System, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.

359-369,
Printed in Great Britain

DOES PRACTICE

1993

0346-251X193 $6.00 + 0.00

0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

WITH DICTATION
SKILLS?

ABDOLJAVAD

JAFARPUR

IMPROVE

and MORTAZA

LANGUAGE

YAMINI

Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Evidence suggests that double model inputs that combine visual and auditory stimuli
are more powerful than those involving visual or auditor stimuli alone. This study
has experimented with dictation that integrates the stream of speech and its written
representation
in an attempt to determine if repeated practice in taking dictation
improves the students language skills. The findings of this study are discussed
in the light of the effect and amount of instruction,
the incubation
hypothesis,
and the fossilization
hypothesis.

INTRODUCTION
It is a truism that adequate appropriate
input must be available to a language learner in
order for a language to be learned. Language ability cannot be taught directly; it rather
emerges over time as a result of good input. However, we know very little about the nature
of this input. What is good input ? What type of good input can supply maximum
comprehensible
data? What mode of input best offers optimal input? Is processing the
input represented visually or auditorily alone more profitable than that represented by both?
Working with film subtitles, Lambert (1986) has demonstrated
that single-channel
L2 inputs
are less effective for L2 comprehension
and memory than are certain two-channel
model
input combinations.
Lambert (1986: p. 85) reasons that:
. . . the double model input may be processed more deeply because attention can alternate
from the auditory to the visual format or be directed along parallel visual and auditory routes
simultaneously.
Rather than being a distraction,
the double model input appears to enhance
comprehension
better than simply processing script through silent reading.
Lambert (1986: p. 86) claims that, since the visual stimulus is much more powerful than
the auditory in enhancing message comprehension
and meaning, the input that is visually
introduced:
. . leaves a longer and perhaps deeper impression of the message
more ephemeral impression aroused by auditory inputs.
Lamberts results find support
eye in the long-term retention

from Kelly (1992), who reports

of lexis.

359

than does the apparently

that the ear does assist the

~\RIWLJA\VAIl

760

JAI~ARIIJR

and MOR~A7.A

YAMlNl

One procedure that best embodies the lineaments

of dual-access processing is clicfation.
Dictation allows the language learner to both comprehend
and produce the language in
the context of meaningful
discourse. This procedure has been exercised in many forms
in education
since antiquity
(Sawyer and Silver, 1961; Oller, 1972, 1979); however, the
literature on dictation is essentially confined to its use as a testing rather than a teaching
device. Until recently, it was assumed that dictation
cannot teach anything new, it can
only test existing knowledge (Bruton, 1956: p. 111). Even so, dictation was seen exclusively
as a spelling test (Somaratne,
1957). Testers regarded
dictation
as an imprecise,
uneconomical,
and uninformative
testing device (Lado, 1961; Harris, 1969). Lado (19613,
for instance, believed that dictation measures very little of the language. He claimed that:
Since the order of words is given by the examiner as he reads the material, it does not test
word order. Since the words are given by the examiner, it does not test vocabulary.
It hardly
tests aural perception of the examiners pronunciation,
because the words can in many cases
be identified by context if the student does not hear the sounds correctly (Lado, 1961: p. 34).

Such dissatisfaction
with dictation
seems to have been due to the inadequacies
of the
linguistic and psychological
foundations
upon which the so-called scientific method of
language teaching popular in the 1950s and 1960s was based. Structural linguists segmented
language into skills, aspects of skills, components and elements, and behavioral psychologists
considered
learning as habit formation.
Accordingly,
language learning was believed to
involve:
acquiring varying degrees of facility for each phoneme and sequence of phonemes;
for
each word, part of word, pattern of words; for the parts of speech, modification
structures,
and parts of sentences; and for each sentence type and sequence of sentences (Lado, 1961: p. 39).

Sounds, combination
of sounds, and structural
patterns were systematically
introduced
and practiced, and repracticed,
and learners received thorough drilling in the production
and variation of elements so that they would be able to use them automatically.
Hence,
for example, a teaching point might have involved such minimal pairs as bit and beat in
isolation.
Obviously,

practice

had to be given orally.

