The 43rd National Conference of
the Japan Association for
Language Education and
Technology (LET):
Strategies for the Future of
Foreign Language Education
Kansai Gaidai Nakamiya Campus
August 2, 2003
1. Classroom-Language Lab Integration:
Handling Diversity in Student Abilities
and Interests
Melvin Andrade
Sophia Junior College
Hisami Andrade
Yokohama National University
2. Student Diversity
• Ability Differences
One problem of mixed-ability classes is that higher and lower ability
learners are expected to use the same materials and engage in the same
tasks at the same pace, often working together in pairs and small groups.
Furthermore:
• Other Learner Differences
Student diversity extends beyond ability level to include other differences
such as interests, learning styles, and motivation.
• Potential Problems
Although communicative interaction of students of different ability levels
is thought to promote language acquisition in some cases, it is known
from experience that there may be negative consequences to mixing
learners of widely different levels: anxiety, boredom, frustration, loss of
motivation, and loss of self-esteem among others.
3. Classroom-Language Lab Interface:
Two Approaches
There are two basic approaches to integrating the language
lab and classroom, termed in this study “parallel” and
“complementary.”
Parallel
Types of
LL–Classroom
Interface
Complementary
4. Parallel Scheme
•
Features and Advantages
In a parallel scheme, lab activities are directly connected to what is taught in the
classroom, either as a review for reinforcement and development or as preview and
preparation for what will come. Audio, video and other materials used in a parallel
scheme are most likely part of a textbook package. This approach aims at mastery of a
limited range of content in a step-by-step fashion.
•
Potential Weak Points
Potential weak points, however, are that the content and activities may lack variety,
leading the learners to lose interest, and the pace may be either too fast or slow for
some.
•
Application
Thus, a parallel scheme may work best with motivated beginners and lower level
learners who have had limited experience with the language and for whom the
language is still novel. Moreover, it may be more suitable for classes organized by
ability level so the pace and level of instruction can be adjusted accordingly.
5. Complementary Scheme
•
Features and Advantages
Lab activities in a complementary scheme are only loosely connected, or
unconnected, to what goes on in the classroom. Materials and activities in the lab and
classroom cover different areas, topics, and skills. A strong point of this scheme is
that it allows considerable flexibility for creating a program that can appeal to
learners of different ability levels and interests. Exposure to wider input gives these
learners opportunities to reinforce previous learning and integrate the new with the
old.
•
Potential Weak Points
Potential weak points of a complementary scheme are that not enough time may be
spent on some content and activities, and consequently, some learners may feel the
pace is too fast or the treatment superficial.
•
Application
A complementary scheme probably works best with intermediate and higher
intermediate learners who already have a foundation in the language and can handle a
wider range of material. For a required, mixed-ability class at the tertiary level a
primarily complementary relationship between the lab and classroom is an effective
way of handling student diversity.
6. Comparing Parallel and Complementary
LL-Classroom Integration
Parallel
•
•
•
•
•
•
Topics are tightly connected
Syllabi follow the same pace
LL is mainly preparation for and
reinforcement of the classroom
curriculum
Narrow range of content
Good for motivated beginners and
lower-level learners
Suitable for classes organized by
same ability level
Complementary
•
•
•
•
•
•
Topics are loosely connected
Syllabi follow different paces
LL provides enrichment and
expansion of the classroom
curriculum
Wide range of content
Good for intermediate and above
learners, and less eager learners
Suitable for mixed-ability classes
7. Case Study: Learner Characteristics
•
Subjects
The course described in this study is a yearlong required course in English
speaking and listening skills for second-year students at a tertiary level
institution in Japan.
•
Groupings
Standard enrollment is 250 students randomly divided into 5 sections of about
50-60 students each, but an enrollment of about 275-300 is not uncommon.
•
Proficiency
At the beginning of the first semester, students take the listening component of
a practice TOEIC test. Statistical data over the past five years consistently
show a near-normal distribution for listening ability. Although the majority of
scores are clustered around the mean (around 52 points out of 100 points
maximum raw score, range of about 45-60 points, standard deviation of about
8-10 points), the gap between the top and bottom quartiles is always
conspicuous.
8. Typical Distribution of Practice TOEIC Listening
Test Raw Scores for Second-year Students in April
70
64
Number of Students
60
59
N = 243
Mean = 51.0
Median = 50
SD = 8.2
Max. = 77
Min. = 28
Range = 49
50
40
30
37
31
24
20
11
8
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
-9
-8
-8
-7
-7
-6
-6
-5
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
0
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
10
Scores (Max. = 100)
0
0
-0
19
9. Course Format
•
Groupings: Classes meet twice a week for 90 minutes each, and each of these
sessions is divided into two 45-minute periods. While one section of students (50-60)
is in the language lab, another section is divided into two groups (25-30 in each) that
meet in classrooms adjacent to the lab. After 45 minutes, the students in the lab and
the classrooms exchange places.
•
Sequence: One day a week, lab activities precede classroom activities, and on the
other day classroom activities precede lab activities, serving sometimes as preview
and sometimes as review for certain shared activities.
•
Teachers: One native Japanese speaking language lab teacher and two native English
speaking classroom teachers teach the course. The students have the same lab teacher
for both semesters, but the classroom teachers for the first and second semesters
exchange groups.
60 students
in LL
45 min.
30 students in
classroom
30 students in
classroom
45 min.
