The second day’s theme was Speaking and Listening and it was Steve Cooke, who was our tutor for the day. Steve is one of the top specialists in EAL in the country. He has worked in the field of English as an Additional Language since 1982 and has been both a teacher and head of department. He has been heavily involved with the NFER Partnership Teaching Project in 1989/1990 – more on that later in this post. Afterwards, he was an EAL Project Manager in Leicester up until 2002, and currently advises the Nottingham City Children’s Services at Ethnic Minority Services. Steve has been a member of NALDIC for a long time and chaired it, too, between 2005 and 2007.
He delivered his sessions on the topic of the important of speaking and listening, which was an amalgamation of theory and practical activities. We started with an activity where each of us “became” a type of a rock, e.g. I think I was a granite. We were provided with some information on the rock, e.g. shiny, sparkly, plain, large, medium-sized, rough, smooth, etc. We were then to exchange this information with a partner and then tell another pair about the partner’s rock. I hope I remember this right!
Steve used this activity to introduce the theme for the day: speaking and listening for learning and what linguistic, cognitive and academic processes occur around them. Our task required the activation of both speaking and listening skills and required us to interact with each other: we were both giving and getting information. There was scope for using simpler and more complex English, meaning that, if this was done with school students, different EAL and native speaking learners could be accommodated. We were not stopped from giving more information by the task – so if one of us happened to be an expert in geology, we would’ve been able to contribute more. But even with us, we activated at least some of our prior knowledge to help us with the task.
From this, Steve moved on to talk about articulacy and English. Using a diagram reminiscent of Cummins’s BICS/CALP one, he suggested to us that learners linguistic skills can be considered in terms of both experience of English (prior English knowledge) and articulacy, which can stem from their first language. See the diagram below.
To explain the above:
- The pupil new to English with little experience of using language outside of expressing basic needs. Probably not very literate in L1.
- This pupil is experienced hearing and using English, but not using it to express concepts. He/she cannot adapt the language to different situations and concepts. Certainly doesn’t have literacy skills in L1 and, for that reason, is likely to struggle with literacy in English.
- This pupil is experienced using and hearing English and also has considerable experience using language (could be in L1) to articulate ideas. Very likely to be literate in L1, particularly if he/she is older.
- This pupil does not have a lot of experience of English, but considerable experience of using language (L1) to articulate ideas. Likely to literate in L1.
If one is articulate in their L1, picking up English will be easier. How, therefore, do we learn another language? This question leads us to what Steve presented next: Stephen Krashen’s hypotheses. He showed us a video on YouTube (embedded below), which, among other concepts, introduced Krashen’s Comprehensible Input hypothesis. Please watch the embedded video below – from 2:00 to approximately 11:30.
As you would’ve seen, Krashen says that talking, repeating, speaking louder or writing in a new language – none of this is helpful in acquiring a new language. However, him using gestures and drawing pictures probably helped you understand and learn new German words. If we understand messages, it’s called comprehensible input. And, as he says, anything that makes your input understandable – precisely such as pictures or prior knowledge (Spock).
As Steve told us (what follows below is a mixture of what he told us and what I found out through my own research), in addition to this, Krashen claims that when a learner new to to English starts to speak (goes past the silent period), it is not the beginning of the language acquisition. Rather, it is a result of all the comprehensible input that has been experienced.
Another one of Krashen’s hypotheses is called Affective Filter Hypothesis – simply put, if a high affective filter operates, such as a person being stressed, the levels of comprehensible input are lower. On the other hand, if a student has a high self-esteem, he/she tends to acquire language easier. If there’s a block, it will filter out the comprehensible input and prevent language acquisition from occurring: this block is called affective filter.
Krashen also had the monitor hypothesis: according to which our acquisition system allows us to talk and the learning system monitors what we have said in order to correct any potential errors. Krashen said that monitoring can improve the accuracy of speaking, but warned that it could also slow learners down and make them focus more on accuracy of their utterances rather than their fluency.
Steve also briefly explained to us what another, rather well known, theory of Krashen’s – called Natural Order – is about. Krashen maintained that language acquisition occurs in a natural order – that there is a natural order in which English language is learned. The order is:
- progressive tense
- simple plural forms
- auxiliary words
- regular past tense
- irregular past tense
- long plurals
- third person simple present tense
So what are the implications of his hypotheses, then, for our classrooms?
