:: The Creative Spark in ELT: a retrospective … Part One
by Alan Maley
The original brief for this article was to survey the development of creative ideas in ELT over the past 25 years (1980-2005). On reflection however, this time constraint seemed to be both artificial and unnecessarily limiting. Where had the creative ideas of the past 25 years come from in the first place? How did we get to where we are? It was the search for answers to these questions which prompted me to push back the limits of the survey to the 1960’s.
Why the 1960’s? I view the 1960’s as a period of intense creative ferment – politically, intellectually, scientifically and artistically. It was a time when traditional lifestyles, beliefs, values and ideologies were being vigorously challenged. This was most obvious in the wave of sometimes violent student demonstrations, sit-ins, and public debates which swept across Western Europe, particularly affecting France (where they almost brought down the government), Germany, and Italy. In the States, Martin Luther King gave his famous ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963, and was assassinated in 1968 at the height of the Civil Rights campaign. There was protest all across America against the Vietnam war. In China the first home-made atomic bomb was exploded in 1964, and in 1966 the ‘Cultural Revolution’ began its 10-year period of chaos. Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space in 1961, and Neil Armstrong the first man to set foot on the moon in 1969. Quite a decade!
At much the same time the philosophers-cum-literary/social critics such as Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillart, Lyotard (1992), Lacan and others were busily ‘de-constructing’ the accepted world around them. The effect of this post-modernist project of de-construction was to shake the foundations of certainty on which society had until then rested. In a de-constructed world, nothing is certain: everything is open to ‘contestation’.
In literature too, critics and writers such as Roland Barthes and Alain Robbe-Grillet were inventing new modes of literary expression in the ‘nouveau roman’. Writers like Simone de Beauvoir were taking the lid off feminism. The effects of surrealism (itself from an earlier period) were beginning to trickle down and attract more attention as the work of painters like Magritte, de Chirico, Max Ernst, Marcel Duchamp, and of course Picasso became better known. In the theatre, the ‘theatre of the absurd’ (Esslin 2004), exemplified in the plays of Ionesco, and the ‘theatre of cruelty’ was in full swing. And directors such as Alain Resnais, Francois Truffaut, Louis Malle, Jean-Luc Godard and others were re-inventing cinema, in the films of what became known as the ‘nouvelle vague’.
As an anglophone teacher of English, you might well ask what all this has to do with creativity in ELT. Who are all these French people anyway, and what possible connection do they have to ELT? I would agree that there is little direct connection. However, I also believe that the complex kaleidoscope of ideas characteristic of a particular period of time – what is sometimes called the ‘Zeitgeist’ or ‘spirit of the age’ – subtly and indirectly interpenetrates and influences thinking in all areas of activity.
In any case, things were moving on the anglophone front too. The humanistic philosophy of Carl Rogers (1969), with its emphasis on the whole person, could not fail to affect the way we came to view our learners. In philosophy, the ideas developed by Austin (1962) in his How to Do Things with Words were hugely influential, and formed part of the foundations for the ‘functional-notional’ movement of the 70’s. John Searle’s development of speech-act theory (1969) on the basis of Austin’s work also formed part of this new way of viewing language. The work of Karl Popper (1959) with its insistence on the disprovability of theories, was shaking the positivist foundations of science. Thomas Kuhn’s coining of the term ‘paradigm shift’ (1962) was also a defining moment in the way we view the process of scientific discovery (even if he profoundly disagreed with Popper.) The unconventional ideas of R,D.Laing and his colleagues were likewise transforming views of insanity and how it should be treated, with some interesting spin-off for language. And Arthur Koestler (1964) was inquiring into the very nature of creativity itself.
The British educational scene was also undergoing massive change with the enforced democratisation of access to secondary education. The ‘New Maths’ was creating original ways of making mathematical concepts clear to young children through ‘hands-on’ activity (‘I do and I understand’). And, partly under the influence of the ideas of Raymond Williams (1958) and other socialist thinkers, there was a similar movement towards creativity, oracy, freedom of expression and liberalism in the teaching of English as a mother tongue. These were given expression in the work of educationists such as Douglas Barnes (1969, 1976), James Britton (1970), John Holloway, Nancy Martin and Geoffrey Summerfield.