10. Distribution of Content Between LL and
Classroom
Course Content
LL-only
content
Shared
content
Classroomonly content
11. Language Lab Activities: Whole Group
• Format: To accommodate different learning styles, this 45-minute period includes both
teacher-fronted whole-group activities and independent self-paced practice. Whole group
activities give particular attention to listening for main ideas, listening for details, drawing
inferences, and other related listening skills.
• Presentation: Lessons begin with short teacher-provided explanations and presentations
using visuals on overhead monitors to activate and build background knowledge, and to
introduce essential points of grammar and vocabulary. This introduction, which is usually
given in English and amplified in Japanese if necessary, is followed by pre-listening,
while-listening, and post-listening tasks, including frequent quizzes.
• Materials: Listening and video passages cover various types of formal and informal
discourse such as social conversations, telephoning, interviews, documentaries, and
lectures. The materials consist of excerpts from a number of ELT textbooks as well as from
TV and movies on a wide variety of topics at different levels of difficulty.
• Levels: Easier and more difficult materials are distributed throughout the syllabus and
are not strictly graded. Thus, every week students encounter materials that are both
confidence building and challenging.
12. Language Lab Activities: Independent
During the independent self-paced practice phase of the lab session, students have
several options depending on their needs and interests:
1. They can work on pattern drills to improve pronunciation, intonation,
grammatical accuracy, and fluency.
2. They can listen again to that day's or a previous day's audio or video
passage.
3. They can listen to supplementary materials previously obtained from
the teacher.
Outside of class hours, the lab is available for independent study as well. Students
can come to the lab to (1) review previous lessons, (2) prepare make-up assignments
for classes they have missed, or (3) practice with other materials for self-enrichment.
13. Classroom Activities
First day
• Controlled, guided, and freer tasks
using the textbook.
• Whole class, pair work, and small
group activities: reading aloud with
expression, question and answer
exchanges, role-plays, problemsolving, discussions, and summarizing.
• Numerous topics, both concrete and
abstract, are covered: art, career choices,
children, crime, daily life, employment,
environmental issues, health, human
relations at work, marriage, romance,
and retirement, etc.
• Vocabulary and short written exercises.
Second day
• Designated students, about one-third of
the group, deliver short prepared
speeches based on topics introduced
during the first day.
• Afterward, pattern drills that have been
or will be used in the lab are practiced in
whole group and pair work formats.
• Students then use these patterns in
original sentences and role-plays, which
often develop into free-form
conversations between the teacher and
students.
14. Outcomes: Grades-Test Correlations
•
At the end of the term, students receive one grade for the course, based on the
average of the classroom (50 points) and lab (50 points) scores.
•
The distribution of grades (A+, A, B, C, X) during a typical year is close to a normal
curve, with the majority of learners receiving As and Bs.
•
The Pearson correlation (N = 230, p < .05) between the TOEIC raw scores (max. =
100) at the beginning of the course and the final grades (max. = 100) for a typical
year is moderately low (around .52). It is a better predictor of the lab (listening) score
(around .62), but not a good predictor of the classroom (speaking) score (around .23).
•
For the top quartile, the TOEIC-lab correlation is stronger (around .51) than for the
bottom quartile (around .35). The correlation between the lab and classroom scores
for all students is positive but low (around .35); however, it is stronger for the top
quartile (around .42) than the bottom quartile (around .15).
•
One interpretation of this data is that high TOEIC scorers tend to have high grades,
but low TOEIC scorers will not necessary have low grades.
15. Feedback and Conclusion
At the end of each semester, students provide feedback through anonymous questionnaires covering topics such as pace, difficulty, activities, and materials. There is also a
section for open-ended comments.
The results over the years have been consistently positive, lending support to the
approach advocated here. Some features of the lab-classroom interface contributing to
its success are:
1. a variety of meaningful materials and tasks of different levels
that are distributed between lab and classroom,
2. pattern drills shared between lab and classroom but handled differently,
3. exposure to different teaching styles through team teaching, and
4. at least one bilingual teacher or advisor to handle communication problems
with limited English speaking students.
LL Grades: Typical Distribution at the End of the
First Semester (July)
45
41
41
Number of students
40
N = 247
Mean = 69.7
Median = 68.2
SD = 11.1
Max. = 93
Min. = 39
Range = 54
35
35
29
28
30
25
25
20
20
15
12
9
10
3
5
0
95
0
10
2
0
90
94
85
89
80
84
75
79
70
74
65
69
60
64
55
59
50
54
45
49
Scores (Max.=100, 80% for midterm test, 20% for quizzes)
40
44
2
-0
9
3
Final Grades: Typical Distribution
(average of LL + Classroom grades)
70
61
N = 249
Mean = 79.2
Median = 78.8
SD = 8.42
Max. = 99
Min. = 56
Range = 43
60
50
Number of students
50
43
37
40
A+ = 28 (11.2%)
A = 87 (34.9)
B = 104 (41.8 %)
C = 22 (9.2%))
X = 8 (3.2%)
(Note: Some Xs are not
shown.)
30
23
20
15
10
7
5
4
0
0
0
0
Scores (Max. = 100)
-0
39
-4
0
44
-4
5
49
-5
0
54
-5
5
59
-6
0
64
-6
5
69
-7
0
74
-7
5
79
-8
0
84
-8
5
89
-9
0
94
10
095
0
Correlation of April TOEIC Listening
Score and Final Grades
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Final Grade (average of
LL & classroom scores)
LL grade (listening)
0.62
0.52
Classroom grade
(speaking)
0.42
Final grade of top 25% of
students
0.23
0.15
Pearson Correlation, p < .05
Final grade of bottom 25%
students