Diary Insights of an EFL Reading
Teacher
Apreciaciones de un profesor de lectura en lengua inglesa
escritas en un diario de clase
Sergio Lopera Medina*
Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia
This article
was received on December 3, 2012, and accepted on February 10, 2013.
It is often
argued that classroom diaries are subjective. This article explores the diary
insights of a foreign language reading teacher. The inquiry was based on the
following research question: What do the diary insights really evidence about
the teaching practices of a foreign language reading teacher? As a research
method, a case study was implemented. Five instruments were used to collect
data: diary of the teacher, observations, questionnaires, tests, and focus groups.
Given that motivation, interaction, reading improvement, and the application of
reading strategies were supported by the research instruments, it would seem
that a diary can be objective.
Key words: Diaries,
diary insights, reading in English, support.
A menudo se argumenta que los diarios de clase son
subjetivos. En este artículo se exploran las apreciaciones que un
profesor de lectura en inglés como lengua extranjera registra en su
diario. La indagación se basó en la siguiente pregunta de investigación:
¿Qué apoya realmente las anotaciones de diario acerca de las
prácticas de enseñanza de un profesor de lectura en lengua
extranjera? Como método de estudio se implementó el estudio de
caso. Se utilizaron cinco instrumentos para recolectar la información:
diario del profesor, observaciones de clase, cuestionarios, exámenes y
grupos focales. Dado que estos instrumentos de investigación incidieron
en la motivación, la interacción, la mejoría en lectura y
en la aplicación de las estrategias de lecturas, se podría
concluir que un diario puede ser objetivo.
Palabras
clave: apoyo, apreciaciones de diarios,
diarios, lectura.
Introduction
Researchers
debate the usefulness of diary studies in learning or teaching languages
(Bailey, 1991; Bailey & Ochsner, 1983; Brown,
1985; Long, 1980; Schmidt & Frota, 1986).
Concerns involve the diarist’s subjectivity in keeping a diary, the amount of time the diarist devotes
(time-consuming), the inconsistent way to track ideas, and the lack of general
conclusions.
The purpose
of this article is to explore and support some diary insights made upon
reflection by a foreign language teacher in a reading course for graduate
students. This article begins with the literature review and examines the
characteristics of diaries, reading, motivation, and interaction. Then, the
methodology, the context, the course, participants, and the research
instruments are presented. Finally, findings are described and the conclusions,
implications, and limitations are given.
Review of Literature
Diary
In the
academic context, a diary is an academic instrument that is used to record
introspective reflection in first person about someone’s learning or
teaching (Bailey, 1990). The teacher or student reports issues such as
affective factors, perceptions, and language learning strategies (Bailey & Ochsner, 1983). Diaries are useful to obtain classroom
issues and constitute a valuable tool in order to discover teaching or learning
realities that are not possible to be discovered through direct research
observation (Nunan, 1992; Bailey, 1990; Numrich, 1996). Goodson and Sikes (2001) state the
importance of a diary:
Not only is a document of this kind useful for
providing factual information, it can also help with analysis and
interpretation, in that it can jog memory and indicate patterns and trends
which might have been lost if confined to the mind. (p. 32)
McDonough
and McDonough (1997) argue that diary studies are helpful in language contexts
as they support qualitative and quantitative information. Diarists can also
have an introspective and retrospective view of their teaching or learning process.
Russell and Munby (1991), and Palmer (1992) argue
that diaries may provide a rich source of data in order to understand teachers’
practices. When teachers read their diaries they become conscious of what they
know and really do and they reflect on their role as teachers. As a result,
they may become critical (Bailey, 1990). There are two types of processes for
reading the diary: primary (also called direct or introspective) and secondary
(also called indirect or non-introspective). In the first type the diarist is
the person who reads and reflects about the learning or teaching process. In
the second type, an outsider reads and interprets the diarist’s entries
about his/her learning or teaching process (Curtis & Bailey, 2009).
