Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794

PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR

EXPANDING AND IMPROVING CLASSROOM INPUT STRATEGIES
Majid N. Al-Amri
Taibah University

ABSTRACT

This study analysed the possibilities of implementing principles of language teaching and
learning for expanding and improving classroom input strategies. Thirty-three English as a
foreign language student teachers participated in the study for four weeks. Data were collected
through Likert-type surveys, written assessments and a third-party interview. Findings indicated
that (1) participants showed a high level of perceived knowledge; (2) participants showed a high
level of content knowledge on written tests; (3) students expressed positive attitudes towards the
learning approach (i.e., grounding input strategies in well-established principles of teaching and
learning); and (4) participants performed better in the post-videotaped evaluation than in the
pre-videotaped evaluation.

Keywords: classroom input strategies, principles of language teaching and learning, English as a
foreign language (EFL), student teacher

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have revealed that the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom continues
to be dominated by the transmission model where the teacher is the sole repository of knowledge.
This model fails to provide students sufficient time to comprehend messages and use them in
actual, meaningful discourse in the target language in class (Al-Hazmi, 2003; Al-Hazmi &
Scholfield, 2007; Ali 2008; Al-Khwaiter, 2001; Hiep, 2007; Khan, 2011; Lahlali, 2003; Nasir,
Yusuf & Wardana, 2019; Syed, 2003; Vaish, 2008; Xie, 2008). Some teacher educators and
researchers agree that lack of meaningful input within the EFL classroom, or ‘a failure’ to make
input more comprehensible and meaningful as it is referred to by Li and Walsh (2011), may bring
about disengagement with students and poor student achievement (Alexander, Doddington, Gray,
Hargreaves & Kershner, 2010; Kang & Hyatt, 2010; Marcellino, 2008; Ryan, 2015; Skidmore,
2006; Wray & Kumpulainen, 2010). However, building on the professional argument about the
lockstep rigidity found in language teaching methods and the consensus that no method could
claim supremacy (Celce-Murcia, 2014: 10), researchers suggest that attention now be turned to
the ways in which teachers can work effectively in their educational context to shape language
learning and teaching (Adamson, 2004; Cook-Sather, Bovill & Felten, 2014).

In the post-method era, the teacher does not follow a certain method or approach to improve the
quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, in order to help student teachers make input more
MN Al-Amri

comprehensible and meaningful within the classroom, which can provide more opportunities for
language learners to understand the target language and make input more comprehensible and
meaningful (Hatch, 1983; Lee & VanPatten, 1995; Doughty & Long, 2003), there is a need to
intervene at the school and classroom level through teacher education programmes. One approach
to achieve this is helping EFL student teachers ground their teaching in ‘well-established
principles of language teaching and learning’ (Brown, 2002: 17). Unlike other possible
approaches (e.g., using methods which are specific in terms of the procedures and material),
grounding student teachers’ teaching in well-established principles of language teaching would
enhance numerous ‘micro-strategies’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2003, 2006) within the classroom
which can lay a foundation for them as autonomous, self-directed and reflective individuals to
develop their own teaching practices, strategies and materials.

PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING

Language teaching has been recently influenced by many language educators who have argued
that there is no one ‘best’ method that achieves the goals and needs of all learners and
programmes (Adamson, 2004; Celce-Murcia, 2014; Littlewood, 2011; Nation, 2018; Savignon,
2007; Spada, 2007). Aspects of language teaching practices that take into account how to create
meanings for students in their educational context should be emphasised (Duff, 2014: 241).
Therefore, language educators make a distinction between the restricted version of
communicative language teaching involving aspects of language teaching which are commonly
observed in Western teaching contexts, particularly those involving European target languages,
and the wider version of communicative language teaching which is available to all types of
classroom context (Holliday, 1994). Within the broader version of language teaching,
Kumaravadivelu (2006) argues that teachers should be encouraged to: deal with increasingly
diverse and changing classroom environments and see them with new eyes (principle of
practicality); become sensitised to their students’ linguistic, social and cultural backgrounds and
needs (principle of particularity); and accommodate often-conflicting and ambiguous previously
held beliefs about students and their classroom motivations (principle of possibility).

