Cover not available
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

A discussion

| La Trobe University

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: 1 January 1987
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.10.2.09moo
References
Allwright, R.
(1979) Language learning through communication practice. In Brumfit and Johnson (1979): 162–182.Google Scholar
Ashenden, D., J. Blackburn, B. Hannan and D. White
(1984) Manifesto for a democratic curriculum. The Australian Teacher 71:13–19.Google Scholar
Breen, M.
(1984) Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In Brumfit (1984c): 47–60.Google Scholar
Brlndley, G. P.
(1984) Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education program. Sydney, Adult Migrant Education Service.Google Scholar
Broughton, G.
(1968) Success with English. Harmondsworth, Penguin.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.
(1980) From defining to designing: communicative specifications vs. communicative methodology in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3,1:1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984a) Communicative methodology in language teaching: the roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge, C. U. P.Google Scholar
(1984b) Function and structure of a state school syllabus for learners of foreign second languages with heterogeneous needs. In Brumfit (1984c): 75–82.Google Scholar
(ed.) (1984c) General English syllabus design. Oxford, Pergamon.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. and K. Johnson
(eds.) (1979) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford, O. U. P.Google Scholar
Calkins, L.
(1983) Lessons from a child. New Hampshire, Heinemann.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N.
(1984) Syllabus design as critical process. In Brumfit (1984c): 29–46.Google Scholar
Christie, F.
(1984) Development of writing programs: putting an interest in language back into schooling. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 7,1:86–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L.
(1986) Curriculum renewal in school foreign language teaching: an overview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 9, 1:14–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cleland, B. and R. Evans
(1984) Learning English through general science. Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
(1985) Learning English through topics about Australia. Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
Corbel, C.
(1985) Using the system. Melbourne, A. E. Press.Google Scholar
Crittenden, B.
(1982) Cultural pluralism and common curriculum. Victoria, Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Science
(1969) Situational English for newcomers to Australia. London and Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
(1986) The language question: the maintenance of languages other then English. Report prepared by Mary Kalantzis, Bill Cope ad Diana Slade. Vols. 1 and 21. Canberra, A. G. P. S.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C.
(1982) Writing in a bilingual program: the relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly 16,2:211–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliott, M.
(1984) Students can write in their second language: an approach to writing in ESL courses. Richmond, Victoria, Hodja.Google Scholar
Giroux, H. A.
(1987) Critical literacy and student experience: Donald Graves’ approach to literacy. Language Arts 64 2:175–181.Google Scholar
Graves, D.
(1981) A new look at writing research. In Graves (1984): 92–109.Google Scholar
(1983) Writing: teachers and children at work. New Hampshire, Heinemann.Google Scholar
(1984) A researcher learns to write. New Hampshire, Heinemann.Google Scholar
Graves, D. and J. Hansen
(1982) The author’s chair. In Graves (1984): 177–183.Google Scholar
Hannan, B.
(1985) Democratic curriculum. Sydney, Allen and Unwin. Melbourne, Victorian Secondary Teachers Association.Google Scholar
Hornsby, D., D. Sukarna and J. A. Parry
(1986) Read on: a conference approach to reading. Sydney, Martin Educational.Google Scholar
Hughes, C., A. Barthel and D. Slade
(1987) Needs-based programming and the provision of English tuition in the Adult Migrant Education Program. Prospect 2,2:183–199.Google Scholar
Kinsella, V.
(ed.) (1982) Surveys 2. Cambridge, C. U. P.Google Scholar
Language and Learning Series
. Victoria, Deakin University Press: 1985Google Scholar
Lo Bianco, J.
(1987) National Policy on Languages. Commonwealth Department of Education. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Munby, J.
(1978) Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, C. U. P.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M.
(1980) Writing as process: how writing finds its own meaning. In Murray (1982): 17–31.Google Scholar
(1982) Learning by teaching. Montclair, N. J., Boynton Cook.Google Scholar
Painter, C. and J. R. Martin
(eds.) (1986) Writing to mean: teaching genres across the curriculum. Occasional Papers No. 9. Sydney, Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.Google Scholar
Parry, J. A. and D. Hornsby
(1985) Write on: a conference approach to writing. Melbourne, Martin Educational.Google Scholar
Paulston, C. B.
(1981) Notional syllabuses revisited: some comments. Applied Linguistics 2,1:93–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, T.
(1985) Functional approaches in language pedagogy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S, 21:1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raimes, A.
(1983) Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly 17,4:535–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. T.
(1982) Recent developments in ELT. In Kinsella (1982): 96–141.Google Scholar
Turbill, J.
(1982) No better way to teach writing. Rozelle, N. S. W., Primary English Teaching Association.Google Scholar
(1983) Now we want to write. Rozelle, N. S. W., Primary English Teachers Association.Google Scholar
Sociocultural Aspects of Language and Learning Series
. Victoria, Deakin University Press: 1985Google Scholar
Victorian Ministry of Education
(1985) Ministerial review of postcompulsory schooling (Blackburn Report). Melbourne, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Walshe, R. D.
(ed.) (1981) Donald Graves in Australia. Sydney, P. E. T. A.Google Scholar
White, D.
(1985) Education: controlling the participants. Arena 721:63–79.Google Scholar
(1987) Education and the state: federal involvement in educational policy development. Victoria, Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G.
(1983) Learning purpose and language use. Oxford, O. U. P.Google Scholar
(1984) Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In Brumfit (1984c): 23–27.Google Scholar
Zamel, V.
(1982) Writing: the process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16,2:195–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) The composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17,2:165–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Foley, Joseph A.
1990. Task‐based approaches to language learning from the learner's point of view. Language and Education 4:2 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Marshall, Stewart
1991. A genre-based approach to the teaching of report-writing. English for Specific Purposes 10:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Moore, Helen
1991. Enchantments and Displacements: Multiculturalism, language policy and Dawkins‐speak. Melbourne Studies in Education 32:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Rado, Marta & Chris Reynolds
1989. Applied linguistics as a framework for selection in syllabus design and assessment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 12:1 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. 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.