Abstract
This study was based on the belief that observing existing classroom practices could bring forth insights into improving a language teacher’s instruction. The main sources of data collection were videotaped classroom observations, a classroom observation protocol, a post-study open-ended questionnaire to the students and a post-study interview with the teacher. Four stages were involved in this study. Stage 1 dealt with pre-observation discussion and negotiation with the teacher. In stage 2 videotaped classroom observations were conducted four times at a junior high school English class in Taiwan. The videotaped classroom activities and instructions were recorded according to the protocol. Stage 3 involved discussing with the teacher the results obtained from the observations, and seeking options to refine classroom practices. The final stage aimed to implement and evaluate the options taken. The reactions from the teacher and students indicated that the options implemented-preview activities, group discussion and controlled/guided writing practices -made English learning more impressive and effective. Limitations of the present study and suggestions for future studies are also discussed.

Key words: an EFL class, classroom observations, options, preview activities, group discussion, writing practices

1. Introduction

English language teaching (ELT) classroom observations have traditionally been seen as part of teacher evaluation and observers are typically administrators and senior teachers. Feedback from observers, as Sheal (1989) notes, is usually unsystematic, subjective, and impressionist. Also, the relationship between observers and observees can be tense; the observers are evaluative, while the observees tend to be defensive. Classroom observations under such conditions might not help much in the observees’ professional growth and development.

ELT classroom observations nowadays, however, have emphasized the need of holding more developmental than judgemental view in classroom observations, viz. the main purpose of observations is not to judge subjectively what is good and bad teaching, but to work with the observee to explore and identify the limitations as well as the positive aspects in a class, thereby promoting the observee’s critical thinking and professional growth. Such a view, as Williams (1989, p.85) states in an in-service teacher-training program, helps teachers to “develop their own judgements of what goes on in their own classrooms, sharpen their awareness of what their pupils are doing and the interactions that take place in their classes, and heighten their ability to evaluate their own teaching practices.” This implies that observation can serve as an intermediary between a teacher’s teaching philosophies and practices. Nunan (1989, p. 76) also holds that since classrooms are “where the action is”, spending time looking in classrooms can enrich our understanding of language learning and teaching.

   To maximize the effectiveness of observation in an ELT class, however, researchers have pointed out that observation tasks need to be specified and system-based (Wajnryb, 2001; Wallace, 2001), and the focus should be oriented more towards teacher development rather than teacher evaluation (Sheal, 1989).To have a beneficial impact on the way individual teachers teach, Sheal (1989) further claims that practicing teachers need to get involved in the observational research and classroom observers should be trained. This can help establish not only a critical element but a cooperative and interactive relationship between teacher and observer. Wajnryb (2001, p.11) also stresses that practicing teachers should act as co- investigators or co-explorers, from whom “the initiation for action and spirit of enquiry comes from”. Under such active engagement, meaningful discussions of language classroom events can occur, and the voice of observees can be heard. This can therefore motivate teachers to appraise their old assumptions in light of new ideas emerging from observations (Wajnryb, 2001) and can make the alternatives sought out more effective in subsequent teaching.
Different tools and techniques have been used to document classroom activities and interactions, of which the most commonly employed include personal recall, documented recall, audio, video, and transcript (discussed in Wallace, 2001, p.63). All of these techniques can be complementary; for example, a lesson or group discussion can be videotaped and subsequently viewed by the teacher and/or learners. This can then elicit rich recall data and comments about what is going on in the class. Audio or video records can also produce detailed transcripts for data analysis. As for observation schemes, two distinct schemes have been in use: one is based on a preconceived set of categories, the other on open-ended (ethnographic) theory. The first type includes the frequently mentioned Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) which centers on teacher talk and divides classroom language into ten categories, the modified version of FIAC by Moskowitz (1971) in which teacher talk and student talk are categorized in a more balanced and sophisticated way, and the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) which is considered the most sophisticated and consists of two parts. The first part focuses on classroom activities, the second on classroom discourse (For a clearer description of these three instruments, please see Nunan, 1989, p.83-87).The second type (ethnography), on the other hand, questions complete dependence on predetermined categories and tabulated data (Van Lier, 1988, discussed in Nunan, 1989, p.88-89).It advocates that classroom interaction patterns and structures should emerge naturally from the data rather than from a prior selection of categories.