Characteristics of Diaries
Curtis and
Bailey (2009) state that teachers or learners usually keep hand-written
diaries; however, they can also be audio-taped. The authors argue that this
technical form could be time-consuming due the transcription it may need.
Instead, a word processed diary is a good option because having electronic
information facilitates the data analysis. The authors also argue that diarists
can use figures in order to represent ideas pictorially and such figures guide
to identify issues such as interaction, motivation, and participation, among
others. In the same vein, diarists can use their mother tongue or second
language to record their ideas. When learners have a low proficiency level they
face difficulties in making entries. A good option is to combine the mother
tongue and target language to lessen students’ difficulties. Conversely,
keeping a diary becomes a very good option with which to practice the target language
when learners have an intermediate or advanced level.
On the other
hand, there are drawbacks to diaries. Schmidt and Frota
(1986), and Seliger (1983) support that the nature of
diaries is to keep a subjective perception of the diarist’s experiences
leading to subjectivity. Moreover, it could be difficult to categorize and
reduce data when diarists do not have a consistent way of keeping a diary. Nunan (1992) even questions if the conclusions made by a
single subject can be extrapolated to other settings. However, Curtis and
Bailey (2009) suggest the idea to keep diaries with subjective and objective
issues. Diarists may have entries that describe feelings or ideas that they had
in a specific moment of the class, or they can also have facts of a specific
issue that support their entries. As a result, it would be useful to have
factual records as well as subjective ones in order to obtain a precise picture
of the teaching or learning process. The authors suggest the following elements
to consider when keeping a journal:
• Keep
a detailed chronological record of the entries
• Include
the day, date, and time of each entry
• Include also information about
number of students and their seating arrangements
• Write
a summary of the lesson
• Include
handouts and assignments in the diary
• Write thoughts or
questions to be considered later (p. 71)
Other
elements can also be included: The objective of the diary is to record or
develop ideas instead of correcting or crafting; the language could be personal
rather than academic or formal; the writing style has to make sense primary to
the diarist, not to the outsider.
Diaries can
be used as an assessment tool. Brenneman and Louro (2008) argue that diaries provide teachers a critical
view of how individuals conceptualize and apply an issue in the process of
learning. Diaries tell teachers about insights into individual student’s
language processes when teachers keep track of each student. In fact, diaries
support anecdotal evidence of what learners do, understand, and misunderstand
in a language class. Thus, the teacher can use it to verify and give an account
of the learning process.
Reading
Reading is a
complex process in which the reader has to comprehend the text. Alyousef (2005)
states that reading is an “interactive process between a reader and a
text which leads to automacity or (reading fluency).
In this process, the reader interacts dynamically with the text as he/she tries
to elicit the meaning” (p. 144). However, there are two important
elements that the reader needs to possess: linguistic knowledge and background
knowledge. The former refers to the awareness about the language, such as
grammar or vocabulary structure. The latter involves the familiarity the reader
has with the reading content. Cassany (2006),
González (2000), Grabe and Stoller
(2002), and Weir (1993) support that the reader also needs a cognition process
because she/he has to predict, interpret and memorize information in order to
decode the message.
Foreign
language readers have to make a bigger effort to interact with texts because
they might face grammar or vocabulary difficulties (Cassany,
2006). Thus, the role of the teacher becomes crucial, as foreign language
readers need to be guided to overcome those difficulties.
Reading Models
Aebersold and Field
(1997) state that there are two essential models in reading: bottom-up
processes and top-down processes. Bottom-up processes involve readers building
the text beginning from small units (letters to words) to complex ones
(sentences to paragraphs). In the top-down processes readers have to integrate
the text into their existing knowledge (background knowledge). Grabe and Stoller (2002) ask
language teachers to use both processes with students in order to have
successful readers.
Reading Strategies
Reading
strategies help learners interact with the readings and different authors
highlight the importance of applying them in language learning settings (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Hosenfeld,
1979; Janzen, 2001; Lopera, 2012; Mikulecky
& Jeffries, 2004; Osorno & Lopera, 2012). When students are trained to use reading
strategies they know what to do when facing troubles with readings (Block, 1986).