Language teaching in the post-method era calls for practices or strategies of teaching designed to
reflect local needs and experiences as an alternative to method (e.g., Allwright & Hanks, 2009;
Kumaravadivelu, 2003, 2006; Littlewood, 2011; Savignon, 2007). Although this type of teaching
has been criticised as a ‘more holistic, redefined communicative language teaching’ (Bell, 2003:
326), it generates high concern for creating more space for teachers as principled pragmatists who
shape their students’ classroom learning and comprehension through informed teaching and
critical reflection (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Therefore, the aim is not to follow a particular
method or approach but to help teachers enhance their own teaching practices which are sensitive
to their own specific contexts (Nation, 2018: 142-143).

One of the recent frameworks of principles which should be viewed as ‘a provisional

specification’ (Stenhouse, 1975) was formulated by Ellis (2014). His framework can be
considered facilitative to second language acquisition (SLA). It includes 12 principles informed
by both cognitive and sociocultural learning theories (see Table 2). Ellis argues that teachers need
to subject these principles to critical scrutiny based on their reflections on their teaching.

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
48
MN Al-Amri

Ellis (2014: 31-32) refers to a case study of an English language teacher named Juanita Watts as a
good example of how language teachers can improve their classroom teaching practices by
developing well-grounded principles of language teaching and learning. Watts drew on the 12
principles proposed by Ellis (2014) to teach upper-intermediate learners in a private language
school in Auckland, New Zealand. Watts used the principles to promote ‘micro-strategies’
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2003, 2006), which she referred to as ‘the kinds of interaction that have
been hypothesised to promote language learning’. Watts drew on principle 8 to investigate the
negotiation of meaning and how to make input more meaningful to her students. She also used
principle 9 to explain how and why two students interacted very differently inside the classroom.
In addition, she reported that principle 4 helped her use an information-gap task (i.e., spot the
difference), because this caters to the kind of incidental acquisition that fosters implicit
knowledge. Watts concluded that her lesson benefited from making explicit the principles that
informed her action.

Similar to Ellis, Lightbown (1985, 2000) also calls for explicit principles on how language
teachers can best promote their teaching. Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2003, 2006) proposed a
framework of 10 principles or ‘macro-strategies’: 1) maximise learning opportunities; 2) facilitate
negotiated interaction; 3) minimise perceptual mismatches; 4) activate intuitive heuristics; 5)
foster language awareness; 6) contextualise linguistic input; 7) integrate language skills; 8)
promote learner autonomy; 9) raise cultural consciousness; and 10) ensure social relevance. Such
a framework provides teachers the independence to enhance their situation-specific micro-
strategies which are general plans derived from currently available theoretical, empirical and
pedagogical knowledge related to L2 learning and teaching (Kumaravadivelou, 2006: 201).
However, the principles proposed by Ellis (2014) were used for the current study. They formed
part of content knowledge in the course materials which participants were required to study.

CLASSROOM INPUT STRATEGIES

The principles formulated by Ellis (2014) were covered in the study to help participants expand
and improve their classroom micro-strategies. Classroom micro-strategies are usually referred to
as input strategies, or what Doughty and Long (2003) refer to as elaborating input. Elaboration in
this context has several meanings. It refers to the myriad ways in which EFL teachers modify
classroom discourse, that is, the manner in which they use English language to make it
comprehensible to EFL students (Ahmadpour Kasgari, 2018; Doughty & Long, 2003). In the
present study, the terms ‘classroom micro-strategies’ and ‘input strategies’ are used
interchangeably to refer to interactive strategies, use of the target language and use of English
(see Table 1).