   Each of the observational tools and schemes has its own advantages and limitations, and therefore deciding which to adopt, as Nunan (1989) puts it, presupposes our research purpose and characteristics of settings. 

2. Research Questions
The purpose of the current study was twofold. First, it attempted to conceptualize through classroom observations the activity structure and instruction patterns of an EFL class in a junior high school in Taiwan and identify the existing problems. Second, it tried to seek out feasible interventions to improve the class and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions taken. The following research questions addressed the aim of this study:

What were the instruction activities and patterns of the class under study?
What interventions could be taken to improve the class?
What were the students’ reactions to the interventions taken?

 3. Methodology
In methodology this study is classroom-centered action research. This type of research involves small-scale interventions in the functioning of the real world (Cohen and Manion, 1985), and the collaboration of the researcher as well as the teacher (Nunan, 1989). Multiple stages are included, from identifying a certain problem in the practical milieu, planning and taking some actions within the range and influence of the practitioner, reflecting on their effectiveness, and finally making sense of the findings.

3.1 Participants
A class of thirty-five third-grade junior high school students in Taiwan, aged from 15 to 17, was involved in this study. Their English ability ranked middle in the school. The English class primarily consisted of the segments of vocabulary, sentence patterns, reading text, and dialogue text, with five class periods a week and forty-five minutes per period. The teacher had taught English in this school for 17 years. She was also the coordinator of the school’s English teaching and learning field when this study was undertaken. We have known each other for several years. She invited me to visit her class after we had some talks about the current status of English teaching in Taiwanese junior high schools. We then had several times of discussion about the way of observation and what to focus on in the process.

3.2 Methods of Data Collection
The methods of data collection in this study included videotaped classroom observations, the classroom observation protocol (see Appendix A), the post-study interview with the teacher, and the post-study questionnaire (see Table 2 for the items) to the students. We decided to focus the observation on classroom activity and instructional structure because these aspects were what the teacher was concerned about. The observation protocol was partly adapted from the COLT scheme (see Nunan, 1993, p.99). We decided to videotape the class because this would enable us easily to go back to the data we wanted. Also, I was afraid that my presence might have an inhibiting influence on the existing patterns of classroom interaction.

3.3 Procedure and Data Analysis
The present study was conducted in the middle of the first semester in 2005. At first, a classroom observation protocol was designed and several times of discussion were held with the teacher. The research objective and procedure were then explained to the students. After this, four times of classroom activities and instruction were videotaped by a probation teacher. After each video recording, I viewed the video, made notes according to the observation protocol, noted down necessary transcripts to support each theme and gave my comments. The teacher then (usually the next day) read the protocol, recalled her actions and responded to my comments. After we discussed the four videotaped lessons and decided on the alternatives to improve the class, the teacher explained to the class the interventions that would be taken. During the implementation stage, I kept discussing with the teacher to understand her reactions and seek out how the interventions could be modified for the better. Finally, to understand the students’ reactions to the interventions taken, the post-study open-ended questionnaire in Chinese was administered to the students.

Data analysis in this paper was primarily qualitative as this was a small-scale study in a particular setting and among a particular group of participants. Besides, the data collected included not only what the researcher observed and described but also what the participants behaved and reacted. Data collected from the post-study interview with the teacher and the post-study questionnaire were first translated into English and then followed the procedure from analysis to interpretation. In the analysis stage, for constructing categories the data were read several times. The categories were then coded and quotes were selected for each category. The interpretation stage attempted to conceptualize the phenomena surfacing and seek out possible causes or solutions. Data from classroom observation protocols also went through similar stages, from identifying the instruction patterns of each teaching segment, selecting content for supporting the patterns, to seeking out possible causes or solutions. Besides, the data were categorized in terms of macro-level and micro-level structure. The former refers to the main tasks undertaken in teaching a lesson. The latter, on the other hand, refers to the procedure in accomplishing each of the four main segments: vocabulary, sentence patterns, dialogue text, and reading text.

