Hue College of Foreign Languages

Writing Academic
Instructor: Dr. Tôn Nữ Như Hương
Student: Nguyễn Thị Hồng Thúy

ASSIGNMENT 2: ARTICLE REVIEW

Comments on Eli Hinkel (2006)’s “Current Perspectives on Teaching

the Four Skills” TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109-131

Language is the most basic and essential means of communication. In this

world globalisation trend, as an international language, English provides access to
world scholarship and world trade. It is so widely used that the learning and
teaching of English play a significant part in the education of many countries. To
meet learners’ variable needs and interests, various investigations, among which
is Eli Hinkel’s “Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills” have been
continuously carried out to make the English language teaching and learning
more and more effectively.

Hinkel’s “Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills” was

published in TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 in March 2006. By reviewing
recent teaching methods, as well as examining TESOL reseachers’ findings and
the developments in language teaching, Hinkel (2006) identified four important
factors having profoundly influenced English language teaching that were then
discussed under four themes: “Decline of Methods”, “Bottom-up and Top-Down
Skills”, “New Knowledge About English” and “Intergrated and Multiple Skills
Taught in Context”. More specifically, the article went into detail about current
viewpoints on the teaching of second language (L2) speaking, listening, reading
and writing skills integrated with each other.

Having been teaching English as a second language (ESL) as well as

applied linguistics and trained teachers for over twenty years, her article “Current
Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills” makes a substantial contribution to the
improvement of worldwide English teaching and learning. In fact, it presents a
timely and important discussion on current trends in the TESOL profession.
Despite its many strengths, there are a number of small, but important,
weaknesses.

Regarding its format, the article is divided into different sections and
subsections, which makes it easy for the readers to follow and refer to. As shown
in the paper, excluding the introduction and the conclusion, there are five
sections: FOUR THEMES IN CURRENT L2 PEDAGOGY, TEACHING
SPEAKING SKILLS, TEACHING LISTENING, TEACHING L2 READING
and TEACHING L2 WRITING. The divisions of the article must have been more
parallel if they had been grouped into two: FOUR THEMES IN CURRENT L2
PEDAGOGY, and THE TEACHING OF L2 SKILLS. The last four previously
mentioned become the subsections of the latter.

Published in TESOL Quarterly, whose audience are mostly TESOL

professionals and teachers, the article covers a number of linguistic but popular
terms. In general, the language used in the article is appropriate and clear enough
for the readers to understand. However, the author ended the discussion on
Bottom-up and Top-Down Skills without any explanation of the terms. It is in
this part that the terms should have explained because of their key and important
role helping the audience to understand the rest of the article more easily.
Besides, the author noted that the terms would be discussed in the sections of
teaching all four skills whereas neither explanation of nor discussion on Bottom-
up and Top-Down Skills is not found in sections of teaching speaking and
listening.

Especially successful is the author from the article’s Introduction that may
be troublesome for many others. It follows CARS (create-a-research-space)
model, moving from a general statement to a specific hypothesis. Firstly, Hinkel
established the “territory” (Swales and Feak’s word) of her investigation by
saying that it is the improvements in disciplinary theory and practice that have
marked the history of L2 teaching (Hinkel, 2006). Then, by reviewing Richards
(2005)’s views on this topic, she successfully pointed out a gap so that she could
clearly state the purpose of her article, that is providing an overview of four
trends which have affected the teaching of the L2 basic skills.

With respect to methodology, though it is not directly stated in the article,

it is quite clear from either the first sentence of the abstract or the sentence
indicating the purpose in the introduction. Most of the evidence for discussion
was collected by revising TESOL methodologists and researchers’ views and
approaches. The author took on a serious task of describing different methods,
approaches and ideas. Unfortunately, this method of collecting data reveals a
limitation. In no case does she provide any statistical information. Some data
expressions are even colloquial. These can be illustrated by the following
examples: a small number of researchers and methodologists, many L2
professionals (p. 110), a number of studies, practically all teacher education
textbooks (p. 111), some language corpora (p. 112). Such expressions might have
been interpreted differently by different readers. The arguments must have been
more persuasive if exact numbers are introduced. Also, the information from an
investigation of learners’ needs and interviews with L2 teachers who adhere to
classroom realities must have needed in order to enhance the value of the
evidence, which makes the readers more satisfactory.

Concerning findings and discussions, the most important part of the

article, it is presented in specific sections, which helps the audience keep track of
the discussions easily and clearly. I am actually attracted and convinced by
Hinkel’s logical and coherent way of synthesising and grouping methodologists’
approaches as well as researchers’ findings and opinions. Further more, to deal
with a range of citations, she used such various unrepeated expressions as
indicate, for instance, refer, among, these authors and according to reasonably.
Not only do these uneasy but effective tasks make the discussions go on smoothly
but it also resulted in her proper and persuasive evaluation and, especially, some
sound conclusions. Additionally, they can help the audience understand what the
author means in a clear way. Particularly prominent are the updated citations,
which add validity to the article. Indeed, the article by Hinkel (2006) is an
ambitious feat of synthesis, reviewing a wide variety of theories and views on L2
education. This effort, however, is not fully successful. All four subsections in
section Four Themes in Current L2 Pedagogy always begins with a conclusion
paragraph. To hold the audience’s interest, the author should not have started
each section with a conclusion. In other words, the audience must have attracted
to the discussion if the conclusion had been left until the end of each section.

Significantly, for the discussions of teaching speaking, listening, reading

and writing skills, Hinkel were able to introduce new approaches and invaluable
opinions of many TESOL methodologists, researchers and professionals. The
teaching of the skills was thoroughly presented into four separate sections. More
specifically, issues related to the teaching of each skill were also addressed. She
especially focused on the importance of the integration of each skill with others.
Personally, as a English language teacher, I do find these sections useful for my
teaching career. They serve as not only a reference but also very practical
guidance. Nevertheless, what are not fulfilling in these sections are that the author
hardly made any comment on the topic and that no conclusion was drawn.

In short, Hinkel’s “Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills” is

timely in terms of current trends in TESOL. It presents an overview of most of
prevailing approaches and viewpoints on English language acquisition and
teaching in general and on teaching the four L2 skills in particular. By
synthesising, grouping citing a large number of updated methods, approaches and
viewpoints on L2 teaching, Hinkel has made considerable contribution to the
field. As a teacher of English, I myself find her article not only an invaluable
source of reference but a helpful companion as well. The author would have
given rise to the validity of the article if she had made more of her own comments
and conclusions.
 REFERENCES

Hinkel, E (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL

Quarterly, 40,111-131.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2005). Academic writing for graduate students. The
University of Michigan Press.
An interesting illustration of most of the significant approaches
to second language acquisition and teaching that is invaluable
for all interested in the topic, supported by real-life examples,
taken straight from the classroom. I truly recommend.
A fully revised and updated edition of this popular introduction to
language teaching methodology, which describes different methods and
approaches in language teaching. It provides practical, step-by-step
guidance for new teachers and introduces more experienced teachers to
new approaches and teaching ideas

I am an ESL teacher and I teach Methods and Materials of TESOL

at the University Level and I am very pleased with this book. It is
clearly written and the methods, from the Audio-Lingual Method
to Content Based Instruction, are presented in a format that
facilitates pre-service and in-service teachers' understanding of
the theoretical background of language teaching, and the book
provides relevant follow up activities that promote professional
growth and allow the learner to apply what they have just
learned. My students have given me very positive feedback
about the chioce of this as one of the texts that we use, and they
all say that they wish to keep the book on the shelves of their
professional libraries.I refer to it frequently as both a
professional in the feild and as a teacher educator.
Unlike many texts for educators, Larsen-Freeman's survey of the
methodologies that can be used in ESL is concrete and practical.
The book devotes a chapter to each technique, from
Grammar/Translation to ALM to Communicative Language
Learning. In each case the author describes a lesson in minute
detail, breaks apart the pieces, and then examines the principles
underlying the steps in the lesson. Larsen-Freeman's point,
which I think every good teacher instinctively realizes, is that
every method has something to recommend it, and the best
approach is to have a cookbook of methods at one's disposal. In
an individual class, with any individual student, it's hard to
predict what the key to learning will be. This book is simple when
explaining theory, and detailed when it comes to practice--a
good combination for the working teacher.
The methodologies presented in the first six chapters are each a
compendium of obsolete second language teaching techniques.
The information is interesting but not valuable. In its later
chapters, this book successfully describes common methods
used in today's classroom. It is a fairly good reference book for
beginning ESL teachers to have.

Writing the conclusion of an essay requires referring back to the

introduction to reiterate originally posed questions and come up
with a resolution. Write the conclusion of an essay with tips from
a produced playwright in this free video on writing.
How to Write a Conclusion

Style Tips for Academic Essay Summaries

Jan 16, 2009 Rachael Scott

The structure and style of the concluding paragraph of an academic essay present
a challenge to many young writers.

Often students are told to restate the thesis and the main points presented in their
essay. Should they re-write the first paragraph minus the hook? That is absolutely
preposterous.

Some may argue that the summary is not the place to introduce new ideas. On the
contrary, why would anyone bother reading a simple summary of what they just
read? Does the writer presume them to be unintelligent? If the concluding
paragraph offers no new insights there is no reason to read it.

Good conclusions are not simple summaries. They are the final flourish that
pushes readers to gather up all the knowledge they have just absorbed and take it
to the next level of understanding.

“So What?”

The So What conclusion is used by writers to summarize the main points and
expand the central idea or thesis. From the reader’s perspective the question is
“So what? Why are you telling me this? What great relevance does this have for
my life or society or within the scope of history?”

Ads by Google

Research Papers and Legal

Cheaper pro se pleadings, contracts legal research, academia research
www.legalwritingstyle.com
LiteracyCircle - phonics
Buy online phonic workbooks for beginner and struggling readers
www.literacycircle.com.au

A writer may use a So What conclusion for most any essay. Rather than
restating the thesis and substantiating points, pose them as a question. What does
it mean that… ? Then provide a profound new insight into the motives

“What If?”

The What If conclusion allows writers to play devil’s advocate. It turns readers on
their heads. Of course, the summary of the central idea and thesis is presented,
but with a dark twist. The writer introduces a new concept or a new question that
challenges the reader to decide whether or not to accept the ideas presented in the
essay. Basically, the writer asks, What if these assumptions are all wrong?

What If conclusions are not often used in persuasive essays but as literary or
philosophical devices. Sometimes the outcome of the reader’s decision is not the
critical point. Sometimes the point is just to make them believe and then doubt
those beliefs.

“Now What?”

The Now What conclusion is used in most academic scientific papers in place of
summaries because again, rote summaries are useless. After following the
scientific method, researchers propose the next step. Try using phrases like More
studies need to be done to understand…

Now What is powerful. It can move people beyond belief into action. When
change is needed, there must be suggestions for how to start. Writers fail if they
present ideas that stir desire to act, but present no first step into action.

Conclusion

So what does it matter if you turn in a paper with an amazing conclusion instead
of a simple summary? Will your professor care of even notice? What if
regurgitated summaries are all that people want and expect? It surely is enough to
get by. Then again, what if no one expects more from you because they have no
idea what you are capable of thinking or writing? Now what if instead of
satisfying expectations you choose to raise the bar for yourself and everybody
else? It means that in the world of words you are a super star.

Sources
Read more at Suite101: How to Write a Conclusion: Style Tips for Academic
Essay Summaries http://essay-
writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_write_a_conclusion#ixzz0cug8173w
As stated in Jennifer Jenkins’s article entitled “Implementing an
International Approach to English Pronunciation: The role of Teacher Attitudes
and Identity” published in TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 39, No. 3 in September
2005, she carried out a research into the role of nonnative English speaker
(NNES) teachers’ attitudes and identity toward English accents so as to take a
look at the feasibility of an English as a lingua franca (ELF) approach. The only
method used in this research is interviewing. All the interviews which followed a
pattern of twelve prompt questions were recorded, and discussed under three
themes: Accent Attitudes, Effects of Experiences and Teaching ELF Accents.
Jenkins (2005) states that all eight NNES teachers interviewed were ambivalent
regarding their attitudes toward their own English accent and their desire for
native-like accent. The author goes on to say that every interviewee could recount
at least one bad experience in English that had influenced the interviewee’s
orientation of English accent. Additionally, she says that most interviewees said
they would be happy to teach their students ELF accents whereas three of them
showed some contradictions. The author concludes that the feasibility of an
English as a lingua franca needs further research.

Despite the fact that Jenkins presents an important discussion of current

trends in the TESOL profession and that this article has a logical organisation,
there are a number of small, but important, weaknesses in this article.

Any teacher of English who reads this article will find its vocabulary
appropriate and clear except for native speaker (NS) and nonnative speaker
(NNS). The research question being addressed in the article, as mentioned
above, is investigating the role of NNES teachers’ attitudes and identity
toward English accents in order to examine the feasibility of an ELF approach.
However, Jenkins failed to include English in those terms, which are repeated
many times in her article. In other words, the article would have been clearer
and easier for the audience to follow if she had used NES (native English
speaker) instead of NS and NNES instead of NNS.

Regarding to the method that Jenkins selected to collect data, the in-depth
interview was the only one of her choice. I agree with her when she explained
that “each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, the exact length being
dictated by the participant’s desire to speak” (p. 535). However, I find some
limitations in her method of collecting data. Firstly, only eight NNES teachers
were involved in the study, which is not persuasive in terms of quantitative.
Secondly, the NNES teachers she interviewed were all females. It must have been
more objective to involve both males and females in the research. Additionally,
the subjects of her study comprise teachers from only Italy, Japan, Malaysia,
Poland and Spain whereas the feasibility of ELF is a worldwide issue. The
findings must have been different if more teachers from more different countries
had been interviewed.

From the data in Accent Attitudes in Findings section, Jenkins concludes

that the attachment to the interviewees’ first language that is considered as an
extremely important part of who they are “leads in turn...to an inherent
ambivalence and hence to the contradictory statements” (p.542). I find this
conclusion rather implausible because of the way she collected the data. As she
stated in Method section, all of the participants in her study had a high level of
proficiency in English. Some of them had hardly heard of an ELF approach and
some were doing research on it. They might have thought that their answers to the
questions would reflect their proficiency. And because they were being recorded
during the interviews, I wonder if they answered her questions sincerely. The
author should have used questionnaires to collect more reliable and persuasive
evidence, which may affect her conclusion on their attitudes toward their own
English accent and their desire for NES accent.

As far as Effects of Experiences is concerned, the author concludes that

past experiences is one of the factor that “may affect their attitudes to English at
the deeper level” and “may cause them to identify with NSs” (p. 541). The
author, however, used question 9 in Interview Prompts (p. 543) asking about their
bad experiences to get the evidence. She failed to see the effects of good
experiences.

A small but not less important limitation of the article is that although the
whole article shows that there is only one table, the author marked it TABLE 1
(p. 536 & 537), which implies that there are more than one table in this article.
The article would have been a completely well-organised one if the author had
written (see the table that follows) instead of (Table 1) (p.536) to draw the
audience’s attention to the table.

In conclusion, this article is timely in terms of current trends in TESOL.

However, the author was not completely successful in making her point because
she did not use various methods of collecting data which resulted in certain
inconvincible evidence, discussions and conclusions. By interviewing eight
NNES female teachers, she did not have a definite conclusion on “the role of
teacher attitudes and identity” in “implementing an international approach to
English Pronunciation” which, according to her, needs further research.