Integrated Skills - Reading and Writing, a Humanistic Perspective and Not Only

Consuela Popa, Romania

Consuela Popa is an English teacher. In the past she used to teach English and French. She has taught in state schools, high schools and secondary schools, at all levels, and different profiles. She is interested in linguistic research, cultural studies and writing in English and in the study of other languages: French, Spanish. Christian theology, sociology, psychology are her other fields of interest. She cherishes a lot the opportunity of writing for HLT, since the attitudes and values discovered this way help grow and feed the spirit. As artists, linguists should be aware of the fact that interdisciplinary aspects are unavoidable and that we should touch a variety of fields through our writing. E-mail: konskris2001@yahoo.com

Reading for pleasure is, as I have shown in a previous article, one of the best ways of ensuring good language acquisition. But reading within instructional programs is also included, in order to foster language acquisition and progress, as a part of the learning-monitoring process. Through research on the topics, keeping in mind all the good principles that should guide all types of reading (in school, controlled or imposed, or individual, free reading, reading for pleasure), we can differentiate all these types of reading and their various benefits upon language acquisition and progress. We shall be thereafter able to draw, from a methodological and scientific point of view, conclusions regarding the best ways of using, of practicing reading, within our language teaching programs. Reading must be correlated in the best possible way to the other skills, thus, we should integrate skills by knowing exactly how to approach the practicing of each skill in its various hypostases, by knowing how to apply each of them in relationship with other skills.

For instance, speaking about each skill being approached differently, we can exemplify how one type of reading can bring, at a given moment during the instructional process, a different effect or benefit upon our language level and fluency, from another type of reading (e.g. reading for specific information versus reading for gist). On the whole, we must say that, within the training sessions or instructional programs, all types of reading should be used, and none of them should be used to the detriment of another, for in such case, the subject might end up lacking certain skills, or certain techniques that might have been otherwise easily and properly enforced through the judicious use of all complementary methods of reading.

It is a well-known fact, which has not always been voiced with so much force, that any type of reading, even in our native language, if it has been done carefully and constantly, can enhance our level of understanding, of comprehension of the read message, at the text level and beyond, and a person who is able to read well, first of all, in his mother language, and to dwell on the structures of the read message to which he or she is being exposed, will transfer this ability into another language as well. The ability to read well and to understand, thus, the message from one’s native language, to fluently approach the message to be comprehended and all the associated/subsequent ideas, will not only transfer from native language to other language, but from an already known foreign language to another foreign language to be acquired and studied/mastered well.

Research has shown, consequently, that reading abilities from, not only mother language, but also another foreign language, will as well influence our writing abilities with, and within, the process of integrating skills that comes under two hypostases, naturally/individually, and officially, or scholastically, during language instructional programs. Of course, before writing, one can argue that reading in any of the two languages (the target language and the native language), can aid fluency in speech (can thus, develop the speaking skill), and it also directly reflects upon writing-a person who reads well and often will also be able to issue good language “products”, will be able to develop his/her language production skills which particularly represent the writing abilities(since we know that production means speaking and writing, in the case of language learning).

Indeed, the inborn and later on, the cultivated ability of reading and comprehending well and intensely and of understanding text structure, and respond to all related language functions and characteristics that operate within and beyond text level-this ability of reading in either the target language and the mother language-will automatically reflect upon fluency in writing (and speech), fluency which, for the literate subject who makes good use of reading, becomes no longer a problem. Good reading translates into good language mastery, fluency, and good language production.

Language production through writing can be of different types, and it can be specialized writing, or any type of writing, academic writing, depending upon the formation of our learners. We can have learners and users of specialized English as well as of academic English for the language domain, philology, teaching.

Writing in English does not have to mean, however, just that, a field within the frames of which we, as teachers/trainers, as well as our learners, manifest ourselves. Writing can be done for pleasure, just like reading- creative writing can include almost any type of writing, and using our imagination in creating different stories and pieces of written production can bring us to an infinity of places and spaces both within, and beyond the frames of our minds. The reading of somebody else’s written production will help us become better writers, better producers ourselves, and this phenomena is an important and interesting one to study, especially because there have been disagreements with respect to the direct effect that writing can have upon the other linguistic skills.

From a humanistic point of view, language acquisition and learning must take place while keeping in mind an important prerequisite: positive circumstances, that must be created, or those required and necessary circumstances in which affect, one important component upon which attention has been particularly drawn in humanistic teaching, must be the focus (but not the only focus, though), of our teaching and training approach. For me, as a teacher, “affect”, is not only a humanistic teaching notion, it is not a “fancy” notion. Affect, just as all the other associated elements arising, such as “positive circumstances” for language acquisition and learning, are actually a general prerequisite in methodology and successful language acquisition and learning.