Table 1: Input strategies

Interactive strategies:
Confirmation checks, comprehension checks, being accessible for questions, recasts
Use of the target language:
Modelling, gestures, visuals, examples, visual representation, repetition, clear enunciation, lower speech rate,
rephrasing, high frequency vocabulary, less slang, fewer idioms, shorter sentences, simplified language, use of
cognates, explicit correction, formulaic expressions, praise and encouragement
Use of English:
Use of English for directions, explanations or confirmations

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
49
MN Al-Amri

METHOD

Participants

The study context was an EFL teacher education programme offered by a public university
located in the western region of Saudi Arabia. After completing a bachelor’s degree in English,
aspiring graduates complete a two-semester, 36-credit-hour programme that qualifies them to
teach EFL at all levels of public schools. The programme requires an internship to provide
students with the opportunity to apply what they acquired in the courseworks to an EFL
classroom setting. This study had 35 participants, all of whom agreed to participate; however,
two participants quit the programme. The results were therefore reported for the remaining 33
participants. This included all the EFL student teachers who had been accepted into the
programme for the academic year 2015-2016. The ages of participants ranged from 24 to 33
years, with a mean age of 26.86 (SD = 6.47). The course in which the students enrolled was
English Language Teaching Methods. It is a two-credit course offered in the first semester of the
programme. The course meets for two hours each week during 14 teaching weeks of the
semester. It introduces students to different English language teaching approaches and methods,
with an emphasis on the current communicative approach and its applications within the EFL
classroom.

Class format

Educators describe a number of active learning strategies. They specifically call for faculty to
create a context where the learner is motivated to learn without thinking of the lecturer as the
only source of knowledge to a more interactive style of learning in which the lecturer must
downplay his or her authority for students to take ownership of their learning. Similarly,
Cavanagh (2011), for example, found that students valued activities that provided opportunities
for them to interact in ways that engage them and support their learning. One of the strategies
proposed for creating such environments is conceptual workshops. Conceptual workshops are
structured in a way to help students collaborate with each other to understand classroom material
(Finkel, 1999). Johnson and Johnson (1994) demonstrated that participation in cooperative
learning settings, compared to that in individualistic or competitive learning settings, was a
strong predictor of academic success and development. Such learning environments help
participants to engage with the materials in a manner that stimulates their reflections and
awareness. McMullen (2014), for example, found that conceptual workshops helped her students
to stay actively engaged in class, clarify their thinking and gain a deeper understanding of
classroom material.

In the present study, four conceptual workshops were designed to help students work together in
order to engage with the principles of language teaching and learning proposed by Ellis (2014) in
deep and interesting ways to improve their use of input strategies. Decentring the researcher in
the classroom freed students to explore the principles and discuss them with one another without
fear of ‘getting it wrong’, as the questions were designed to keep them on track and to ensure that
they progressed through the material in a particular direction. Each workshop focused on
analysing and fine-tuning three principles of teaching and learning. During each conceptual
workshop, students were placed in small groups of approximately six students each to clarify and
develop shared understandings of the principles and their relationship with the input strategies
Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
50
MN Al-Amri

they would use within the EFL classroom. Each conceptual workshop prepared students to
undertake a principled evaluation that informed their actions to make their input strategies more
explicit, in order to make the input within the EFL classroom more meaningful. The researcher
facilitated their learning process, but did not participate in the discussion. The average time that
the class took to complete the workshop was 75 minutes. When students finished the workshop,
the instructor started lecturing for the remaining time of the class.

Study hypotheses

The following four hypotheses were formulated to achieve the study objectives:

(1) Participants will demonstrate a high level of perceived adequacy of course material covered
in the study.
(2) Participants will achieve a high level of content knowledge in the course materials covered in
the study.
(3) Participants will express positive attitudes towards the learning approach (i.e., grounding
input strategies in well-established principles of teaching and learning).
(4) Participants will perform better in the post-videotaped evaluation than they did in the pre-
videotaped evaluation.

Data collection

After the workshops, all the participants finished a Likert-type survey intended to find out about
their perceptions of adequacy of course material covered in the workshops (see Table 2). The
participants indicated their responses on a five-point scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to
‘comprehensively’. Students also completed a written post-test assessment designed by a
colleague from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the university, containing
objective test questions regarding their knowledge about 12 principles. After the workshops, all
the students also completed a Likert-type attitude survey designed by the researcher (see Table
3). It included seven positively and negatively keyed items. The response descriptors and
positive/negative polls were varied in an effort to maintain the respondents’ focus of attention.
Additional questions pertained to the participants’ opinion of the workshops, possible irritants
regarding workshops structure and their participation, and any observed changes in the group.

To learn about the participants’ use of input strategies after participating in the study, pre- and
post-videotaped evaluations were conducted. Students were videotaped individually for the first
15 minutes of their class period. The video evaluation involved a checklist of input strategies.
Two graduate students, who voluntarily participated in the study, individually indicated the input
strategy used by the observed student teacher. Independently judged pre- and post-test
evaluations were analysed using the Pearson production–moment correlation coefficient that
showed an acceptable inter-judge reliability of 0.84 and 0.89. In addition, in the last class
meeting, an external interviewer from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction audiotaped
the students responding to a series of questions about their learning experiences without the
presence of the instructor.

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
51
MN Al-Amri

Data analysis

To determine whether student teachers felt that the principles to be developed had been covered,
the mean responses and associated standard deviations for the appropriate survey questions were
calculated. The objective questions were scored (out of a possible 100 points). The student
attitudes towards the principles that inform students’ use of input strategies were analysed by
organising the responses for each participant followed by the related mean and standard
deviation. To reverse negatively keyed items, high scores on the negatively keyed items were
transformed to low scores (thus indicating low levels of the attribute being measured), meaning
that a score of 5 was recorded as 1 and a score of 4 was recorded as 2. Because the five-point
scale included 3 as a neutral point, a score of 3 was left unchanged. By reverse-scoring all of the
negatively keyed items, the items were made consistent. Video assessments were analysed by
comparing the percentage of items observed across the videotaped pretest and post-test. Scoring
of the video assessments consisted of a liberal score based on both evaluators’ assessment that
placed the advantage toward the student. For an input strategy to be counted as ‘not observed’,
both evaluators had to mark the relevant specific interaction strategy as ‘not observed’. If either
evaluator counted a classroom interaction strategy as ‘observed’, the interaction strategy was
evaluated as ‘observed’. This procedure allowed latitude for the lesson contents that may have
differed from those taught in the videotaped post-test.

RESULTS

It was found that all mean responses regarding the material covered in the workshops were 3.75
or higher on a five-point scale, with an overall SD range of 0.33 to 0.92 (see Table 2). Generally,
the students seemed to think that the class had appropriately covered the principles. Based on a
possible total of 100, written assessment scores ranged from 87 to 95, with a mean of 87.47.

Table 2: Students’ perceptions of the adequacy of course material covered in the workshops
Questions Responses
Low High
How well do you think the workshops have covered… 1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop
both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based - 1 3 21 8 4.1 0.77
competence.
Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus
- 1 4 19 9 4.1 0.72
predominantly on meaning.
Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on
- - 1 21 11 4.3 0.53
form.
Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at
developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting - 2 6 15 10 4 0.87
explicit knowledge.
Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learner’s
- 1 6 10 16 4.24 0.87
built-in syllabus.
Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires
- - 2 12 19 4.52 0.62
extensive L2 input.
Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires
- - 3 9 21 4.55 0.67
opportunities for output.
Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to
- - - 13 20 4.61 0.50
developing L2 proficiency.
Principle 9: Instruction needs to take into account individual - - - 4 29 4.88 0.33
Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
52
MN Al-Amri

differences in learners.
Principle 10: In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency, it is important
- 2 4 9 18 4.3 0.92
to examine free as well as controlled production.
Principle 11: Learners need to engage collaboratively in talk
- - - 7 26 4.79 0.42
about linguistic problems and try to agree on solutions to them.
Principle 12: Instruction needs to take into account the subjective
1 - 1 9 22 4.55 0.83
aspect to learning a new language.
Overall 1 7 30 149 209 4.41 0.67
Note: A dash (-) indicates no response

