Learning to teach ESL: February 2019

One of the readings we were assigned to read this week is the introduction from the book Developing materials for language teaching, which was written by Brian Tomlinson. The introduction discusses teaching materials and the issues associated with their development and evaluation. The issues include what should drive the development of materials, who should develop materials, how materials should be developed and evaluated, and whether texts should be authentic.

One of the concepts that resonated with me was that the needs and wants of learners, teachers, and administrators should all drive the development of learning materials. Tomlinson (2014) explains that teachers and administrators are concerned about conforming to existing curriculum, educational standards, examinations, and government policies. It is argued that teaching materials can be developed in ways that meets all of these needs. One way to achieve this is by consulting learners, teachers, and administrators before, during, and after the materials writing process (Tomlinson, 2014).

It resonated with me because it relates to the concept of participatory local development that I studied in university. My major in university was International Development Studies, which focused on subjects like the role and effectiveness of development aid and economic development in developing nations. It is common for government and aid workers to assume that they know what is best for communities. As such, project planning and the delivery of aid often occur without consulting members of a community. Participatory local development involves seeing members of the community as valuable sources of knowledge who deserve to give input on policies and projects that will affect their futures. Following community consultations, it is sometimes discovered that governments and aid organizations are creating and distributing projects that do not address immediate needs and the issues prioritized by the members of a community.

In English language teaching, administrators involved in curriculum design and creating standardized tests can assume that they know what teaching strategies will be most effective for meeting the needs of teachers and students without consulting them first. Teachers may conduct needs assessments when trying to plan lessons and discover that the objectives outlined in the curriculum and teaching materials do not reflect the immediate needs of their students. For example, the Canadian Learning Benchmarks do not hold the teaching of grammar and phonics to the same esteem as the development of the four language goals--listening, speaking, reading, and writing. However, teachers need to find a way to incorporate sentence forms and pronunciation in their lessons, particularly for lower level language learners. As such, it is important for administrators to involve teachers and students in curriculum design and the development of educational materials in order to address these needs.

In my own teaching, I want to ensure that the educational materials that I include in my teaching are helpful for my students. I can do this by seeking feedback from my students and by consulting other teachers and educators about the materials that they use in their classrooms. Another thing that I want to ensure is that, from my students' perspectives, my lessons reflect their immediate needs and interests. Thus, I want to prioritize the same things that they prioritize and for them to see value and purpose in classroom activities. I also want to find ways to incorporate grammar and phonics in my teaching that maintain the dignity of adult language learners and do not treat them like children.

References

Pagano, A. (2016). Collaborate [Digital image]. Retrieved from http://clipart-library.com/clipart/388974.htm

Tomlinson, B. (2014). Introduction: Are materials developing? In Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

No comments

One of the readings we were assigned to read this week is a PowerPoint document that was presented by researcher Susan Webb at a TESL conference in 2017. The presentation is called "Creating Effective Rubrics." It discusses the differences between formative and summative assessments, the importance and usefulness of rubrics, the elements of the Canadian Language Benchmarks that should be integrated into rubrics, types of scales that can be used to measure skill levels, types of assessment tools, the analytical and holistic aspects of rubrics and their criteria, and how to create a rubric based on a task and the elements of the Canadian Language Benchmarks that it corresponds with.

One of the concepts that resonated with me was the use of the Canadian Language Benchmarks in the creation of rubrics. Webb (2017) explains that tasks that are used in the classroom can be compared to the sample tasks in the Canadian Language Benchmarks for a chosen language skill and competency. From there, specific features and criteria can be identified to be used an a rubric for assessing language usage and the completion of tasks. This helps to ensure the validity of assessments in that they are actually assessing the skills and proficiency that they are claiming to assess (Webb, 2017).

This concept resonated with me because it helped me understand what makes a good assessment. Since there is a common aversion to test-taking and evaluations, it is helpful to examine and understand their purpose and how teachers can demonstrate that they can be effective tools for measuring progress and identifying areas for improvement. I think that the way that the Canadian Language Benchmarks break down the elements of skills and how they are used learning tasks aid in this understanding. In addition, the explanations provided by Webb have connected the language elements outlined in the Canadian Language Benchmarks in ways that I had not noticed previously. I was familiar with the framework, as I have used it in most of my classes. I had looked at its profiles of ability and examples of tasks and skill usage. However, my understanding was constrained to these elements and I did not see the big picture.

In my own teaching, I want to ensure that the assessments that I conduct are valid and meaningful. While the use of graded scales and marks for including specified language features (e.g. specific tenses and punctuation) are easier to measure, they do not necessarily measure things like fluency. As a result, I want to use rubrics that actually assess what I want to assess. This means that if I want to assess students' fluency, I should first clarify what fluency is and then use a rubric that fits that criteria, rather than measuring other language features. Clarification also improves the transparency of assessments as students can understand what their teacher is actually looking for and measuring beyond the task itself.

