Capturing Effective Teaching: The Construct of an Observation Scheme

  • Melanie EllisEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


This paper explains the theoretical construct of an observation scheme to describe effective foreign language teaching. Drawing on research in teaching effectiveness from general education and findings from studies in second language acquisition which have been associated with improving learning outcomes, structuring the lesson, scaffolding, questioning, giving feedback, eliciting, responding, giving instructions, confirmation checking, error correction, mediating and motivational strategies are among the areas selected for focus.


Foreign Language Explicit Knowledge Language Acquisition Language Teaching Implicit Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank Dorota Potocka for extensive discussions on the proposed construct.


  1. Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of language teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem & B. Taylor. (Eds.), On TESOL 83: The question of control (pp. 231–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  2. Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the foreign language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, T. (2005). Behaviors and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Lewes: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 722–733.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  14. De Graaf, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 119–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. (2011). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools. Evidence for New York City. Working Paper 17632. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. (
  17. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Ellis, R. (2009). A reader responds to Guilloteaux & Dörnyei’s “Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation”. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardner, R. (2001). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher and the researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6, 1–18.Google Scholar
  24. Guilloteaux, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? In Keynote Presentation at the Building Teacher Quality: The ACER Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: A study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. La Paro, K., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS): Findings from the pre-k year. The Elementary School Journal, 10, 409–426.Google Scholar
  29. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.Google Scholar
  30. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD. (2008). Measuring improvements in learning outcomes. (
  35. Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393–420). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child–teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheerens, J., Glas, C., & Thomas, S. (2007). Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade. The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT Observation scheme. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University, National Council for Education Research and Training.Google Scholar
  43. Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  45. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pedagogical UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations