Successful Integration of Reading and Writing - Research Paper Example

Successful Integration of Reading and Writing Introduction This chapter introduces the concept of integrated language teaching, its definitions, and the various methods integrated language teaching. It aims to clarify the issues involved in integrated language teaching. This chapter undertakes a comprehensive review of empirical studies on integrating four language skills in integrated language teaching. The chapter focuses on integration of speaking and reading skills with writing skills and deals with the various approaches to improve writings skills as well. The Theory of Integrated Approach The theory of integrated approach focuses on how children naturally learn languages through the integration of all language skills. While large part of research on language learning focus on language acquisition in young children Helen and Charles Cairns outline the various stages of linguistic development in oral language acquisition (Cairns, 1976). The theory of integrated approach is closely linked to the natural acquisition of language by native speakers. Arthur (1973) presents a teacher-oriented overview of principles of natural language learning where he distinguishes between the natural learning of languages and the artificial or mechanical ways of teaching or learning a natural language. For Arthur, language learning is natural to all children where they undergo a gradual, developmental process of learning several aspects of language. Arthur thus emphasizes on natural language learning situations that manipulate students’ natural language learning tendency. Weaver (1980, as cited in Walsh Dolan, 1985) expresses a similar view by reinstating the natural processes of learning to speak and to read. Weaver postulates that children must understand how the language system works as both the processes cannot be taught in the direct way. Both Arthur and Weaver stress on capitalizing students’ abilities to handle language in a natural language environment (Walsh Dolan, 1985, p. 7). The theory of integrated approach thus emphasizes on natural and meaningful learning environments that facilitate integration of language skills. One needs to perceive language learning as a developmental process that cannot be compartmentalized in to four clear-cut sections. Integrated language learning Integrated language learning has been defined as “the practical application of listening, reading, speaking, and other abilities that are required in communication” (Niijima, 2003, p.1). These four skills encompass associated skills such as knowledge of vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, syntax, meaning, and usage. Integration of these skills is the key to effective EFL communication and this has rightly been pointed out by Walsh Dolan (1985) who argues for the desegregation of the various parts of language. Integrated language teaching comprises of integrating top-down processing and bottom-up processing and aims at offering optimum learning situations to use the target language (Tasaki, 1995; Dennis, 1986 as cited in Niijima, 2003). Integrated approach stands in sharp contrast to the segregated-skill approach where the emphasis is on the mastery of discrete language skills such as reading or speaking (Mohan, 1986). Traditional ESL or EFL programs often focus on skill segregation as it seems easier to offer instructions on specific language skills rather than concentrating on more than one skill at a time (Oxford, 2001). It has been observed that segregated-skill ESL/EFL classes adopt skill-linked learning strategies that focus on either reading strategies, listening strategies, speaking strategies, or writing strategies (Peregoy& Boyle, 2001). Such learning strategies vary from guessing meaning based on context to breaking a sentence into parts to understand meaning. However, skill segregation approach fails to prepare students for academic communication, career-related language use, or everyday interaction in the language (Oxford, 2001). For instance, the grammar-translation method restricts the communication range of learners to a large extent. On the other hand, the integrated learning approach offers learners a unique opportunity to develop multi-language skills in each learning situation. Oxford, in this respect, points out that common learning strategies such as paying selective attention, self-evaluating, asking questions, analyzing, synthesizing, planning, and predicting help learners to weave their language skills together (Oxford, 1990; Oxford, 1996). It is worthwhile to analyze Oxford’s theoretical insights on teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). Oxford envisions the image of a tapestry in teaching EFL and argues that just as a tapestry is interwoven with different strands so is EFL teaching characterized by such threads as ‘the teacher, the learner, the setting, and the relevant languages’ (Oxford, 2001, p. 1). The author observes that three key factors are significant for EFL instructors to interweave these strands among learners. They include congruity between instructor’s teaching style and the learning styles of the learners, learners’ motivation to learn the target language, and a favorable setting that fosters integrated language learning (Oxford, 2001, p. 1). Similarly, in teaching the target language EFL teachers have to incorporate learning situations that will provide sufficient opportunity for learners to practice the four