Evaluating Assessments

This week’s readings centered on assessing students in language classrooms.  The most important thing that I learned from Shohamy’s article is that teachers need to choose tests that match the construct they are trying to measure.  Although Shohamy didn’t talk in depth about the concept of constructs, she discussed how things such as testers’ background knowledge impacting test scores (204).  Another topic she discussed was the effect of different test types on student results.  A student’s high performance on a multiple choice test could reflect natural test-taking ability more so than language proficiency.  Furthermore, it is difficult to assess a student’s conversational skills if they are talking into a tape recorder rather than with a live human being.  Teachers need to consider their intended construct and what they want to learn from the test before creating tests and test items.

While Shohamy narrowed her topic to discourse and testing, Brown discussed many important principles in relation to language and assessment.  He analyzed the differences between assessment and testing, characteristics of good tests such as validity and reliability, and how washback impacts teaching and learning.  We have learned about many of these topics already in our assessment class with Dr. Kang, so these chapters were basically review for me.  However, I was still intrigued by some interesting ideas. The most interesting part of chapter 23 to me was the question about whether or not teachers should always be assessing students (445).  Although this is a very complex question, I think that yes, teachers should always be assessing their students.  Not all of this assessment is formal, but teachers need to always think about how they can help students, what errors students are producing, and take note of how students are performing.  To me, if an activity doesn’t alert teachers or students themselves about how they are doing, then it isn’t a strong activity.  When students are working independently and in groups, the activity should in some way monitor the progress of students for both teachers and students themselves.  Informal class activities can be so valuable because they can serve as a formative assessment that can be used to improve both teaching and learning. 

Chapter 24 covers more items to consider when developing classroom tests.  Through the little experience I have, I have already begun developing my approach to testing.  Firstly, I believe criterion-referenced tests are much better suited for individual classrooms than norm-referenced tests.  Students should be graded on standard criteria and what they can and cannot do with the language; the performance of their peers shouldn’t affect their grades.  I am also in favor of an approach that utilizes performance-based assessment.  As teachers we need to find out what students can do with the language in authentic settings.  If students cannot apply what they have learned to authentic tasks, then our class is not practical and will not help them in the real world.  In place of essays, students could write e-mails to Spanish speakers, journal articles for native speakers, and write personal statements for job interviews.  21^st century education calls for students to be able to use the skills they learn in school in the workplace.  Traditional multiple choice tests are no longer adequate for evaluating the skills of our students.  

Yes, We Need to Lesson Plan

“It is a futile exercise to try to prepare teachers in advance to tackle so many unpredictable needs, wants, and situations,” Kumar writes (286).  I sympathize with this quote because I have spent hours strategically planning lessons and then have had to change these plans 2 minutes into class in order to meet student needs.  Instances like these sometimes make teachers wonder, “Why even bother planning and predicting?”  However, this week’s readings informed me about how to strategically design curriculums and lessons.  I already have a great deal of background knowledge on this topic from both my other curriculum and instruction classes and my own teaching experience.  However, the TESOL perspective gives me an opportunity to adapt my existing lesson planning schema. 

              Although the previous Kumar quote was very extreme, it emphasizes the importance of a teacher’s sense of plausibility.  Teachers must be able to make sense of both teaching and learning in particular moments in particular contexts.  They must be able to adapt when things do not go to plan, and they will need the competence to make many important decisions in a moment’s notice.  Many of these decisions will result in mistakes.  This demonstrates the importance of teachers observing their own pedagogy and making an effort to improve as teachers.  A great way to improve is for teachers to try and imagine their teaching from 3 perspectives: their own, their students, and a 3^rd party observer (291).  Kumar thinks observers play an important role in the classroom because they “analyze and interpret teaching acts, not judge and evaluate the teacher” (304).  However, as a young teacher, I completely disagree.  I feel that young teachers need extensive evaluations and strategic coaching.  If I am doing something wrong, I want my colleagues to explicitly correct me so that we can address the problem.  Older teachers have more experiences that can result in better reflections than simply independent ones. 