References

Public Domain. (2018, February 23). Female Computer User #7 [Digital image]. Retrieved from https://openclipart.org/detail/297184/female-computer-user-7

Webb, S. (2017). Creating Effective Rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.teslphe.org/uploads/1/5/1/6/15162416/rubrics_pres_swebb_tesl_phe_2017.pdf

No comments

One of the readings we were assigned this week is a chapter in Brown and Lee (2015) called "Language Assessment: Principles and Issues." The chapter is about the shared principles and features of well-designed tests and assessments. These principles include practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, and washback. The chapter also discusses the types of tests and assessments that are used in language learning classrooms.

One of the concepts that resonated with me was the role of washback following assessments. Brown and Lee (2015) define washback as the effects of an assessment on teaching and learning prior to and following the assessment itself. It provides students with information about their strengths and weaknesses and supports the language acquisition process by facilitating autonomy, self-confidence, identity, and the level of personal investment that students have in their own learning (Brown and Lee, 2015).

This concept resonated with me because it depicts the relationships between teachers and students as something that is mutually beneficial. Teachers provide their students with information about how they are doing and students are able to take control over their own learning. While teachers are often depicted as being in control over what learning happens in the classroom and how it is presented to students, they are meant to be a resource for students in the language learning classroom. Learning cannot happen if students are unable to take charge of their own learning and in order to do that, students need to know that they are doing right and wrong and understand the reasons why. In the language learning classroom, students are encouraged to ask questions about the feedback they have received and for clarification regarding things that they do not understand.

I have seen this relationship modeled in the ESL classroom that I volunteer in. I often wonder how much most students benefit from the feedback they receive following assessments since most of the students have limited vocabularies and speaking skills. Even if they have questions about the feedback they receive, most students are unable to articulate their thoughts into spoken language. As a result, it is difficult for the teacher and volunteers like myself to know whether we are helping or confusing students. However, there are some students who continue to develop their language skills outside of the classroom and pursue feedback. These students benefit from the washback process and ask questions for further clarification.

For an example, I had one student who was completing a worksheet where she was unscrambling vocabulary words. She asked me if she had the correct word. After I said no, she asked me why it was incorrect. I explained that there were letters in the scrambled version that were not present in the word she had marked down. As a result of the explanation, she modified her strategy as she completed the worksheet. I liked that she sought out information from me after I had said no. Asking why or why not is helpful for understanding how language works and enables students to become active learners.

In my own teaching, I want to ensure that I can provide information to my students based on what they need for clarification and understanding rather than just what I think they need. I need to be careful not to make assumptions about their needs and to provide opportunities for them to express themselves. The washback process involves both the teacher and student negotiating meaning and understanding the role of assessment throughout the learning process. It is not just the feedback provided after an assessment.

References

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Language Assessment: Principles and Issues. In Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed., pp. 488-512). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Public Domain. (2018, December 21). Bad Grade [Digital image]. Retrieved from https://openclipart.org/detail/296022/raised-hand

No comments

Summary of assessment

This assessment is used to measure the writing skills of students at the CLB 2 level. The subject of this assessment is the classroom and assesses students’ ability to share information by describing their class in written form. Students are required to write a few words to complete a short, guided text or answer simple questions to describe a personal situation to demonstrate this ability. This assessment involves two tasks. First, it asks students to identify items in an illustration of a classroom and write the names of the items in the blanks with their corresponding numbers. Second, it asks students to write a few sentences about their classroom.

This assessment provides a list of six criteria that measure ways that students should be able to demonstrate their writing skills and overall performance. Skill level is measured by indicating how many words students can identify and write the names of and by assigning a value to all of the criteria using a scale. The values on the scale consist of achieved (3 points), achieved with some difficulty (2 points), and not yet achieved (1 points). Success is determined by reaching a score of 16/22 or 73%.

Context

The classroom that I volunteer in has about 15 students who are newcomers to Canada. The students are of various ages and backgrounds. Students come from countries including Iraq, Syria, Burma, and Côte d’Ivoire. The L1s of these students include Kurmanji (Kurdish), Arabic, Burmese, and French. Many students have limited educational experience and some lack literacy skills in their L1s. Most students require visual references that include alphabet sheets, vocabulary cards with illustrations, and picture dictionaries to complete writing tasks. Some students require direct assistance in the classroom.

