The Effects of Bilingual Instruction on the Literacy Skills of Young Learners

Abstract
This research focused on the effects of bilingual instruction on the acquisition of literacy skills of
preschoolers. An experimental design was used, with language of instruction as the independent
variable and the different literacy skills as dependent variables. The sample consisted of
preschool children belonging to an urban poor community in the Philippines. They were given

pretests and were divided into three groups: Monolingual Filipino, Monolingual English, and
Bilingual. They were taught different literacy skills for eight weeks and were then administered
the posttests. Data was analyzed and evaluated in the light of the central processing and scriptdependent hypotheses. Based on the data, it can be inferred that monolingual instruction in either
Filipino or English had a stronger effect on the childrens literacy skills compared to bilingual
instruction. Moreover, mother tongue-based instruction, as compared to second-language
instruction, had stronger effect on the preschoolers literacy skills. Such results have implications
not only for mother tongue-based (MTB) but also for English as a second language (ESL)
instruction in the country.

A descriptive investigation of the different components of preschool education in the Philippines

found that majority (76.68%) of the 631 preschools included in the survey used a mixture of

English, Filipino, and the local vernacular (Santos, 1990). It was thus recommended that studies

be undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of developing literacy skills in two or more languages

among preschool children.

The present study took its cue from that recommendation and aimed to investigate the effects of

language of instruction on preschoolers acquisition of literacy skills. Particularly, it aimed to

investigate the following:

1. the effects of monolingual Filipino instruction on preschool

childrens acquisition of literacy skills in English

2. the effects of monolingual English instruction on preschool

childrens acquisition of literacy skills in Filipino

3. the effects of bilingual instruction, i.e., the use of both

Filipino and English, on preschool childrens acquisition

of literacy skills in Filipino and in English

Moreover, this study also aimed to compare the effects of monolingual instruction in either

Filipino or English to those of bilingual instruction, and to determine which of the literacy skills

would be strongly affected by a particular language of instruction. The findings based on such a

comparison may have implications for policies regarding the medium of instruction

particularly the use of a second language like English in early literacy instruction.

Bilingualism and biliteracy

There have been several studies on bilingualism and biliteracy that address different concerns.
Some studies, for instance, have taken into account the effects of first language (L1) on second
language (L2) oral language development. The old notion was that L1 interferes with L2, but
this has not been supported by research evidence; instead, research clearly shows that L1 serves a
supportive rather than a negative role as far as L2 oral development is concerned (Ovando &

Collier, 1998). Childrens proficiency in L1 appears to predict their success at learning L2 (Hoff,
2001). This is particularly true of language proficiency required by academic settings:
proficiency in decontextualized language use, i.e., childrens academic language skills in L1,
predicted their academic language skills in L2 (Cummins, 1991 in Hoff, 2001). Studies clearly
show that a learners L1 influences the acquisition of L2children acquiring English, for
example, make different errors depending on what their L1 is (Hoff, 2001).

Another important issue in biliteracy research is the role of L1 literacy in L2 literacywhether

transfer happens from L1 to L2. Koda (1994 in Wade-Woolley, 1999) asserts that certain
conditions distinguish L2 literacy from L1 literacy: the influence of prior literacy, limited
linguistic knowledge, and cross-linguistic effects. These conditions definitely have their effects
on L2 literacy because many studies have shown that cognitive and academic development in L1
has a strong, positive effect on L2 development for academic purposes. Academic skills, literacy
development, subject knowledge, and learning strategies all transfer from L1 to L2 as the
vocabulary and communicative patterns are developed in L2 to express that academic
knowledge. This is why L1 literacy is considered a crucial base for L2 literacy development.
Many studies (Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Durgunolu, Nagy, and HacinBhatt, 1993 in Garcia, 2000; Fashola, et al.,1996 in Garcia, 2000; Ocampo, 2002) have found
that a wide variety of skills and learning strategies developed in L1 reading and writing can
positively transfer to L2 reading and writing. In another light, research also shows that the
influence of orthography (e.g. Filipino has a more transparent orthography compared to English)
cannot be dismissed, although its importance may be diminished in contexts where the two
languages/scripts are experienced by, and taught to, children concurrently (in the case of
Filipino children who study under the Filipino-English bilingual program) (Ocampo, 2005).
One of the more controversial issues in bilingual literacy is the initial medium of instruction to
use. Dutchers (1994 in Tucker, 1999) comprehensive review of research in the use of L1 and L2
in education yielded the conclusion that children most easily develop literacy skills and cognitive
skills and likewise master content material in a familiar language. For instance, among language
minority students in the United States, research indicates that the most successful long-term
academic achievement occurs where students primary language is the initial language of
literacy; in contrast, language majority students who are taught to read initially in L2 show no
negative consequences (Genesee, 1987; Thomas & Collier, 1997 in Ovando & Collier, 1998).

