Article published in:Australian Applied Language Studies
Edited by Tim F. McNamara
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 10:2] 1987
► pp. 128–162
Process, outcome and language education
This paper explores the differences and common ground in the process writing approach and the procedural or process approaches to language teaching put forward by various British applied linguists. Although some important differences exist between the two “process approaches”, particularly in the role of research data as a basis for proposing teaching methods, they have a common view of teaching and learning. This paper argues that, despite giving some useful insights, these approaches devalue, in varying degrees, teaching, meaning and group relations. It is concluded that Australian educators would do well to be less dependent on proposals emanating from overseas and to take their own and others’ theorizing and practices more seriously.
Published online: 01 January 1987
Ashenden, D., J. Blackburn, B. Hannan and D. White
Brlndley, G. P.
Brumfit, C. and K. Johnson
Clark, J. L.
Cleland, B. and R. Evans
Department of Education and Science
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Giroux, H. A.
Hornsby, D., D. Sukarna and J. A. Parry
Hughes, C., A. Barthel and D. Slade
Lo Bianco, J.
Murray, D. M.
Painter, C. and J. R. Martin
Parry, J. A. and D. Hornsby
Victorian Ministry of Education
Cited by 4 other publications
Foley, Joseph A.
Rado, Marta & Chris Reynolds
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.