How the assessment fits this context

I would need to explain the criteria that will be used to assess the students’ writing skills If I were to use this assessment in the classroom that I volunteer in. I think that both of the tasks would be understood by the students. However, students might have trouble remembering all of the criteria in the assessment. The Canadian Centre for Language Benchmarks (2012) explains that students at this level can only follow short, simple instructions that are up to five words in length. As such, lists of instructions that are several sentences in length would be overwhelming to them and be beyond what they are required to understand at this level. I would approach this problem by first presenting and explaining the full list of criteria but I would concentrate on only a few points to avoid frustrating the students. However, I would include the other criteria in the list so that I could incorporate them in the feedback that I give to the students. I would then explain that future tests will include the other elements and suggest developing those skills as possible short-term goals.

I would also make a couple of adjustments to the assessment itself to better reflect the skill levels of my students.

In the first task, I would change the competency from sharing information to reproducing information. As such, it might be better to use each task individually as separate assessments since they would be used for different purposes. The Canadian Centre for Language Benchmarks (2013) states that students at the CLB 1 level are able to copy simple lists of words, so they are not yet at the level where they can remember lists of words and their correct spelling. I would keep the first task the same but allow students to use picture dictionaries. The students would identify the same items shown in their assessment sheets in the picture dictionaries. After finding the item, students would look for the written form under the illustration and then find the corresponding illustration and blank space on their assessment sheets where they would write the name of the item. written form and copy the spelling into the appropriate blanks on their assessment sheets. I would keep in mind that the students may be confused by the copying aspect of this task. For example, the word “book” may be identified by the number 2 in the picture dictionary while it is identified in the assessment by the number 8. As such, students might write the word “book” in blank number 2 on the assessment sheets. This would indicate a problem. A possible solution would be to have students use and refer to their vocabulary cards to minimize confusion caused by the differences in numerical labeling.

I would keep the second task the same but I would format it as a cloze activity where the students would fill in the blanks in a few sentences. These sentences would use grammatical forms that students have learned in class. The Canadian Centre for Language Benchmarks (2013) states that students at the CLB 1 level are able to complete 3-5 very short sentences that relate to immediate personal experience and needs. As such, since the classroom is a familiar place where students are building language skills that they will need to use in everyday situations, the subject of the task is personally relevant and reflects their needs as newcomers to Canada. The Canadian Centre for Language Benchmarks (2012) also specifies that this type of task should involve writing a few words to complete a short, guided text. I would provide students with a word bank that they could refer to in order to complete the sentences. The structure of the sentences would require students to enter vocabulary related to objects present in our classroom.

This assessment was created for students who are at the CLB 2 level and does not specify how it should be modified to support students who also need help with developing literacy skills. While this assessment fits the principles for assessments that are outlined in Brown and Lee (2015), the modifications required to use this assessment in my own context might change its suitability. As a result, I think it is important to look at these principles while evaluating how well this assessment fits my personal teaching context.

This assessment can be categorized as a criterion-referenced test because it is used to assess specific course objectives. It is practical because it can be administered to students and graded within a reasonable timeframe. These tasks meet the requirements for content validity because they require the students to perform the behaviours that are being measured. The sentence-writing task in the assessment fits the requirements for authenticity because asking students to write sentences about their classroom is something they could be asked to do in real life as a means of describing and sharing information. This assessment also fits the requirements for washback because it measures different features that should be present in the students’ writing. Each of these features is evaluated individually so that students receive feedback about what they do well and what they need to practice, which provides them with suggestions for creating personal learning goals.

This assessment could have issues with reliability and validity if it were used in my teaching context. It may be unreliable if the scoring criteria are unclear to the students, so I would have to explain all of the criteria that will be assessed in the rubric to make sure that students understand what they are expected to do and how they will be evaluated. This is important to ensure that all of the students can be graded in a consistent way, without needing to consider differences in understanding and their effects on performance as part of the assessment. The assessment also has issues with face validity because the students might not understand writing tasks like they are presented. Students lack familiarity with having to create sentences and lack knowledge of sentence forms and vocabulary that are needed to complete the second task in this assessment. Their understanding of writing skills and associated tasks is instead linked to writing words that are associated with illustrations and filling in the blanks to complete short sentences. As a result, the sentence writing task would lack face validity since its content does not reflect what learners are expected to achieve at this level. I would modify both the vocabulary identification and sentence writing tasks to make them reflect the types of writing exercises that the students are used to completing and fit their understanding of the types of tasks that involve writing skills. I want the students to view the test as an assessment that assesses what it claims to assess.

References

Butt, R. (2018). CLB 2 Writing Assessment: My Classroom (Publication No. 27331). Tutela. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://tutela.ca/Resource_27331.

Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012). Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a Second Language for Adults (Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/language-benchmarks.pdf.

Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2013). Canadian Learning Benchmarks: Can Do Statements (Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://www.ecala.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CLB_Can_Do_Statements_web.pdf.

Public Domain. (2018, February 23). Student Writing [Digital image]. Retrieved from http://clipart-library.com/clipart/10613.htm

No comments

Learning to teach ESL

About Me

Follow Me

Tags

Recent Posts

Blog Archive