Methodologists

argued that language

should not be introduced to a writing system until the sounds of the language
bkerns
have been thoroughly
learned (Sawyer and Silver, 1961: p. 33).

learners:
and their

Accordingly,
the use of dictation under such conditions
must have been counter to the
prevailing
approaches
to language
education
that immensely
accentuated
the spoken
language as the model. In substance,
it was believed that dictation mixed listening and
writing, provided no diagnostic
information,
and had an unfortunate
washback effect
(Davies, 1977).
Nonetheless,
with the present interest in integration
(rather than isolation),
and also the
recent interest in communication
and global teaching and testing, dictation has been steadily
gaining prominence.
It is now reasoned that, since speakers of a language naturally tend
to use their language across two or more skills, dictation can be a potential
means of

DOES PRACTICE

WITH DICTATION IMPROVE LANGUAGE

SKILLS?

language teaching and testing. Language is now considered a whole phenomenon,

cannot and should not be broken into pieces (Oller, 1979).

361

which

Pragmatic dictation has been employed as an indirect measure of functional language skills
for quite some time now (Oller, 1972, 1979; Oller and Streiff, 1975). It involves the reading
of a passage of discourse while the subjects write down what they hear. Specifically, the
text is presented 3 times. First, it is read through at normal conversational
speed and the
subjects only listen. The second time the text is read with pauses at natural boundaries,
with chunks of about 5-10 words between every two pauses. The subjects write down in
full what is presented to them orally. The text is read for the third time at normal speed
again so that the subjects can review their writings and make corrections.
Punctuation
is
provided in the second reading. Each correctly written word is credited, and spelling errors
are ignored unless they affect meaning.
Research shows that spelling is unrelated to other language skills (Oller, 1979: p. 280;
Bacheller, 1980: p. 71). Research also indicates that taking dictation calls for an active
and creative involvement
in the language. Because the materials are presented in sequences
at normal conversational
speed, dictation challenges the limits of the short-term, memory
of the learners
and forces a deeper level of processing than mere phonetic echoing
(Oller, 1979: p. 273). Indeed, Oller and Streiff (1975: p. 78) claim that dictation
activates
the learners internalized
grammer
of expectancy
and that a dictation
test yields
substantial information
concerning his overall proficiency in the language.
Furthermore,
the dictation test has been consistently
shown to correlate with widely-used language tests
(Oller, 1972, 1979; Irvine et al., 1974; Oller and Streiff, 1975; Stump, 1978; Savignon,
1982). Oller and Streiff (1975), for instance, on the basis of high correlations
between
dictation and traditional discrete-point tests contend that dictation is an excellent measure
of overall language proficiency.
In their judgement,
dictation provides:
more information
&eexperts

than some other tests that have been blessed with greater approval

(Oiler and Streiff,

by

1975: p. 34).

Kaga (1991) reports that dictation is an adequate and effective measure of proficiency levels
for learners of languages which have a good fit between pronunciation
and orthography.
Moreover,
dictation has been experienced
with both native and nonnative
speakers of
English. Fishman (1980) found that native and nonnative
speakers of English make the
same kinds of errors in taking dictation and in roughly the same proportion.
In brief,
pragmatic dictation that integrates the stream of speech and its written representation
in
its entirety is accordingly the most perfect amalgamation
of functions and abilities. This
is something no other procedure offers. Compared with a composition,
for example, a
dictation enables the subject to produce utterances that are both syntactically
well-formed
and semantically acceptable. No other procedure would allow a subject with limited language
ability to do so.
In the light of the dual-access processing that was cited earlier, Lambert
systematic practice with dictation on the grounds that:
. . if it were to become routinized,

pupils would learn to carefully

(1986: p. 86) favors

code and store for future

362

ABDOLJAVAD

reference
courses.

the all-important

JAFARPUR

and MORTAZA

L2 script materials

YAMINI

encountered

in second

and foreign

language

In fact, since in taking dictation the subject alters and harmonizes his perception, conception,
and expression, one wonders if repeated practice with such a procedure will positively affect
and consolidate
language skills and abilities. Despite the recent interest in dictation,
the
effect of systematic
dictation
practice on improving
language skills has not yet been
thoroughly investigated. There have been sporadic statements for or against such an exercise
but there exists no in-depth analysis to substantiate
the claims. Valette (1964: p. 434), for
example, states that frequent dictkes stimulate student awareness of the written language.
Kirn (1972), on the other hand, did not find substantially
higher scores after the subjects
had had extensive practice in taking dictation.
The intent of this study is to investigate
effect on the learners language skills.

if systematic

practice

in taking

dictation

has any

EXPERIMENT
This experiment was performed to determine if repeated practice in taking dictation improves
the subjects knowledge of structure and vocabulary, their skills in listening comprehension,
reading comprehension,
taking dictation,
and completing
cloze passages.