There are several theories that try to explain how young children learn to be biliterate. One such
theory is the central processing or universalist theory,which claims that a central linguisticcognitive executive controls the development of literacy skills (Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998);
thus, the theory highlights the role of underlying cognitive processes (e.g., short term verbal
memory, efficient serial naming) and linguistic components (e.g., phonological skills) in the
emergence of reading skills in L1 or L2 (Geva & Siegel, 2000). The central processing theory
posits that individuals with deficient cognitive and linguistic skills will experience difficulty in
acquiring basic reading skills, regardless of the language and script involved, and regardless of
whether it is their L1 or L2. What was deemed as a view opposed to this is the script dependent
hypothesis, which asserts that the acquisition of literacy skills is driven by the specific
processing requirements of the orthography; in this analysis, underlying cognitive resources are
tapped differentially, to the degree demanded by the orthographic characteristics of L1 and L2
writing systems (Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998).
More recent studies on biliteracy support the view that the central processing and scriptdependent theories are not contradictory but rather complementary views. Neither of these
hypotheses can single-handedly account for the complex interaction of processes entailed in the
acquisition of biliteracy skills. In a study involving English-Hebrew biliterates, Geva and WadeWoolley (1998) found this to be so. In the same light, Gholamain and Geva (1999) found that
among Persian-English biliterates in Canada, basic reading skills in L1 and L2 correlate
positively and significantly and that variability in performance can be understood to some extent
in terms of development and individual differences in underlying cognitive-linguistic factors
such as working memory and speed of letter namingthese findings support the central
processing hypothesis. Yet, there is also some evidence that once children have learned the
grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules in Persian (which has a relatively transparent
orthography), they can read accurately and decode unfamiliar Persian words regardless of
general proficiency in Persian. To a certain extent, then, script characteristics might also play an
important role in understanding developmental trajectories associated with reading skills
development in various languages.
Ocampo (2002) likewise found that the central processing and script dependent hypotheses are
complementary explanations of concurrent literacy development. The study that investigated the
literacy development and literacy difficulties of Filipino-English biliterates found, among other

things, that common underlying skills predict performance in word reading skills in both
languages, correlations between cognitive skills assessed in two languages are significant, and
difficulties in one language may be caused by difficulties in a cognitive skill in the other
language.
Research

design

This study aimed to investigate the effects of bilingual instruction on preschool childrens
acquisition of literacy skills. To meet this goal, an experimental design was used. Three groups
consisting of four- to six-year-old children were formed: the Monolingual Filipino (MF), the
Monolingual English (ME), and the Bilingual (BL). The independent variable was the language
of instruction used: Filipino for MF, English for ME, and both Filipino and English for BL. MF
and ME served as control groups and had monolingual instruction while BL served as the
experimental group and had bilingual instruction.
The dependent variables were the literacy skills tested before and after instruction: (a) book and
print knowledge, (b) alphabet knowledge, (c) syllable tapping, (d) identifying onsets and rimes,
(e) phoneme tapping, (f) decoding, (g) spelling, (h) vocabulary, and (i) listening comprehension.
The first two literacy tests (book and print knowledge, alphabet knowledge) were conducted in
Filipino while the rest of the literacy tests were conducted in two languages (Filipino and
English). It is important to note that the literacy tests in English were NOT just a translation of
the tests in Filipino. A unique set of tests was constructed and validated for each language.
The sample consisted of four- to six-year-old children who belonged to urban poor families, had
Filipino as their first language, and had not yet gone to school. All of them were also nonreaders
(based on the results of the pretests). Table 1 shows the final composition of the three groups
who completed the eight-week instruction and took the posttests.
MF consisted of 3 children1 girl and 2 boys. The girl was five years old while the boys were
six years old. The mean age for this group when they took the pretests was five years and seven
months. The pretest mean raw score was 47. (This mean raw score became higher than the ME
and BL groups after five of the eight children in the original group dropped out.)
Table
Composition of the Sample