In the world of the theatre, the unnervingly absurdist plays of Harold Pinter were drawing attention. Satirical attacks on the establishment in the form of the magazine Private Eye, founded in 1961, and the cabaret review Beyond the Fringe (launched the same year) were beginning to wrinkle the British stiff upper-lip. But perhaps the most ostensible sign of change was the explosion of creativity in the world of pop culture in 1960’s Britain. The fashion world, with Carnaby Street at its epicentre, and the advent of music groups such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were the epitome of youthful creativity. After almost two decades of post-War gloom and drabness, 1960’s Britain was suddenly all colour, movement, and iconoclasm. It was the time of ‘flower power’ and London was where it was at.
There were also powerful currents of protest and educational change in the world at large. Among the most seminal I would list Ivan Illich in Mexico (1970), Paulo Freire in Brasil (1970), Postman and Weingartner (1969) in the USA. We should also not forget that the 1960’s also saw the translation of Vygotsky’s work into English (1962). Krishnamurthi’s (2000) unconventional educational ideas were also becoming better known and appreciated, particularly his claim for individual responsibility for learning.
The 1960’s then were the seedbed or launching pad for many of the creative ideas which surfaced in the following decades. More importantly perhaps, the 60’s established a climate of thought – freedom to think the unthinkable; to flout convention; to critically scrutinise and challenge established assumptions; to seek new ways of solving old problems. It is the 1960’s which made possible the astounding mushrooming of creative ideas which have characterised our Applied Linguistics / Language Teaching world ever since.
If we can accept ‘meme’ theory (Dawkins 1973, Blackmore 1996, Watson-Todd 2004), even if only as a metaphor, we can view the 1960’s as a particularly rich period for the formation of new memes – ideas which spread rapidly, and become common property.In the remainder of this article, I shall, for the sake of convenience, group the creative minds and movements under four headings: Academic Creativity; Methodological Creativity; Institutional Creativity; Individual Creativity.
:: Academic Creativity
Here I shall try to summarise some of the major contributions to emerge from Academia. I have separated this off because the theoretical breakthroughs rarely, if ever, translate directly into classroom practice. They nonetheless serve to create a climate of thought which often influences, however slowly, unconsciously or indirectly, the direction of more practical manifestations of creativity.Chomsky’s devastating review of Skinner’s Behaviourism (1959) marks a watershed in our thinking about the nature of language. The review, and the publication of Syntactic Structures (1957) and Aspects of a Theory of Syntax (1965), forced a major re-examination of the principles on which language teaching was based, and its ripples can still be felt. The fact that all humans are hard-wired to learn language, that surface structures are manifestations of ‘deep structure’, that learning takes place through exposure to language in contexts of use – such ideas all but destroyed the Behaviourist canon of beliefs. Chomsky must therefore be considered a major academic genius of our time – the Einstein of linguistics.
In Europe, and with a much more direct impact on the classroom, it was Wilkins (1976) who put forward the powerful view of language as a set of ‘notions’ and ‘functions’ – language for doing things, in contradistinction to a view of language as a set of grammatical structures. This insight set in motion a wave of academic books and articles, (Brumfit 1984) and the first ‘new look’ courses based on a functional organisation of language. (Abbs and Freebairn 1977) The intellectual ferment and dialectical debate provoked by Wilkins’ ideas surely places him among the most creative contributors to our field in the late 20th century.
The influence of Michael Halliday (1978, 1985) has also been of great significance. Taking up the baton from Firth (1957) his work pointed to a view of language as socially-embedded, and socially constructed. This has had a major impact on the way English is now taught, especially in Australia, through work on the teaching of genres at school level. Hallidayan thinking permeates much of the practical work done in classrooms in many parts of the world.