            The 3 Brown chapters connected curriculum to lesson plans to specific instructional techniques.  Brown begins the topic of curriculum design by emphasizing how lessons are all embedded in a larger context (148).  I completely agree and believe that there are very few lessons worth including in the curriculum if they cannot be tied to larger and more meaningful contexts.  Rather than describing what a typical curriculum usually contains, Brown described how a curriculum is determined.  The first step is a situation analysis (150).  This involves examining teachers, students, and the community in order to determine the needs of the educational stakeholders.  Brown describes what factors to consider when determining needs, but he doesn’t describe who actually gets to determine the curricular needs of students.  Is it the school board?  Parents?  Do students at the college level get to determine their own curriculum or is this left to the university and professors?  In my opinion, the views of all stakeholders should be taken into account before curriculum decisions are made.   

            All good lesson plans include certain essential elements such as objectives, a list of materials, an activity outline, and accommodations for students with special needs.  Brown includes all of these things in his sample lesson plans, but I disagree with the process he outlines for creating lesson plans.  I advocate for the lesson planning technique known as backwards design.  Rather than planning my activities and then my assessment, I believe that I should know exactly what I want students to learn before planning my activities.  I am flexible and adaptable to other methods, but I have had success with this method thus far.  Page 185 provides an awesome list of techniques that teachers can use in the language classroom.  I favor the communicative and task-based activities, but this list will be extremely helpful and will give me ideas for activities that accommodate other learning styles.  In my point of view, a teacher’s ability to use a wide variety of techniques to accommodate all students is one of the most important aspects of teaching.  Regardless of how much success a teacher has, can a teacher really afford to use only one approach in this age of diversity?  Regardless of the techniques or approaches used, all activities must reflect the goals of the overall lesson plans.  Furthermore, all lesson plans should help teachers and students reach curricular goals.      

Final Paper Update

Thus far I have still been in the exploratory research stage.  Dr. Seloni helped me clarify my research question and direct me to what kind of evidence I need to answer this question.  However, I am not yet ready to create a formal outline and start writing my paper.  I want to find a strong body of sources and research before I begin creating.  I don't want to include my own thoughts and opinions until I am an unofficial expert on the subject.  My mini annotated bibliography and sources are provided below...

Research Question: How can grammar be incorporated to the task-based approach to language teaching?

 

Amir, M., & Mehraein, M. (2012). The Effect of Focus on Form Instruction on Intermediate EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning in Task-based Language Teaching. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 46(4th WORLD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES (WCES-2012) 02-05 February 2012 Barcelona, Spain), 5340-5344. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.435

This article analyzes whether or not explicit focus on form can benefit teachers and students under the task-based approach to teaching grammar.  The authors acknowledge that the inclusion of explicit focus on form is a major subject of debate among teachers utilizing the task-based approach.  Although there are many variations of focus on form, the authors make two major distinctions in this article.  A preemptive focus on form is when teachers emphasize forms and practice with structures that they believe students have gaps in learning.  In a contrast, a reactive focus on form is when teachers focus on form in order to correct student mistakes.  The researchers predict that both strategies would lead to better performance on tasks.  In the task measured—describing pictures—it is found that a preemptive focus on form produces little difference in performance.  In contrast, a reactive focus on form did result in better performance on the picture description task.  The researchers can conclude that a reactive focus on form is more effective in the task-based approach than a preemptive focus on form. 

 

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.

Before examining grammar’s role in the task-based approach, it is essential to understand the basic definition and concepts of this approach.  Brown’s textbook describes a great deal of language teaching approaches including the task-based approach.  He begins by describing a task as “an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (50).  There are two basic types of tasks in language teaching: target tasks and pedagogical tasks.  Target tasks are completed outside of the classroom in authentic contexts while pedagogical tasks are classroom activities that prepare students to complete target tasks.  An example of a target task may be giving personal information in a job interview (51).  Pedagogical tasks are all of the activities done in class (role plays, studying interview, listening excerpts) to prepare for the target task.  In a task-based curriculum, it is important to note that the designated tasks are carefully designed and linked together in a meaningful manner; separate tasks are not randomly thrown together to form a curriculum.  Learners are assessed based on what they can and cannot do with the language rather than their linguistic knowledge of the language.   