Affect and personal experience of our learners, who come to our class or training sessions with a multitude, not to say an infinity of, individual universes and ways of acquiring, learning and interpreting language, messages, knowledge, are two elements which, within the humanistic approach, must be properly understood and used in our practice. The comprehensible input, or the amount of language to which the individual is exposed to, must be followed by the output, or the spoken and written, messages that the language learner must thereupon issue, within the natural cycle of language acquisition and learning. This cycle includes, with respect to the exposure to language component, input and output as main coordinates that must be analyzed and used properly. The input, or comprehensible input, is actually, the “product” of other language speakers or writers, including the teachers, which is being displayed towards the acquirers/learners, with the ultimate goal of generating an output to this-that is, with the expectation that the learners/subjects of exposure to the input, should, as a result of being exposed to the input, issue their output in consequence, or their spoken and written products, with promptitude, efficiency, while they are still beginners, and later on, as their language level progresses, with fluency and proficiency.

In order to know our learners` personality profile, their feelings, previous learning experiences, expectations, motivations, we can, not only make use of our flair and experience as methodologists, thus choosing the best way of creating rapport and approaching them-but also concrete, more practical steps and methods, like setting up questionnaires for them, asking them about many aspects, like when and how they have previously attempted to learn English/other foreign languages, what they think about the input or the language they have been exposed to, how they reacted to it, in what way that changed them/their level, what are their preferences, what makes them tick with respect to language acquisition/learning, what are their anxieties/uncertainties with respect to the language in case being learned, and the list may continue as everyone of us, as professionals, thinks it is appropriate and needed. We can thereafter continue, during our instructional process, by setting up for ourselves and for our learners, as it is later on needed, observation sheets, in order to help us as teachers and trainers monitor our students in the best possible way; observation sheets can be quite varied as content and format, according to the functional utility and expected efficiency that these observation sheets are supposed to bear on the learning process and to the teachers/trainers.

When treating the subject of reading and writing we must also bring up the comprehensible input and output issues. Even though the “heard” input is probably the first thing we think about when we think about language exposure for acquisition and about comprehensible input, we can say that passive and silent reading, or individual reading, of any kind, can also mean comprehensible input, or the “level plus one”(i+1), needed amount of “language immersion”. The language immersion that we speak about must be done either by way of listening to what is being communicated to us in English, or by way of reading in English, and these two receptive skills, listening and reading, are the two components of the comprehensible input that are taken into account when we try to understand this concept.

Writing is a vital skill, thus, just like all the other language skills, and makes up, along with the speaking skill, what we call “productive skills”. Speaking and writing are the expected “comprehensible output”, following comprehensible input. Writing, for the proficient language speaker, for the fluent and literate language acquirer, is an important component of the language monitoring function. We can say that, for someone who has done successful prior reading, and has issued good language “products”, who has got, thus, the ability of becoming a proficient language writer (performing excellently on an academic level), his or her literacy in writing means, in fact, that that person is also a proficient fluent speaker.

I believe that there is no question or doubt concerning the spoken proficiency of a person who has previously been exposed to language through the needed comprehensible input, through good listening and reading that occurred in favorable circumstances, in low anxiety conditions, and who has also proved his ability of writing fluently, accurately and with ease. Controversies and polemics regarding the direct effect of writing upon fluency in speech, or communicative competence, an issue that I have mentioned earlier within my article, can puzzle us and stir debate. Those controversies referred to some stated opinions, according to which there would be no proof that writing has got real influence upon the communicative or speaking skill (and upon the other skills).

But in this respect, I think that we could only take this acceptance, to a lesser degree, if we just mean writing that is done at initial stages of language instruction, when also we may bring into discussion the fact that the language program has not been properly used, lacking maybe, the natural order of attention given to listening and speaking (utterance), beforehand writing, thus, writing not being really beneficial to proper language acquisition. I can also accept, that writing could not lead to good language acquisition and could hinder progress, even at higher levels, when literacy is wrongly emphasized, and whatever language drills we may perform are dry and insufficient, since during our course, from one reason or another, the teachers have not given the utmost importance to the language exposure requirement, to the listening and speaking skills that must prevail as strategies. And I do not mean by this, that writing should be overlooked, for in a good language course or with good language teachers, we expect to have the right amount of all four skills practiced.

Our most rooted values and attitudes to give to our students should be those that promote language as a way of life, language acquisition through exposure on a daily basis, and then, when the time is right and the stages of learning have been fulfilled, written language and literacy also at perfectionist and artistic level even, for those who attempt to take languages as a way of life, not only for specific purposes, in fields different from the philological domain, and not only viewing language as a tool for communication, as an engine for different jobs and purposes, but as an art and goal in itself. Only in those circumstances, when the overemphasis on writing has been wrongly practiced, of course, can we speak about writing skill being practiced to the detriment of language fluency and communicative competence. Emphasis upon writing, if this means narrow scholasticism, to the detriment of language exposure, listening and speaking, can indeed, hinder the overall language ability that we aim at achieving.

