What we can conclude, however, is that output in the form of summary writing, with and without the kind of correction usually provided in language classes, did not add to the power of reading.

Insisting that output must be accompanied by feedback on communicative success, and/or that error correction needs to be done in a precise manner is equivalent to saying that extraordinary efforts on the parts of students and teachers are necessary to improve on the power of reading, a conclusion that leaves unexplained the fact that so many students have acquired significant amounts of language without them.

REFERENCES

Allen, V. G., Allen, E. D., 1985. Story retelling: Developmental stages in second-language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 686-691.

Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T., Fielding, L.G., 1988. Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285- 303.

Axe, R., Bell, I., 2004. Using TOEFL ITP and TOEIC to assess students. Paper presented at the 38th annual TESOL convention, Long Beach, CA.

Brett, A., Rothlein, L., Hurley, M., 1996. Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal. 96, 415-421.

Burger, S., 1989. Content-Based ESL in a Sheltered Psychology Course: Input, Output, and Outcomes. TESL Canada, 6, 45-59.

Cathcart, R., Olsen, J., 1976. Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow and R. Crymes (Eds.) On TESOL '76. Washington, DC: TESOL, 41-53.

Chandler, J., 2003. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.

16