Language-Building Activities and Variations in Interaction With Mixed-Ability ESL University Learners in a Content-Based Course
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The preparation of both language-building activities and a variety of teacher/student interaction patterns increase both oral language participation and content learning in a course of manual therapy with mixed-language ability students. In this article, the researchers describe their collaboration in a content-based course in English with English as a second language learners. The data gathered through lesson plans, sociograms, and student feedback cards showed an increase of students’ involvement in class activities since their concern was to be able to diagnose and treat their future patients’ physical condition through a structured interview for which both careful language elaboration and therapist/patient interaction were essential.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors of the manuscripts accepted for publication in HOW journal are required to sign a nonexclusive license agreement allowing ASOCOPI to reproduce the full text on the Internet or in any other available source. Authors retain copyright of their manuscripts with the following restrictions: first publication is granted to ASOCOPI; nonexclusive agreements with third parties can be established as long as the original publication in the HOW journal is properly acknowledged.
References
Andrade, M. S. (2010). Increasing accountability: Faculty perspectives on the English language competence of nonnative English speakers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3), 221-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315308331295.
Bean, J. C., & Peterson, D. (1998). Grading classroom participation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74(1), 33-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.7403.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. M. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hendrick, P., Bond, C., Duncan, E., & Hale, L. (2009). Clinical reasoning in musculoskeletal practice: Students’ conceptualizations. Physical Therapy, 89(5), 430-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080150.
Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom. CAL Digest. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/kagan001.html.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Liu, J. Y., Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.09.002.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Universidad del Rosario, School of Medicine and Health Sciences. (2011). Working papers on academic mobility. Bogotá, CO: Author.