Language teachers can use simple reading strategies such as previewing,
predicting, guessing word meanings; or complex ones such as inference and
summarizing. Janzen (2001) proposes five classroom activities to work with the
reading strategies:
• Explicit discussion of the
reading strategies and when to use them
• Demonstration of how to
apply a reading strategy (modeling)
• Involvement with the
reading in terms of reading aloud and sharing the process while applying the
strategies
• Discussion
of the activities in the classroom
• Practice with the reading
material of the course (p. 369)
Arismendi, Colorado,
and Grajales (2011); Block (1986); Carrell (1998); Lopera (2012); Mikulecky and Jeffries (2004); and Poole (2009) have
explored the application of reading strategies with students and their findings
support their usefulness for learners.
Motivation
Motivation
plays an important role in foreign language as it engages students in an active
involvement to learn (Oxford & Shearin, 1994).
Chen and Dörnyei (2007, p. 153) state that the
function of motivation is to serve “as the initial engine to generate
learning and later functions as an ongoing driving force that helps to sustain
the long and usually laborious journey of acquiring a foreign language.”
Brown (2001) divides motivation into intrinsic and extrinsic. The former helps
students engage in the activities for their own sake in order to satisfy
internal rewarding such as learning, curiosity, or personal fulfillment. On the
other hand, extrinsic motivation goes externally in order to avoid punishment
or to satisfy reward such as good scores, prizes, or money.
Interaction
Brown (1994)
states that interaction is the main part of
communication in which people send, receive, interpret, and negotiate messages.
The author suggests that language learning classrooms should be interactive
even from the very beginning. The role of the teacher is crucial in order to
prompt interaction in the classroom as she/he has to be a guide, a moderator,
or a coordinator in the classroom. In the same vein, students also have to
participate individually or in groups when the teacher asks them to do it. When
these two agents give their parts, the results are more positive in the process
of learning.
Finally,
when teachers observe and record issues such as interaction, motivation, and
application of reading strategies in their diary, they are better equipped to
analyze, assess, and reflect upon their students’ processes. For the
purpose of this paper, all these elements were taken into account.
Method
This study
followed the principles methodology of a multiple case study (Creswell, 2007;
Merriam, 1998; Tellis, 1997; Yin, 2003) as the team
of researchers1 wanted to support the
teacher’s diary insights in a foreign language reading comprehension
course. Researchers used the grounded approach when they categorized the data
(Freeman, 1998). The following research question guided their inquiry: What do
the diary insights really evidence about the teaching practices of a foreign
language reading teacher?
Context
Universidad
de Antioquia (Medellín, Colombia) asks
graduate students to certify reading proficiency in a foreign language when
getting specializations.2 Students have two
options: to certify by either attending a classroom course or by taking a
proficiency test. Students were given a third option in 2007 when the EALE (Enseñanza y Aprendizaje de
las Lenguas Extranjeras = Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages)
research group designed a reading course in English in a web-based distance
format. In 2009, EALE decided to carry out a research project3 in order to compare the effects of a web-based course
to a face-to-face course. The study of the teacher’s diary is derived
from this research project.
Participants
The Teacher
The teacher
was part of the research team and as well as a full-time professor at Sección Servicios, Escuela de Idiomas
(School of Languages). He had ten years of experience teaching foreign language
reading comprehension courses for both graduate and undergraduate students.
The Students
There were
27 students (17 women and 10 men); they were between 20 and 51 years old.
Students were in the first semester of different specializations in Law:
Process Law, Constitutional Law, Family Law, Administrative Law, and Social
Security Law. Only one student dropped the course.
The Reading Comprehension Course
The name of
the course was English reading comprehension for graduate programs (Competencia lectora en inglés para posgrados) and its main goal was to guide students in
the use of different types of reading strategies in different types of
readings. Students attended the course Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6 to 9 p.m.