primary skills of listening, reading, speaking and writing in varying degrees and combinations (Oxford, 1990, p. 5-6). The fundamental aims and priorities of an integrated approach have been well-documented by Walsh Dolan (1985). The author outlines six key fundamental priorities of an integrated approach to language teaching in terms of structure, materials, and student involvement. The first priority for an integrated teacher is to promote integrated activities that foster both oracy (listening and speaking) and literacy (reading and writing) among learners with a view to develop their overall language capacity (Walsh Dolan,1985, p. 8). The first priority thus emphasizes the interrelatedness of the four aspects of language. Second, Walsh Dolan argues that thematic categorization of courses and units in place of the traditional dichotomy of literature-based versus writing-based courses would facilitate students’ natural pursuit of themes and the integration of various skills. Third, the author advocates the use of a large variety of literature and materials that offer learners as much resources and experiences to pursue the goal of the course theme (Walsh Dolan, 1985, p. 9). The third priority is linked to the second one and seeks to offer learners the optimum opportunity to explore the various possibilities offered by the theme. The fourth priority suggested by Walsh Dolan is to perceive writing as an organic process rather than a final product where learners are given opportunity to integrate other language skills as well. The author argues that the process of writing encompassing such stages as prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing would pave way for such interactive learning activities as group brainstorming, listening and speaking, and oral and written responses (Walsh Dolan, 1985, p. 9). Fifth, student variations (both inter-student and intra-student variations) of the responses to activities need to be analyzed. One needs to bear in mind that the personalities and values of learners affect the way children respond to written and oral experiences. Finally, the author advocates to incorporate ‘free and/or guided individual reading, writing, and sharing’ into the course design (Walsh Dolan, 1985, p. 9). This would allow learners to pursue topics and subtopics of their interest while enabling them to share their own experiences or resources relevant to the unit topic or course theme. Two Forms of Integrated-Skill Instruction Integrated-Skill Instruction is broadly categorized into content-based language instruction and task-based instruction. The former lays emphasis on ‘learning content through language’ whereas the latter emphasize on “doing tasks that require communicative language use” (Oxford, 2001). It can be seen that both content based instruction and task oriented instruction are widely employed in ESL or EFL classroom. Content-Based Instruction Content based instruction refers to the teaching of language skills “in a highly integrated, communicative fashion while learning content such as science, mathematics, and social studies” (Oxford, 2001). However, the content needs to be appropriate to the academic and proficiency level of learners. The question whether content-based language teaching (CBLT) is capable of bringing about language learning deserves attention in this regard. It has been argued that teaching content via second language fail to bring about language learning (Mohan & Huang, 2002; Lyster, 2007). Similarly, Stoller (2004, p. 276) opines that exploration into ‘the interface of language and content is the most important pedagogical issue’ in CBLT. Halliday (2007), on the other hand, believes that learning of the disciplinary content will result in the learning of the language of the discipline. It has also been argued that a competent curriculum that makes use of academic language offers learners opportunities for developing their language proficiency and for acquiring ‘the more formal, decontextual­ized, cognitively complex academic language’ (Crandall & Tucker, 1990, p. 83). It is therefore imperative that CBLT teachers integrate the teaching of language and content in the classroom in such a way so as to develop learners’ language proficiency (Hoare & Kong, 2008, p. 254). However, it is a great challenge for instructors to transact a complex and abstract content. Scarcella& Oxford (1992) put forward three general models of content-based language instruction- theme-based, adjunct, and sheltered. The theme-based model seeks at integrating the language skills into the study of a theme; the adjunct model focuses on coordinating language and content courses that are taught separately; and, the sheltered model emphasizes the use of simplified English that cater to the learners’ English proficiency level (Scarcella& Oxford, 1992). These three models emphasize the need to have an ESL or EFL content dealing with interesting themes that offer learners practice in a wide variety of language skills in simplified English catering to each one’s language proficiency. Task-Based Instruction Task-based instruction centers on communicative tasks that are capable of building up the language proficiency of learners. In task-based instruction tasks stand for such learning activities that necessitate learners to comprehend, produce, manipulate, or interact in authentic language (Nunan, 1989). Such tasks can vary from editing a class newspaper or developing a television commercial to enacting scenes from