4. Results
4.1 Findings from Classroom Observations
Based on the data collected from four videotaped classroom observations, figurative structures for the macro-level and micro-level activities were sorted out. Figure 1 shows that the activities encompassed in the macro-level structure were vocabulary teaching, sentence pattern instruction, dialogue explanation and practice, reading text explanation, practice on workbook exercises, and a simulated test. All of these activities were completed in six class periods. The first three periods were spent on the words, idioms and sentence patterns that would be used in the subsequent dialogue and reading texts. The fourth and fifth periods centered on the dialogue and reading texts. In the process of instruction, both target and native languages were used. About twenty minutes before the end of the third and fifth period was used for discussing the homework exercise on the workbook. The sixth period was spent on doing a simulated test.

Vocabulary teaching  →  Sentence pattern instruction  →  Discussion on workbook exercise  →  Dialogue text teaching  →  Reading passage explanation  →  Discussion on workbook exercise  →  Simulated testing
Figure 1 The Macro Level Activities

Figure 2 shows that four stages were frequently adopted by the teacher to accomplish the segments of vocabulary, sentence patterns, and dialogue and reading texts. During the lead-in stage, the teacher would use flash cards, sample sentences or pictures to demonstrate the meaning or use of new language and introduce the dialogue and reading texts. During the elicitation stage, the teacher would try to examine if the students could use the new language or understand the new texts. She would ask the students to translate the new vocabulary or make sentences by using the

Lead-in → Elicitation → Explanation →Reproduction practice
 

--------------- Problems detected
Figure 2 The Micro Level Structure

sample sentences given. As for the dialogue and reading texts, she would ask the students to answer a certain questions relating to the texts. After this stage, the teacher would explain in detail each word and sentence pattern, including parts of speech and the key features of the pattern. Grammar translation was employed to explain the dialogue and reading texts. In explanation she often referred to the students’ known knowledge and associated new knowledge with life-like situations. For example, in explaining the word traffic, the teacher connected what the students had learned and elicited the expressions like traffic jam, traffic lights, traffic rules, traffic accidents, and traffic signs. Another example is that when dealing with the usage of fault and hurt and the distinction between “bump + O” and “bump into + O”, the teacher referred to a recent accident and elicited the following dialogue:

T: Now let’s talk about the recent train accident happening in Taoyuang. Did the train bump or bump into the bus?
  (The students looked interested and talked to each other in Chinese about the causes of the accident).
S: The train bumped the bus.
T: Good. How about the people on the bus?
S: Some people are hurt.
T: Good. Was it the bus or train driver’s fault?
  (The students talked to each other in Chinese again about the causes of the accident).
S1: Bus driver’s fault.
S2: Train driver’s fault.

This dialogue drew many students’ interest and enhanced their learning of what was being taught. Reproduction practice, in which competition games were often involved, was finally used to enhance the students’ learning. If problems were detected, the teacher would go back to the explanation stage and provide more examples. 

The interactions between the teacher and the students were comfortable. During the whole process, the teacher kept smiling, and providing cues and encouragement. The interaction pattern that frequently occurred in the class is as follows. The teacher initiated questions and the students responded. She would first ask the whole class some general questions and then ask individual students for more details. She would give praise if the question was well responded. Otherwise, she would provide more cues, such as repeating the question or translating the question into Chinese. She knew her students very well and in appropriate situations would introduce a simple game. For example, the game “London Bridge Is Falling Down” was played when the teacher was introducing the word “bridge” and found that many of the students looked tired. The 6-minute game did succeed in refreshing the students. 

However, the whole process of instruction was not without its own limitations. For example, about 60% of the time was spent on the instruction of vocabulary, grammar and sentence patterns (see Table 1). Also, the teacher would explain in detail and translate each sentence in the dialogue and reading texts. This made her unable to finish teaching the texts as expected. Additionally, the discourse and practice were mainly restricted to a single sentence, clause or word. The students had few opportunities to apply what had been taught to a text-like situation. Another limitation was that even though the student-teacher interactions were comfortable, the class was mostly teacher-initiated and those responding to the teacher’s questions were often restricted to about one-third of the students. It appears difficult to judge whether the other two-thirds could really understand and produce the new language.

Table 1 Time Spent in Each of the Four Main Segments

Segment	Vocabulary	Grammar & patterns	Dialogue text	Reading text
Time spent	70 mins	65 mins	50 mins	40 mins

Note: mins = minutes. The teacher was supposed to finish these four segments in five forty-five minute class periods.