- we need to provide comprehensible input (in the video, Krashen says that if that doesn’t exist, it’s not the child’s fault, but the teacher’s)
- we need to allow for the child’s silent period – that’s when the comprehensible input is taking place before the learner chooses to speak
- we need to ensure that the learner does not experience anxiety by creating comfortable, friendly, stress-free and welcoming environment in our classrooms
- there should be focus on meaning, not form
Not everyone, however, agreed with Krashen’s claims, Steve brings to us. Merril Swain provides a critique of his theories and, instead, suggests the Output Hypothesis, not so much in place of the comprehensible input one, but in addition to it: that is, claiming that the input is necessary, but it’s not sufficient; learners need to have opportunities for language production. My own post-course research has uncovered her article The output hypothesis and beyond (2000), in which she reports on her own study from 1985, where she observed certain French immersion students still make a number of syntactic and grammatical errors (deviating from native speakers) despite 6-7 years of French-rich comprehensible input environment. She argues that production of language (i.e. output) forces learners to process language more deeply. In production, “learners can stretch their interlanguage to meet their communicative goals” (p.99). In their attempts to create form and meaning, they discover what they can and cannot do. Swain stresses that this act of discovery, this noticing what they can / cannot do only occurs in the act of production. It is this act of discovery that is also responsible for second language learning.
If we tried to reach the compromise here, the implications for the learners, Steve says, would be:
- comprehensible input
- focus on meaning with some attention to form
- recognize the patterns of language
- ensure the students have the opportunity to interact with others
- provide them with opportunities to negotiate meaning
- ensure they are given opportunities for producing comprehensible output
Steve then offered briefly what makes input comprehensible – in other words, what is important to do so that our learners understand our messages: we can aid comprehension with :
- pictures/ images
- real objects
- accompanying our speech with actions, and miming
- activating the learners’ prior knowledge
- using the tone of our voice appropriately (stressing words)
- using emphasis (making one word or part of words stand out in a sentence)
- gestures and facial expressions
- providing opportunities for restatement and clarification
- ensuring that the learners tune in to:
- the rhythm
- the stress patterns
- the pace/speed of speech
- registers and different voices
Here, Steve also mentioned the concept of binding new words to objects; that is, assigning meaning to objects. The term binding was coined by T.D.Terrell and Steve mentioned the name. I looked up what she had to say on the topic after the course. In her article Acquisition in the Natural Approach: The Binding/Access Framework (1986), she suggests the use of the term “binding” to describe “the cognitive and affective mental process of linking a meaning to a form.” (p.214) By this, she also means that a new word that is bound is associated with its meaning, not with a translation. Those of you who are in the business of teaching English as an Additional Language or English as a Foreign Language will know that this is something of great import: too often, translations are not precise as they are decontextualised. This is why a sentence example or linking the meaning to a situation (contextualising it) is so crucial. It should be made clear that binding is only complete when the meaning is understood without any delay – this process goes in stages, it appears, for most students: it goes from the stage of “it’s something familiar” through students slowly recognizing the meaning until, finally, the form is recognized within a stream of speech (phonological stream).
Terrell also says that binding of form to mean does not equate listening comprehension, but is its building block. She says that listening comprehension includes other processes: e.g. interpreting how different parts of a phrase or a sentence are related to each other.
Now, you might have noticed that Terrel’s article’s title has “Access” in it as well. She proposes that language is acquired in stages – the pre-production stage (binding) comes first, followed by early speech (one-word responses) and emergence of speech (producing full sentences). Access, therefore, is producing a form to express a specific meaning within a sentence. Obviously, if the form is not bound, it will be impossible to access it, and if it is bound in weak way, it will at the very least be difficult to do. Rather importantly, Terrell says that being able to access a form depends heavily on having opportunities use it in a meaningful context. One may make a connection here between Krashen and Terrell’s research into the Natural Approach and Cummins’s BICS/CALP theory, where students at lower level of acquisition are to be provided with activities that meaningful and contextualised (as in: do not just ask a child with little English to copy off the board – contextualise their work).
