Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
8 - Classroom Observation Research
from Part II - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter is about second and foreign language (L2) classroom observation research, with a focus on observation instruments developed within the interaction analysis tradition. It begins with a brief description of classroom observation research and a comparison of interaction analysis with other approaches. This is followed by a general description of how observation instruments are organized, how they differ in terms of number and type of categories, coding procedures, units of analysis, and overall strengths and weaknesses. Four observation schemes are then described in detail with specific examples and illustrations of their categories along with information about the reasons for their development, the contexts in which they have been used, the type of research undertaken with them, and brief summaries of the findings associated with each. Throughout, there is an examination of how interaction analysis observation schemes have evolved in relation to the different phases of L2 classroom research, including the global method comparison studies, process and process-product research, and the shift from macro-level to micro-level descriptions of classroom behaviours. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the benefits of multi-method approaches to L2 classroom observation research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 186 - 207Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Allen, J. P. B., & Carroll, S. (1987). Evaluation of classroom processes in a Canadian core French programme. Evaluation & Research in Education, 1, 49–61.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of second language teaching: An observation scheme. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R., & Taylor, B. (eds.), On TESOL ’83 (pp. 232–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom, Language Awareness, 11, 1–13.Google Scholar
Bellack, A., Herbert, A., Kliebard, M., & Smith, F. L. Jr. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal, 39, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9–38.Google Scholar
Brock, C. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988a). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988b). Classroom research: Recent methods and research findings. In Kasper, G. (ed.), AILA review: Classroom research (Vol. 5, pp. 10–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1991). Validation in second language classroom research and the evaluation of teaching methods. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M., & Swain, M. (eds.), Foreign language pedagogy: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 187–196). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 22, 289–322.Google Scholar
Fanselow, J. (1977). Beyond “Rashomon”—Conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19, 303–317.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–57.Google Scholar
Guilloteaux, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55–77.Google Scholar
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241–272.Google Scholar
Kim, S., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9, 335–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 691–713.Google Scholar
Levin, L. 1972. Comparative studies in foreign-language teaching. Stockholm: Almquist och Wiksell.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., Halter, R., White, J., & Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself”. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 58, 427–464.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30, 1–42.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. (eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 253–280). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2005). Conversation analysis for second language acquisition. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 355–374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolding assistance in an ESL classroom. In Hall, J. & Verplaetse, L. (eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 396–404.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. (1985a) Communicative interaction research project: Final report. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. (1985b) Process research in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 18, 330–352.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B., & Johnstone, R. (1981). The foreign language classroom an observational study. Stirling: University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, G. (1976). The FLINT system: An observational tool for the foreign language classroom. In Simon, A. & Boyer, E. (eds.), Mirrors for behavior: An anthology of classroom observation instruments (pp. 125–157). Philadelphia, PA: Center for the Study of Teaching at Temple University.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2005). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1987) Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136–145.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–326.Google Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Scherer, A., & Wertheimer, M. (1964). A psycholinguistic experiment in foreign language teaching. New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 607–637.Google Scholar
Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). Exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions. Language Learning, 61, 759–785.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (1970). A comparison of the audiolingual and cognitive approaches to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvania foreign language project. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8, 131–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme. Sydney: National Center of English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lyster, R. (1997). Microscopic and macroscopic views of second language classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 787–795.Google Scholar
Ullman, R., & Geva, E. (1985). Expanding our evaluation perspective: What can classroom observation tell us about Core French programs? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 42, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ELS: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 575–592.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by