Until the 1960’s, study of language was largely confined to phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. ‘Grammar’ meant essentially the grammar of the sentence. This
began to change with the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Their investigation of classroom discourse revealed higher order patterning of texts – above the level of the sentence. This opened the door for the subsequent explosion of studies into text and discourse, both spoken and written. The work of the ethnomethodologists, such as Schegloff and Sacks (1973 ) and Goffman (1981), and on relevance theory and pragmatics (Brown and Levinson 1987, Levinson 1983) has run in parallel with these developments, and has given us better insights into the way spoken language is managed. (Tsui 1994). The move towards a more socio-cultural view of language owed much to the work of pioneers like Fishman (1968), Gumperz and Hymes ( ) and Labov (1972) in putting sociolinguistics centre-stage.It was Sinclair too who pioneered the computerised study of language corpora, particularly through the Cobuild project (1987)). This work has been taken forward by others such as Biber ( 1998, 1999). One of the main fruits of this study was the emergence of collocational patterns based on actual instances of usage rather than armchair speculation, and the spawning of a whole new generation of dictionaries. The way we now view vocabulary and its teaching was also heavily influenced by these studies. The frontier between grammar and lexis became blurred: grammar at the level of the word was back in business. (We should not, of course, forget the much earlier pioneering work of Palmer in this area (Howatt 2004, Palmer 1938, Smith 2003).
In the area of phonology, the independent spirit of inquiry demonstrated by David Brazil (1985) in his work on intonation has still to percolate fully through into instructional materials, though there are some exceptions.(Bradford and Brazil 1988 ) His insight that the major function of intonation is to distinguish given from new information surprises through its simplicity, originality and elegance. His further work on describing a spoken grammar of English, separate and different from written grammar (1995) was tragically interrupted by his death but has been taken forward by Carter and McCarthy in their work on spoken corpora (1997).
A further area of creative endeavour resulted in the opening up of SLA research. The big research question, to which all others are in a sense tributary, is ‘How do we learn languages?’ It was largely through the work of Corder (1981) in the UK, and Selinker (1972) in the States with their investigations of Interlanguage that this question began seriously to be addressed. Previously the question had been answered by a mixture of dogmatic assertion and folk beliefs about language learning. Thereafter began a long and arduous search for answers based upon careful observation and experimental research. While it is true that the yield has been relatively meagre compared with the effort expended (see Ellis 1994), we do have at least some firm data on which to base pedagogical decisions. (The most accessible account of these is Lightbown and Spada 2000)
By the 1980’s there was a gathering body of opinion that the locus for research should shift to the classroom itself. The pioneering work of Allwright and Bailey (1991) deserves special mention for laying the basis for classroom research, together with the developments fostered by Freeman and others (1982). One implication of this work was that teachers would become ‘researchers’ by undertaking action research projects in their own classrooms, rather than relying on the theoretical pronouncements of the academic pundits. Action research has since become an important card in the Teacher Development pack (Edge and Richards 1993). Indeed, the emergence of Teacher Development (TD) in a complementary relationship with Teacher Training (TT) (Head and Taylor 1997) has accomplished a great deal in freeing up teacher creativity, and in restoring teacher self-esteem.
The spread of English as a language of international communication has been one of the hallmarks of the past 30 years or so. The implications of this have led to some highly creative thinking about the role English now plays in world affairs. Tom McArthur was one of the first to recognise the importance of this new role for English, and his founding of English Today (in 1985) marks a milestone. Braj Kachru’s now famous three circles model (1986) helped sharpen awareness both of the spread of English and of some of the inequalities it helped to promote. These were taken up later by researchers such as Robert Phillipson (1992), Suresh Canagarajah (1999), and Alistair Pennycook (1994). All of them challenged the notion of English as a neutral, beneficial and ‘natural’ phenomenon. This critical take on English in the world has led others, such as Jennifer Jenkins (2000), to attempt a re-balancing of power relations by drawing attention to the differences between metropolitan varieties of English and English as an international Language (EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF).
