Process research in second-language classrooms

Mitchell, Rosamond

doi:10.1017/s0261444800011708

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is only when one examines contexts such as mainstream high school classrooms, with a deep and pervasive bias towards the written mode, that one perceives the equally pervasive bias towards the spoken language often implicit in classroom SLA research and pedagogy. Indeed, it sometimes seems that classroom language is construed as synonymous with spoken language (see Chaudron, 1988;Ellis, 1984;Long, 1989;Mitchell, 1985;van Lier, 1988). Nevertheless, in the context of the U.S. high school classrooms examined in this study, spoken language was regarded by students and 'teachers alike as a relatively insignificant mode.…”

Section: Written Language Use In the Mainstreammentioning

confidence: 99%

ESL versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning Environments

Harklau¹

1994

TESOL Quarterly

149

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language minority students are often placed in mainstream, English‐medium classrooms long before they develop the degree of language proficiency necessary to compete on an equal footing with native speakers of the school language. With the ever‐increasing presence of such students in U.S. schools, ESL and content‐area educators are working to better integrate their respective curricula and instructional roles. In order to accomplish this integration, significant instructional differences in these two contexts must be identified, and systematic comparisons must detail how L2 learners fare in each of these instructional environments. What do students lose and gain in their transition from ESL to the mainstream? This question was addressed in a 3 ½ year ethnography of the L2 learning experiences of newcomer students attending a high school in northern California. The study, which followed 4 Chinese ethnic immigrant students as they made the transition from ESL to mainstream classes, contrasted patterns of spoken and written language use in classrooms, identified significant differences in the content and goals of the ESL versus mainstream curricula, and documented language instruction and feedback in both contexts. Both contexts were also evaluated in terms of the socializing features of schooling, such as counseling and peer networks. As in many other U.S. public schools, the isolated and marginalized position of the ESL program in an institution that otherwise made no adjustment for nonnative speakers produced a makeshift system in which there was no appropriate instructional environment for learners of the school language.

show abstract

Section: Written Language Use In the Mainstreammentioning

confidence: 99%

ESL versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning Environments

Harklau¹

1994

TESOL Quarterly

149

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Corrective feedback is one of the most long-standing foci of research into teacherstudent interaction, with mixed results (see, e.g., Chaudron, 1988;Mitchell, 1985). However, more recent versions of the interaction hypothesis have given increased theoretical importance to the provision of negative evidence about L2 structure for classroom learners, as noted above (Long, 1996).…”

Section: Corrective Feedback Recasts and Negative Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Current Trends in Classroom Research

Mitchell

2009

The Handbook of Language Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In stressing the need to understand classroom processes Mitchell (1985) points to the lack of an overall theoretical framework, while Chaudron (1988) explains that no explanatory model currently exists that interrelates all the possible variables involved in second language classrooms. This lack of theoretical frameworks is also lamented by teacher educators, who for some time have been seeking to develop frameworks which can be used as the basis for teacher development programs (Ramani, 1990;Richards & Nunan, 1990;Tedick & Walker, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating safe learning environments: Developing and maintaining class cohesion

Senior¹

2001

Intercultural Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on an Australian study that was conducted in two distinct phases. Phase One examined the belief systems of 28 experienced language teachers, while Phase Two used the theoretical framework generated by the teachers to document the social evolution of eight intensive English language classes containing adult learners from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Phase One revealed that language teachers place high value on class cohesion, believing that classes that operate as cohesive groups provide safe environments for language learning. Phase Two described a range of individual and collective classroom behaviours and identi ed a variety of strategies used by teachers in their attempts to develop and maintain class cohesion. The study has implications for pedagogy because it foregrounds the importance of class cohesion and identi es the kinds of classroom behaviours that can enhance the development of cohesiveness in language classes. It also raises the question of the degree to which students do actually feel safe in "safe" learning environments.

show abstract

Process research in second-language classrooms

Cited by 22 publications

References 48 publications

ESL versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning Environments

ESL versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning Environments

Current Trends in Classroom Research

Creating safe learning environments: Developing and maintaining class cohesion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About