a play. The emphasis is on the process of communication and meaning rather than the form. Basic pair work and group work are the twin powerful tools of the task-based model to facilitate student interaction and collaboration. However, effective instructors can also include more structured cooperative learning strategies to initiate task-based instruction. Task-based instruction has been found to be beneficial to learners of all levels of language proficiency. However, it is essential to vary the nature and complexity of the tasks in accordance with the academic and language proficiency level of learners. Task-based instruction seeks to offer simple tasks for beginners whereas more advanced learners are entrusted with more demanding and complex tasks. Doughty & Pica (1986) also point out the effectiveness of task-based instruction for learners of all ages. The authors mention two modes of task-based instruction, namely one- way tasks and two-way tasks. In one-way tasks only one person shares the information whereas in two-way tasks exchange of information takes place among all participants. One-way tasks are usually dominated by the most linguistically competent learners whereas two-way tasks offer opportunity for everyone to contribute and indulge in real communication (Talbott& Oxford 1990). The authors thus favor the non-traditional two-way tasks in task-based instruction. Integrating the Language Skills There have been a number of studies on how to integrate the various language skills. Among them it is worthwhile to analyze Oxford’s postulation of the necessary steps involved in integrating language skills in ESL/EFL instruction. These steps consist of understanding the two forms of integrated skill instruction, evaluating current approach, choosing the right instructional materials needed for integration, integrating each individual skill with others, and forming learning strategies that promote multiple skills among learners (Oxford, 2001, p. 2). These steps are necessary for integrating the four major language skills as well as their associated skills such as syntax and vocabulary. Approaches to Teaching Writing Tangpermpoon (2008, p. 1) regards writing as the most difficult skill to teach learners as it necessities a great deal of lexical and syntactic knowledge while equipping oneself with the principles of L2 writing. Reviewing the literature on integrated approaches to improve students’ writing skills one comes across three main approaches-the product-based approach, process-based approach and the genre-based approach. Product-Based Approaches Product-based approaches in writing focus on grammatical and syntactical forms. As such the approach is also known as the controlled- to-free approach, the text-based approach, or the guided composition (Raimes, 1983; Silva, 1990). Product based writing aims at developing the second language proficiency of learners from simpler levels to more advanced levels. Tribble (1990) envisages product- based approach as a simple and systematic linear model that moves from prewriting to composing and to correcting. However, Hairston (1982) and Raimes (1983) regard product- based approach as recursive as writers do not follow a neat sequence of planning, organizing, writing, and then revising (Raimes, 1983, p. 229). Nevertheless, the advantages of product writing approach in teaching English composition, sentence structures, vocabulary and rhetorical patterns are widely acknowledged by teachers and instructors. However, product-based writing approaches tend to overemphasize grammar, syntax, and mechanics of writing while discarding the writing purpose and audience. This is rightly pointed out by Raimes (1983) when the author observes that the pressure of maintaining accuracy of the language structures in writing diminish the learners’ motivation in learning. Product-based writing approaches help students to gain L2 background knowledge in writing. Similarly, the learning of pattern-product equip students to shape “writing competence and allow them to create their written product in academic settings effectively in terms of language use” (Tangpermpoon, 2008). However, product-based writing approaches need to take into account the audience, the writing purpose, and the idea generation techniques while developing L2 writing skills. Process-Based Approach Process-based writing approach differs considerably from the product based approach as the former focuses on the discovery of meaning and ideas. O’Brien (2004) defines the process based approach as “an activity in which teachers encourage learners to see writing not as grammar exercises, but as the discovery of meaning and ideas.” The role of the teacher is to help learners to explore their own thoughts and to assist them to develop their own writing. The process-based approach comprises of many stages and it is worthwhile to analyze the five-step writing process model of Herwins. For Herwins, the five stages of process-based writing consists of the prewriting, first draft composing, feedback, second draft writing, and proof reading (O’Brien, 2004). During the prewriting stage children generate vocabulary and ideas through brainstorming, clustering, and discussion; during first drafting they use vocabulary and ideas to express what they want to communicate; during feedback stage students receive feedback from their peers or teachers; during second draft writing learners modify their previous draft based on the feedback; and, during the proofreading stage students express their ideas in writing using appropriate vocabulary, layout, grammar, and mechanics (O’Brien, 2004). However, it is a fact that professional writers and even students do not exactly follow these five steps as they have to move back and forth among these steps during the writing process. This idea is echoed by Flower and Hayes (1981, p. 376) when the authors point out that the writer is not constrained to use the writing tools in a fixed order; on the other hand, they can generate ideas quite freely irrespective of the five stages. That is why Tribble (1990) describes the process-based writing approach as ‘a dynamic and unpredictable process.’ Process-based approaches have a number of benefits for learners. Process-based approaches enable learners to develop their writing skills in L2 step by step. The various stages of the writing process with provisions for peer and teacher review, vocabulary enhancement, constant feedback, opportunity to reflect and review previous writing, and awareness on audience make process-based writing a useful companion in ESL and EFL composition (Boughey, 1997). Similarly, process- based writing activities promote the critical thinking skills of learners (Badger & White, 2000). However, the approach has its own limitations too. It takes longer time and duration to complete process based tasks in the classroom. Badger and White (2000), in this respect, point out the lack of sufficient linguistic output and learners’ lack of awareness regarding the characteristics process based writing. However, these limitations could be overcome through carefully planned strategies. These strategies may vary from offering sufficient examples to learners, providing clear understanding of the aim of each writing process, motivating learners to actively participate in the writing process, and developing an understanding of the concept of audience. Genre-Based Approach Genre-Based Approach seeks to promote genre and genre teaching together in the writing class (Hammond and Derewianka, 2001). Silva (1990, p. 16-17) describes the approach as ‘English for Academic Purposes approach’ and argues that genre based approach befits the academic community to understand academic discourses and academic tasks that falls into various genres. Dudley-Evans (1997, p. 151-152) calls the approach as the ‘English for Specific Purposes approach’ as it helps learners to develop their writing skills for various social and business purposes. Badger and White (2000), on the other hand, considers the approach as an extension of the product-oriented approach as it equips learners to grasp a wide variety of writing patterns. The approach has been found to be useful in L2 writing classroom as it teaches learners how to employ various genre codes for communicative purposes. It has been observed that genre-based approach prepares learners to develop writing skills in various real life situations outside the classroom. Genre-based writing is suitable in a large variety of social situations and learners can develop their writing skills by analyzing and imitating each genre (Badger & White, 2000). However, genre-based approach fails to develop children’s skills to appropriate language or specific vocabulary and instructors need to make use of brainstorming techniques to fill this gap. Integrated Approach and Writing It is essential to analyze how integrated approach can effectively be implemented to develop the writing skills of L2 learners. A study conducted by Niijima (2003) unearth the the relationship between integrated teaching method and students’ writing skills. The author conducted a grammar test (which concentrated on subject-verb agreement) and a writing test among participants and found that even students who did not perform well in grammar tests had good scores in the written test (Niijima, 2003). The participants were products of integrated classrooms and this prompted the researcher to conclude that integrated teaching methods improve the writing ability of learners to a large extend. The following sections of the literature review analyses the integration of writing skills with that of reading and speaking. Integrating Reading and Writing The interrelatedness between reading and writing has long been established. Reading accelerates the process of learning to write and one usually starts writing after reading what others have written (Heffernon, 1986). Cobine’s analogy that “writing is to reading as waking to sleeping, as giving is to receiving” (1995, p. 2) best reveals the interrelatedness of both the language skills. Ferris &Hedgcock (1998), in this respect, observe that a number of features are common to both reading and writing-construction of meaning, application of complex cognitive and linguistic skills, and combining existing knowledge with past experience. Both reading and writing are complementary to each other. Writing provides learners useful “insights into the goals, constraints, and concerns of authors, insights which they apply to their reading” while learners who write are better equipped to understand assigned texts (Zamel, 1992, p.469-470). Integration of reading with writing equips learners to engage, contribute to, and make connections with texts (Zamel, 1992, p.463). Many readers tend to develop their writing skills when they start reacting to such reading passages and such reflections on the reading passage may promote original thinking among learners. Similarly, writing reinforces reading