In the area of reading research, frontiers were being pushed back by scholars such as Kenneth Goodman (1967, 1986), Louise Rosenblatt (1978) and Frank Smith (1978). Goodman’s ‘whole language’ approach to reading – as a process of meaning-making was in stark contrast to earlier ‘bottom-up’ approaches. Rosenblatt is chiefly to thank for the ‘reader response’ approach to reading, with its emphasis on an aesthetic, personal response to texts rather than a purely instrumental, efferent, referential approach to texts as repositories of ‘meaning’. Reading, literature and culture have always been closely linked. The work of Claire Kramsch (1993) among others has highlighted the language/culture connection. The importance of literature in a language teaching context has been strongly put by Widdowson (1992), Carter and Long (1987), and McRae (1991) among many others. After a long period of neglect, the use of literary texts in language teaching was being reasserted.
Approaches to the teaching of writing were revolutionised when the practices of the ‘process-writing’ school (initially developed in the context of mother tongue teaching in the States) were applied to second language teaching. The key figures in this movement included Donald Murray (1980) (see also Flurkey and Xu 2003), Peter Elbow, Janet Emig (1971, 1977), Ann Raimes (1991)and Vivian Zamel (1982). Although the process-writing approach has since been widely criticised, there is no doubt that it significantly altered perceptions about how writing might be taught by shifting attention from the textual product to the processes writers engage with in their writing.
In this section, I have focussed on major academic contributions to our understanding of language and how it is learnt and taught. These might be summarised as language and the mind (Chomsky), language and the world (Halliday, Wilkins et al), language and text (Sinclair), language and the learner (Corder et al), language and classrooms (Allwright et al), language and power (Kachru et al.), language and phonology (Brazil et al), language and reading (Rosenblatt et al), language, literature and culture (Kramsch et al) and language and writing (Murray et al).
:: Methodological Creativity
In this section, I shall focus on creative contributions to methods of teaching. For a comprehensive recent survey of this area, see Richards and Rodgers (2001).
Undoubtedly the most comprehensive methodological development in this period has been the slow evolution of the Communicative Approach, based in part on the perceptions of Austin and Searle, and on those of Hymes (1972). From the earliest prototypes in its Functional-Notional beginnings to its latest manifestations in the Task-based and Lexical approaches (see below) it has become the commanding paradigm, to the extent that, for some critics, it is now so ubiquitous as to have no meaning. When everything is communicative, what distinguishes it from anything else? In its early days however it provoked a flurry of creative experimentation in classroom techniques, in syllabus design and in published materials. A heady mixture of techniques ranging from roleplay, drama, using pop songs, information and opinion gap activities to jigsaw reading (and listening), and problem-solving were tried, especially in the private sector schools in UK. The educational philosophy was one of learner-centredness, with the teacher in the role of facilitator. The overall focus was on communicating genuine meanings, with an emphasis on the use of ‘authentic’ texts. The former P-P-P paradigm was inverted: first students were engaged in communication; only later would attention be given to the linguistic aspects of the communication. ‘Learning to use’ became ‘Using to learn’. It is now hard to convey to anyone who did not live through this phase of creative ferment just how exhilarating and exciting it was. A new wave of course materials was also being published in support of the Communicative Approach. (See below – Institutional Creativity - for the role of publishers as agents of creativity.) Kernel Lessons by Robert O’Neill et al (1971) marked a clear break with the past, to be followed by Brian Abbs and Ingrid Freebairn’s Strategies (1977), Michael Swan and Catherine Walter’s The Cambridge English Course (1992), John and Liz Soars’ Headway – and a host of others. All of these both drew upon and contributed to the sense of creative adventure released by the Communicative Approach.