4.2 Interventions Taken to Improve the Class

     Having discussed the results of the videotaped observations, we started to seek out alternatives to improve the problems emerging. The following guiding principles were then identified: autonomy, collaboration, and creativity. In terms of autonomy, we meant that the students could be more active and empowered to assume some independent work. As for collaboration, we meant that the students could be grouped to work on different tasks. We hypothesized that through teamwork, learning would become more impressive and effective as a great deal of discussion and negotiation would be involved in the process. Also, teamwork might encourage silent learners to make contributions to learning tasks. Creativity meant that after the completion of each of the four macro-level tasks, the students should be provided opportunity to use what they had learned to create a text.

This was expected to enhance the students’ learning and give them a sense of success. To raise the students’ willingness in creativity tasks, sufficient prompts and information would be given. All these principles, in short, aimed to make some change from a teacher-dominated format to one in which the students would take some responsibilities in learning, work collaboratively in groups and produce their own texts. 

These principles then led us to modify the instruction procedure as shown in Figure 3. The modified instruction model was partly adapted from Harmer (1985). It requires both the students and teacher to make pre-class efforts. The teacher instruction foci will be selective, mainly based on the problems that the students present after pre-class autonomous study. In the process of instruction, the stages involved are similar to those in Figure 2. However, in the new model the teacher is advised to reduce the amount of time for the explanation stage or go next to the reproduction stage, if the students can perform well in elicitation. Another difference is that teamwork will be a main focus at the reproduction and creativity stages. During the post-instruction stage, exercises on workbook and simulated tests are replaced by creativity tasks. The teacher will go back to the explanation stage if the students can not perform well in reproduction or creativity tasks.

Figure 3 A Modified Instruction Model

On the basis of the modified instruction model, a number of activities were designed. To develop the learners’ autonomy and active participation in class, the preview task was conducted prior to teaching each of the four main segments in the macro-level structure. In proceeding with the task, the teacher first defined the content for preview and made it clear to the students, the students then performed the task after class and filled in a feedback form (see Appendix B), and finally the teacher read the feedback form to decide what to concentrate on when teaching. During the reproduction stage, practice in the textbook was used, but we also designed some activities to associate the practice with the students’ life experiences. For example, in the lesson on computers, we provided for group discussion the questions like “What are some of your reasons for using a computer?” and “What are some of the problems in your life that computers can’t help you to solve?” As for the creativity stage, two types of writing practice were carried out. The first was controlled writing (see Appendix C), aiming to enhance vocabulary and sentence pattern learning, and the second was guided (see Appendix D), serving to reinforce the comprehension of dialogue and reading texts. Writing instructions and new words were dealt with in Chinese beforehand. Writing practice was first conducted in group discussion so that the low-level students would not be left helpless. After this, the students started to work on the writing task individually and submitted their written work the next day. The interventions spanned twelve class periods and involved two-lesson instruction.

4.3 Students’ Reactions to the Interventions Taken

Table 2 summarizes the students’ reactions to the interventions implemented. 88.6% of the students responded positively to the preview task in that it made learning more efficient and concentrated. As for filling in the preview feedback form, 85.7% of the students stated that this task helped them define their own problems and facilitated their text comprehension. It also enabled the teacher to locate their real problems, thereby making teaching more effective. The teacher also expressed similar reactions in the post-study interview:

“Because of the preview activity, the students found that they could follow my teaching more easily. Also, I could locate their real difficulties and focus my teaching on those points that troubled the students. So, such an activity made my teaching and students’ learning more efficient.”

Table 2

Items	Reactions	Reasons
1. Does the preview activity help you learn English? Why?	Yes: 88.6% (n = 31)   No: 11.4% (n = 4)	Easier to follow the class More efficient in learning More concentrated in class Difficulty in grammar and structure
2. Does filling in the preview form help your learning? Why?	Yes: 85.7% (n = 30)   No: 11.4% (n = 4)	More efficient in teacher instruction Having a clearer picture of the text Clearly knowing self difficulties
3. Does group discussion help your learning? Why?	Yes: 74.3% (n = 26)   No: 25.7% (n = 9)	Easier to understand the text Making learning more interesting and concentrated Building team spirit Team members not likable Feeling embarrassed to ask questions
4. Does the writing practice help you learn the text? Why?	Yes: 77.1% (n = 27)   No: 11.4% (n = 4)	Applying what has been learned Making learning more impressive More able to find out self problems during the writing process
5.     Other suggestions for improving the class:                Providing low-level students with easier tasks Allowing the use of some Chinese in writing practice More time for group discussion before writing Showing well-written work in public Note. In the reactions all number may not add up to 35 and the percentage may not add up to 100% due to the fact that some students responded “No ideas”.

