Материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления пользователям Интернета и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
© 2018 - 2024
To assess the learner observation tasks I suggest using four criteria for evaluation of research observation proposed by Scott (1990) which were described in Chapter 2.7.1. and can be adapted to learner observation tasks: authenticity, credibility, represententativeness and meanings. Authenticity tests a task whether it is genuine, complete and of ‘unquestioned authorship’ (Macdonald 2001:204). Unfortunately quite often student teachers deliberately present deceptive data, they tend to copy descriptions and comments of their peers rather than conduct their own observation. Sometimes due to the lack of language proficiency and analytical skills student teachers experience difficulty in describing events and interpreting their data. Therefore supervisors are recommended to check whether there is cohesion between aspects of observation and comments; a sense in comments and reflection; consistency in literary style; and compare different versions of the student teachers tasks. To test observation data on credibility a supervisor should take into account who produced the document, why, and for whom, so as to be assured of its quality. The problem is that pre-service teachers tend to present data in more pleasant way not to hurt her/his teacher monitor, or from the fear of revenge. So I draw to Scott’s (1990) social nature of the text and assume that classroom climate, student teacher’s relationship with pupils and a monitor should not be neglected. The classroom observation tasks constitute a representative sample if they reflect all the aspects of the original document. At the same time they should be treated as guidance so not every aspect of observation might occur at the lesson. The blank can emerge due to the teaching approach or inattention of an observer. The latter version can lead to wrong assumptions and destroy accuracy of data presentation. That is why a supervisor should consider every case objectively.
Meaning of the observation data involves two levels: ‘literal’ and ‘deep’ (Scott 1990:58). The first meaning can be derived from the level of language proficiency of student teachers. Learner observation tasks are recommended to write in the target language. The reasons of it have been explained in Chapter 3.2. It is rather complicated for student teachers to make notes in foreign language. But student teachers must possess the intermediate level of the language proficiency, so descriptive language of behaviour and manner of doing should not reveal great problems for them. Thus, a supervisor should take into account the language literacy of pre-service teachers. The deeper meaning is more difficult to assess. Here a supervisor should analyse the content of the text, and coherence between the aspects of observation and comments to them.
To sum everything up I can suggest that a supervisor should assess the tasks from different angles. Nothing can be taken for granted. The layout of the tasks, the amount of the comments and their appropriateness, method and additional sources for data collection should be considered. To ensure objectivity of assessment tasks can be assessed by two supervisors.
Computer assessment of ad-hoc observation needs further investigation and research. I should not deny practical problems in implementation of software packages in assessment of observation tasks: poor material and financial resources of institutions in developing countries. Moreover, most supervisors are computer illiterate and it requires much training for them to become competent users of software packages. But in future it is highly recommended to include computer packages in the evaluation process as it can assist and complement ‘manual’ approach and present valid data analysis and assessment.
Appendix 1
Classroom climate
Before the lesson:
1. Arrange to observe a lesson. Make sure you are seated in a position where you are able to observe students’ physical and emotional behaviour when the teacher attends to individuals.
2. Make familiar with the sample chart. Be aware that you will probably have to modify it.
During the lesson:
1. Make a grid of learners’ seating arrangement. Note on your diagram whether the students are male (M) or female (F).
e.g.
| S1οM | S2ο M |
| S7ο F | S8ο M |
| S3ο M(Phil) L | S4ο F | S9ο M | S10ο F | |
| S5ο F | S6ο M | S11ο F(Angela) I | S12ο F |
2. Notice and put the symbols according to student’s physical or emotional behaviour every time the teacher attends to him/her. You may like to add others as you observe.
3. Try to record some field notes on student’s response to the teacher’s attending strategies.
4. Notice any changes in seating arrangement during the lesson.
5. Try to put symbols of physical behaviour when students attend to each other working in pairs or in a group at the beginning and the end of the task fulfillment.
¤ - eye contact with the teacher
I - hand raising
J - smiling
K - no emotions
L - boring
{ - daydreaming
² - doing another task different from the lesson objectives
B- physically bothering other students
m - other
After the lesson:
Comment on:
1. the seating arrangement, classroom discipline and social climate;
2. balance between teacher’s attendance to the students’ at the back and at the first desks;
3. balance between teacher’s attendance to female and male learners;
4. gender-related differences in physical behaviour;
5. comfort and attending to the task by the students at the first and the back desks;
6. the type and the amount of speech production by students at the first and the back desks;
7. any changes in students’ behaviour after seating arrangement was altered (if happened)
Reflect
What is the relationship between seating arrangement and social climate at the lesson? Does seating arrangement influence on classroom management?