Please note that Terrell’s work is about language acquisition in classrooms using the Natural Approach language teaching.
Back to Steve and the course. He reminded us that we need to be thinking about what type of vocabulary we should teach and the following should be taken into consideration:
- Frequency of use (of vocabulary): for instance, there are 1,000 words that make up 90% of any given text, but the top ones in that list are articles, which do not mean anything by themselves. Should we teach those to beginners?
- Range: the number of situations in which a word occurs
- Coverage: the number of things one can say with the words (consider “get” vs. “obtain”)
- Learnability: how easy it is to learn the words (are the words concrete or abstract?)
- Need: do the students need to learn them? Will they have the opportunity to actually use them?
Steve also mentioned the concept of holophrases – the kind of “noise” you make so as to get something (e.g. a “noise” for getting coffee). There is a very original and unique article “Holo What?” or the Exceptional Business of Naming: A Dialogue (2011) by Mareike Nauhaus, written in the form of a dialogue between the two scholars. On p.65, Neuhaus defines holophrases as “one-word sentences, words that express a complete sentence or a clause”. If you think about it, babies make noises to get what they want and, in early stages of second language acquisition, this is what a learner might do to get what they need. It feels to me that these would be the words that are bound at the stage of early speech as claimed by Terrell. Of course, if these noises, these holophrases, are learned in a meaningful context, then the second language will be acquired much faster.
At this stage, Steve provided us with a list of language functions that can be used for planning the provision of language teaching:
We need to ask ourselves the question: What do we teach beginners in English in mainstream school settings? Is it the language functions above? Is it specific vocabulary or is it structures and grammar?
We now carried out several activities for speaking and listening. If you think of Krashen’s comprehensible input + Swain’s comprehensible output theories implications (as listed above), these activities attempt to meet those demands and, of course, aim for faster and more efficient language acquisition.
Activity 1: students receive pictures of different people and the teacher reads out the descriptions of the people. Students need to say / write down who the person described was. It can be said that this activity is about words that are bound as Terrell said that complete binding occurs when you recognize a form within a phonological stream.
Activity 2: This comes from Racing to English (this is activity 4g in the pack). Students receive a sheet with 16 pictures of robots. Each robot has its head, hands and legs and main part of its body in different colours. Students are to pick a robot they want. Their pair partner asks them questions to find out which robot they have in mind. The robot chooser can only reply with a yes or no.
Activity 3: The listening activity is almost like your classic EFL listening task. Students receive a sheet with questions pertaining to the recording. The recording is played for them and, as it plays, they need to write the answers to the questions. The sheet reminds the students they do not need to write in complete sentences. There is also a related activity: following this, students can write a story based on the recording (Olivia Hutchinson’s journey on a ship from Jamaica to England), using sentence starters provided – leading to completing a full story based on the listening.
Activity 4: Students receive a map, a plan of the Citadel of Mohenjo-Daro. On it, several buildings are marked, waiting to be labelled. The label words/phrases are all listed at the bottom of the sheet, but the students have to listen to the teacher (or a recording can be played), pick relevant details and label the map as they listen. It’s listening to detail in, again, a stream of talk. I can personally vouch for that: you could say it’s scanning when listening to talk. This type of activity was something I did quite a lot at school when originally learning English in Poland, allowing me to learn to listen and pick out details without being overwhelmed by a flood of words I might not have understood at this stage. Something, frankly, that all students would benefit from. It’s also an academic skill to be able to do and one of those things that would allow us to take our EAL students from the level of BICS to that highly desired CALP. Particularly, if you follow this type of activity with production stage, where the phrases of academic nature are used. Appropriate academic-type questions could do the trick – for instance, asking a question Where is the assembly hall located? uses both passive voice and the word located – both can be seen as academic. So, rather than be stuck with the Where is the assembly hall? type of simplistic sentence (which will produce a simplistic answer of the It’s in… type), you’re forcing your students to answer with It’s located in… – making them use those academic structures. One of those tiny steps towards your CALP. (By the way, the activity was provided by Steve, but the musings here are entirely mine!)
