus on form on the posttest (Krashen, 2002; Truscott, 1996), that is, when the conditions for the use of conscious Monitor are met.

n alternative to both the Skill-Building and Comprehension Hypotheses is the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which claims that language is acquired when we produce it, fail to communicate our meaning, and then try again, eventually succeeding in communicating by using a form that is correct. This hypothesis suffers from findings showing that few instances of comprehensible output actually occur: There are few instances in which language acquirers fail to communicate and then re-formulate their message in a way that brings it closer to the correct target language form. Only one experimental study (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993) has attempted to demonstrate that comprehensible output is effective: Despite the authors' claims, it did not. One of the three subjects in the study failed to make any gains, only one subject made a significant improvement, and it was quite possible that the "improvement" was due to increased Monitor use of a previously learned rule (see Krashen, 2003). The Comprehensible Output hypothesis was originally formulated as a supplement to comprehensible input (Swain, 1985), but there is no evidence that it plays even a small role in language acquisition.

"Balanced" Methods

Several combination approaches have been proposed. One "balanced" method insists that methods for beginners should be based on skill-building, and that communicative activities can be introduced after the beginning stage, in order to solidify or reinforce the skills that were learned. This is really a pure skill-building approach that denies the possibility of language acquisition and that assumes that all linguistic knowledge must result from skill-building instruction.

Another "balanced" method prescribes communicative activities from the beginning, but claims that comprehensible input alone is not enough: it needs "supplementation." The usual form supplementation takes is additional output and/or grammar activities.

Mason (2003) provided a direct demonstration of the inefficacy of output and correction as supplements to comprehensible input: In her study, three groups of adult EFL students participated in an extensive English reading program for three semesters. One group wrote brief summaries of what they read in Japanese, another wrote their summaries in English, and a third wrote summaries in English that were corrected, and they then rewrote the summaries. Those in the second and third groups had requested the treatment they received. Mason reported no differences in gains on three different measures of English among the three groups, and concluded that the group that wrote their summaries in Japanese was the most efficient, in terms of amount of English acquired and the total time devoted to English.

Some conscious knowledge of grammar can be of use in editing, in filling small gaps left by acquisition that even very advanced second (and first) language users seem to have. It appears to be the case, however, that there are severe limitations on the learning and use of this knowledge (Krashen, 1982).

The kinds of supplementation that can have a strong impact on language development are those that help students get more comprehensible input (e.g. discussion of books students may find of interest) or make input more comprehensible (e.g. provide background information). In other words, what will work are activities that deal with the cause of language acquisition and not the effects.

Research Directions

Despite this evidence, the major focus of current research is to continue to search for ways to demonstrate the effectiveness of the skill-building approach, a desperate search, in my view. There has been little interest in seeing the effects of increasing the quality and quantity of comprehensible input, even though many pay lip-service to the value of comprehensible input, claiming to support the "comprehensible input + supplementation" position. As a result of this negligence, I suspect that we have not even come close to tapping the potential of comprehensible input.

Why is this true? I discuss here only two of the possible reasons.

The ruthless capitalist argument

It could be the case that researchers are defending their own economic interests. They continue to search for a role for grammar not because they believe in it but because they have sold out to big publishers who make profits from grammar-based materials. I have no evidence that scholars have been deliberately dishonest, but the potential for conflict of interest exists.

he grammar-lover argument

Another reason for the determination to find a major role for grammar is the fact that so many researchers find the study of grammar fascinating. I think this is true: I know this from personal experience-I love grammar too. I enjoy learning about grammatical systems, and I get a feeling of deep satisfaction from successfully applying a grammar rule to my output. Unlike some others, however, I have realized that I am a member of a tiny minority and that most people get their pleasures elsewhere.

Barriers to Using CI-based Methods

Even if practitioners are interested in using CI-based methodology, there are barriers to using it in the classroom.

The students made me do it.

Skill-building is the "common-sense" folk theory of language development, and it is reinforced by the fact that it is used in nearly all foreign and second language classes and is the basis for nearly all materials. Although skill-based teaching is not effective, students simply blame themselves for their lack of progress. When asked, adult students insist that they want all their errors corrected (Cathcart & Olsen, 1976), many feel that the study of grammar is very important (research reviewed in Krashen, 1994) and that we learn to speak another language by speaking it. It is of course difficult for teachers to resist this pressure, especially when doing communicative activities is sometimes perceived to be non-professional and a sign of ignorance of grammar. We must, however, realize that it is our professional responsibility to teach according to our convictions about how people acquire language. As Smith (1986) put it, engineers do not consider public opinion on how to build bridges, nor do surgeons allow the public to tell them how to perform operations.

Both a short- and long-term solution to this problem is to provide information to students on how language is acquired. This will justify methodology, provide an interesting topic for sheltered subject matter teaching, and give students the tools to continue to improve after the course is over. At a minimum, students should be informed that the skill-building hypothesis is in fact a hypothesis, not an axiom, and that other hypotheses exist.

The curriculum/text made me do it.

It is likely that many language teachers work in situations where the established curriculum is not in agreement with their personal view of how language is acquired. These teachers have several options: The first is simply to go along with the curriculum, suffering silently, or complaining only to one's peers. From my observations, this appears to be the most frequent reaction. Second, one can "close the door" and secretly do what one thinks is best. This may profit one's current students, but the current curriculum and the skill-building hypothesis receives undeserved credit. "Closing the door" thus perpetuates and strengthens the dominance of the skill-building approach. In addition, the publishers make the profit from unused texts while teachers spend their own money on supplementary materials.

The only constructive option is to be honest with our students and attempt to inform the public.

Most language tests are based on the skill-building hypothesis; they test grammar, vocabulary, spelling, etc. It seems obvious to many people that the best way to study for these tests is to study grammar, vocabulary, spelling, etc. The research, however, tells us differently: Students in classes with more comprehensible input do better on such tests than those in traditional classes.

The best way to help students prepare is to provide massive amounts of comprehensible input in class, and provide the means for them to obtain comprehensible input outside of class (see below). It is quite possible that some direct instruction (e.g. test-taking strategies) may be helpful, but it remains an empirical question just how much and what kind of instruction is best.

The lack of real-world input made me do it.

As many have commented, there is a profound difference between second and foreign language education; in the former, there is plenty of input outside the classroom but in the latter there typically is not. For this reason, some teachers have opted for skill-building over comprehensible input, claiming that there is not enough time for "the real thing." But comprehensible input is more efficient, according to method-comparison studies mentioned earlier.

Also, note that for the beginner the situation is identical: outside world input is not comprehensible anyway. The real difference between the foreign and second language situation is at the intermediate level.

We can't reproduce the second language informal environment, but we can do much better, and the Comprehension Hypothesis gives us a clear idea of what to do: Foreign language students need better libraries, libraries filled with books, magazines, comics, as well as audiotapes and videotapes. It should be possible for second language acquirers to spend a great deal of time reading books and magazines, watching TV shows and films they are really interested in, and that are comprehensible. Such a facility should be open to the public, to make it possible for anyone to get comprehensible input in the second language of their choice whenever necessary or desired.

Even if rich sources of comprehensible input are unavailable for the EFL student, this is still not a valid reason for employing a method that is incorrect. Presenting and reinforcing a false view of how language is acquired will only make language acquisition unlikely (or extremely inefficient) when input is available.


Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 41-53). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Krashen, S. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 299-322). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.45-77). London: Academic Press.

Krashen, S. (2002). The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals. In Selected papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan-Asian Conference (pp. 395-404). English Teachers Association/ROC.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Mason, B. (2003). A study of extensive reading and the development of grammatical accuracy by Japanese university students learning English. Ed.D. Dissertation, Temple University, Osaka, Japan.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47 (3), 203-10.

Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and learning. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston Smith, F. (1986). Insult to intelligence. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles for comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-266). New York: Newbury House.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-69.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14 (2), 103-135.