Subjects
The subjects in the experiment were 44 English majors enrolled in Conversation
I in the
Department
of Foreign Languages and Linguistics
at Shiraz University
during the Fall
semester of 1991. They were placed into two sections: an experimental
group (EG) and
a control group (CC?). Each section comprised 22 students who were matched for their
sex, age, and level of English proficiency.
However, since only 17 students from the EC
took all the post-tests, the scores of 17 students from the CG that had delineated similar
characteristics at the onset of the experiment were included in the study. The subjects varied
in age from 18 to 38 years with a mean age of 24. Five of the students in each section
were females and the other 12 were males. During the semester that this experiment was
being carried out, the subjects were also taking courses in Structure and Beginning Writing,
Persian, Physical Education,
and Religion I.

Procedures
The Conversation
class met for four sessions a week, 1 hr each, for a total of 16 weeks.
The objectives of the course were to enable the participants
to perceive and produce the
segmental and suprasegmental
phonemes of English. The students were exposed to both
British and American English. The instructional
materials comprised the following books
and their accompanying
tapes:
(1) Arnold, G. F. and Gimson, A. C. (1973) English Pronunciation Practice, 2nd Edition.
Hodder & Stoughton.
(2) Gimson,
A. C. (1975) A Practical Course of English Pronunciation: a Perceptual
Approach. Edward Arnold.
(3) Orion, G. F. (1988) Pronouncing American English. Newbury House.

DOES PRACTICE

WITH DICTATION

IMPROVE

LANGUAGE

SKILLS?

363

The two sections followed the same syllabus, and the present researchers took turns in
conducting them. The EG, in addition, took a total of 60 dictations during the whole course,
almost one in each class period. These dictation exercises included passages of connected
discourse of about 55-156 words (which were basically collected from dictation tests utilized
by various researchers) with various styles and content. The passages also varied with regards
to difficulty,
ranging from very easy to very hard on the SRA Reading Ease Calculator
(General Motors Corporation,
1950). Thirty of the dictation exercises were played from
a tape, which had been recorded by native speakers of English, and the other 30 were given
live by the researchers themselves.
Each dictation exercise took about 5 min for the EG. Each dictation was presented 3 times.
First, it was presented at normal speed while the students only listened. Second, it was
read with pauses at natural boundaries
and the students wrote down what they heard.
Punctuation
marks were dictated. Finally, the text of the dictation was presented at normal
speed and the subjects were asked to review their writings.
The students writings were collected and corrected by an assistant. Missing and misspelled
words were written in red. Additions were crossed out and transpositions
were related to
their whereabouts.
Scoring was done by allowing one point for every word in the text.
Every session, before the instructor gave a new dictation, the corrected previous dication
was returned to and reviewed with the students. Each review took about 3 min. In order
to compensate
for the time spent on dictation, three extra sessions were arranged for the
EG so that the syllabus could be covered with almost the same amount of exercise as that
for the CG. The subjects were not informed of the objectives of the study.

Instrumentation
The English Placement Test, Form B (Corrigan

et al., 1978) was used as both the preand post-tests. This test covers the four basic areas of listening, grammar,
vocabulary,
and reading. The listening subtest consists of 20 three-choice items which are of two types.
In one, the examinees hear from a tape a question and respond by selecting an appropriate
reply from the answer choices given in their testbook.
In the other, the tape makes a
statement and the testees have to choose the phrase or sentence which corresponds
to it
in meaning. The grammar subtest includes 30 four-choice items. The vocabulary
subtest
consists of 30 incomplete sentences with four given choices. Finally, each of the 20 reading
items comprises a sentence followed by a comprehension
question. The subjects are offered
four answer choices, only one of which is correct. The test takes 75 min to administer.
Moreover, during the last two sessions of the classes in the two sections, the students were
administered
a cloze test and three dictations.
The cloze test comprised 20 deletions in a
passage of 193 words excerpted from Smith et al. (1975: pp. 24-31), a reader at levels 15-16
with a Flesch (1948) readability
score of 79 or easy. An experimental
version of this
test with 25 deletions constructed with a sixth-word-deletion
rate had already been exercised
with 325 EFL subjects and modifications
had been made on the basis of the results of
the item analysis. The dictation passages were separate texts extracted from ESL/EFL
readers. Dictation 1 contained
135 words and was rated easy, dictation 2 consisted of
86 words and was rated hard,
and dictation 3 included 172 words and was rated very
easy. Dictations
1 and 3 were read by one EFL instructor
and dictation 2 by another,

