JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

Basic Format for Books Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Title of work: Capital letter also for subtitle. Location: Publisher. Note: For "Location," you should always list the city and the state using the two letter postal abbreviation without periods (New York, NY). Calfee, R. C., & Valencia, R. R. (1991). APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/08/

King County Library (free) http://www.kcls.org

Do not scroll down, look for the image that matches the attachment. It will be on the right side of the page. Seattle Public Library (free): http://www.spl.org Do not scroll down, look for the image that matches the attachment. It will be on the left side of the page. You can also try the Minneapolis Public Library (free): https://catalog.hclib.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=elibrary#focus The Keyword search option appears in the middle of the page (see the attachment). THE library in the USA that has all titles available (located in Washington DC) is the Library of Congress where you can select "library catalogs" or "ask a librarian" free of charge. Best of luck on your searches!

We all want to feel cared for and valued by the significant people in our world. Students are no different. This knowledge is a powerful tool in the arsenal available to you as you form your classroom discipline plan. As a classroom teacher, you wield a great deal of power over your students simply due to the fact that you control their destiny for up to six and a half hours each day, five days a week. When students feel that you value and care for them as individuals, they are more willing to comply with your wishes. Think about it for just a minute. Aren't you more apt to go out of your way to please a boss who you feel values you as an individual and treats you with dignity and respect, rather than a boss who communicates a lack of respect for you? When your boss asks about your family, gives you slack when there is a personal emergency, or praises you for work well done, don't you develop feelings o f regard for this boss and want to do your best to please him or her? Students have the same feelings. So it makes sense that developing positive teacher-student relations is one of the most effective steps you can take to establish a positive discipline climate in the classroom. It's critical to remember that when you treat students with respect, they tend to appreciate and like you. When they appreciate and like you, they are more willing to want to please youwhich causes them to be more likely to behave appropriately. This is why it is so important to remember that, when it comes to student behavior, it's far more often the relationship students have with you than it is the rules themselves that encourages students to follow those rules. A review of the research shows that authors have a lot to say about positive relationships with students. Thompson (1998) says, The most powerful weapon available to secondary teachers who want to foster a favorable learning climate is a positive relationship with our students (p. 6). Canter and Canter (1997) make the statement that we all can recall classes in which we did not try very hard because we didn't like our teachers. This should remind us how important it is to have strong, positive relationships with our students. Kohn (1996) goes a step further, saying, Children are more likely to be respectful when important a dults in their lives respect them. They are more likely to care about others if they know they are cared about (p. 111). Marzano (2003) states that students will resist rule s and procedures along with the consequent disciplinary actions if the foundation of a good relationship is lacking. He goes on to assert that relationships are perhaps more important at the elementary and junior high levels than at the high school level. And according to Zehm and Kottler (1993), students will never trust us or open themselves up to hear what we have to say unless they sense that we value and respect them. As we showed in Figure S1, strategies to develop positive teacher-student relations should be the largest portion of your discipline plan. What are some strategies that you can implement to develop strong and powerful relationships with your students? Let's look at some techniques that are easy to integrate into your everyday interactions with students: communicating positive expectations, correcting

students in a constructive way, developing positive classroom pride, demonstrating caring, and preventing and reducing your own frustration and stress.

Teaching interactions The teacher of small class was able to stay with one small group (who she felt needed her help) for more ir less the whole session, they recived sustained attention and she was able to offer immediate feedback. Task allocation and preparation was very deliberate, responsive and individualized; she went through each person in turn and asked what they wanted to do from a list of activities and she then set them off. Knowledge of children The teacher felt that the main advantage of having a small class was that she knew children individually , and that these informed her teaching, for example in terms of questions to children, she was aware of who knew and did not know something. Support for learning The teacher feel very strongly that hearing children of this age read individually in school was important. The small class allowed almost daily session in which there was a stress on individualized support this crucial time in childrens reading. This would not be possible in a large class.

Small-Group Learning Much of the work involving inquiry-based learning involves students working in pairs or groups to solve a problem, complete a project, or design and build an artifact. Cooperative small-group learning, which Cohen (1994b) defines as students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned, has been the subject of hundreds of studies and several meta-analyses (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Cook, Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Castro, 1985; Hartley, 1977; Johnson, Maruyama, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, &

Miller, 2003). Overall, these analyses come to the same conclusion: there are significant learning benefits for students who work together on learning activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1981, 1989). For example, in a comparison of four types of problems presented to individuals or cooperative teams, researchers found that teams outperformed individuals on all types and across all ages (Quin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995). Problems varied in terms of how well defined they were (a single right answer versus open-ended projects, such as writing a story) and whether they were more or less reliant on language. Several experimental studies have shown that groups outperform individuals on learning tasks and that individuals who work in groups do better on later individual assessments as well (Barron, 2000a, b; 2003; ODonnell & Dansereau, 1992). Cooperative group work benefits students in social and behavioral areas as well, including improvement in student selfconcept, social interaction, time on task, and positive feelings toward peers (Cohen et al., 1982; Cook et al., 1985; Hartley, 1977; Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). GinsburgBlock and colleagues (2006) focused on

the relationship between academic and nonacademic measures. They found that both social and self-concept measures were related to academic outcomes. Larger effects were found for classroom interventions that used same-gender grouping, interdependent group rewards, structured student roles, and individualized evaluation procedures. They

222222222222222 2. The role of classroom interaction in communicative language teaching Probably the most common view of the role of classroom interaction in the profession currently is the somewhat narrowly 'methodological' one that proposes that classroom interaction contributes to language development simply by providing target language practice opportunities. Through carefully designed classroom interaction activities, involving various forms of more or less 'realistic' practice, learners can become skilled at actually doing the things they have been taught about (turning 'knowledge that' into 'knowledge how'). This view, taking account as it does only of classroom interaction in the target language, is essentially the position of advocates of the standard model of communicative language teaching over the last two decades. Littlewood's highly influential 1981 volume on communicative language teaching will be taken here to represent this mainstream viewpoint. In 1981 Littlewood advocated a progression from3 'pre-communicative' to 'communicative' activities involving various forms of interactive language practice. His underlying view of the psychology of language learning was that

systematic language practice is crucial, as it was in the otherwise discredited behaviourist model of learning. But he also believed that practice should progressively emphasize relevance over repetition. That is to say, that practice activities should progressively come closer and closer and closer to imitating 'real-life' language use (a feature also found, it might be noted, if in a less developed form, in the work of such 'behaviourist' writers as Lado (1964)). The general notion of 'negotiation' (loosely defined as 'discussion to reach agreement') will be involved, therefore, only if 'negotiation' is itself seen as a type of 'real-life' language use that is relevant to the learning purposes of the learners. This is most likely to be the case in the context of a course of 'business English', say, or 'English for diplomats', where 'negotiation' can be expected to be identified as a relevant target language skill for the learners to develop in the classroom, through simulated negotiations. I hope it is already clear that such a concept of 'negotiation' - as a target language skill to be practised through simulations in classroom interaction - is a purely 'methodological proposal' that is conceptually a very long way away from the notion of 'negotiated work' that is the central concern of this present volume. It is for this reason that I propose to reject the standard form of communicative language teaching as interesting for our present purposes, in spite of its manifest interest in the promotion of classroom interaction, and to move on to the other two views on the contribution of classroom interaction to language development.