 

Lambert, R. D. (2000). Language policy and pedagogy essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

This reading attempts to find the appropriate balance between focus on meaning and focus on form in a classroom following the task-based curriculum.  Linguist Michael Long’s research demonstrates that, “Focus on meaning alone is insufficient to achieve full native-like competence (179).  However, a focus on forms is not the best practice either.  Focus on forms is the practice of teaching grammar independently from other context or language domains.  Throughout history this has been the most common approach to language teaching, but it is far from the best approach.  A better approach would involve an analysis of student needs.  For example, a pre-test at the beginning of the year would notify teachers of which grammar areas they need to include in the curriculum.  Student needs often do not align with the textbook curriculum.  One of the major benefits of a focus on form approach is that attention is focused on areas of language where problems occur.  This approach allows for instruction to emphasize teaching either language skills or content rather than simply grammar rules or usage.  When problems with form do occur, teachers should address these issues using the best approach for that particular context (188).  Teachers will correct college students differently than 3^rd graders; teachers will assess students differently during informal conversations than class presentations.  Overall, a focus on form is the best way to teach grammar under the task-based approach because it allows for tasks to be the center of instruction but prevents grammar errors from impeding the success of activities.        

 

Developing Critical Learners

The theme of this week’s readings is to help teachers raise cultural awareness in students and to develop a critical approach to pedagogy.  Chapter 26 of Brown described what it meant for teachers to use a critical pedagogy.  Critical teachers determine the power implications in language teaching and help students see these political and societal connections (Brown 513).  These teachers do not robotically follow the curriculum; they change the curriculum to correct inequalities in society.  They understand that language itself symbolizes power, and they also make students aware of this connection.  They inform students that 80% of websites are in English even though the vast majority of internet users in the world are not native English speakers (Kumar 240).  The fact that people need English to acquire information about other topics underscores the implied superiority of English compared to other languages.  

Teachers need to do more than simply alert students to inequalities in society; they need to help change the perspectives of students by helping students learn to analyze all sides and perspectives of an issue.  It is essential that teachers present all sides of issues and not just a different side.  Presenting one side of an issue—even if it is a unique side—is still biased.  Teachers need to be as neutral as possible in the language classroom (Brown 519).  They help students develop the skills they need to create social change, but they do not coerce students into carrying out specific changes.  It is implied that education is influenced by political motives.  But how corrupt would it be if teachers used students to carry out their own unique political agendas?  For this reason, teachers need to keep their personal beliefs out of the classroom.

Kumar expands on Brown’s discussion by describing the biases of traditional teaching materials and textbooks.  These materials do not offer the various perspectives and influences that students need to develop critical thinking skills.  Even the textbooks that do offer alternative perspectives are often flawed because they ignore “multicultural and subcultural variations within national or linguistic boundaries” (Kumar 268).  This is one of the biggest problems in U.S. language education.  Even when teachers think they are promoting diversity, they are perpetuating stereotypes by labeling all members of a culture in a similar manner.  For example they may create unfair stereotypes by saying things like, “Mexican like to eat tacos; Spaniards take naps after lunch called siestas.”  There are a wide variety of foods eaten in Mexico that go beyond the Taco Bell menu.  Having lived in Spain, I know that many Spaniards use this time off work after lunch to spend time with family, to do chores, or to continue working.  Does it bother you when people from other countries say things like “Americans are lazy”?  It is equally offensive to people in other countries when they are labeled the same way by Americans.  To avoid this kind of stereotyping, teachers and students need to develop critical cultural consciousness.  This concept calls for people to recognize that no one culture embodies the best or worst of human experience (271).  Furthermore, not all people living within the boundaries of a culture embody the common characteristics of people in that culture.  Both teachers and students need to recognize that people will not act a certain way just because of the language they speak or the color of their skin.  This should be a major tenet of language education. 

The Importance of Integration

This week’s readings centered on integrating language skills and contextualizing linguistic input.  How are these two topics connected?  Kumar perfectly synthesizes the connection by stating, “The emphasis on the integration of language skills is a logical continuation of the emphasis on contextualizing input embedded in linguistic, extralinguistic, situational, and extrasituation contexts” (238).  Chapter 9 of Kumar described how “language communication is inseparable from its communicative context” (204).  Basically this principle means that words and utterances mean different things in different settings; the environment and extralinguistic factors play a role in meaning.  According to Kumar, there are four realities or elements that make up a context: linguistic context, extralinguistic context, situational context, and extrasituational context.  All of these factors influence the overall context of language and how meaning is interpreted.    