364

ARDOLJAVAD

JAFARPUR

and

MORTAZA

YAMlNl

both readers being unfamiliar

to the subjects in either section. The dictation passages were
recorded on a tape, and presented to the subjects in the same manner as the dictation
exercises had been practiced in class. All the students took dictations
1 and 2 on one day
and dictation 3 on the other. The dictations were graded by allowing one point for each
word in the text.
Finally, all the students took a written midterm test, a written final test, and an oral test
as part of the requirements
of the course. However, since these measures did not contribute
any information
to the topic under study, the scores from these measures were excluded
from the analysis.
Results and discussion
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the scores of the subjects on the
four subsections
of the pretest for the two groups. The students in the EG appear more
proficient in grammar and vocabulary
than their peers in the CG. On the other hand, the
students
in the CG seem better to about the same extent in listening and reading.
Nevertheless,
as Table 2 indicates, none of the differences between the mean scores of the
groups on any of the subtests or total test scores is statistically
significant.
These results
support the claim made earlier on matched selection for grouping.

Table

1. Descriptive

statistics

Experimental

for the 070 scores of the subjects

group

(IV= 17)

on the pretest

Control

group

(N= 17)

Subtest

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Listening
Grammar
Vocabulary
Reading
Total

42.35
67.25
57.05
44.70
52.84

21.14
22.73
22.69
27.75
20.16

46.47
65.29
55.88
45.00
53.16

21.26
21.57
26.31
22.84
20.64

Table 2. I value for differences between means of EC

and CC for the pretest
Mean difference

t value

Pretest
Listening
Grammar
Vocabulary
Reading
Total

Table 3 shows the means and

measures for the two groups.
in grammar and those in the
the CG in vocabulary.
Yet,

-0.57
0.26
0.14
~ 0.03
- 0.05

Significance
None
None
None
None
None

standard deviations of the scores of the students on the postAlthough the students in the EC have retained their superiority
CG in listening and reading, the EG is no longer better than
none of the differences between the mean scores of the EG

DOES PRACTICE

WITH DICTATION

IMPROVE

LANGUAGE

SKILLS?

365

and the CG is statistically significant. There is not even any significant difference between
the mean scores of the subjects in the EG and those of the students in the CG for any
of the dictation tests. Table 4 offers the results of group l-tests on the differences between
the subjects mean scores on all post-measures
for the two groups.

Table

3. Descriptive

statistics

for the % scores of the subjects

Experimental

group

(N= 17)

on the post-measures
Control

group

(N= 17)

Post-measure

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Listening
Grammar
Vocabulary
Reading
Dictation
1
Dictation 2
Dictation 3
Exact cloze
Acceptable
cloze
Total dictation
Total EPT

55.88
12.94
64.31
56.17
54.03
21.93
60.03
32.35
57.94
45.33
62.32

19.14
20.71
22.47
23.42
18.47
07.41
20.92
15.21
24.68
14.65
19.14

57.49
69.01
67.64
59.70
55.33
21.29
56.17
34.11
66.17
44.26
63.51

20.50
23.91
23.08
25.34
17.51
07.03
21.01
15.23
25.34
14.07
21.58

Table 4.