However, as I have considered above, a person who can write at proficient, or perfectionist level (or even artistic level, in cases like Joseph Conrad, and any other naturalized or non-naturalized British and American citizens, scientists, researchers, etc, who became recognized masters of English literature), cannot be suspected of lacking speaking skills at the same proficient level. If we consider other traits of character or of personality that do not really have anything to do with the language domain and that may refer to a person’s etiquette shyness, physical obstructions, dyslexia, or simply their way of being, eccentricity even, traits that may seem comical maybe, bringing in added charm, then we can render or brand as ridiculous any suspicion of spoken incompetence. However, it is also acknowledged that in order for ideal speaking proficiency to be attained, one had to win over his shyness, fear of speaking in public, etc, or any other hindrances, barriers, anxieties, inferiority complexes, either inborn or unjustly “garnered” in hostile environments (either native, multicultural, or non-native). Emotional traumas in xenophobic, overly elitist and negative environments can affect linguistic proficiency and spoken performance. That is why personally, I consider that such environments, that are hostile to non-native and naturalized speakers are, willingly or not, practicing a form of cultural subversion to their own culture. Especially when there is more than enough academic proficiency and interest in the target language for such language and culture “immigrants”. And I do not mean here different immigrants, who, for religious and other culture specific purposes, decide to isolate themselves, and wish to rejoice over material benefits coming from their “naturalization”, rather than the social and cultural ones that result when adopted by a certain country and culture. Also, in academic and educational circles in general, target language lovers will be pushed forward in a positive way, and will gain more and more confidence, easiness and linguistic mastery since language and language skills are approached methodically and thoroughly.

I shall not, for the moment, within this article, discuss further Stephen Krashen’s argument pro comprehensible input as an exclusive factor for language acquisition and his statement rather strong against the belief that there would be any direct benefit towards language acquisition through comprehensible output. What some of us could accept is that, for the adepts or sympathizers of Krashen`s theory, including myself, comprehensible output, from another angle, can be seen at least as a means of enforcing knowledge or acquired language, as the instructional program progresses, if it cannot be seen and considered as a direct factor in acquisition. We may accept the concepts of comprehensible input and output as making up a dichotomy, if we start by taking the issue in a purely abstract and rather Puritan way, I should say; or we can accept, more pragmatically, that, in the hypostasis of taking the two notions as joint and working towards the goals of language acquisition and reinforcement/language learning, as a cycle, that comprehensible input is completed by comprehensible output in the process of language learning.

At the abstract level, (and as per Krashen’s theory, as well), acquisition is different from learning. In the same manner, Krashen argues, comprehensible input alone is responsible for real acquisition, while there has been no evidence, in his opinion, that output, as a means of forcing and coercing language, generates acquisition. If we consider Krashen`s view, then output does not quite foster acquisition. That is because output comes with the impeding reality and emergency that language production attempts are in fact, if we are at initial stages, corrected immediately, and if we are at advanced stages, the monitoring function, (especially in writing) as a coercion factor, keeps us tense with respect to the flow of language that we issue, and always “on guard”. This tension, to call it like that, would be, according to Krashen, contrary to the proper conditions that are needed towards achieving language acquisition and thus, it hinders language acquisition.

However, since I do not intend within this article to argue explicitly either pro or con, regarding the idea of output being unhelpful to language acquisition, but I would rather challenge thinking about this issue from different points of view, I can say that there is also another side for this aspect.

It is possible that people should consider that, when mastering the written language well, and writing at an academic level at a proficient level, we actually, at least when we go over our work, read it, and correct, it, submit ourselves, willingly or not, to our own comprehensible output in a passive way, after conceiving it, thus, after actively getting involved with language.

Also, this passive involvement can be considered another facet or form of comprehensible input, so when we act as readers of our own production we expose ourselves to comprehensible input again. I do not know how this opinion of mine would seem to the readers of my article, and I am positive that contradictory thinking and ideas, as well as considering different points of view, debate, cannot do anything but help us enlarge our perspective in the end, and make the starting point for fruitful research on the topics, with polemics being an important incentive for our subject presented above.

But what I noticed was that, when we submit ourselves to going over, or reading our written production, we mentally expose ourselves to a flow of language, the structures of which, within our mind, are meant to enforce patterns of thinking, knowledge, and in a strong way, yet, acquisition. It pushes us further, it gives us stronger confidence in ourselves and it makes us more subtle and versatile as language “purchasers”, as learners and users. We go easily with the “flow”, even if it is our own flow of language. This opinion might seem against the theory of Krashen regarding comprehensible output and acquisition, but I think we are also free to challenge debate and opposed points of view.

What might be the truth in end? Faithful to the principle that sometimes, what matters more is the journey towards the goal, and what this journey generates rather than the destination itself, and that this journey might be much more exciting than the ultimate destination, I must admit that I see this topic of comprehensible input, output and acquisition as one that opens up the path for inexhaustible quest and study. And I must also add that I regard with fascination the possibility of contemplating over diverse and opposed points of view on this abstract matter and that seeing all those as plausible does not vex me, but it makes me see the language domain as an art or canvas. It is possible to see art or canvas from different angles and to perceive it differently, and yet its value and miracle remain unaltered.

References

Krashen, Stephen, D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Prentice Hall International, 1987

Krashen, Stephen, D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988

Krashen, S (1985). The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. Longman, New York

Lambert, W.E (1972), Language, Psychology and Culture, Stanford, UP

Harmer, Jeremy, The Practice of English Language Teaching, Pearson Longman, fourth edition

Arnold, J (1999), Affect in Language Learning, Cambridge University Press

Please check the English for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Methodology and Language for Secondary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.