Similar to how input needs to be contextualized, language skills—reading, writing, listening, and speaking—need to be integrated; these skills should not be taught independently but instead collaboratively.  Kumar notes that, “Many strategies, such as paying selective attention, self-evaluating, asking questions, analyzing, synthesizing, planning and predicting are applicable across skill areas” (225).  His point is that what teachers often tout as reading comprehension strategies can often be applied to other domains of language use.  In my opinion, proficient language users in the 21^st century must be competent in all four of the major domains of language use.  For example, can a person really be considered a proficient language user if they can listen and read but not write and speak?  Similarly, how can someone hold a conversation if they can only listen or speak but not both?  This logic is one of the reasons that a whole language approach to language learning is growing in popularity.  Whole language approaches involve using language texts to practice reading and one or two more of the major language skills.  An example of the whole language approach is the PACE model.  The PACE model presents a texts to students and then encourages students to interpret the text or audio passage in order to produce the language.  This approach forces students to use receptive skills (reading or listening) to interpret texts in order to communicate using production skills (writing or speaking).  Brown best articulates the argument for integrating skills by stating, “Production and reception are quite simply two sides of the same coin; one cannot split the coin in two” (286).  Language teachers need to take this into account the next time they have students taking listening comprehension tests for an entire period.  Separating the domains of language makes the curriculum less authentic.  Outside of school, students will be responsible for two-way communication.  Simplifying things inside the classroom will not help students long-term.  Task-based language teaching and content-based instruction are two approaches to ensure that language is used with purpose.  Students can listen to menu options at a local Mexican restaurant and then practice ordering food.  Also, students could read about a job opportunity where Spanish is required and then submit a cover letter in Spanish.  Authentic language use will keep students more motivated and engaged, which will lead to more language learning.      

Grammar and Vocabulary Teaching Must be Meaningful

I am extremely interested in researching the best approaches to teach grammar.  Based off research and my own experience, it seems that the traditional approach to teaching grammar is not the most effective.  Chapter 22 of Brown gives tips and advice to help teachers teach grammar and vocabulary as effectively as possible.  Kumar’s readings (chapters 7 & 8) focus on teachers creating language awareness amongst students and also activating intuitive heuristics.  Heuristics can be defined as “the process of discovery on the part of the learner” (Kumar 176).  Fostering critical language awareness and encouraging learner discovery undoubtedly improve grammar instruction.

Raising language awareness goes beyond simply stating the importance of learning a language.  Critical language awareness encourages students to consider the sociopolitical nature of language use.  According to Kumar, “Language is used by some as a tool for social, economic, and political control” (165).  Students need to be aware that politics, language, and culture are intertwined.  Language is not learned in an independent vacuum.  On page 166, Kumar advocates ways to develop critical language awareness in the classroom.  His ideas include: shifting from an emphasis on one right answer to multiple interpretations, encouraging learners to recognize a variety of viewpoints, and helping learners critically reflect. 

Kumar also offers ideas in order to improve grammar instruction.  His main point is that activating intuitive heuristics (process of self-discovery) of learners will lead to more learning.  Kumar argues that some approaches activate a learner’s intuitive heuristics better than others.  Primarily, Kumar believes that inductive teaching leads to more learning than deductive teaching.  Inductive teaching allows students to discover patterns through authentic language and then construct meanings of grammar rules.  In contrast, deductive teaching is the traditional method where teachers present grammar rules and then expect students to follow these rules and explanations.  Kumar argues that inductive teaching is superior because it is typically embedded within meaningful contexts as opposed to the grammar books of deductive learning (Kumar 185).  Allowing students to find patterns of language within texts offers more opportunities for self-discovery than grammatical lectures do.

The 22^nd chapter of Brown analyzes form-focused instruction.  I found it very interesting that there are some parties that do not advocate the explicit teaching of grammar.  How can students completely acquire a language if there is no focus on form?  My answer is that I do not think that they can.  However, grammar needs to be taught in an appropriate and comprehensive context.  Page 421 describes appropriate grammar techniques as those that are: embedded in meaningful, communicative contexts, contribute positively to communicative goals, and are as lively and intrinsically motivating as possible.  The days where language learning occurred from doing grammar exercises are over; grammar needs to be integrated into speaking, writing, listening, and reading activities.  Independent grammar classes will not be effective unless they incorporate the other domains of language.  Grammar should be taught to improve communication, not simply for the sake of knowledge.  Brown reinforces this point by differentiating between global and local errors.  Global errors that impede meaning require more immediate attention than local errors which do not affect the meaning of the sentence (Brown 426). 

I believe that teaching vocabulary is similar to teaching grammar; the vocabulary must be included in a meaningful context.  Connections must be made between vocabulary words that are similar or belong to the same thematic unit (436).   Studies have shown that the rote memorization of vocabulary flash cards is no longer effective.  Before teaching either grammar or vocabulary, we as teachers should question if these topics will improve the communicative competence of our students.  If the topics are not practical or meaningful, then maybe they are not imperative to the curriculum. 

 

Teaching Reading and Writing

This week’s readings focused on teaching reading and writing in English-learning contexts.  In my opinion, the most useful and practical parts of the readings were those that gave explicit strategies for teaching reading and writing to students.  Reading can be taught from a bottom-up or top-down perspective, but I favor a combination of both methods.  I want to use an interactive method that focuses on comprehension and idea development but also has students focus on form (Brown 358).  Of all of the reading strategies depicted on pages 360 & 361, I find the teaching of strategic reading to be most helpful.  Numerous studies have demonstrated that active reading is more beneficial than passive reading.  Students need to look for patterns when reading, use context to aid understanding, and be able to make inferences.  However, it is important to note that how a student should read depends on the context (Brown 362).  For example, one would read a diary entry different than an academic textbook.  One would analyze a map differently than an expository essay.  Teachers also need to keep this in mind when assessing reading comprehension.  The purpose for reading needs to be identified before assessments are created.  A multiple choice assessment may be appropriate for checking student comprehension after reading a textbook chapter but not after reading a journal entry.  

The second chapter of the Brown reading focused on teaching writing.  Brown described the importance of writing as a process rather than a product (391).  From my own experiences, I have found that the writing process is a more beneficial learning tool than the end product.  The process of brainstorming, drafting, editing, and then publishing a work is very cognitively demanding.  Most of the learning takes place from this rigorous process rather than simply putting the words on the paper.  Other teaching principles from the Brown chapter include connecting reading and writing and providing as much authentic writing as possible (Brown 403).  Although this makes perfect sense, many teachers center student writing assessments on vague prompts from textbooks rather than authentic communication opportunities.  For example, good teachers will have students learn to write persuasive letters, summarize articles, and create presentations rather than simply “writing 500 words about topic X”.  As we have described in this class over and over again, learning is much more meaningful when it can be applied to authentic contexts.  

Ferris’s article focuses on correcting—or not correcting—students’ writing errors.  The main point of the article is that teachers should not waste their time or students’ time by correcting every single grammatical mistake in a written composition.  Error correcting should be limited to correcting major mistakes or mistakes that follow a common pattern.  There are multiple reasons for this logic.  First, a one page paper filled with red circles, slashes, and comments could destroy the confidence of an ESL student that worked hard by putting her thoughts on paper in a foreign language.  Second, most L2 errors are not due to laziness or failure to proofread; most errors are structural errors caused by interference from the native language (Ferris 93).  While writing in Spanish, I have often made mistakes by trying to write something word for word how I would in English.  This tendency to translate often results in unnatural writing.  According to Ferris, the best way to change these tendencies is not to explicitly mark down mistakes but to continue exposing students to authentic examples of good writing.  After excessive exposure to native-like writing, students will be able to produce similar structures.  The combination of teaching strong writing practices (such as the self-editing strategies listed on page 96) and reading authentic texts is more likely to produce better writing than correcting every single comma splice and spelling mistake.