How female and male learners’ behaviour is different?
What is the relationship between learners’ physical behaviour of different gender and their attitude to each other, the teacher and learning in general?
What is the relationship between location of students, and the type and amount of utterances they produce?
What is the relationship between seating arrangement and the nature of the learning process? (teacher-centred or learner-centred)
Appendix 2
Learner motivation
Before the lesson:
1. Arrange to observe a class.
2. Make yourself familiar with the chart below. Consider the evidences/signs of physical and language beahaviour that indicates students’ willingness and interest to the learning process. For example,
- asks the teacher when uncertain;
- attends the task at once;
- attends the task after the teacher’s reprimands;
- does not obey teacher’s instruction;
- enjoys working on difficult task;
- volunteers to participate in a competition (game);
- complains about the difficulty of the task;
- work(s) independently on the task for a long time;
- is glad with a teacher’s reward;
- is upset with the teacher’s feedback;
- presents additional material for home work;
- pleas teacher to get a good mark;
- other
You may wish to add some other signs.
3. Choose a range of six students of different gender and language level to comment on their motivation for learning.
During the lesson:
1. Consider these students’ behaviour in class and describe the learning activity in which this behaviour occurs. The far right column is for any other comments, such as the manner or emotional behaviour, whether the motivation is descried as instrumental, or integrative.
| Student’s name | Signs of high/ low motivation | Learning activity | Comment |
| Mark | a) e.g. Finishes the task first b) | Filling the gap in grammar exercise | The desire to get a good mark, as he enquires about the grade he can get, instrumental |
| Peter | a) e.g. volunteers the answer b) | Comprehension check after first listening | Is fully involved into the lesson, integrative. |
After the lesson:
1. Consider the data you have collected. Comment on the linkage between the columns 2 and 3.
2. Which learning activities enhance integrative motivation and which of them promote instrumental one?
3. Which type of motivation prevails with female and male pupils.
Reflection
How important is that the teacher should know different motivations of her students for learning the language?
How important is the role of feedback and rewards. What activities should be praised?
How do students judge their own learning abilities? Do they over- or under-estimate their capabilities? What is the degree they value their efforts to the learning activity.
How does students’ motivation influence on the task performance?
In what way might this data effects you when you plan a lesson with this group of learners?
Appendix 3
Learner as doer
Before the lesson
1. Arrange to observe language and learning behaviour of students at a lesson. Describe the manner of doing and materials they use. For example, students might
a. respond in a low voice but accurately;
b. speak fast but with errors;
c. produce long utterances without haste and emotions;
d. think for long time before giving the answer
e. highlight some passages with fountain pen or marker;
f. volunteer to go to the blackboard;
g. give the answer first to the comprehension question after first listening;
h. finish fill-in the gap exercise on the blackboard first;
i. face his partner during the pair-, group work;
j. use colloquial expressions in the cues;
k. volunteer to dramatize the dialogue
2. Think of the learner’s affective (extroversion, introversion), cognitive (Field-dependent, Field-independent), and sensory (auditory, visual, kinaesthetic) preferences in accomplishing learning activities.
3. Make yourself familiar with the chart below.
During the lesson
1. Observe the lesson from the point of view of what and how the learners actually do.
2. Make notes in the chart below.
- outline the learning activity;
- describe the action and the manner of doing;
- comment on learners’ preferences, for example, whether the learner is good at working independently, or in cooperation with the partner, receiving or producing the language.
| Learning activity | Learner’s name | What & how learner does | Comment on learner’s preferences |
| e.g. presentation of the dialogue | Philip | dramatizes a dialogue with emphatic intonation | Enjoys and good at acting, prefers to produce language. FI, kinaesthetic |
After the lesson
1. Together with the classroom teacher group students according to their learning preferences.
2. Considering the data you have collected which activities in the lesson do you consider the most valuable for the learners? Explain your thoughts.
Reflect
What is the congruency between learners’ behaviour, preferences and learning activities?
To what extent the teacher should cater for learning preferences in planning a lesson? In what way learning activities can develop students’ learning styles?
Which approaches, materials, or techniques are you going to employ which suit student’s natural learning styles and can develop other skills in future planning of the lesson?