as students who write are most likely to read extensively to grasp how writers keep their readers engaged. There have been a number of studies that asserted the effect of writing on reading through standardized reading comprehension tests and such studies identified that writing tasks such as free writing, use of invented spelling and sentence-combining activities have a positive bearing on reading achievement (Gordon & Braun, 1982; Oehlkers, 1971; Straw & Schreiner, 1982; Mason, McDaniel, & Callaway, 1974). However, these studies fail to bring out the exact nature of the relationship. Similarly, correlational studies (e.g. Evans, 1977; Langer, 1984; Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan, 1983) also fail to answer how the relationship between reading and writing change as time passes by. Evidences for the successful integration of reading and writing can be found in the studies Wilson (1981) and Aulls (1975). Wilson postulates that there is a developmental link between the two skills as both reading and writing complement each other in an integrated the classroom while Aulls’ informal observations convinced him of the significance of integrating reading and writing from the early years of elementary school (Walsh Dolan, 1985, p. 8). Similarly, Moffett (1973, as cited in Walsh Dolan, 1985) also points out how integration brings about interrelated language processes within elementary school setting. It is also worthwhile to analyze the three theoretical models put forwarded by Lomax & Shanahan (1986, as cited in Koral, 2003, p. 25) to explain the relationship between reading and writing-reading to writing model, writing to reading model, and interactive model. The reading to writing model emphasizes the significance of reading and holds that all input goes from reading to writing; the writing to reading model stresses on how writing contributes to the development of reading abilities; and, the interactive model shows the reciprocal relationship between the two and postulates that both reading and writing influence each other (Koral, 2003, p. 25). It can thus be seen that the reading to writing model limits the effect of writing on reading whereas the writing to reading model undermines the influence of reading on writing. The interactive model, on the other hand, shows the interrelatedness and complementary nature of both the skills. The interactive model thus emphasize on the integration and transfer of both the skills. The problematic nature of the integration process of reading is suggested by Goldstein & Liu (1994). However, a number of studies (e.g. Abbott et al., 2002; Moyo, 2000; Esmaeili, 2002; Heyden, 2001; Lee, 2000; Levis, 1995; Gunther, 2000) offer valuable information on the effective integration of reading and writing skills. Shanahan (1997, p. 11) observes that improved learning takes place only when “reading and writing are combined in appropriate ways.” Analyzing the performances of the participants on a reading-to-write task Watanabe (2001) identify that the participants’ writing performance on the independent task was closely linked to their score on the reading-to-write tasks. A similar study by Esmaeili (2002) also reveals the role of reading in reading-to-write tasks. The author points out that ‘writing involves reading’ and observes that one can never “view reading and writing as stand-alone skills” (Esmaeili, 2002, p. 615). Asencio´n Delaney (2008) also investigated the relation between reading ability and score on reading-writing tasks, and found low correlations between a measure of reading ability and scores on two types of integrated task summaries and response essays. These results suggest that reading ability was not a major factor in the scores for the reading-to-write task. Plakan (2009) used an inductive analysis of think-aloud protocol data and interviews to uncover the reading strategies of 12 non-native English writers who completed an integrated reading-writing task. Strategy frequency was considered overall, during composing, and across writers. Word-level strategies were most common along with global and mining strategies. Higher scoring writers used more mining and global strategies, while lower scoring writers showed similar frequency in overall strategy use but differences in choice of strategy. These findings of this study suggested that reading plays a role in the process and performance of integrated writing tasks, an important consideration when using such tasks for learning or assessment. Durukan (2010) compared the effects of the cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) technique and the traditional reading and writing pedagogical methods for primary school students. He adopted Pre-test-post-test control group model in his study. His study revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the reading and writing skills of the integrated and traditional approaches in terms of academic achievement and retention. This difference was discovered in favor of the cooperative integrated reading and composition technique. Plakans (2012) studied the discourse synthesis process in reading-writing tasks and found reading ability (a) facilitated writing by providing content but (b) hindered writers’ comprehension of the source texts. Such studies lead to the supposition that, while reading ability may not be clearly determined by the scoring of reading-to-write tasks, the underlying construct and process to complete the tasks does entail reading. Read More