The course lasted 120 hours and was divided and organized into five different
units as shown in Table 1.
Data Collection and Analysis
Other
research instruments accompanied the diary in order to triangulate data (Ellis,
1989). The different sources of information helped researchers compare and
validate the data issues encountered in the diary. There were a total of five
instruments used to gather data: diary of the teacher, questionnaires,
observations, tests, and focus groups. Each instrument is explained below.
Diary of the Teacher
The teacher
recorded all his reflections and observation about the teaching process of each
class session in order to construct a critical view (Bailey, 1990; Jeffrey
& Hadley, 2002). The teacher kept the diary in English and took about two
hours for each class to write each entry electronically. It took him about five
months to finish the diary. It is worth stating that he was aware of and had
experience writing the diary for research purposes.
Questionnaires
Students
completed three questionnaires: evaluation of the course and the teacher,
reading strategies and motivation, and self-evaluation. There were multiple
choice questions and open questions for completing each questionnaire.
Tests
Two types of
tests were used on students: before and after the pedagogical intervention (2
tests—pretest and posttest), and different tests for each unit of the
course. Regarding pretest and posttest, each test contained two readings texts,
each with 13 multiple choice questions (the readings and questions simulated
standardized tests like the Test of English as a Foreign Language, TOEFL).
Students had to interact with reading topics such as inference, scanning,
analyzing topics and main ideas. In the different tests of each unit, the
teacher designed short readings that aimed at evaluating the topics of the
unit. There were multiple choice questions as well as open questions on the
tests.
Observations
Researchers
observed ten class sessions. They examined issues such as teaching, behaviors,
learning strategies, interaction, and participation in the classroom (Brown,
2001).
Focus group
Students had
a focus group session (Dendinger, 2000) at the end of
the course in order to discuss their learning experience. Researchers prepared
some open questions regarding interaction, application of reading strategies,
vocabulary improvement, and positive and negative aspects of this course. The
session was audio-taped.
Findings
Researchers
mixed both primary processes and secondary processes to read the diary (Curtis &
Bailey, 2009). All the data were transcribed and researchers read and labeled
the data individually. They then shared and discussed some important ideas in
groups and coded the data in order to have categories. Finally, consensus was
obtained through data triangulation (Freeman, 1998). Researchers translated
some excerpts from Spanish to English in order to use them as support.
Researchers
validated some diary entries made by the teacher in order to support
objectivity. Four main topics emerged from the diary: motivation, interaction,
improvement, and the application of reading strategies. The findings are
explained below.
Motivation
The teacher
reported that students’ motivation was mainly extrinsic, as they needed
to fulfill the reading requirement in order to register for the second semester
of their law specializations. Researchers could support this reflection in the
focus group, as some students commented on the need to fulfill the requirement
(see Sample 1).
Although
students’ motivation was mainly extrinsic, researchers noted that
students gained intrinsic motivation during the course. Students’
perceptions changed positively toward the course and satisfaction was
perceived. This issue is supported by the students’ comments in the focus
group (see Sample 2).
Another
motivational factor was participation. Students’ participation was a
constant in the course leading to a positive attitude. Learners were willing to
participate in the exercises suggested by the teacher. The teacher and
observers noted this motivational issue, as shown in Sample
3.
On the other
hand, the teacher observed that students looked tired due to
their work load. Students were tired because they worked during the day then finished
up the day attending the course (see Sample 4).
Interaction
There were
three types of interaction: interaction among students, interaction between the
teacher and students, interaction with the material. In the first interaction a
sign of cooperation was perceived among students. Students worked together in
order to do a reading activity assigned by the teacher. Students interacted
themselves confirming answers, checking understanding, discussing issues and,
usually, working in pairs or groups. Researchers noted that students helped
each other. This was validated by researchers in the observations, as shown in Sample 5.
There was
constant interaction between the teacher and students. The teacher asked the
students to answer some questions about an exercise. In the same vein, students
asked the teacher different questions when they had doubts about the exercises
or the readings (see Sample 6).