Appendix 4
Learner level
Before the lesson:
1. Arrange to observe a class.
2. Meet with the teacher and find out the learner’s language level. Have the student’s grade as a key. You might have made your assumptions about their level during previous observations.
3. Make yourself familiar with the chart below.
During the lesson
1. Look for overt evidence of the students’ level. Consider language competence (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation), communicative competence (fluency of speech production, initiation, adequate response). Try to make records of students’ speech production.
2. In the far right column, record the strategies used by the teacher to adjust learner level. For example,
- varying speed of speech;
- varying complexity of language;
- varying length of wait time;
- calling on stronger students’ for ‘model’ answers;
- other
| Student | Level/grade | Learning activities | Signs of level | Teacher’s strategies |
| Angela | 3 | vocabulary work; matching pictures and words | 3 mismatches among 6 total words | appeal to another student as a model |
| Farid | 4 | Text reading | speed of the reading is fast but mispronounced two words | repeats with raising intonation, asks to correct; reminds the rule of reading of –ph combination |
After the lesson
1. Share your findings with the teacher. Talk about any students whose level appears to be different from that designed before.
2. Consider the data you have collected. Is there the linkage between students’ level and the level of difficulty of tasks?
3. Was the level of difficulty of learning activities appropriate to the level of students?
4. What were the overt language problems during the lesson?
Reflect
To what extent the task should be challenging for students?
How can you construct the instructions of the tasks in accordance with the level of competence of your students?
Is there any connection between seating arrangement, learners’ motivation, learning styles and learner levels?
List of references
1. Allen, J.P.B., Fröhlich, M. and Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of language teaching. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R.A. and Taylor, B.P. (ed.). On TESOL ’83: the Question of Control. TESOL, Washington, DC.
2. Allport, G.M. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science. Quoted in F. McKernan (1996). Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner (p.84). London: Kogan Page.
3. Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.
4. Allwright, R.L. (1980). Turns, topics and tasks: patterns of participation in language teaching and learning. In D. Larsen-Freeman, editors., Discourse analysis in second language acquisition research (pp. 165-187). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
5. Allwright, D. and Bailey, K. (2000). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bailey, K. (1990). The use of diaries in teacher education programs. In J.C Richards,. and D. Nunan, editors,. Second language teacher education (pp.215-226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press
8. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologists, 28, 117-148.
9. Bany, M. A. and Johnson, L. V. (1964). Classroom group behaviour: group dynamics in education. London: Macmillan, Collier-Macmillan.
10. Becker, H. S. (1971). Sociological work: methods and substance. London: Aldine.
11. Bellack, A.A. (1966). The language of the classroom. N.York: Teachers College.
12. Birkey, R. C. and Rodman, J.J. (1995). Adult Learning Styles and Preference for Technology Programs. Available: http://www2.nu.edu/nuri/llconf/conf1995/birkey.html
13. Bova, D. Heterogeneous Grouping: Is It Best for All Students? Available: http://www.middleweb.com/MWLISTCONT/MSLdifferentiation.html
14. Boyd, J.R. and Boyd, M.A. (1989). Input-output teacher's manual. Normal, IL: Abaca Books. Available: Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education Washington DC. H:\teaching practice\ED383242 1995-05-00 Teaching Multilevel Adult ESL Classes_ ERIC Digest.htm
15. Bruton, A. (1997). Mixed capacities in EFL/ESL: clarifying the issue. RELC Journal, 28 (1), 109-119.
16. Buss, A., and Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early personality traits. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
17. Campbell D. I. (1958). Information and control. Vol.1 Quoted in Fassnacht, G. (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour (p.40). London: Academic Press.
18. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.
19. Capelle, G.C., Jarvilla,R.J. and Revelle, E. (n.d.). Development of computer-assisted observational systems for teacher-training. Quoted in Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning (p.18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Chappel,C. A. (1995). Field-Dependence/Field-independence in the L2 classroom. In J. M. Reid, editor., Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.158-169). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
21. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Cohen, L. and Mannion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th edition). London: Routledge.
23. Croll, P. (1986). Systematic classroom observation. London: The Falmer Press.
24. Day, R. R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom or some imperfections in practice. Language Learning, 34 (3), 69-107.