Overall, the students appeared to be satisfied with the workshops. All mean responses were 4.09
or higher on a five-point scale, with a standard deviation range of 0.44 to 0.88 (see Table 3).
However, the survey responses appeared to indicate that the student teachers worried about acting
as study participants (M = 2, SD = 1.12). In addition, when asked if they were being introduced
to principles of teaching and learning for the first time, all of them (100%) responded ‘yes’.
When asked which class format they would prefer (a lecture-based or mixed-method class) to
improve their input strategies through developing principles of language teaching and learning,
three students said that they preferred the lecture format and 30 students said that they preferred
the mixed-format. The participants wrote several positive comments and one suggestion in
response to the item, ‘Please write any comment you would like to share about your learning
experience.’ The comments included the following: ‘I started to ground the way I interact with
my students in well-established principles’, ‘The workshops helped me think about how I can tell
that students are successfully understanding what they read and listen to in my classroom’, ‘I am
now aware of why I should use different strategies with different students inside the classroom’,
‘I had opportunities to share every incident I was observing about how to help quite students to
participate inside the classroom with my group in the workshops’, and ‘I was able to compare my
understanding of classroom interaction and how it changed when I developed principles of
teaching and learning’. One student provided the following suggestion: ‘I think we need more
time to subject the principles to critical scrutiny.’ Another student wrote, ‘Sometimes I feel like I
need more opportunities to study the principles more based on my reflection on my actions in the
classroom.’

Table 3: Student responses indicating perceptions of the principles

Questions Responses
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Were you interested in grounding your input strategies in well-
- - 2 23 8 4.18 0.53
established principles of teaching and learning?
Did the principles help you undertake a thoughtful evaluation
1 1 - 16 15 4.30 0.88
of your input strategies?
Were you worried about learning the principles to improve
2 1 5 12 13 2 1.12
your input strategies?
Did the principles make your input strategies more explicit? - 1 3 19 10 4.15 0.71
Was it boring to improve your input by developing principles
24 8 1 - - 4.70 0.53
of teaching and learning?
Do you recommend the principles to student teachers in other
- - - 8 25 4.76 0.44
courses?
Do you think you are going to benefit from the principles in
- 1 2 8 22 4.55 0.75
the future?
Overall 27 12 13 86 93 4.09 0.71
Note: A dash (-) indicates no response
Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
53
MN Al-Amri

The videotaped pretest scores ranged from 16.33% to 25.67% with a mean of 21.64. The
videotaped post-test scores ranged from 63.33% to 93.33% with a mean of 84.79. The result was
significant at p ≤ 0.05 (z-score of -4.457345, p-value of 0.000000).

In the last class meeting, an external interviewer from the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction taped students responding to a series of questions without the researcher present.
When the interviewer inquired about the structure of a conceptual workshop, one participant said,
‘We study three principles in the chapter on a weekly basis. We discuss them in small groups and
talk about how they would inform our strategies in class.’ Another student added, ‘We are also
provided with a list of input strategies to be scrutinised in the light of the principles. We are
familiar with some of them. Others are new to us.’ When the interviewer inquired about the duty
of the instructor, one participant said, ‘He was always encouraging us to draft our own
reflections in small groups while referring to a list of strategies as we write.’ Another
commented, ‘And finally, he makes sure he displays examples of students’ completed reflections
for all to read.’

When asked about how effectively they felt they improved their input strategies by developing
principles of language teaching and learning, the students’ comments were extremely positive.
They remarked that grounding their teaching in well-established principles created opportunities
for them to expand and develop their input strategies. One student said, ‘Principle 4 motivated
me to ask students a lot of questions to help them develop implicit knowledge.’ Another student
added, ‘The same principle informed me that I should repeatedly write new words on the board
to help students focus on forms.’ One student commented, ‘I benefitted from Principle 9. It
helped me to use different strategies to make input meaningful in class and to make certain that
different students are excited and stay excited.’ Another student stated, ‘Principle 1 and 10
helped me understand why I should use verbal expressions that are fixed in form to check my
students’ comprehension from time to time.’

DISCUSSION

All the student teachers reported being affected by the experience in ways that challenged their
understanding of the respective roles of students and teachers. Study findings indicated promise
in the potential value of the learning approach of grounding EFL teaching in well-established
principles of language teaching and learning. Additionally, the study results showed an
acceptance of the approach by the EFL student teachers. One possible reason for the positive
results may be the learning environment that the conceptual workshops created for student
teachers. Such a supportive learning environment would positively affect EFL student teachers’
learning and attitudes towards the learning approach. Such arguments are in line with the
literature findings that conceptual workshops would help student teachers to stay actively
engaged in class, clarify their thinking and gain a deeper understanding of classroom material
(McMullen, 2014: 65).

The results for question 3 in the survey (‘Were you worried about learning the principles to
improve your input strategies?’) might be explained by the fact that teachers sometimes
experience fear concerning obtaining undesirable achievements, giving unsatisfactory
evaluations, reaching the limitations of knowledge or skills (McCrickerd, 2012), appearing
unintelligent to their peers and instructors (Fassinger, 1995), or being laughed at (Samson,
Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
54
MN Al-Amri

Proyer, Ceschi, Pedrini & Ruch, 2011). In many instances, the student teachers were observed to
be blushing or sweating in addition to behaving in ways that indicated they were afraid, such as
when speaking with difficulty or attempting to distract attention from anxiety-provoking stimulus
(e.g., asking a student to lead a discussion) by conducting avoidance behaviours like excessive
talking, conversing with other students or asking the instructor irrelevant questions. The
suggestion that more time is needed to subject the principles to critical scrutiny might be
explained by the fact that developing principles of language teaching and learning must involve a
longer learning curve for the student teachers to undertake a thoughtful evaluation of their own
teaching. This may help with a programme-wide culture change with regard to assisting EFL
student teachers to ground their teaching in well-established EFL principles. Working towards
such a clear idea of ‘ongoing regeneration of practice’ (Jaworski, 2006: 190) would situate
student teachers in contexts that provide opportunities for greater involvement.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There are some important points to note with regard to this learning approach. First, it is of great
value to talk about not only how to implement the approach, but also why it is used with students.
Students are required to perceive the reason for this type of learning as they may not be familiar
with such a learning approach. Second, students may initially be hesitant or anxious about getting
involved in conceptual workshops. It is essential to debrief them after the first conceptual
workshop to obtain their input for developing the structure specifically for their class. Lastly,
lecturers may find it really difficult to implement conceptual workshops because of the extra
demands placed on them to give up more control of the teaching and facilitate more of the
learning. Implementing a mixed-method format (lecture and conceptual workshop) for the first
meetings is recommended prior to implementing the conceptual workshop format.

Although the present study would point researchers toward useful procedures that can be applied
in future research and practice, there are several limitations to the study. One limitation here is
that this study was conducted with a limited number of male Saudi EFL student teachers in a
particular academic course. Results might vary according to the number, setting, gender,
language proficiency level, and educational and cultural backgrounds of participants. Another
limitation is that the principles in the present study have been derived predominantly from the
computational model of language acquisition that focuses on acquiring and using language (Ellis,
2014). Future research may draw on a set of principles based on the broader conceptualisation of
SLA.

REFERENCES

ADAMSON, B. 2004. China’s English: A history of English in Chinese education. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
AHMADPOUR KASGARI, Z. 2018. Elaborative text modification vs. input flooding: A case
study on non-congruent collocations. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 3(8).
ALEXANDER, RJ, C DODDINGTON, J GRAY, L HARGREAVES & R KERSHNER. 2010.
The Cambridge primary review research surveys. London: Routledge.
AL-HAZMI, SH. 2003. EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends and
challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2):341-344.
Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
55
MN Al-Amri