At more or less the same time that the Communicative Approach was spreading its tentacles, there emerged a number of rather unusual methodologies, all of which exhibited a high degree of creativity in the sense that they flouted prevailing conventions. The Silent Way, brainchild of Caleb Gattegno (1972), offered minimal inputs which were to be worked on intensively by each individual learner. Learners were made to rely on themselves in building ‘inner criteria’. The paraphernalia of coloured rods, pointer and charts became the distinguishing features of a demanding method, the rigours of which many learners did not survive. Community Language Learning (CLL), propounded by Charles Curran (1976), which had its origins in Rogerian psychology, with a tincture of Freudian psychology, and a dash of religious redemption, was truly original in the sense that it was the students who, from the outset, decided what they wished to learn. The teacher became a ‘knower’ who needed to respond quickly, flexibly and sensitively to learners’ needs and to guide them from total dependence to independence. Suggestopoedia, the method developed by Georgi Lozanov in Bulgaria (1988), aimed to lower learners’ threshold of resistance to learning by means of music, comfortable chairs, dimmed lights and an atmosphere of relaxed alertness. It was the complete opposite of the Silent Way, in that students were exposed to very long texts, a great deal of teacher talk, and were urged not to make a conscious effort to learn. Total Physical Response (TPR), developed by James Asher (1977/1982) emphasised a comprehension approach to foreign language learning based upon the ‘silent period’ observed in L1 learners.. Learners were not required to speak in the early stages, but simply to carry out actions in response to the teacher’s instructions. Although none of these methods attracted a mass following, possibly because of the almost religious fervour required of their devotees, they have nonetheless contributed significantly to current methodology, and many of their practices have been quietly incorporated within our contemporary practice.
Stephen Krashen’s (1985) ‘monitor model’ has also made a significant, and iconoclastic, contribution to current methodology. Krashen’s ideas are couched in a number of intuitively plausible assertions: that there are two separate modes of learning a foreign language – conscious learning and unconscious acquisition; that acquisition is what we should be aiming for; that there is a ‘natural order’ for acquiring the language; that acquisition will take place naturally if learners are exposed to plentiful input; that this input should be at the right level of challenge (the famous i+1 formula), and mediated in a non-threatening atmosphere. So far these assertions remain unproven but they chime to some degree with Chomsky’s ideas on L1 acquisition, and with Lozanov’s notion of unconscious learning. They also fit neatly with the rising tide of proof that extensive reading is perhaps the most effective way to learn a language (Day and Bamford 1998). Krashen’s ideas have found concrete expression in ‘The Natural Approach’ which he developed with Tracey Terrell (1983).
Communicative Language Learning has continued to evolve in response to changes in the linguistic and pedagogical landscape. Two developments merit particular mention: the Lexical Approach and Task-based Learning.
The notion of a process (or procedural) syllabus owes its existence to N.S.Prabhu (1987). One of the most original methodological thinkers of the period, Prabhu asserted that language learning takes place best when the mind is engaged elsewhere. His classic experiment – the Bangalore Project (Prabhu 1987) – was designed to show how a syllabus based uniquely on tasks, would work in practice. In essence, the learners were required to solve a number of problems, related to their real-life needs. With skillful teacher mediation, Prabhu claimed that this produced better results than approaches which attempted a frontal assault on the language. Though this was never proven to the entire satisfaction of the academic research community, Prabhu’s pioneering work is at the base of all subsequent work in this area. (Willis 1996, Willis and Willis 1996, Ellis 2003)
The Lexical Approach was the brainchild of Michael Lewis, who promoted it untiringly both through conference presentations and workshops, and through his publications. (Lewis 1993 ; see also Willis 1990.) Essentially, Lewis was arguing for a redressing of the balance between syntax and lexis in language teaching. The work of researchers such as Nattinger and de Carrico (1992) had shown how much of language is lexically stored, rather than syntactically generated. The corpus-based studies at Cobuild and elsewhere added substance to a view of language which was primarily lexical. It was Lewis who put these insights to practical use in his work, and it is largely to his credit that vocabulary and collocation are now so firmly entrenched as organising principles in many materials.
:: References
Abbs, B and I.Freebairn.(1977 onwards) Strategies series. Longman.Allwright, R. and K.Bailey. (1991) Focus on the Language Classroom: an introduction to classroom research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Asher,J. (1977. 2nd ed. 1982) Learning Another Language Through Actions: the Complete Teacher’s Guide Book. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Productions.
Bamford,J. and R.Day (2004) Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes,D. et al. (1969) Language, the Learner and the School. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Biber,D. et al (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber,D. et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Blackmore,S. (1996) Waking from the Meme Dream. http://www.memes.org.uk/meme-lab/DART96.HTM
Bradford, B. and D.Brazil (1988) Intonation in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brazil, D.C. (1985) The Communicative Value of Intonation. (Discourse Analysis Monographs No.8) Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Brazil, D.C. (1995) A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Britton, J. (1970) Language and Learning. London: Penguin.
Brown P. and Levinson S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C.J. (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bryce-Heath, S. (1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burbridge, N. etal (1996) Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Carter,R.A. and M.N. Long. (1987) The Web of Words: Exploring Literature Through Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter R. and M. McCarthy (1997) Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R.A. and D.Nunan (eds) (2001) Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1959) ‘A view of B.E.Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35/1: 26-58
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Corder, S.P. (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1998) Language Play. London: Penguin Books.
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000) Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. ( 2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2004) The Stories of English. London: Allen Lane / Penguin.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984) Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials. London: Heinemann.
Curran, C. (1976) Counselling Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, Ill: Apple River Press.
Davis,P. and M. Rinvolucri (1988) Dictation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Day,R. and J.Bamford. (1998) Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, A.and A.Maley. (1990) Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. and K. Richards (1993) Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: Heinemann.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis,R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig,J. (1971) The composing processes of twelfth graders. NCTE Research Report No 13. X. Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.
Emig,J. (1977) ‘Writing as a mode of learning.’ College Communication and Communication 28: 122-8.
Esslin,M. (2004) The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Vintage
Fanselow,J. (1987) Breaking Rules. New York: Longman.
Fanselow,J. (1992) Contrasting Conversations. New York, White Plains: Longman.
Firth, J.R. (1957) Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fishman, J.A. (ed) (1968) Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Flurkey,A and Jinguo Xu (eds) (2003) On the Revolution in Reading: the selected writings of Kenneth S.Goodman. Oxford: Heinemann.
Freeman, D. (1982) ‘Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and development’. TESOL Quarterly 16. No. 1 : 21-28.
Freire, P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder.
Gattegno, C. (1972) Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: the Silent Way. New York: Educational Solutions.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodman, K. (1967) ‘Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game.’ Journal of Reading Specialist. May: 126-35.
Goodman, K. (1986) What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Graham, C.(1978) Jazz Chants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. and D.Hymes. (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic. London: E.Arnold.Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: E.Arnold.
Head, K. and P.Taylor (1997) Readings in Teacher Development. Oxford: Heinemann.
Howatt, A.P.R. (with H.G.Widdowson (2004) 2nd edition. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence.’ in J.B.Pride and J.Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. 269-93. London: Penguin.
Illich,I. (1970) De-schooling Society. New York: Harper and Row.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru,B.B. (1986) The Alchemy of English: the Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation. London: Penguin/Arkana
Kramsch, Claire. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen,S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Krashen,S and T.Terrell (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krishnamurti, J. (2000) Commentaries on Living :First Series. Quest Books.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. London and Newport: Yale University Press.
Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis,M. (1993) The Lexical Approach. London: LTP
Lightbown, P. and N.Spada. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lozanov,G. (1988) The Foreign Language Teacher’s Suggestopoedic Manual. New York: Gordon and Breach.Lyotard,J-F. (1984) The Post-modern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McCarthy, M.J. and R.A. Carter. (1995) ‘Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it?’ English Language Teaching Journal 49 (3) : 207-218.
McArthur, T. (ed) (from 1985) English Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McRae,J. (1991) Literature with a small ‘l’. Oxford: Macmillan.
Maley, A. (series editor) (1985 onward) The Oxford resource Books for Teachers. Oxford; Oxford University Press.
Maley,A. (2000) The Language Teacher’s Voice. Oxford: Macmillan / Heinemann.