Steve mentioned that such focused listening activities could also be done through choosing key words to listen for for our learners, or providing them with a list of 10 words, but only 5 of those will be used. Listening frames can be used as well just like writing frames are used for writing and speaking frames are used for speaking – asking students to complete a listening frame (e.g. a sequence of problem-solution-evaluation-implication-warning)
Activity 5: This one is a great collaborative activity. Learners are presented with a timeline of events in the life of John Lennon. There are boxes above and below the actual timeline (in the centre of the sheet). Different participants hold different information, however, about the life of Lennon, so the task is to ask each other about the information they have in order to complete the sheet. This, of course, requires asking questions of the What happened to John in 1960? or What did he do / was he doing in 1970? etc, so there’s genuine communication, not too dissimilar from a real-life communication when you’re asking real-life questions.
Activity 6: Climate graphs. In a fashion similar to the John Lennon activity, two students are provided with different information: in this case, temperature and rainfaill in different months in different countries. Participants need to ask each other questions to complete their graphs.
Please note that quite a few of Steve Cooke’s activities are available the Collaborative Learning Project’s website – just follow this link to look for them there.
At the end of this practical activity-based section of the session, Steve provided us with a very useful sheet where we can record the type of collaborative activity used, its topic, type, types of thinking generated and examples of language that such activity generates. This could be used to help a teacher out when deciding / choosing between activities to use.
Now, Steve turned to some additional theory on talking in particular. First, he mentioned Neil Mercer’s Three Kinds of Talk (2008). This refers to types of talk between students.
- disputational talk – in this type, there is a lot of disagreement and everyone decides their own thing; there’s a lot of “Yes, it is” – “No, it isn’t!” type of exchanges. There is little effort to achieve consensus.
- cumulative talk – here, everyone accepts what other people suggest. Children use talk to share knowledge, but they are not critical and there is little (if any) evaluation of others’ statements
- exploratory talk – this is the one we would ideally want: everyone is an active listener, students share relevant information, ideas may be challenged, challenges are given reasons, everyone is invited and encouraged to contribute, opinions are treated with respect, there is a trusting atmosphere, sense of common purpose and consensus is sought.
Mercer’s Three Kinds of Talk provides a few examples of conversations in classrooms that can be used by yourselves to see if you are able to analyse and spot the types of talk as categorized by Mercer. We did the same at the course using one longer transcript. What emerged was that it is actually quite difficult to narrow down a classroom conversation between children to just one of those types of talk. Rather, children would switch from one type to another, but there was still a prevalence of one type of talk. If you’re looking for examples and academic analysis, I recommend reading Mercer’s Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking (2004).
Steve also told us that Terry Philips came up with a different set of categories for types of classroom student talk. (Read Phillip’s chapter on this in Language and Learning: an international perspective, 1985, edited by J.Nicholls and G.Wells.) Phillips suggest the following 4 categories:
- the operational mode – it’s the type of talk that accompanies an action, e.g. carrying out a science experiment. It’s inexplicit and depend on the use of many pronouns such as “it” and “them” and adverbs “here” and “there”, e.g. “Put them here” or “It goes here”.
- the argumentative mode – assertion and counter-assertion are dominant here; there is a lot of “because I said so” type of exchanges.
- the expositional mode – students start to mimic the teacher-students discourse (the sort when a teacher speaks to the whole class). One of the students, in their groups, may take the same type of position: tell others what to do and explain ideas to them. They might even use typical evaluative teacher phrases such as “good girl” or “well done”.
- the experiential mode – here, students use their own experience to tell anecdotes, talk about their memories and give information they see as relevant. For instance, they could say, “I remember…” or “My mum told me that…” or “In York, I saw…”
- the hypothetical mode – students put their words tentatively here; they use phrases such as “perhaps”, “it might be”, “it could mean that…” Phillips writes that this type of talk invites collaboration and encourages justification as opposed to the “Because I say so” type of talk.
Steve asserts, too, that the experiential and hypothetical are the most productive – not surprising, really. Collaborative learning activities can be seen as catalysts for talking and for students recognizing and using concepts involved in talking. Now, drawing on my own experience, I have seen far too many EAL students not involved in the experiential and hypothetical modes and exploratory talk at all. Many are put “aside” by their peers due to their lower language skills. Now, obviously, this does not invite collaboration and does not encourage them to talk about things they see as relevant. It is, therefore, down to teachers to ensure that these more productive ways of talk are exercised by their students in their collaborative learning groups that allow EAL students to acquire language as quickly as possible.
