Teaching Reading and Writing: Theories and Practices

Zhanfang LI

Abstract


The importance of combining reading and writing has already been recognized by university language teachers. This paper addresses the theoretical basis for the combination as well as the guidance of the approaches upon second language teaching (SLT) in China. The approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) have experienced three stages: cognitive approach, socio-cultural approach, and socio-cognitive approach, and these approaches shed huge lights on teaching reading and writing in the university settings of China.

 


Keywords


Reading; Writing; Approaches to SLA; SLT in China

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347-376.

Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form. The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, other media interactions, 243-266.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second Llanguage acquisition. The modern language journal, 86(4), 525-545.

Atkinson, D. (2010). Sociocognition: What it can mean for second language acquisition. Sociocognitive perspectives on language use language learning, 24-39.

Ball, A. F. (2000). Teachers’ Developing Philosophies On Literacy And Its Use In Urban Schools: A Vygotskian Perspective On Internal Activity And Teacher Change Arnetha F. Ball University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109-41259.

Batstone, R. S. (2010). Issues and options in sociocognition. In sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (Eds.) (pp. 3-23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272-296.

Brown, J., & White, C. (2010). A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(4), 331-353.

Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. Tesol Quarterly, 48(4), 789-814.

Cumming, A. H. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of second language writing, 11(4), 329-350.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? Tesol Quarterly, 34(2), 239-278.

Khatib, M., & Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590-1595.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Acquiring a second language. World Englishes, 1(3), 97-101.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). The dynamic co-adaptation of cognitive and social views: A complexity theory perspective. Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning, 40-53.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. Volume 1: Directions for Language Learning and Teaching (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liang, X. (2004). Cooperative learning as a sociocultural practice. Canadian modern language review, 60(5), 637-668.

Manchón, R. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and practice. In Learning-to-write and Writing-to-learn in an additional language (Eds) (pp. 61-82). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction:: effects on second language development. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(1), 31-65.

Rassaei, E. (2017). Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 76-95.

Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and methods. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Salimi, A., & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners’ autonomy in writing. Theory Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 525-533.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching Learning, (144), 23-35.

Shegar, C., Zhang, L. J., & Low, E. L. (2013). Effects of an input–output mapping practice task on EFL learners’ acquisition of two grammatical structures. System, 41(2), 443-461.

Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137-158.

Steiner, J. V., & Meehan, T. (2000). Creativity and collaboration in knowledge construction. Vygotskian Prespectives on literacy research. Construcuting meaning through collaborative inquiry, 31-48.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Eds.) (pp. 495-508). New York: Routledge.

Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (1). ELT journal, 39(1), 2-12.

Tarone, E. (2010). Social context and cognition in SLA: A variationist perspective. In Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.54-72): Oxford University Press.

Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506-540.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition (Eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Soviet psychology, 17(4), 3-35.

Wang, C. M. (2012). The Continuation Task: An Effective Way of Learning English. Foreign Language World, 5, 2-7.

Wang, C. M. (2014). Create Contents and Imitate Forms: The Basic Principles of Effective Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. Foreign Language World, 161(2), 42-48.

Wang, C. M. (2015). Why Does the Continuous Task Improve Learning? Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 47(5), 756-763.

Wang, C. M. (2016). Learning by Extension. Modern Foreign Languages (Bimonthly), 39(6), 784-793.

Wang, C. M. (2017). From write-to-learn to learn-by-CEC. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 49(4), 547-556.

Wang, C. M., Niu, R. Y., & Zheng, X. X. (2000). Improving English through writing,[J]. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 32(3), 207-212.

Wang, C. M., & Yuan, L. X. (2013). A Study of the Continuation Task as a Proficiency Test Component. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 45(5), 707-719.

Weissberg, R. (2006a). Critiquing the Vygotskian approach to L2 literacy. In The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 26-45). Ann Arbor: The University of Michgan Press.

Weissberg, R. (2006b). Connecting speaking and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Wen, Q. F. (2015). Developing a theoretical system of production-oriented approach in language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 47(4), 547-558.

Wen, Q. F. (2016a). The Production-oriented Approach to Teaching University English in China. Languge Teaching.

Wen, Q. F. (2016b). Teacher-Student Collaborative Assessment: A New Method of Assessment Based on Production-oriented Approach. Foreign Language World, 176(5), 37-43.

Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 10-25). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/11386

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Canadian Social Science

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to css@cscanada.net，or css@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture