IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v10y2017i7p89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Traces of Teaching Methods in a Language Class and the Relationship between Teacher’s Intended Learning Outcomes and Students’ Uptake

Author

Listed:
  • Zahra Mahmoudabadi

Abstract

This study has two main objectives- first, to find traces of teaching methods in a language class and second, to study the relationship between intended learning outcomes and uptake, which is defined as what students claim to have learned. In order to identify the teaching method, after five sessions of observation, class activities and procedures were compared with typical techniques of previous methods. The findings showed that the teacher’s method was an eclectic one which mostly followed CLT guidelines along with utilizing techniques from some other methods such as GTM, DM, and ALM. In the study of uptake, the students were given uptake charts (for vocabulary and grammar items) at the end of each session and based on their reports of uptaken items, it was concluded that uptake can reflect the intended learning outcomes and instructional procedures to a good extent, specifically for grammar items. Regarding idiosyncrasy of uptake, it was not found to be remarkably idiosyncratic, i.e. there was not much individual variation among learners’ reported uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Zahra Mahmoudabadi, 2017. "Traces of Teaching Methods in a Language Class and the Relationship between Teacher’s Intended Learning Outcomes and Students’ Uptake," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(7), pages 1-89, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:7:p:89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/68661/37337
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/68661
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:7:p:89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.