Finally,
students interacted with the materials. The teacher asked the students to read
texts and complete the activities designed by him. Researchers noted that
students interacted with the readings because they discussed the content and
the answers based on the readings (see Sample 7).
Improvement and Application of Reading Strategies
Researchers
observed that students had learned and applied the reading strategies taught in
the course and this led to reading improvement. Students also evidenced that
they had learnt, as can be read in Sample 8.
Another
source that supports improvement was the assessment of units. The tests of the
units support that students improved and applied the reading strategies. When
the teacher corrected and evaluated the tests, he wrote comments like “it
was a good exercise, congratulations” or “although the answers to
the exercises were ok, you did not provide very precise answers.”
Moreover, the teacher quantitatively reported the scores on the tests (1 to 5,
with 5 being the highest) and researchers validated that most of the scores
ranged from 3.5 to 4.8.
Finally,
another source that supports improvement was the test results. Students
improved considerably when researchers statistically compared the results of
the pretest and posttest administered. Statistics support that students
improved in reading as the mean increased greatly (see Table
2).
Limitations
Guiding and
encouraging the project, the teacher was part of the research group. If the
teacher had not been part of the research group, researchers would probably
have had different findings. The teacher was aware of writing the diary for
research purposes and this could be seen as leading. In fact, he knew the
topics to concentrate on: interaction, motivation, the use of reading
strategies, and improvement. Finally, the number of students was limited and
researchers do not claim that findings could be generalized to broader teaching
or learning contexts.
Conclusions
Some
researchers have argued that people are subjective when they keep a diary (Nunan, 1992; Schmidt & Frota,
1986; Seliger, 1983). However, the findings of the
research suggest that the entries of the diary can be supported by evidence
provided by more objective instruments, such as tests. In fact, motivation,
interaction, reading improvement, and the application of reading strategies
were found in the diary and supported using different research instruments.
Researchers
found that participation, attitude, as well as extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation were motivational factors in the diary. Also, the academic contact
among student-student, student-teacher, and student-material were supported as
interactional issues in the course. Finally, findings support that students
improved and applied the reading strategies. Based on the results, it seems to
be that a diary is objective.
Implication
One of the
findings was related to tiredness. The teacher observed that students were
tired due to the fact that they worked during the day and finished up the day
attending the course. The previous finding implies the need to prepare
interactive classes in order to engage students to be more active in class. It
is suggested that teachers ask students to work in pairs or in groups, bring
topics that deal with students’ interests, bring humor to class, and use
a short and interesting opening activity to start a class (Dörnyei
& Csizér, 1998) as these would be good
options to raise motivation and avoid tiredness in classrooms.
1 It is worth mentioning that the author of this paper
was a member of the team of researchers.
2 Especialización (specialization) is a two-semester
graduate program and the main objective is to update students in their academic
fields.
3 There were six full-time teachers, one advisor, and
three undergraduate students in teaching foreign languages on the research
team.
References
Aebersold, J., &
Field, M. (1997). From
reader to reading teacher. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Alyousef, H. S.
(2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/EFL learners.
The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 143-154.
Arismendi, F.,
Colorado, D., & Grajales, L. (2011). Reading comprehension in face-to-face and web-based modalities:
Graduate students’ use of reading and language learning strategies in
EFL. Colombian Applied Linguistics
Journal, 13(2), 11-28.
Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diaries in teacher education programs. In J. Richards, & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp.
215-226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1991). Diary studies
of classroom language teaching: The doubting game and the believing game. In E. Sadono (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp.
60-102). Singapore, SG: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Bailey, K.
M., & Ochsner, R. (1983). A
methodological review of the diary studies: Windmill tilting or social science?
In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 188-198). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Block, E. (1986). The
comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.
Brenneman, K., & Louro, I. (2008). Science journal in
the preschool classroom. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 113-119.
Brown, C. (1985). Two windows on the
classroom world: Diary studies and participant observation differences. In P.