Group

Age

Gender

Pretest Mean
Raw Score

Girls Boys

MF

47

ME

41

BL

42

To gather information about the sample, establish the participants baseline literacy skills, and
evaluate the effects of the language of instruction, several instruments were used in this study:
Childs Information Sheet; tests on Book and Print Knowledge, Alphabet Knowledge, Syllable
Tapping, Identifying Onsets and Rimes, Phoneme Tapping, Decoding, Spelling, Vocabulary,
Listening Comprehension; list of Oral Language Samples, Literacy Behavior Checklist,
Teachers Journal, and Activity Sheets. Some of these instruments were adapted from Catch
Them Early (1995) and Ocampos dissertation (2002), while the others were constructed and
validated by the researcher.
Data

collection

and

analysis

Data collection was divided into these phases: pretest/posttest preparation and validation,
sampling selection, pre-teaching, implementation of the eight-week literacy programs, and postteaching. After tests were prepared and validated and the participants were selected, 28 preschool
children were given the pretests and divided into the three groups based on gender (each group
had boys and girls) and pretest scores (each group had children belonging to the high, middle,
and low score groups).
The three groups were taught different literacy skills for eight weeks using theFour-Pronged
Approach, but using either monolingual or bilingual instruction. The Four-Pronged Approach to

beginning literacy consists of these four prongs: genuine love for reading (GLR), critical
thinking (CT), grammar and oral language development (GOLD), and decoding/writing skills or
transfer stage (TS). It is a literature-based instruction that develops all four macro skills:
speaking, listening, reading, and writing.
At the end of the eight-week literacy program, only 14 of the 28 children remained and these
children were administered the posttests. Due to sample size limitations (n=14), group profiles
and single case profiles were used to analyze and evaluate the data derived from the pretests and
posttests results. Raw scores, percentage scores, and means were presented whenever relevant.
The childrens oral language samples and portfolios consisting of penmanship samples, art
samples, and activity sheets were also analyzed and evaluated. The observation checklist and
teachers journal gave additional information on each childs progress.
Figures 1 and 2 show the mean percentage gains of the three groups in the Filipino and English
measures respectively. These figures show that the MF group had the highest gains in four
literacy tests in Filipino and in three literacy tests in English.
Figure 1. Mean Percentage Gains of MF, ME, and BL Groups in the Filipino Measures (click to
enlarge)

Figure 2. Mean Percentage Gains of MF, ME, and BL Groups in the English Measures (click to
enlarge)

Data was analyzed and evaluated in the light of the central processing and script-dependent
hypotheses. It was predicted that regardless of the language used in instruction, the children
would perform better in Filipino, which is a more transparent language compared to English, and
that monolingual instruction in either Filipino or English would have a positive effect on the
childrens literacy skills in the language not used for instruction. For instance, the monolingual
Filipino group would also show some gains in the English literacy tests though they were not
instructed in English.
Analysis and evaluation of the data (please see Figures 1 and 2) derived from the pretests and
posttests, oral language samples, and the portfolio assessment yielded some interesting results.
All three treatmentsmonolingual Filipino, monolingual English, and bilingual (Filipino and
English) instructionhad generally positive effects on the childrens literacy skills in both
Filipino and English. Stronger effects were noted on alphabet knowledge skills and phonological
awareness skills (except for phoneme tapping). The weakest effects were noted on phoneme
segmentation, decoding, and spelling in either language. Moderate effects were noted on book
and print knowledge, vocabulary, and listening comprehension. Comparing the performance of
the three groups, the Monolingual Filipino children had the most number of highest gains in the
different measures in either Filipino or English; this was followed by the Monolingual English
children, then the Bilingual childrenin that order. Thus, though the results have confirmed the
hypotheses regarding the positive effect of monolingual Filipino, monolingual English, and
bilingual instruction on the literacy skills of the preschoolers, as well as the stronger effect on

alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness skills, the same results did not support the
hypothesis regarding the stronger effects of bilingual instruction on the childrens literacy skills
compared to the effects of either monolingual Filipino or monolingual English instruction. Based
on the data, it can be inferred that monolingual instruction in either Filipino or English had a
stronger effect on the childrens literacy skills compared to bilingual instruction. Moreover,
monolingual Filipino instruction (mother-tongue instruction), as compared to monolingual
English (ESL) instruction, apparently had stronger effect on preschool childrens literacy skills.
Some of these results can be explained in the light of the central processing and script-dependent
theories. The positive effects of monolingual Filipino instruction on English literacy skills and
those of monolingual English instruction on Filipino literacy skills lend support to the existence
of cognitive and linguistic processes such as phonological abilities that underlie literacy learning
in any language; such results, therefore, lend support to the central processing theory. On the
other hand, the childrens relatively more remarkable performance in the Filipino measures show
that for these preschool children, it is relatively easier to learn literacy skills in a language which
has a more transparent orthography, like in the case of Filipino. The results, therefore, cannot be
solely explained by just one of the two theories; instead, both central processing and scriptdependent theories can be used as complementary explanations for the childrens biliteracy
learning. This is consistent with previous research findings (Geva, 2000; Geva & Siegel, 2000;
Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Ocampo, 2002) that biliteracy learning
cannot be explained solely by either central processing or script dependent theory for these
theories are not contradictory but complementary.
From the results of the portfolio assessment and from the notes in the teachers journal it can
likewise be inferred that aside from the language used in instruction or the language in which the
children learn to be literate, there are other factors that affect the speed and quality of literacy
learning, such as the learners mental and psychomotor maturity, cognitive ability, personality,
and motivation. For instance, in the BL group (which obtained the lowest percentage gains
among the three groups), only one child attended the classes consistently and diligently but this
particular child also did not perform that well in the posttests because she was better at
memorizing answers than understanding the concepts and applying her knowledge on new
learning situations. Another child in the same group was more perceptive and easily learned the
lessons but lacked self-confidence and therefore also did not perform that well in the posttests.

Some results of this study confirm previous research findings such as the difficulty of children to
learn phoneme segmentation or the hierarchical relationship among the phonological
awareness abilities in English. Yet, some results are rather difficult to explain in terms of
available theories on bilingual literacy or previous research findings; for instance, the two
monolingual groups obtaining the lowest gains in listening comprehension in the language that
was used to instruct them is rather difficult to explain.
Conclusions
Several conclusions may be derived from the results of this study:
The facility by which children learn some literacy tasks in a particular language is also
dependent on the characteristic of that language. For instance, the children obtained
higher syllable tapping gains in Filipino, a language known for its syllabic words, while
they obtained higher rime identification gains in English, which has many words that
lend themselves to onset-rime segmentation and to rhyming as well.
Children learn literacy skills more easily not only in a language with a transparent
orthography but also in a language they are more familiar with. This is an argument for
the use of mother tongue-based instruction at least in the preschool and the early grades.
Because the results also strongly suggest evidence for cross-linguistic transfer, the
literacy skills and knowledge that the children gain in L1 can be easily transferred to L2
if and when they are taught in this second language.
Implications
The results of the study have several implications not only for literacy instruction but for ESL
teaching as well:
The bilingual literacy program used in this study is only one of the many ways by which
such a program can be implemented. The two-day a week exposure to each language
(i.e., Filipino on Monday and Tuesday, English on Wednesday and Thursday) apparently
is not an effective way to implement a bilingual program judging by the relatively
unremarkable performance of the BL group compared to that of the two monolingual
groups. Results suggest a need to provide students daily instruction in both languages for