Maley,A. and A.Duff (1982 and 2005) Drama Techniques in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley,A. and S. Moulding. (1986) Poem into Poem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A. and A. Duff (1989) The Inward Ear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrow, K (ed) (2004) Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrow, K. (ed) English Language Teaching Journal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortimer, C. (1980) Dramatic Monologues for Listening Comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moskovitz, G. (1978) Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Murray, D.M. (1980) ‘Writing as Process: how writing finds its own meaning’. In T.R. Donovan and B.W.McClelland (eds) Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nattinger,J.R. and J.S. DeCarrico (1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, R. et al (1971) Kernel Lessons Intermediate. London: Longman
Palmer, H.E. (1938) A Grammar of English Words. London: Longmans Green.
Pennycook, A (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Lomgman.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper,C. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Postman, N. and C.Weingartner (1969) Teaching as a Subversive Activity. London: Penguin.
Prabhu,N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Raimes, A. (1991) ‘Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.’ TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-30.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. and J.Morgan (1990) Once Upon a Time .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, C.R. (1969) Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Pub. Co.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978) The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, Ill.:S.Illinois University Press
Schegloff, E. and H.Sacks. (1973) ‘Opening up closings.’ Semiotica 7/4: 289-327.
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acta. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972) ‘Interlanguage’. IRAL x/3. 209:31
Sinclair J. and R.M. Coulthard. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. et al (1987) Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins.
Smith, F. (1978) Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Richard (ed) (2003) ‘Teaching English as a Foreign Language.’ 1912-36. Pioneers of ELT. 5 vols. London: Routledge.
Soars, J and L. ( ) Headway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperling, D. Dave’s Internet Café. http://www.eslcafe.com/search/
Stevick, E.W. (1976) Memory, Meaning, and Method: Some psychological perspectives on language learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Stevick, E.W. (1980) Teaching Langauge: a Way and Ways. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Summers, D. (ed) (1993) The Longman English Activator. Harlow: Longman Group, UK
Swan, M. and C. Walter. (1992) The New Cambridge English Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, E. (2000) Using Folktales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, Scott. www.teaching-unplugged.com/power.html>
Tomalin, B. et al Follow Me. London: BBC.
Tomlinson,B. (ed) (1998) Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B.(ed) (2003) Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London and New York: Continuum Publishing.
Tsui, A.B.M.(1994) English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ur, P. Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Ek.J.A. 1975) ‘The Threshold Level in a European Unit/Credit System for Modern Language Teaching for Adults.’ System Development in Adult Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Vygotsky,L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Watson-Todd, R. (2004) ‘Language learning as evolution.’ Bangkok: Thai TESOL Focus. Nov. 2004, Vol.17. No.2.
Wajnryb, R. (2003) Stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1992) Practical Stylistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D.A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses: A Taxonomy and its Relevance to Foreign Language Curriculum Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, R.(1958) Culture and Society 1780-1950. London: Penguin Books
Willis,J. (1990) The Lexical syllabus. London: Collins COBUILD.Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-based Learning. (London: Longman)
Willis, J. and D.Willis (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinnemann.
Wilson, K. and D. Case (1998) English Sketches 1 and 2. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Wright, A. (1996) Story-telling with Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, A. (1997) Creating Stories with Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zamel, V. (1982) ‘Writing: The process of discovering meaning.’ TESOL Quarterly 16: 195-209.
Alan Maley is currently a freelance consultant, and Series Editor for the Oxford University Press Resource Books for Teachers series. His publications include Resource Book for Teachers: Literature, Beyond Words, Sounds Interesting, Sounds Intriguing, Words, Variations on a Theme, and Drama Techniques in Language Learning (all with Alan Duff), The Mind's Eye (with Françoise Grellet and Alan Duff), Learning to Listen and Poem into Poem (with Sandra Moulding), Short and Sweet, and The English Teacher's Voice.
© 2005 MATSDA and the Authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holders.
| Contents | Sample articles | Editor's message | Folio sections | Guidelines | Index | Back issues | Contact |