25. Day, R. R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language education. In J. C., Richards and D. Nunan, editors., Second language teacher education (pp. 43-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Delamont, S. and Hamilton, D. (1976). Classroom research: a critique and a new approach. In M. Stubbsand and S. Delamont, editors., Explorations in classroom observation (pp. 3-21). London: John Wiley & Sons.
27. Delamont, S. and Hamilton, D. (1986). Revisiting classroom research: a continuing cautionary tale. In M. Hammerley, editor., Controversies in classroom research (pp.25-43). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
28. Dossey, J. A, Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M. and Chambers, D. L. (1988) The Mathematics Report Card: Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. Princeton, ETS.
29. Dörney, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.
30. Eisner, E. (1993). Objectivity in educational research. In M. Hammersley, editor., Educational research: current issues (pp. 49-56). London: Paul Chapman in association with the Open University.
31. Elliot, J. and Ebbutt, D. (1986). Case studies in teaching for understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Education.
32. Ericson, R., Bareaneck, P. and Chan, J. (1991). Representing order: crime, law and justice in the news media. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
33. Fanselow, J. F. (1977). Beyond ‘Rachomon’ – conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 17-39.
34. Feather, N.T. (1982). Expectations and actions: expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Fielding, N. (2001). Ethnography. In N. Gilbert, editor., Researching social life. (2nd ed.) (pp.145-163). London: SAGE Publications.
36. Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behaviour. London: Addison-Wesley.
37. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
38. Gayle, V. (2000). Quantitative data analysis. In D. Burton, editor., Research training for social scientists (pp.361-420). London: SAGE Publications.
39. Gellert, E. (1955). Systematic observation: a method in child study. Harvard Educational Review, 25, 179-195.
40. Good, T. and Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Longman.
41. Goodman, N. (1976). The languages of art. Quoted in Eisner, E. (1993). Objectivity in educational research (p.52). In M. Hammersley, editor., Educational research: current issues (pp. 49-56). London: Paul Chapman in association with the Open University.
42. Gore, J. and Zeichner, K. (1991). Action Research and Reflective Teaching in Preservice Teacher Education: A Case Study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136.
43. Gregoire, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-236.
44. Hammersley, M. (1986). Revisiting Hamilton and Delamont: a cautionary note on the relationship[ between ‘systematic observation’ and ethnography. In M. Hammerley, editor., Controversies in classroom research (pp. 44-50). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
45. Hargreaves D. H. (1980). Review of M. Ruttler et al. 15 00 hours. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 211-216.
46. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Hollingworth, H.L. (1910). Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methodology, 7: 461-469. Quoted in G. Fassnacht (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour (p.40). London: Academic Press.
48. Hopkins, C.D. and Antes, R.L. (1985). Classroom measurement and evaluation. Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
49. Hutt, S.J. and Hutt C. (1970). Direct observation and measurement of behaviour. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.
50. Jarvis, G. (1968). A behavioural observation system for classroom foreign-language skill acquisition activities. Modern Language Journal, 52, 335-341.
51. Jersild, A.T. and Meigs, M.F. (1939). Direct observation as a research method. Quoted in Hutt, S.J. and Hutt C. (1970). Direct observation and measurement of behaviour (p.3). Springfield: Charles C Thomas.
52. Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co.
53. Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service teachers and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
54. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning styles: an overview. In J. W. Keefe, editor., Student learning styles: diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, Va.: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
55. Lee, A., Danis, C., Miller, T., & Jung, Y. (2001). Fostering social interaction in online spaces. In M. Hirose, editor., Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT'01) – Eighth IFIP TC.13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 59-66): IOS Press.
56. Long, M. (1980). Inside the ‘black box’: methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30, 1-42.
57. Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (1995). Analysing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
58. Lutz, F. W. (1986). Ethnography: the holistic approach to understanding schooling. In M. Hammerley, editor., Controversies in classroom research (pp.107-119). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
59. Macdonald, K. (2001). Using documents. In N. Gilbert, editor., Researching social life (pp. 194-210). London: SAGE Publications.
60. Mandl, H. (1971) In W. Arnold, H. J. Eysenck, and R.Meili, editors., Lexicon der Psychologie. Vol.2. Quoted in G.Fassnacht (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour, p.41 London: Academic Press.