t value for differences

Post-measure
Listening
Grammar
Vocabulary
Reading
Dictation
1
Dictation 2
Dictation 3
E cloze
A cloze
Total dictation
Total EPT

between
for the post-measure

means of two groups

t value
- 0.30
0.51
-0.43
- 0.42
- 0.21
0.26
0.54
-0.34
- 0.96
0.22
-0.18

None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None

Taken together, these results seem to indicate that repeated practice with dictation did not
have any effect on the language skills of the subjects in the EG. This finding concurs with
that of Kirn (1972) who found no substantially
higher scores after extensive practice in
taking dictation. In essence, this finding lends support to recent research on second language
acquisition that claims learners do not learn what teachers teach them. Krashen (1981, 1982)
and Lightbown (1983), for instance, believe that instruction
as commonly conceived and
practiced is of little or no help to learners. As a matter of fact, Pica (1983) claims that,
if there is an effect for instruction,
then it seems likely to have more to do with the processes
of acquisition
than with the course of linguistic development.
While it may be true that dictation is not an effective exercise and that language
is autonomous
of the context and input, the results of the present experiment

acquisition
need to be

AHDOLJAVAD

366

JAFARPLJR and MORTAZA

YAMlNl

interpreted
more cautiously.
The following represent three possible interpretations,
each
of which appears quite rational within the limited scope of the experiment.
For instance,
one can claim that the use of dictation with the EC did not show any effect because this
much exercise with dictation was simply insufficient. It is quite conceivable that the dictation
practice would have probably improved the experimental
subjects language skills if they
had received more training in it.
Lightbown et a/. (1980) and Allwright (1984) claim that, since language learning is a very
gradual process, it needs an incubation
period before any evidence of learning can be
expected to appear in the performance of the learners. Since this hypothesis appears relevant,
it was decided to test the veracity of the results of the present experiment against it. To
do so, the subjects in the two groups were retested for listening comprehension
one semester
after the experiment had been completed. Thirteen students from the CC and 12 from the
EG were available for retesting.
The retest consisted of a general listening comprehension
test with 60 problems which had
been recorded by a native speaker of English unfamiliar
to the students in either group.
These problems were of three types. In the first kind, the students were asked a question
to which they responded by selecting an appropriate
reply from four given choices. In the
second kind, a statement was made and the students chose from among four phrases or
sentences the one that corresponded
in meaning to it. In the third kind, a statement or
a question with special emphasis was presented and the students chose the one answer that
told what the speaker would have probably said next, or that which answered the question.
Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of the scores of the subjects in the
two groups. A group I-test applied to the difference between the means of the two groups
revealed no statistically
significant
results (t value = 0.16, df = 23, p = nonsignificant).
Assuming that the effect of the dictation exercise-if
any-would
have been detected by
the listening test, the supposition that observable changes would surface after an incubation
period is thereby rejected. However, because the test administered
after one semester
comprised listening comprehension
only, these results cannot be overgeneralized.

Table

5. Descriptive

statistics for the retest for the two groups

Group

Maximum possible
score

Mean

SD

Experimental
Control

12
13

60
60

35.917
36.539

08.218
10.461

Finally,
another
conceivable
alternative
interpretation
would be to attribute
the
ineffectiveness
of the dictation drill to fossilization
(Selinker, 1972). Fossilization
is the
state of affairs that exists when the learner ceases to elaborate his interlanguage
in some
respect, no matter how long that there is exposure, new data, or new teaching. It is quite
possible that the subjects language skills had been fossilized before the experiment started.
Of course,

none of the foregoing

denies the validity

of dictation

as a measure

of general

DOES

PRACTICE

WITH

DICTATION

IMPROVE

LANGUAGE

SKILLS?

361

language ability. As the correlation

coefficients between the dictation tests and the other
post-measures-shown
in Table 6-indicate,
there is substantial
to very high overlapping
between dictation scores and scores from other measures. This upholds previous research
that regards pragmatic dictation tests as good predictors of total performance on a language
proficiency battery (Valette, 1964; Oller, 1972, 1979). Moreover, the correlation coefficient
between dictation and acceptable cloze scores (0.899 for the EG and 0.888 for the CG)
is higher than those between dictation and exact cloze scores (0.850 for the EG and 0.832
for the CC) (Oller, 1972, 1979; Stubbs and Tucker, 1974; Swain et al., 1976).
Table 6. Correlation coefficients among post-measures for the two groups
Experimental group