AL-HAZMI, SH & P SCHOLFIELD. 2007. Enforced revision with checklist and peer feedback
in EFL writing: The example of Saudi university students. Scientific Journal of King Faisal
University, 8(2):223-261.
ALI, M. 2008. The oral error correction techniques used by Libyan secondary teachers of
English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sunderland, UK.
AL-KHWAITER, J. 2001. Communicative language teaching and curriculum innovation in the
teaching of English as a foreign language in Qatar: A study of the classroom and its socio-
cultural context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of De Montfort, UK.
ALLWRIGHT, D & J HANKS. 2009. The developing language learner: An introduction to
exploratory practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
BELL, D. 2003. Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly,
35(4):537-560.
BROWN, H. 2002. Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
CAVANAGH, M. 2011. Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative
learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1):23-33.
CELCE-MURCIA, M. 2014. An overview of language teaching methods and approaches. In M
Celce-Murcia, DM Brinton & MA Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language. Boston, MA: Cengage. 2-14.
COOK-SATHER, A, C BOVILL & P FELTEN. 2014. Engaging students as partners in learning
and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DOUGHTY, C & MH LONG. 2003. Handbook of second language acquisition. New York:
Blackwell.
DUFF, P. 2014. Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 34:233-255.
ELLIS, R. 2014. Principles of instructed second language learning. In M Celce-Murcia, DM
Brinton & MA Snow (Eds), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston,
MA: Cengage. 31-45.
FASSINGER, P. 1995. Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’
contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1):82-97.
FINKEL, DL. 1999. Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HATCH, E. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley: Newbury House.
HIEP, PH. 2007. Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal,
61(3):193-201.
HOLLIDAY, A. 1994. The house of TESP and the communicative approach. English Language
Teaching Journal, 48(1):3-11.
JAWORSKI, B. 2006. Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical
inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
9(2):187-211.
JOHNSON, D. & R JOHNSON. 1994. Learning together and alone, cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall.
KANG, R. & CW HYATT. 2010. Preparing pre-service teachers for diversity: The power of
multicultural narratives. SRATE Journal, 19(10):44-51.
KHAN, IA. 2011. Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in Saudi Arabia.
Educational Research, 2(7):1248-1257.
KUMARAVADIVELU, B. 1994. Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4):537-
560.

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
56
MN Al-Amri

KUMARAVADIVELU, B. 2003. Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
KUMARAVADIVELU, B. 2006. Understanding language teaching: From method to
postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LAHLALI, E. 2003. Moroccan classroom discourse and critical discourse analysis: the impact
of societal and cultural practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
LEE, JG & B VANPATTEN. 1995. Making communicative language teaching happen. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
LI, L. & S WALSH. 2011. Seeing is believing: Looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through
classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 2(1):39-57.
LIGHTBOWN, PM. 1985. Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and
classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2):173-189.
LIGHTBOWN, PM. 2000. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied
Linguistics, 21(4):431-462.
LITTLEWOOD, W. 2011. Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a
changing world. In E Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge. 541-547.
MARCELLINO, M. 2008. English language teaching in Indonesia: A continuous challenge in
education and cultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1):57-69.
MCCRICKERD, J. 2012. Understanding and reducing faculty reluctance to improve teaching.
College Teaching, 60(2):56-64.
MCMULLEN, V. 2014. Using student-led seminars and conceptual workshops to increase
student participation. College Teaching, 62(2):62-67.
NASIR, C, YQ YUSUF & A WARDANA. 2019. A qualitative study of teacher talk in an EFL
classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3):525-535.
NATION, P. 2018. Keeping it practical and keeping it simple. Language Teaching, 51(1):138-
146.
RYAN, J. 2015. Reconstructing miscommunications for the language classroom. ELT Journal,
69(4):405-414.
SAMSON, AC, RT PROYER, G CESCHI, PP PEDRINI & W RUCH. 2011. The fear of being
laughed at in Switzerland: Regional differences and the role of positive psychology. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 70(2):53-62.
SAVIGNON, SJ. 2007. Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead? Journal of
Pragmatics, 39(1):207-220.
SKIDMORE, D. 2006. Pedagogy and dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4):503-514.
SPADA, N. 2007. Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J
Cummins & C Davison (Eds), International handbook of English language teaching.
Boston, MA: Springer. 271-288.
STENHOUSE, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
SYED, Z. 2003. TESOL in the Gulf: The sociocultural context of English language teaching in
the Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2):337-341.
VAISH, V. 2008. Interactional patterns in Singapore’s English classrooms. Linguistics and
Education, 19(4):366-377.
WRAY, D & K KUMPULAINEN. 2010. Researching classroom interaction and talk. In D
Hartas (Ed.), Educational Research Inquiry. London: Continuum. 170-185.

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
57
MN Al-Amri

XIE, X. 2008. Interactions during teacher-fronted class time of English classes in a Chinese
University. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

BIOGRPAHICAL NOTE
Majid N. Al-Amri is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at
Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. He teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programmes. He
holds Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in Applied Linguistics and TESOL/Bilingual Education from the
University of Essex and New Mexico State University. His current research/teaching interests
focus on classroom discourse, temporal perspectives of language learners, and foreign language
teacher education. Email: [email protected]

Per Linguam 2020 36(1):47-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/36-1-794
58