Despite such advantages, a few students (11.4%) expressed that the preview task did not help their learning. Their difficulty rested on grammar and sentence structure. For example, one of the students wrote this, “I do not have difficulty in new words or idioms because I can look them up in the dictionary. But I am so much troubled by new grammar and sentence structure.”

In relation to group discussion, 74.3% of the students reported that this activity helped their learning. The benefits pointed out include the following: group discussion made it easier to understand the content of texts; it made learning more interesting and concentrated; and it helped develop students’ team spirit to solve their problems. The following reactions from the post-study questionnaire evidence such benefits:

“I enjoyed group discussion because it made learning easier. We could discuss with each other the problems we did not understand. I could quickly get help from my classmates. I felt happy with this way.”

“In group discussion, we exchanged ideas and helped each other to use the words and patterns we had learned. It also gave me a clear picture of the reading text.”
“Group discussion could cultivate our team spirit. In order to get the answers first, we would quickly become concentrated and make a concerted effort to solve problems. I think learning in this method is impressive and effective.”

However, 25.7% of the students expressed that they did not like such an activity either because of the team members they worked with or because they felt it embarrassing to ask others questions.

In regard to the writing practice, 77.1% of the students acknowledged the usefulness of encompassing such practice because it helped to apply what had been learned and made learning more impressive. It also helped some students to redefine their own problems. This is evidenced in the following student responses:

“It’s more impressive to learn through writing than through recitation or direct oral practice. Writing practice helped me to apply what I had learned in the text, including vocabulary, spelling, grammar and sentence patterns. Also, after the writing practice, I had a better understanding of the text.”

The following observation from the teacher further indicates that such practice could also provide the students with an opportunity for self expression and imagination and
give them a sense of success:

“Most of the writing activities were very interesting to the students. I think they enjoyed the activities very much, especially the ad for an ideal mate which provided them with an opportunity for self-expression and imagination. They also liked the second guided writing, composing a short essay from answering questions. This gave them a sense of satisfaction because they felt able to finish a piece of written work in English.”

Put simply, in the current study writing practice based on reading texts created meaningful learning because it not only enhanced the association between new information and existent knowledge but also sustained the students’ learning motivation. Nevertheless, 11.4% of the students did not think that writing practice helped their learning because they were either uninterested in English or unable to write in English.
The post-study questionnaire also came up with several suggestions for improving the writing practice (see Item 5, Table 2), including providing low-level students with easier writing tasks, allowing the use of some Chinese, providing more time for group discussion, and showing well-written work in public. The following responses indicate such needs.

“The writing practice might be easy to some students, but it is difficult to me. So I hope that easier words, idioms and sentence patterns would be given and the use of certain Chinese be allowed for more difficult and complex expressions.”
“I hope that the well-written works could be shown in the class bulletin board so that we could read them after class. It would be interesting and encouraging if the work I completed could be read by my classmates.”

5. Discussion

The results of this study appear to show that the features of a language class can be brought to light and conceptualized through classroom observations. Such understanding and findings can then form the basis for taking appropriate measures to promote the overall effectiveness of the teaching/learning process. Classroom observations in this study did not lean towards the traditional side where the observer sits at the back of the classroom, keeping ticking items on a checklist or writing down something. In this study there were pre- and post-observation discussions to hear the observee’s voices. The teacher was an active collaborator, interacting with the researcher in the whole process. Involving such collaboration and dialogue benefits both the observee and the observer. The observee would feel more relaxed and respected, thus avoiding the possibility of changing his/her patterns of instruction. The observer, having listened to the observee’s story, can get a better idea about what to focus on, without the burden of observing every aspect.