Dictation 1
Dictation 2
Dictation 3
Total dictation

Listening

Grammar

Vocabulary

Reading

E cloze

A cloze

0.786
0.657
0.833
0.837

0.686
0.881
0.665
0.754

0.736
0.916
0.747
0.819

0.711
0.595
0.756
0.759

0.843
0.751
0.777
0.850

0.826
0.891
0.843
0.899

Control group

Dictation 1
Dictation 2
Dictation 3
Total dictation

Listening

Grammar

Vocabulary

Reading

E cloze

A cloze

0.776
0.835
0.754
0.837

0.729
0.887
0.759
0.829

0.840
0.799
0.874
0.917

0.700
0.902
0.746
0.812

0.809
0.662
0.776
0.832

0.842
0.861
0.793
0.888

Conclusion
The use of repeated dictation has been investigated
in this study, using both an EG and
a CG. The results revealed no significant difference in the language skills of the experimental
subjects. The results were further examined from a number of perspectives. It was argued,
for example, that the null results were either due to the lack of effect of any instruction
or the fact that the amount of exercise was insufficient.
Moreover, the results were tested
against the incubation
hypothesis.
Although the truthfulness
of this hypothesis could
not be substantiated,
it could not be rejected either, because the measure that was used
only consisted of a listening comprehension
test. Finally it was suggested that the absence
of any observable change in the EG could be due to the fossilization
of the interlanguage
of the subjects prior to the onset of the experiment. While all of these interpretations
seem
logical, one or all could be at work.
Yet, of course, a number
p. 9) state that:

of other factors

may also be involved.

Tarone

and Yule (1989:

. . decisions about how to present the best learning experience for a group of students
inevitably depend on the individual teachers ability to work out what those students appear
to need, while also remaining aware of what they expect to happen in the learning situation.
Although researchers
that can be generally

are not definite as to what the best single view of the learning process
applied to language teaching is, learners aims and expectations
are

368

ABDOLJAVAD

JAFAKPUK

and

MORTAZA

YAMINI

vital elements of success. The core of the problem is that each language learner possesses
a unique human attribute. Each attribute contributes to the human dignity of the individual
learner in its own right (Stevick, 1990). Accordingly,
while:

iif&

language learners go their own way in developmental sequences, etc., their classroom input
their language in broad terms (Cook, 1991: p. 99).

After all, it may be quite possible that our instruments

are not capable of detecting such
effects yet. As Skehan (1991: p. 19) states, we probably
need instruments
that are
development-driven
not material-driven.
Additional
research on the topic is considered
necessary in order to resolve the issue under study. Even if the results turn out to be null
again, they indicate that the amount of practice given is inadequate;
the null results should
not be used as an argument against dictation because, for language to be meaningful,
it
has to be presented as a whole rather than in pieces.

REFERENCES
ALLWRIGHT,
5, 156-171.

R. L. (1984) The importance

of interaction

in classroom

language

learning.

ilpplied

Linguislics

BACHELLER,
F. (1980) Communicative
effectiveness as predicted by judgements of the severity of learner errors
in dictations.
In Oller, J. W. and Perkins, K. (eds), Research in Language Testing, pp. 66-71. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
BRUTON, .I. G. (1956) Dictation.
Teaching English 3(l), 4-6. Reprinted
Extrucfs, pp. 110-l 12. London:
Longman.
COOK,

V. (1991) Second

CORRIGAN,
Certification,

Language

Learning

A., DOBSON,
B., SPAAN,
University of Michigan.

DAVIES, A. (1977) The construction

Experimental
Methods, pp. 38-104.

and Language
M. and TYMA,

Teaching.

in Pyrne,
London:

S. (1978) English

D. (ed.), English
Edward

Arnold.

Placemen/

of language tests. In Allen, J. P. B. and Davies,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teaching

Test. Testing

A. (eds),

Testing and

FISHMAN,
M. (1980) We all make the same mistakes: a comparative
study of native and non-native
taking dictation.
In Oller J. W. and Perkins, K. (eds), Research in Language Testing, pp. 187-197.
MA: Newbury House.
FLESCH,

R. (1948) A formula

GENERAL

MOTORS

HARRIS,

KELLY,

P. and OLLER,
24, 245-252.

M. (1991) Dictation

readability.

