1. DRAFT
1
Making the Most of Dialogue Journals
By Kimberly Miller Linnell
What is a Dialogue Journal? How have they been helpful in the
ESL classroom?
Dialogue journals have been a classroom staple for quite some
time and are used in a wide range of teaching situations.
According to Peyton (2000) teachers make use of dialogue
journals when teaching both children and adults, native and non-
native speakers as well as in traditional classrooms and
volunteer programs. What exactly is a dialogue journal? A
dialogue journal is a routine written conversation between the
student and the teacher, though not always just the teacher.
Topics are often chosen by the student or suggested by the
teacher in response to the curriculum or experience. Students
typically record their entries in a bound notebook, leaving
space for the teacher’s written response.
Dialogue journals have various educational benefits(Peyton 1993,
2000). For example, they are an effective tool for dealing with
the challenges of teaching large classes. Journals connect the
teacher with each student, individually. They also make
teaching in a multi-level classroom more manageable because of
the individual nature of the task. Furthermore, for the adult

2. DRAFT
2
learner, the journal is a place where students can bring their
life and cultural background into the classroom. Not only does
this make the communication more meaningful and authentic, but
more personal, placing the student at the center of learning.
Dialogue journals are especially useful in the ESL classroom.
In fact, they are ideally suited for language learning, meeting
many of the conditions believed necessary for the acquisition of
a second language.
First, dialogue journals provide a context for meaningful
communication. Researchers in the field of second language
acquisition have found meaningful communication, the give and
take of messages in the target language, as a requisite
condition for second language acquisition. “The essential claim
is that people of all ages learn languages best, inside or
outside a classroom, not by treating the languages as an object
of study, but by experiencing them as a medium of communication”
(Long, 1998). Authentic communication has typically been the
overarching goal of dialogue journals. Peyton (2000) states,
“The teacher is primarily a participant in an ongoing written
conversation with the learner rather than an evaluator who
corrects of comments on the quality of the learner’s writing.”
Secondly, the teacher’s journal responses provide students with
comprehensible input that is slightly above their current level

3. DRAFT
3
of proficiency. Comprehensible input theory (Krashen, 1982)
claims that in order to acquire a second language, students need
exposure to the target language that is comprehensible and only
slightly beyond their current level of acquisition. Being
fully aware of the students’ level of proficiency (based on the
journal entries), the teacher can respond with language that is
understandable to the student, though perhaps slightly beyond
the student’s current level of proficiency—making for ideal
language input.
In addition to comprehensible input, students need opportunities
for output in order to become proficient in a second language.
Ellis (2008) summarizes the findings of three research studies
on the role of output in second language acquisition. According
to these studies, language production causes the learner to take
notice of grammar, test hypotheses, automatize what they have
learned, get useful feedback, learn discourse skills, and help
learners acquire a voice as they guide conversations toward
topics of interest.
Journals are an ideal setting for language output. In a journal,
students get the floor and put their thoughts and feelings into
language. Although students may not be able to develop oral
discourse skills in a journal, they can develop written
discourse skills as they converse with their teacher and

4. DRAFT
4
classmates in writing. In addition, their entries draw out
better input in the teachers’ responses. Furthermore, when
students commit words to paper, they pay attention to their
grammar and test their current understanding of the target
language. Finally, by having some control of the topic,
students develop a voice in the second language, and their own
words, reflected upon, are a source of language input.
Not only do second language learners need opportunities for
input and output, but research has shown the importance of
interaction as well. According to Long’s (1998) interaction
hypothesis, the acquisition of a second language is enhanced
when learners need to resolve a communication problem by
modifying their output and correcting their errors in order to
be understood. Although journals do not elicit that feedback
immediately as in spoken discourse, they do provide a context
where teachers can ask for clarification and provide feedback
that will push students toward more native like language.
As noted above, understanding the student’s current level of
proficiency is important for helping the teacher fine tune the
level of their written feedback, making optimal comprehensible
input more likely. However, being familiar with a student’s
level of language acquisition serves other purposes as well.
Second language acquisition theorists generally agree that

5. DRAFT
5
meaningful communication and opportunities for output may be
insufficient conditions for the acquisition of a second
language. In order to make progress, students need to pay
attention to the forms of the language as well as their meaning.
Using the journals as data, the teacher can design grammar
lessons in response to common student errors (Peyton, 2000).
For example, if a teacher notices common, repetitive errors in
count and non-count nouns, an inductive or deductive grammar
lesson can be designed on the topic. For a deductive approach,
student written errors can be analyzed (modifying the journal
examples to maintain confidentiality) as a class in order to
infer the rule. A deductive lesson would highlight the rule
first, and then give opportunities to practice the form and
revise their own errors.
Providing grammar lessons, an “intensive approach” (Ellis,2008)
is certainly one way to focus on form. However, Ellis points
out that the approach takes time and is limited in the scope of
errors that can be addressed. Teachers can address a wider
range of errors in a shorter time span when they correct errors
as they happen in student output. Dialogue journals present the
teacher with an optimal opportunity to point out errors in the
student’s language. The challenge is how to do this without

6. DRAFT
6
compromising the meaningful communication and authentic
interaction that is so fundamental to the journal.
The Challenge of Corrective Feedback
Peyton (2000) points out that one of the main challenges of
dialogue journals is the role of corrective feedback. Dialogue
journals are a venue for free communication, a place where
students can express themselves without the fear of the dreaded
red pen. However, to make the most of journals, it would be
ideal to incorporate some corrective feedback in this meaningful
context. Ellis (1996) suggested that “advanced speaking and
writing proficiency necessary for achievement of students
academic and vocabulary goals require explicit focus on form.”
Is it possible to provide feedback that is extensive, covering a
range of structures frequently over time and is “individualized”
without impairing the communicative nature of the journal? There
is some reason to believe that for the non-native speaker
incorporating corrective feedback may be possible without
sacrificing the conversational tone of the medium.
First, corrections are less likely to hinder the communicative
nature of the journal if the teacher has laid the groundwork for
meaningful communication first—which may mean withholding

7. DRAFT
7
grammar correction initially. During the initial phase, the
teacher and student build a venue for meaningful communication.
The teacher helps students develop a routine for writing and
establishes guidelines for how much (or how long) the students
should write. As in all phases of journal keeping, students are
given a rich menu of writing topics; teachers interact with
their ideas, and introduce new topics in response to their
ideas. This introductory get-to-know you phase not only
establishes the journal as a place for meaningful, interactive
communication but also enables the teacher to become acclimated
to the students’ language needs.
Secondly, corrective feedback does not necessarily have to shut
down the communication channels. As Schulz (1998) points out,
most English language learners are favorable towards some focus
on form and negative feedback. Students from other cultures
often request correction and feel short changed by the teacher
who does not deliver it. As a result, students, especially
adults, typically want more than a written conversation in their
journals. Corrective feedback may actually encourage students
to provide more output rather than hinder communication.
Thirdly, corrections can be a natural part of the dialogue.
Just as an interlocutor would request clarification and
confirmation in response to a misunderstanding, the teacher can

8. DRAFT
8
legitimately do the same without detracting from the dialogue.
“I’m not sure I’m following you here. What do you mean by….?”
“Did you mean to say ….?” Errors can also be recast by the
teacher in their correct form. For example, the teacher writes
“You went to the mall last weekend. What did you buy?”
(recasting the student’s sentence, “I go the mall last
weekend”).
In addition, there are strategies for providing correction in a
discrete manner (Peyton, 2000). For example, corrective feedback
can be written as a “P.S.” to the student. This strategy
underscores the primary importance of meaningful dialogue and
the secondary importance of correct grammar usage. Another
tactic is to pre-teach items that students can then incorporate
into their journal entries. In this way, students can focus on
form prior to the journal assignment and then attempt to
incorporate the targeted structures into their journal entries.
Vocabulary words related to a particular theme, for example, can
be handled this way. After learning the vocabulary in class,
the students incorporate some of the targeted words into their
writing on a relevant theme. The same strategy can be used to
address grammatical forms. In his application of cognitive
perspectives on language learning, DeKeyser (1998) states that
having this declarative knowledge in mind whilst completing a

9. DRAFT
9
communicative task helps that language form to become procedural
knowledge or automatized. The teacher can teach a lesson on
comparative adjectives, for example, and then set up a journal
entry that requires students to compare two people, places, or
things—utilizing the forms taught in class when possible.
Another way to focus on form without killing the content is to
put the onus on students for soliciting grammatical feedback.
In the blank spaces of the journal, reserved for teacher
comments, the student can ask their specific questions about the
grammatical correctness of their entries. The teacher can
actually pre-teach these questions so that students have an
arsenal of questions to guide them. (“Did I spell __________
correctly?”; “Is ___________ word used correctly?”; “Is this
sentence correct?”; “I wasn’t sure how to say _________? Is
there a better way?”). In this way correction is not always
something done to the student, but is also something that the
student can control.
Finally, if the student is responsive to grammatical feedback
and the journal has been well established as a meaningful
context of communication, the teacher may consider giving
explicit corrective feedback--listing grammatical errors and
perhaps their related rules along with the comments and
reactions to the ideas in the journal. Keen students of grammar

10. DRAFT
10
may even want to use the back of the journal to catalog types of
errors with their corresponding rules, allotting a page for each
particular type of error. For example, one page can be
allocated for words that were spelled incorrectly, another for
verb tense and number errors, another for word usage errors and
perhaps another for article usage. By cataloging the errors,
students can become more aware of the types of errors they
routinely make and monitor them in future entries. In order to
preserve the authentic dialogue, however, the teacher must
balance the attention to form with the overall intention of
meaningful dialogue and communication.
Summary
The educational benefits of dialogue journals are many. Students
develop a voice in writing as they work out their thoughts,
feelings, and experiences on paper. Teachers become familiar
with the needs of individual students, both linguistically and
personally. The journal is also an ideal setting for the
English language learner to become more proficient. Many of the
conditions known to foster second language acquisition are
inherent in the dialogue journal: meaningful communication,
comprehensible input, output, interaction, and an opportunity
for the teacher to give some focus to the form of the student’s

11. DRAFT
11
language production. Traditionally, dialogue journals have not
been the place for a focus on form. However, there are
strategies that teacher’s can employ to focus on form without
compromising the communicative nature of the journal.

12. DRAFT
12
References
DeKeyser, Robert M. (1998). Beyond Focus on Form. In C. Doughty
and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language
Classroom Acquisition (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, Michael H. (1998). Focus on Form. In C. Doughty and J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Classroom
Acquisition (pp. 16-41). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, Rod (2008). Principles of Instructed Second Language
Acquisition. CAL Digest, Washington, D.C: Center fo
Applied Linguistics.
Krashen, Stephen P. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Peyton, Joy Kreeft (1993). Dialogue Journals: Interactive
Writing to Develop Language and Literacy. National
Clearinghouse on Literacy Education, Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Peyton, Joe Kreeft (2000). Dialogue Journals: Interactive
Writing to Develop Language and Literacy. CAELA ESL
Resources: Digests, Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.

13. DRAFT
13
Rodgriguez, Amber Gallup (2009). Teaching Grammar to Adult
English Language Learners: Focus on Form. CAELA Network
Briefs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schulz, Renate A. (1998). Focus on Form in the Foreign Language
Classroom: Students’ and Teachers’ Views on Error
Correction and the Role of Grammar. In E. Alcon and V.
Condena (Eds.) English Language Methodology (pp. 49-76).
Castellon de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat
Juama I.