The current study can also serve to demonstrate the effectiveness of the modified instruction model and the concomitant activities designed. The preview activity, aimed at developing learner responsibility and autonomy, has made learning more concentrated and efficient. This corresponds to Scharle and Szabo’s (2000) idea that success in language learning greatly depends on learners having a responsible
attitude. Learners’ reaction that group discussion built up their team spirit and made their learning more interesting and effective seems to concur with Johnson and Johnson’s (1985) finding that group work learning experiences promote higher achievement than competitive and individualistic experiences. In Vygotsky’s (1978) cognitive theory, peer cooperation enhances learning because learners are similar to one another in mental and cognitive status and thus can better activate the “zone of proximal development”. In addition, encouraging students to cooperate and depend on each other, as Phillips (1999) concludes, allows students to feel more at ease in learning. The gains of including writing practice in a reading course in the current study appear to be in conformity with Stotsky’s (1983) observation that writing helps to apply and enhance what has been learned and deepen students’ understanding of reading texts. The studies by Belanger (1987) and Shanahan (1984) also reveal and support similar results.

There are, however, limitations to this modified instruction model. For example, 11.4% of the students said that they were not benefited from the preview task because of difficult grammar and sentences. To solve such problems, it is necessary to provide some prompts beforehand to lower students’ anxiety and promote their preview motivation. In addition, 25.7% of the students expressed that they did not like group discussion either because of the team members they worked with or because they felt it uncomfortable to ask others questions. Faced with these problems, the techniques in the literature, such as holding individual talk with those students (Tsui, 2000) and providing them opportunities for classroom success (Oxford, 2000) might help reduce
those students’ discomfort in group discussion.

As for writing practice, 11.4% of the students reported that such practice did not help their learning. Those students were typically low-level in English ability, so the suggestions from the post-study questionnaire, like providing easier writing tasks and allowing the students to use some Chinese in writing, are likely to promote their writing willingness. Teacher’s adjusting “the difficulty level of tasks to the students’ abilities and counterbalance demanding tasks with manageable ones”, according to DÖrnyei (2001, p.90), means providing students with success experiences, which in turn will protect students’ self-esteem and increase their self-confidence.

6. Conclusion and Suggestions
Classroom observations are of great value to language education because classrooms are where actions take place (Nunan, 1989). By observing and recording the actions, we can have a richer understanding of language learning and teaching and how interaction between the teacher and students as well as among the students themselves goes through a lesson. Such understanding contributes to our professional growth and development and enables us to come up with more effective solutions to improve a class. However, it must be noted that to make classroom observations effective, there must be pre-observation discussions between the observer and the observee. Besides, the post-observation feedback should not be overtly critical and the observee should be given opportunities to recall their practices and present responses to the observer’s comments. Only through constant discussion and negotiation can the tensions between the two parties be reduced and the mutual respect and trust be built up.

Even though English teaching in junior high schools in Taiwan is still mostly exam-driven, we believe that something can always be done to make some change for the better. Examining the existing situations through classroom observations is a feasible means to attain this goal. The current study, however, only spanned a few weeks and examined only the subjects in one class. Future studies can be more longitudinal and focus on more subjects in different classes, for example, one with traditional pedagogy, the other going through classroom observations and innovative activities, to compare learners’ learning effectiveness and reactions to class instruction. Also, future research can focus on more specific points, such as how the teacher responds to the questions initiated by students. This would facilitate the teacher’s instruction and his/her interaction with students. Moreover, English teachers in a school can work together to form, in the words of Fullan (2000, p.31),a professional community. This can serve as a vehicle for sharing instructional techniques and ideas, thereby promoting professional growth. It can also encourage the teachers to keep examining their givens and looking for alternatives to improve their teaching practices.

References

Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5, 10-18.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.

DÖrnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fullan, M. (2000). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Harmer, J. (1985). The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman.

Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, E. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.

Moskowitz, G.. (1971). Interaction Analysis: A new modern language for supervisors. Foreign Language Annals. 9(2), 211-221.

Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1993). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. (2000). Anxiety and the language learners: New insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 58-67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, E. M. (1999). Decreasing language anxiety: Practical techniques for oral activities. In D.J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston:  McGraw-Hill.

Scharle, A. & Szabo, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466-477.

Sheal, P. (1989). Classroom observation: Training the observers. ELT Journal, 43(2), 92-104.

Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2000). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (2001). Classroom observation tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, M. J. (2001). Training foreign language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, M. (1989). A developmental view of classroom observations. ELT Journal, 43(2), 85-91.

Appendix See PDF