(1950) SRA

D. P. (1969) Testing English

IRVINE, P., ATAI,

Languuge Learning
KAGA,

for predicting

CORPORATION

as a Second

Journal

Reading

as a measure

Language.

of Japanese

New York:

S. (1981) Second Language

KRASHEN,

S. (1982) Principles

LADO,

R. (1961) Language

LAMBERT,
acquisition.
Perspectives,

Acquhilion

and Practice

proficiency.

Testing.

New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Language

retention

Language

Tesfing S(2), 112-124.

of lexis? IRAL

2, 137-145.

and clore tests. Unpublished

and Second Language

in Second

32, 674-680.

and the Test of English as a Foreign Language.

KIRN, H. (1972) The effect of practice on performance

on dictation
UCLA. Abstracted
in UCLA Workpapers in TESL 6, 102.
KRASHEN,

Psychology

errors in
Rowley,

Ease Calculator.

J. W. (1974) Cloze, dictation,

P. (1992) Does the ear assist the eye in the long-term

of Applied

and

Learning.

Acquisition.

Oxford:

Oxford:

masters

thesis,

Pergamon

Press.

Pergamon

Press.

McGraw-Hill.

W. E. (1986) Pairing first- and second-language

speech and writing in ways that aid language
In Vaid, J. (ed.), Language Processing in Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic
and Neuropsychological
pp. 65-96. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

LIGHTBOWN,
P. M. (1983) Exploring relationships
between developmental
and instructional
sequences in L2
acquisition. In Selinger, H. W. and Long, M. (eds), Classroom-oriented
Research in Second Languuge Acquisition,
pp. 217-245. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

DOES PRACTICE

WITH DICTATION

IMPROVE

LANGUAGE

SKILLS?

369

LIGHTBOWN,
P. M., SPADA, N. and WALLACE,
R. (1980) Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent
ESL learners. In Scarcella, R. and Krashen, S. (eds), Research in Second Longuage Acquisition.
Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
OLLER,
Teaching

J. W., JR. (1972) Dictation as a test of ESL proficiency.

In Allen, H. B. and Campbell, R. R. (eds),
English as a Second Language: a Book of Readings, pp. 346-354. New York: McGraw-Hill.

OLLER,

J. W., JR. (1979) Languuge

OLLER,

J. W. and STREIFF,

Tests

ut School. London:

V. (1975) Dictation:

PICA, T. (1983) Adult acquisition

Learning 44, 465-497.

of English as a second language

SAVIGNON,
S. J. (1982) Dictation
Language Learning 32, 33-51.

Longman.

a test of grammar-based

as a measure

expectancies.

ELTJottrnaf

under different conditions

of communicative

competence

30.25-36.

of exposure.

Language

in French as a second language.

SAWYER, J. 0. and SILVER, S. K. (1961) Dictation in language learning. Language Learning 11, 33-34. Reprinted
in Selected Articles from Language Learning No. 2, 1963, pp. 249-258.
SELINKER,
SKEHAN,
Language
SMITH,

L. (1972) Interlanguage.

C. B., WARDAUGH,

SOMARATNE,
STEVICK,
STUBBS,
Language

IRAL

10, 209-231.

P. (1991) Progress in language testing: the 1990s. Review of English Language

Testing in the 199Os, pp. 3-21.
R. and SIMS,

S. (1975) Secret Spaces.

W. (1957) Aids and Tests in the Teaching

E. W. (19%) Humanism

in Language

Teaching.

of English.
Oxford:

J. B. and TUCKER, G. R. (1974) The cloze test as a measure

Journal 58, 239-241.

London:
Oxford:

Oxford

Teaching Vol. 1, No. 1:

Macmillan.
Oxford

University

University

Press.

Press.

of English language

proficiency.

Modern

STUMP, T. A. (1978) Cloze and dictation tasks as predictors of intelligence and achievement
scores. In Oiler,
J. W., Jr. and Perkins, K. (eds), Language in Education: Testing the Tests, pp. 36-57. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
SWAIN, M., LAPKIN, S. and BARIK, H. C. (1976) The cloze test as a measure
for young children.
Workingpapers
in Bilingualism 11, 32-44.
TARONE,

E. and

YULE,

of second language

G. (1989) Focus on the Language

Learner.

Oxford:

VALETTE,
R. M. (1964) The use of the dictee in the French
48. 43 1-434.

language

classroom.

Oxford

University

Modern

proficiency
Press.

Language

Journal