Knowledge and Learning and Teaching a Second Language:
Researchers have divided the skills necessary for the acquisition of second language comprehension, particularly in the reading area, into two general theories: bottom-up, text-based, psycholinguistic approaches or top-down, socially-oriented conceptual approaches. In each case, lack of second language comprehension is attributed to misunderstanding of some key variable of the approach. For example, bottom-up studies tend to trace miscomprehension to misunderstanding of grammar (syntax), vocabulary (semantics), or other textual aspects. Accordingly, comprehension from the bottom-up is a data-driven process (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983).
In contrast, top-down studies primarily attribute miscomprehension to the lack of specific background knowledge or cultural familiarity that is necessary to understand the text. Top-down understanding is seen as a process that is driven by concepts (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983). Goodman (1967) is credited with first recognizing this additional aspect to reading comprehension, although he did not use the term “top-down” (Adamson, 1993, p. 45). Another early researcher in this area, Steffenson, Joag-dev, and Anderson (1979), focused on the cultural barriers to reading comprehension. Later work solidified this type of approach into the Schema Theory Model, where understanding involves an interaction between background knowledge of the reader, described as the reader’s “schema,” and the text. This model has been applied to second language reading comprehension by Carrell (1983a) and Johnson (1982), among many others.
More recently, it has become obvious that the division between these two approaches is somewhat artificial and true comprehension involves a combination of both types of these skills. Thus, more current research, such as the work of Bernhardt (2001), attempts to provide models that take into account the contribution of both approaches. However, investigating of true role of background knowledge, specifically determining the correct amount of emphasis that should be placed on these types of variables, remains a central area of study in the acquisition of comprehension within a second language.
What is Background Knowledge?
Investigators in this area use the terms “background knowledge” or “prior knowledge” to mean a variety of contributors to the comprehension of a reader’s second language (L2). Specifically, background knowledge relates to the reader’s knowledge of their first language (L1). There are two levels of interest in this particular background knowledge. First, there is the effect of merely knowing L1 and this can alter the acquisition process of L2. This type of background knowledge brings up issues of transfer, avoidance, language loss, and rate of learning, which can collectively be termed cross-linguistic influence (Gass and Selinker, 2001).
The second interest in background knowledge in this area involves the proficiency of the student in L1 and how this alters the acquisition of L2. To study this variable, testing of the comprehension of text in L1 are done followed by attempts to find parallels between this proficiency and the ability to understand text in L2. The work of Lee and Schallert (1997) is an example of this type of study, and will be discussed more extensively below.
Background knowledge can also mean general knowledge of the subject matter of the text, and has been broken down into three characteristic components: familiarity, context, and transparency (Carrell, 1983b). Studies have found significant relationships between these providing or not providing these aspects of background knowledge and the overall percentage recall of passages in L2. One study relatively recent study that used this classification of background knowledge is Roller and Matambo (1992).
A third type of background knowledge that is discussed in the literature is one of cultural familiarity. Although this may be a subset of Carrell’s “familiarity” component discussed above, the studies looking that this aspect of background knowledge focus upon the effect of the experience of living in the culture expressed by the writer of the passage being tested. A well-known example of this definition of “background knowledge” is the work by Johnson (1982). There, students who had or had not personally participated in the celebration of Halloween read a text related to this holiday. The effect of the actual cultural experience on reading comprehension was tested.
Adamson (1993) reports a fourth possible component of background knowledge that appears to be a subset of the cultural aspects — scripts for school. In general, when students understood how they should act in the classroom this was accompanied by an increase in success. Conflicts between scripts for school learned in other cultures and those in play in the United States were numerous. These included misinterpretation of group study as being able to do whatever the student wanted in the classroom, misunderstanding that girls need not be overly respectful to boys in the U.S., and misinterpretation of what is appropriate subject matter for study where highly moralistic and patriotic information was expected (p. 50-51). So these school scripts form a fundamental component of the cultural aspects of background knowledge that are important to success for English as a Second Language (ESL) students. Whether examining the knowledge related to L1 to L2 transfer, L1 proficiency, knowledge about the text subject, a cultural experience, or school scripts, each researcher attempts to find a connection between second language comprehension and having particular background information.
The Schema Theory Model
Full understanding of the contribution of background knowledge to second language comprehension requires a working familiarity with the Schema Theory Model. On this subject, Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) state that one of the fundamental tents of this model is that text, either spoken or written, does not by itself carry meaning. Rather… A text provides direction for listeners or readers as to how they should retrieve or construct meaning from their own previously acquired knowledge (p. 556).
This approach differs from older work that tended to focus on the language and the meaning that can be found “within” the text, rather than on the person perceiving the language and his or her background knowledge (p. 553-554).
A second important aspect of the schema-theoretic model is that comprehension is an interactive event between the reader or listener’s background knowledge and the text itself. Each type of input is mapped against a structure of background knowledge, seeking a logical fit for the incoming information (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983). These structures are called schemata. Although technically distinct, other researchers have alternatively called very similar cognitive constructs “scripts, plans, and goals” (Schank and Abelson, 1977), “frames” (Minsky, 1975), “expectations” (Tannen, 1978) and “event chains” (Warren, Nicholas, and Trabasso, 1979).
The function of a schema is best illustrated with an example. Originally used by Collins and Quillian (1972), often cited is the alternative schema that could be used to interpret this mini-text:
The policeman held up his hand and stopped the car.
Here, the reader could posit two different schemas that would significantly alter the way the meaning of the text is interpreted. One would be the mental image of a traffic cop putting up his hand as a signal to the driver to stop the car. However, if the policeman was known to be a superhero, and the car was known to be driverless, a very different schema follows. There, the policeman physically places his hands on the car to bring it to a halt. Which of these two schemas the reader activates depends upon the reader having the necessary background knowledge for that schema and knowing which provides a consistent reading of the text (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983, p. 559). Through these schemas, a reader or listener comprehends, or fail to comprehend, the message of the communication.
A final issue about schema is that researchers have identified several types (Singal, 1998). These types include content schema, formal or textual schema, and linguistic or language schema. Content schemas are what are formed based on the reader’s world knowledge and form a basis for comparison (para. 3). Formal schema involve the organizational forms or structures of written texts that help reveal its meaning and can include vocabulary, grammar, and communication style (para. 4). Linguistic schema are more specific for decoding strategies and are what allow students to guess at the meaning of a word based on its context in a text (para. 5). All three of these schema types are applicable when all interpretations of background knowledge: language proficiency, knowledge of the subject of the text, and cultural issues are examined from the point-of-view of acquiring second language comprehension.
With this grounding in the general models of background knowledge and their application to L2 education, what follows is a summary of important work examining the effect of the various types of background knowledge on L2 acquisition.
Background Knowledge and its Effect on L2 Acquisition
Cross-Linguistic Influence. In its early stages, the study of language transfer from L1 to L2 dismissed the effect of the native language as background knowledge on the acquisition of L2 (Gass and Selinker, 2001). This approach has been termed a behavioristic, in that the acquisition of various English morphemes (meaningful linguistic units) seemed to follow a set behavior pattern no matter what the L1 of the student (Gass and Selinker, 2001, p. 112). However, more recent research has indicated that if the right research questions are asked, significant differences can be detected, and L1 knowledge has been found to possibly have both positive effects and negative effects on acquisition of L2 (Noor, 1994). This new approach to L1 to L2 transfer has been termed the “mentalist” approach.
A good example of a negative effect of the L1 background knowledge is the phenomena of avoidance, that is the selective use of particular language structures in L2. In 1993, Laufer and Eliasson attempted to determine whether the amount of difference between L1 and L2 or the complexity of the new L2 structures was responsible. Although the exact source of avoidance remains in controversy, the only variable clearly supported by the research is the amount of difference between L1 and L2, with greater difference correlating with greater avoidance (Laufer and Eliasson, 1993).
Overall, as noted by Gass and Selinker, the mentalist approach can be summarized as including three interacting factors to determine how language transfer will occur: “a learner’s psychotypology, perception of L1 to L2 distance, and actual knowledge of L2″(2001, 131). It is important to note that each of these factors has a significant background knowledge component. The exact relationship between background knowledge of L1 and transfer to L2 is still be elucidated, but there is now strong support for an existing relationship. Researchers have urged the need for more investigation in this area, particular as it relates to initial word recognition (Durgunoglu and Hancin-Bhatt, 1992).
L1 Proficiency. A second way to interpret the knowledge of L1 as background knowledge is by measuring the level of proficiency in the native language and see if this has an effect on L2 comprehension. In general, language proficiency can be divided into five components: communication, conceptualization, critical thinking, context, and culture (Diaz-Rico and Weed, 2002). Lee and Schallert examined the effect of L1 proficiency in their 1997 study, focusing on measure of the first three aspects. Specifically, this study questioned whether there was a stronger correlation between L2 proficiency and L2 reading comprehension or between L1 reading ability and L2 reading comprehension (p. 730). Although the study concluded that the L2 proficiency was more closely related to L2 reading ability than the L1 reading ability (background knowledge), their work did support the existence of a relationship between L1 and L2 reading abilities as well (p. 732). This study was also significant in that it suggested that attaining a threshold level of language proficiency in L2 was necessary for the reader to take advantage of the “reading skills, strategies, and prior knowledge” that had been developed in L1 (p. 733).
Subject Matter of the Text. A third type of study addressing the effect of background knowledge on L2 reading comprehension focuses upon supplying students with varying amounts of background information about the text before reading. The Roller and Matambo (1992) study is an example of this approach. This study utilized the breakdown of background knowledge into familiarity, context, and transparency first set forth by Carrell (1983b) to determine whether the interactions between these components could be replicated.
According to the Carrell (1983b) study, familiarity means the amount of prior exposure that the reader has had to the content area of the text and involves a subjective classification by the researchers of the text as either familiar or unfamiliar (p. 184). Context is most closely related to the presentation of the materials and in many experimental designs involves either the use or nonuse of a picture to accompany the text (p. 185). Finally, transparency involves the use of lexical words, where lexical means that the words used reveal the content area of the text (p. 186). The Roller and Matambo study looked for significant relationships between better recall the provision of these particular components of background information (1997).
Roller and Matambo’s conclusions were slightly unusual in that the students did better in English, their second language, than their native Shona and they recalled a passage classified as unfamiliar more consistently than one classified as familiar. The authors hypothesized that these effects may be related to the nature of the passages used and the cultural traditions of a British education with the students, rather than a real difference between contributions of the background knowledge (p. 137).
Chen and Graves (1995) also examined the effects of providing background knowledge to readers before they begin the test. Specifically, they provided a preview of the short story to be read (really a type of story-specific background knowledge enhancement) and/or what the researcher’s termed “background knowledge” (Chen and Graves, 1995, p. 665). In this study, previewing included “text information important to the story, introduced the characters, described the plot… And gave direction for how to read the story” (pp. 668-69). In contrast, background knowledge included “historical background at the time of the story… necessary background knowledge about the story, and culture-specific information that is needed to fully understand it” (p. 669). Thus, this study contrasted the effects of providing highly story specific information with providing more general background.
Through various measures of comprehension Chen and Graves found that previewing and a combination of previewing and background knowledge all increased the students apparent understanding of the story (p. 678). However, background knowledge alone, as defined in this study, did not have a significant effect on the student’s test scores (p. 679). Additionally, the increase in test scores seen with the addition of the background knowledge did not appear to justify the additional preparation time needed to include that information (p. 679). Thus, the researchers concluded that the most time-efficient method was the previewing only procedure (p. 680).
Cultural Considerations. A final aspect of that has been examined by a number of researchers is the effect of the background knowledge embodied in the reader or listener’s culture. Rather than merely provide written enhancement of a cultural nature, Johnson (1982) ensured that the study participants actually lived through the cultural experience of celebrating Halloween before testing them on passages dealing with this subject matter. She concluded that prior experience in the American culture improved comprehension for ESL students as measured by improved recall (p. 508). The effect of this background knowledge experience appeared to be greater than other supply of information, including raw vocabulary knowledge (p. 513).
A second study examining the effect of the cultural of background knowledge is Malik (1990). This study examined the reading behavior of students using culturally familiar and unfamiliar texts. Using a technique that determined comprehension by the ability to rank the importance of idea units, Malik found that students did much better with familiar texts than the unfamiliar. He attributed this difference to the lack or presence of “well-developed” schemata for the different subject areas (p. 218). The study also concluded that the proficient-ESL students utilized both syntactic and semantic information (learning strategies) more efficiently when the text was culturally familiar (p. 220).
Conclusion
It is now well established that both top-down and bottom-up approaches are necessary for proficiency in a second language. A central component of these approaches is the input of background knowledge. Background knowledge is believed to provide a schema, or source of reference, necessary for attributing a textually consistent meaning to the passage read or spoken by the student. Background knowledge can be defined in a variety of ways, including L1 knowledge or proficiency, information related to the subject matter of the text, information related to the cultural background of the text creator, or a combination of these factors. Despite some minor inconsistencies likely due to text selection issues, the research does support an important relationship between L2 language acquisition and the array of background knowledge that can be supplied by the reader or listener.
Works Cited
Adamson, H.D. (1993). Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Bernhardt, E.B. (2001). Progress and procrastination in second language reading research. Retrieved January 29, 2003 at http://language.stanford.edu/conferencepapers/AAALBernhardt01.doc
Carrell, P.L. (1983a). Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Language Learning and Communication. 2, 25-34.
Carrell, P.L. (1983b). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning. 33, 183-207.
Carrell, P.L. And J.C. Eisterhold. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 553-573.
Chen, H.C. And M.F. Graves. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly. 29, 663-685.
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In B. Barkman and R.R. Jordan (Eds.). Reading in a second language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Collins, A.M. And M.R. Quillian. (1972). How to make a language user. In Endel Tulving and Wayne Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. (pp. 310-351). New York: Academic Press.
Diaz-Rico, L.T. And K.Z. Weed. (2002). The Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development Handbook. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Durgunoglu, A.Y. And B.J. Hancin-Bhatt (1992). The Role of First Language in the Second-Language Reading Process. Technical Report No. 555. Eric No. ED345208.
Gass, S.M. And L. Selinker. (2001). Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A Psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist. 4, 126-135.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly. 16, 503-516.
Laufer, B. And S. Eliasson. (1993). What Causes Avoidance in L2 Learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 Similarity, or L2 Complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15, 35-48.
Lee, J.W. And D.L. Schallert. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly. 31, 681-739.
Malik, A.A. (1990). A psycholinguistic analysis of the reading behavior of EFL-proficient readers using culturally familiar and culturally nonfamiliar expository texts. American Educational Research Journal. 27, 205-223.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Noor, H.H. (1994). Some implications of the role of the mother tongue on second language acquisition. Linguistica Communicatio. 6, 97-106.
Roller, C.M. And A.R. Matambo. (1992). Bilingual readers’ use of background knowledge in learning from text. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 129-139.
Schank, R.C. And R.P. Abelson. (1977). Script, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1 and L2 reading. The Internet TESL Journal, 4, Retrieved January 29, 2003 at http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html
Steffensen, M.S., C. Joag-dev, and R.C. Anderson. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 15, 10-29.
Tannen, D. (1978). The effect of expectations on conversation. Discourse Processes, 1, 203-209.
Warren, W.H., D.W. Nicholas, and T. Trabasso. (1979). Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), In New directions in discourse processing (pp. 23-52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bibliography
Adamson, H.D. (1993). Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Bernhardt, E.B. (2001). Progress and procrastination in second language reading research. Retrieved January 29, 2003 at http://language.stanford.edu/conferencepapers/AAALBernhardt01.doc
Carrell, P.L. (1983a). Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Language Learning and Communication. 2, 25-34.
Carrell, P.L. (1983b). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning. 33, 183-207.
Carrell, P.L. And J.C. Eisterhold. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 553-573.
Chen, H.C. And M.F. Graves. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly. 29, 663-685.
Collins, A.M. And M.R. Quillian. (1972). How to make a language user. In Endel Tulving and Wayne Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. (pp. 310-351). New York: Academic Press.
Diaz-Rico, L.T. And K.Z. Weed. (2002). The Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development Handbook. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Durgunoglu, A.Y. And B.J. Hancin-Bhatt (1992). The Role of First Language in the Second-Language Reading Process. Technical Report No. 555. Eric No. ED345208.
Gass, S.M. And L. Selinker. (2001). Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A Psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist. 4, 126-135.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly. 16, 503-516.
Laufer, B. And S. Eliasson. (1993). What Causes Avoidance in L2 Learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 Similarity, or L2 Complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15, 35-48.
Lee, J.W. And D.L. Schallert. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly. 31, 681-739.
Malik, A.A. (1990). A psycholinguistic analysis of the reading behavior of EFL-proficient readers using culturally familiar and culturally nonfamiliar expository texts. American Educational Research Journal. 27, 205-223.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Noor, H.H. (1994). Some implications of the role of the mother tongue on second language acquisition. Linguistica Communicatio. 6, 97-106.
Roller, C.M. And A.R. Matambo. (1992). Bilingual readers’ use of background knowledge in learning from text. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 129-139.
Schank, R.C. And R.P. Abelson. (1977). Script, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1 and L2 reading. The Internet TESL Journal, 4, Retrieved January 29, 2003 at http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html
Steffensen, M.S., C. Joag-dev, and R.C. Anderson. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 15, 10-29.
Tannen, D. (1978). The effect of expectations on conversation. Discourse Processes, 1, 203-209.
Warren, W.H., D.W. Nicholas, and T. Trabasso. (1979). Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), In New directions in discourse processing (pp. 23-52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! 
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more