E. Larson, E. L. Judd, & D. S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL ‘84: Brave New World for TESOL (pp. 121-134).
Washington DC: TESOL.
Brown, D. (1994). Teaching by principles (1st ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Carrell, P. (1998). Can reading
strategies be successfully taught? ARAL, 21(1), 1-20.
Cassany,
D. (2006). Tras las líneas [Following the lines]. Barcelona, ES: Editorial Anagrama.
Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.,
& Robbins, J. (1999). The
learning strategies handbook. New York, NY: Longman.
Chen, H.,
& Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of
motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in
Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1(1), 153-174.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Curtis, A.,
& Bailey, K. (2009). Diary studies. OnCue Journal, 3(1), 67-85.
Dendinger, M. (2000). How to organize a focus
group. Meetings
and conventions. Retrieved
from: http://www.meetings-conventions.com/articles/how-to-organizea-focus-group/c10136.aspx
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments
for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3),
203-229.
Ellis, R. (1989). Classroom learning
styles and their effect on second language acquisition: A study of two
learners. System, 17(2), 249-262.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to
understanding. Boston, MA: Newbury
House.
González,
M. (2000). La habilidad de la lectura: sus implicaciones en la enseñanza
del inglés como lengua extranjera o como segunda lengua [Reading comprehension: Implications for the teaching
of English as a foreign or second language]. Retrieved
from: http://www.utp.edu.co/~chumanas/revistas/revistas/rev19/gonzalez.htm
Goodson, I.,
& Sikes, P. (2001). Life history
research in educational settings: Learning from lives. London, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching
and researching reading. London, UK: Pearson Education.
Hosenfeld, C. (1979).
A learning-teaching view of second language instruction.
Foreign Language Annals, 12(1), 51-54.
Janzen, J. (2001). Strategic reading on a sustained content theme. In J.
Murphy, & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding
the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching (pp.
369-389). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Jeffrey, D.,
& Hadley, G. (2002). Balancing intuition with insight:
Reflective teaching through diary studies. The Language Teacher Online, 26(5), Retrieved
from http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/05/jeffrey
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the “Black
Box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 29(1), 1-30.
Lopera, S. (2012). Effects of
strategy instruction in an EFL reading comprehension course: A case study. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 14(1), 79-89.
McDonough J., & McDonough, S.
(1997). Research
methods for English language teachers. London, UK: Arnold.
Merriam, S.
(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications
in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mikulecky, B., &
Jeffries, L. (2004). Reading
power. United States: Pearson, Longman.
Numrich, C. (1996).
On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131-151.
Nunan, D. (1992).
Research methods in
language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osorno, J., & Lopera, S. (2012). Interaction in an EFL
reading comprehension distance web-based course. Íkala, Revista de
Lenguaje y Cultura, 17(1), 41-54.
Oxford,
R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language
learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
Palmer, C. (1992). Diaries for self-assessment and INSET programme
evaluation. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 15(3), 227-238.
Poole, A. (2009). The reading
strategies used by male and female Colombian university students. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 11(1), 29-40.
Russell, T.,
& Munby, H. (1991). Reframing: The role of experience in developing teachers’
professional knowledge. In D. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on
educational practice (pp. 164-187). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schmidt, R.,
& Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A
case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H. W.
(1983). The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4(3),
179-191.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2).
Retrieved from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR32/tellis1.html
Weir, C.
(1993). Understanding and developing
language tests. Hemel Hempstead, UK:
Prentice Hall.
Yin, R. K.
(2003). Case study research. Design and methods. (3rd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
About the Author
Sergio Lopera
Medina, candidate
for the PhD in linguistics, MA in linguistics; specialist in teaching foreign
languages. His research interests are teaching EFL reading comprehension,
compliments in pragmatics. He is a member of the research group EALE (Enseñanza y Aprendizaje en
Lenguas Extranjeras) and a
full time teacher at Universidad de Antioquia (Colombia).