Steve has written an excellent article, Learning through Dialogue (2002) for NALDIC Quarterly, which has more on the types of classroom talk – and I encourage you to read it. It’s available from the NALDIC website – click here to download it.
Collaborative activities for students are scaffolded. Therefore, Steve mentioned Gibbons (2002: Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom) at the stage, who made a distinguish between:
- macro scaffolding – this type of support is planned into a sequence of learning activities
- micro scaffolding – this type of support is unplanned and contingent on what students are saying. Here, the teacher uses dialogue to support pupils in moving from less explicit to more explicit expression.
It is also very beneficial to consider using the Mode Continuum – in planning lessons, to take the students from the type of text that is most situation-embedded and most spoken-like to the type that is the least situation-dependent and most written-like. This means that it has to be an essential part of lesson planning. To get a better idea and better example, please consult this IALT Supporting Material with an example from a Science lesson (link to the document here), where the children go through the following stages:
- Doing an experiment (small groups)
- Introducing key vocabulary (whole class)
- Teacher guided reporting (whole class)
- Journal writing (individual)
This was, to the best of my knowledge – memory, rather! – the end of Steve’s session: clearly, very inspiring and educational with lots of practical activities thrown in the middle to take home. A lot of knowledge to consider and inform my own lessons as well as ideas for training other teachers in the future!
On the day, Steve very kindly passed on some materials to me on another topic – Partnership Teaching. In the first paragraph of this post, I did mention that Steve was involved in the NFER Partnership Teaching Project in 1989/1990. I am a huge fan of the idea of Partnership Teaching and I hope to advance it wherever I go. In fact, there is a post on the topic of my own on this blog already and I have recently made a presentation on the same at an EAL TeachMeet in Morden in South London (my presentation is available within the relevant blog post here as well). It was extremely kind of Steve to help me out in this way – particularly, since he actually lent me actual hard copies of what he brought!
One of the things that he left me with was a Partnership Teaching Project Conference Report from 1991! (I seriously doubt you would ever find that online!) The conference was held in June 1991 in Leicester. The report includes writings from several of the practitioners present at the conference. It does include a 3-page article from Steve himself, who stated that he saw the culture of the school as one of the main barriers to effective collaboration. In his opinion, school culture which supports teachers working independently of one another in her departmentalized classrooms is not helpful for the establishment of partnership teaching. He also suggests that if teachers see themselves as teachers-learners, who are interested in inquiring, reflecting, developing new skills and sharing experience, they will always want to improve the quality of their teaching and in so doing the learning experiences of their students.
If you are interested in setting up partnership teaching programme in your school like I do – I think this should be happening in every school! – then for training staff purposes, the Report includes an example of training that was delivered at the conference: the teachers present were given an imaginary case study of a school where partnership teaching were to be established. The teachers needed to write Development and Action Plans appropriate for that school. The aim of the activity is as much the final product as is getting teachers to consider what is required of school to effectively establish partnership teaching. In the case study school, the activity of the management was likely to undermine the successful establishing of partnership approaches, therefore, the second activity involved a letter from a Language Support Team pointing out the Management’s inconsistencies. Rather brilliant, I thought! The letter is reproduced in the Report.
There is also a very insightful and down-to-earth article written by Patrick Bailey with the University of Leicester’s School of Education on management of time in relation to partnership teaching. Since the idea here is to get the school management to support the partnership, so it’s not only lone teachers doing unsustainable (particularly if they move on to another school) work and so it’s done across the school. If the management backs it up, teachers will follow. Indeed, the support of senior management team to EAL Coordinators is often key to its success at a school. Same rule applies here. Patrick Bailey writes in the Report that it is down to senior management to effectively deploy time in their schools. He says that there several different possible ways in which time is deployed at schools:
- ad hocery / fire fighting (time is somehow found, urgently)
- time allocated to people who have jobs in addition to teaching
- time allocated to people so they can meet and discuss matters
- time can be allocated to staff meetings
- time can be allocated to allow for staffing emergencies (particularly in secondary schools)
He strongly suggests that if we are thinking of a serious time redeployment as is the case with collaborative teaching, then seriously analysing the principles (above) of time allocation is a must.