61. McIntyre, D. and Macleod, G. (1986). The characteristics and uses of systematic classroom observation. In M.Hammerley, editor., Controversies in classroom research (pp.10-23). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
62. McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.
63. Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In Brown, G., Malmkjær, J. Williams, editors., Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp.33-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Meece, J. and McColskey, W. (2001). Improving student motivation: a guide for teachers and school improvement teams. SERVE. ED-01-CO-0015. Available: http://www.serve.org/publications/rdism2.pdf
65. Millrood, R. (2002). Teaching heterogeneous classes. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 128-136.
66. Mishler, F.G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: the role of examples in narrative studies. Harvard Educational review, 60 (4), 415-441.
67. Mitchel, R., Parkinson, B. and Johnstone, R. (1981). The foreign language classroom; an observational study. Stirling Educational Monograph # 9, the Department of Education, University of Stirling.
68. Moskowitz, G. (1970). The foreign language teacher interacts. Quoted in C. Chaudron (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning, p. 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Muchnick, A.G., and Wolfe, D.E. (1982).Attitudes and motivation of American students of Spanish. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 38, 262-281.
70. Naiman, Neil, Frölich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Quoted in Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning, p.18. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
71. Oxford, R. and Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.
72. Phillips, D.C. (1993). Subjectivity and objectivity: an objectivity inquiry. In M. Hammersley, editor., Educational research: current issues (pp. 57-72). London: Paul Chapman in association with the Open University.
73. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., and Newman, J. (1991). Second language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 343-76.
74. Politzer, R. L. (1980) Foreign language teaching and bilingual education: research implications. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 291-297.
75. Platt, J. (1981). Evidence and proof in documentary research. Sociological review, 29 (1), 31-66.
76. Radnor, H.A. (2002). Researching your professional practice: doing interpretive research. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
77. Ratcliffe, H. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization, 5(2),147-167.
78. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Sattler, J.M. (1982). Assessment of children’s intelligence and abilities (2d ed.). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
80. Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Qualitative studies series: 3. Research methods in the postmodern. London: the Falmer Press.
81. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
82. Seliger, H.W. (1977). Inductive and deductive method in language teaching: a re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-18.
83. Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84. Shamim, F. (1996). In and out of the action zone: locution as a feature of instruction in large ESL classes in Pakistan. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan, editors., Voices from the language classroom (pp. 123-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. Simpson, M. and Tuson, J. (1995). Using observation in small-scale research: a beginner’s guide. Edinburgh: the Scottish Council for Research in Education.
86. Simon, A. and Boyer, G. E. (1974). Mirrors for behaviour 3. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. Quoted in S. Delamont and D. Hamilton (1986). Revisiting classroom research: a continuing cautionary tale (p.29). In M. Hammerley, editor., Controversies in classroom research (pp.25-43). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
87. Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: the age factor. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters
88. Smith, L.M. and Geoffrey, W. (1968). The complexities of an urban classroom. New-York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
89. Stroh, M. (2000). Qualitative interviewing. In D. Burton, editor., Research training social scientists (pp. 196-214). London: SAGE Publications.
90. Thornbury, S. (1991). Watching the whites of their eyes: the use of teaching-practice logs. ELT Journal 45 (2), 140-146.
91. Tudor, I., (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92. Johson, M.C. (1977). A review of research methods in education. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
93. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational research, 54(2), 143-178.
94. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Walker, R. and Adelman, C. (1976). Strawberries. In M. Stubbs and S. Delamont, editors., Explorations in classroom observation (pp. 133-150). London: John Wiley & Sons.
96. Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: modes of teaching. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
97. Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
98. Weade, G. Locating learning in the times, spaces of teaching. In H.H. Marshall, edotir., Redefining student learning: roots of educational change (pp. 87-118). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
99. Weick, K. E. (1968). Systematic observational methods. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, editors., (2d edition). The Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 357-451). Addison-Wesley.
100. Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: a social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
101. Wright , H.F. (1960). Observational child study. In P.H. Mussen, editor., Handbook of research methods in child development, (pp. 71-139). New-York: Wiley.
102. Wrigley, H.S. and Guth, G. (1992). Bringing literacy to life: Issues and options in adult ESL literacy. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. (ED 348 896). Available: H:\teaching practice\ED383242 1995-05-00 Teaching Multilevel Adult ESL Classes_ ERIC Digest.htm
103. Violand-Sanchez, E. (1995). Cognitive and learning styles of high school students : implications for ESL curriculum development. In J. M. Reid, editor., Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.48-62). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
104. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Дата: 2019-07-24, просмотров: 338.