bilingual instruction to be effective. There is also a need to develop program models for
bilingual education (Villanueva & Almario, 2009).
The results suggest that the kind of language used in beginning literacy instruction does
have an effect on the preschoolers literacy skills and that instruction is more effective in
a language that the children are more familiar with. Beginning literacy instruction
(preschool to the early grades), therefore, is better done in the childrens L1. Once the
children have learned literacy skills in this language, the results of this study suggest that
it is easier for them to transfer such learning to their L2 if and when they are taught in
this language.
The results likewise suggest that for English Language Teaching (ELT) to be effective,
policy makers and educators have to invest in mother tongue-based instruction.
References
Basco, E.G.S. (1993). The effect of parent-child interaction: A prosumer approach to parent
education on the cognitive skills and concepts of selected preschool children. Unpublished
masters thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of
phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29-43.
Cox, C., & Zarillo, J. (1993). Teaching reading with childrens literature. New York: MacMillan.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and
practice. London: Longman.
DECS Order No. 107, s. 1989. Standards for the Organization and Operation of Preschools
(Kindergarten Level).
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (Bureau of Elementary Education) (2001). Early
Childhood Experiences in Grade One (8-Week Curriculum).

Dominguez, S.P. (1986). Nutritional and non-nutritional factors affecting learning achievement
of primary school pupils: Implications for educational policy and administration. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Dugenia, M.E. (1987). Home factors affecting pupil performance: Implications for educational
policy and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
Fitzgerald, J. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next
millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 520-523.
Garcia, G.E. (2000). Bilingual childrens reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson,
& R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of reading research volume 3 (pp. 813-834). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development
of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 1-30.
Geva, E., & Wade-Woolley, L. (1998). Component processes in becoming English-Hebrew
biliterate. In A.Y. Durgunoglu and L. Verhoeven (Eds.). Literacy Development in a Multilingual
Context: Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp.85-110). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the development of
basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49(2), 183-217.
Glazer, S.M., & Burke, E.M. (1994). An integrated approach to early literacy.Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hoff, E. (2001). Language development (2nd ed.). California: Wadsworth.
Jordan, G.E., Snow, C.E., & Porche, M.V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy
project on kindergarten students early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524546.

Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? ERIC Digests (ED403101). Retrieved 27 March
2003, fromhttp://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed403101.html
Licmo, M.A.A. (1994). The four-pronged approach: Its effects on the reading performance of
grade one pupils. Unpublished masters thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila.
Morrow, L.M. (1990). Assessing childrens understanding of story through their construction and
reconstruction of narrative. In L.M. Morrow & J.K. Smith (Eds.),Assessment for instruction in
early literacy (pp.110-134). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ocampo. D. (2002). Effects of bilingualism on literacy development. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Surrey, England.
Ocampo, D. (2005). Predictors of word reading performance in Filipino and in English among
grade school children. The RAP Journal,28,12-23.
Ovando, C.J., & Collier, V.P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Pado, F. (1990). Home environment as literacy behaviors of preschool-age children. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Ruddell, R.B. (1999). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an influential
teacher (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Santos, N.A. (1995). Catch them early: A handbook on early reading intervention.Pasay City:
Little Big Books, Inc.
Santos, N. (1990). State of the art in preschool education in the Philippines: Implications for
teacher education (UP-ORC Project No. 08806). Diliman, Quezon City: College of Education,
University of the Philippines.
Tucker, G.R. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC Digests
(ED435168).

Retrieved

27

March

fromhttp://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed435168.html

2003,

Verhoeven, L., & Aarts, R. (1998). Attaining functional biliteracy in the Netherlands. In A.Y.
Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Crosscultural perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Villanueva, J.A.R. & Almario-David, A.R. (2009). Dual language program models in Philippine
progressive schools. The RAP Journal,32,78-86.
Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influence on second-language word reading: All roads
lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49(3), 447-471.
Yasay, A. (1991). A parenting program in early reading for mothers of preschool children.
Unpublished masters thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

About

the

author

Lalaine F. Yanilla Aquino is an associate professor at the University of the

Philippines where she finished her doctorate in Reading Education and where she teaches
undergraduate and graduate courses on English language studies, comparative literature, creative
writing, and reading education. From 2010 to May 2012, she was the president of the Kuwentista
ng mga Tsikiting (KUTING), an organization of writers for children.
category: Features, Volume IV (2012)
tags: bilingual education, biliteracy, cross-linguistic transfer of literacy skills, mother-tongue
based instruction, preschool education

Email to friend

Blog it

Stay updated

3 Comments Already

1.

Dallas Phommatheth says:

October 24, 2012 at 10:29 am

I wanted to let you know I appreciate your blog and the information you provide. There is some
excellent information here.
Reply

Jaime David says:

March 20, 2014 at 9:45 am

Some information here can be used by language policy makers.
Reply

Leave a Reply
Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Anti-spam*

To prove you are a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.

Submit Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Does Self-Access Still Have Life in It? : A Response to Reinders (2012)

Unheard Melodies from Behind the Veil: Male and Female Omani Student Responses to
Translated Short Stories by Arab Women Writers

Search for:
Search

Subscribe to ELTWO
Completely spam free, opt out any time.
E-mail
Receive Notifications via Email

Sections

Features

Innovations

ELT Forum

ELT Lives

Media Reviews

CELC Symposium 2010

Special Issue on Bonding 2014

Volumes

Volume I (2009)

Volume II (2010)

Volume III (2011)

Volume IV (2012)

Volume V (2013)

Volume VI (2014)

Keywords

agency blended e-learning bloggingcollaborative learningcommunication

skills correction critical language awareness critical thinkingculture debate discourse-based
teachingdiversity drama feedback graphic organizershomework independent learningindependent
research journalslearner autonomyliterature online discussions oral presentation skills oral
skills peer teaching portfoliospronunciation difficulties pronunciation teaching
program proofreading Readers Theater research projects schema theory second language
learningself-directed learning self-learning social awareness speech production and
perceptionstudent-centered learning student motivation task-based learningteaching
reading teaching writing text structure wikis worksheets

Features

Second Language Teacher Contributions to Student Classroom Participation: A

Narrative Study of Indonesian Learners

o

When a Facebook Group Makes a Difference: Facebook for Language Learning

Integrating Blog Writing into the Essay Writing Process

Specialized Teacher Feedback: Teachers Have Some Say

The Realities of Practice and Practices in Reality: A Critical Look at the Work
Situation of English Teachers in a Japanese Setting
Empirical and Attitudinal Effects of Bottom-up Listening Activities in the L2

o
Classroom
o

The Effect of Language Attitudes on Learner Preferences: A Study on South

Koreans Perceptions of the Philippine English Accent

Pedagogical Blogging: Promoting Tertiary Level Students Critical Thinking by

Using Socratic Questions

Using Childrens Literature to Explore the Issue of Exclusion: Language Learning

Through Personal Connections, Multiple Perspectives and Critical Reflections

Unheard Melodies from Behind the Veil: Male and Female Omani Student

Responses to Translated Short Stories by Arab Women Writers

Innovations

Incorporating Collocation Teaching in a Reading-Writing Program

Choosing the Right International Journal in TESOL and Applied Linguistics

Get the Picture: Teaching with Multimodal Texts

Making Lit a Hit: Using the BRAIN when Teaching Literature in an ESL or EFL
Context

Personalising Input to Address Khmer Speakers Pronunciation Issues

From Course Book to Source Book: Maintaining Teacher Autonomy

A Suggested Writing Process for In-House Materials Development

Putting a Humanistic Approach to Grammatical Input into Practice: A Sample

Lesson

Using Facebook to Extend Learning into Students Digital Lives

Accelerated Learning In and Out of the Reading Classroom

ELT Forum

Does Self-Access Still Have Life in It? : A Response to Reinders (2012)

The End of Self-Access?: From Walled Garden to Public Park

Listening Strategy Instruction (or Extensive Listening?): A Response to Renandya

(2012)

Five Reasons Why Listening Strategy Instruction Might Not Work With Lower
Proficiency Learners

Rubrics-Based Writing: Liberating Rather Than Restricting in Many Contexts

Formulaic Writing Advice: A False Panacea

The Case against Group Grades

The Case for Group Grades

The Case against Abstract Grammar: Against Non-Communicative Grammars

The Case for Abstract Grammar: Formal Grammar and Linguistic

Communication
2015 ELTWorldOnline.com
Powered by Edublogs Campus
NUS Centre for English Language Co