He reminds that time needs to be appropriately divided to ensure that teachers can teach in the ways they should and to plan (clearly an issue with partnership teaching a lot of the time – people not able to find the time to plan their teaching). Resources begin with teachers: he says that teachers are the only primary resources, because it depends on them only how they use any other resources they are provided with. Training can be formal and informal. It can be a discussion, but whatever training happens, time is required for it. Method is what he calls approaches to teaching and learning. Essentially meaning that whatever time is allocated, it has be used efficiently for the purposes of teaching – in this case, it could be planning for teaching in partnership. Understanding: here, he stresses that managers have to have an understanding of partnership teaching. If they don’t, interest is soon lost and so are innovative practices.
Very useful to take home and perhaps use for a discussion with your senior management team when you are establishing partnership teaching at your school?
Finally, Steve left me with an OHP sheet with a list of guidelines for teachers (from Fullan and Hargreaves’s Teacher Development and Educational Change, 1992). The teacher defined by their guidelines is the same kind of teacher that would engage readily in Partnership Teaching. I was rather impressed by the list and have adapted it for this post – see below.
Collaborative Learning Project. (2014) Collaborative Learning Project. Available at: <http://www.collaborativelearning.org> [Accessed 19 August 2014] In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Cooke, S. (2002) Learning through Dialogue. Available at: <http://www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/docs/resources/documents/NN302.pdf> In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992) Teacher Development and Educational Change. Falmer Press. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
IALT (unknown) Module 2 – Methodology for Inclusive Academic Language Teaching. Available at: < http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hf.uni-koeln.de%2Fdata%2Feso27%2FFile%2FMaterial%2F2008_3349_FR_EUCIM_TE_Annex_Confidential%2520Part_Product%252049.3_European%2520Core%2520Curriculum.supporting%2520material.module%25202.pdf&ei=cgDtU-LlMpCe7AaX8oDACA&usg=AFQjCNFGBsSKL-zXvbnFrRdzDYJ7gAHgyw&sig2=JhFsIWJzzyPk8peP1hQd6Q&bvm=bv.72938740,d.ZGU&cad=rja> [Accessed 19 August 2014]
Mercer, N. (2004) Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.1(2). Pp. 137-168.
Mercer, N. (2008) Three Kinds of Talk. Available at: < https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk%2Fresources%2F5_examples_of_talk_in_groups.pdf&ei=Z_LsU8yxCufY7Ab-roFI&usg=AFQjCNFjR6zaLBcwgPZHIBWs3x2zTw2XnQ&sig2=2yH0nKHKPvW2UTcoQ4DDAw&bvm=bv.72938740,d.ZGU&cad=rja> [Accessed 19 August 2014].In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Neuhaus, M. (2011) “Holo What?” or, The Exceptional Business of Naming: A Dialogue. ESC. Vol.37(1). Pp.63-84.
NFER/DES (1991) Conference Report: Pupil Achievement and Partnership Teaching – A Whole School Approach. The Centre for Multicultural Education: Leicester.In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Wells, G. and Nicholls, J. (1990) Language & Learning: An International Perspective. The Falmer Press: London and Philadelphia. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Olenka Bilash (2006) Krashen’s 6 Hypotheses. Available at: <http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/krashen.html> [Accessed 19 August 2014]
Rounds, M. Stephen Krashen on Language Acquisition. Available at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTsduRreug> [Accessed 19 August 2014]. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Available at: <http://eslenglishclassroom.com/Art-02.pdf> [Accessed 19 August 2014] In: NALDIC(2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Terrell, T.D. (1986) Acquisition in the Natural Approach: The Binding/Access Framework. The Modern Language Journal. Vol.70(3). Pp.213-227. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.
Ward, G. (2013) Racing to English. Available at: <http://www.racingtoenglish.co.uk> [Accessed 19 August 2014]. In: NALDIC (2014) NALDIC-Bell EAL Summer School 2014.