Delta course Verona
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Test Part 1
|Positive points |Negative points |
| | |
|• It is an indirect test, focusing on grammatical accuracy and this is a|• J wants to communicate effectively rather than improve her grammatical|
|key writing sub-skill) to give an indication of writing skills. Also, J |knowledge. But this is an indirect test which tests linguistic |
|cannot avoid the items targeted (as she would be able to in Part 2) so |competence (what she knows about language) rather than communicative |
|the test can target this element more effectively. |competence (her ability to use it). J may not see the relevance of it to|
| |her needs. |
|• Preparation for this task would help improve J’s | |
|accuracy in writing and range of grammatical structures, which would |• Gap-fills such as this sometimes test only the items that lend |
|improve the impression her clients have of her writing. |themselves to this kind of exercise and not necessarily what J needs. |
| |J’s main need seems to be to communicate effectively in writing. The |
|• Transformation exercises help develop J’s paraphrasing skills. This is|discrete items targeted would not usually impede the message (e.g. no.1:|
|a useful communicative strategy and would contribute to fluency. |to decide vs. deciding). |
| | |
|• An example is given so J is unlikely to score poorly because she |• Familiarity with the task would be an advantage e.g. if you write more|
|misunderstood the question. |than three words, you lose marks. J will do a course, which may enhance |
| |her performance on the test compared to other candidates. The quality |
| |of preparation received may be a factor, not simply language competence.|
| | |
Test Part 2
|Positive points |Negative points |
| | |
|• It tests performance (what J can do with her knowledge) and judges how|• The style is not totally appropriate for J’s needs: it’s informal |
|she uses the language: communicative ability is a combination of various|since she is writing to a friend, whereas at work emails to clients and |
|subskills and types of knowledge, |agents are likely to be more formal. |
| | |
|• It replicates authentic language use and relates directly to the genre|• Detailed instructions support candidate in providing clues to content |
|she needs for work (email). J can see its relevance to her writing |and organisation. This will not be replicated in the real world. |
|needs. | |
| | |
|• To prepare for this part of the test J would need to practise writing | |
|emails, which would be relevant for her work. | |
| | |
|• Clear specific task instructions mean that J is unlikely to do the | |
|task incorrectly. It also doesn’t require learners to be familiar with | |
|the test format. | |
Now add some testing terminology to these answers.
Part 2 Task 1 – suggested answers with testing terminology
Test Part 1
|Positive points |Negative points |
| | |
|• It is an indirect test, focusing on grammatical accuracy and this is a|• J wants to communicate effectively rather than improve her grammatical|
|key writing sub-skill) to give an indication of writing skills. In this |knowledge. But this is an indirect test which tests linguistic |
|sense the test has construct validity. Also, the focus on discrete items|competence (what she knows about language) rather than communicative |
|means J cannot avoid the items targeted (as she would be able to in a |competence (her ability to use it). This means the test has less content|
|direct test such as Part 2) so the test can target this element more |validity. It may also lead to a reduction in face validity as J may not |
|effectively. |see the relevance of it to her needs. |
| | |
|• Preparation for this task would help improve J’s |• Gap-fills such as this sometimes test only the discrete items that |
|accuracy in writing and range of grammatical structures, which would |lend themselves to this kind of exercise and not necessarily what J |
|improve the impression her clients have of her writing. So the test |needs. J’s main need seems to be to communicate effectively in writing. |
|would have a beneficial washback. |The discrete items targeted would not usually impede the message (e.g. |
| |no.1: to decide vs. deciding). This lowers the content validity of the |
|• Transformation exercises help develop J’s paraphrasing skills. This is|test. |
|a useful communicative strategy and would contribute to fluency. Again,| |
|the test would have a positive washback. |• Familiarity with the task would be an advantage e.g. if you write more|
| |than three words, you lose marks. J will do a course, which may enhance |
|• An example is given so J is unlikely to score poorly because she |her performance on the test compared to other candidates. This affect |
|misunderstood the question. The test has good construct validity. |tests reliability in that the quality of preparation received may be a |
| |factor, not simply language competence. |
Test Part 2
|Positive points |Negative points |
| | |
|• It is a direct test of writing skills i.e. it tests performance (what |• The style is not totally appropriate for J’s needs: it’s informal |
|J can do with her knowledge). Because communicative ability is a |since she is writing to a friend, whereas at work emails to clients and |
|combination of various subskills and types of knowledge, it is more |agents are likely to be more formal; this makes it a less valid test of |
|valid to test it by means of an integrative test such as this i.e. one |the language J needs (content validity). |
|which judges how she uses the language. | |
| |• Detailed instructions support candidate in providing clues to content |
|• It replicates authentic language use and relates directly to the genre|and organisation. This will not be replicated in the real world so could|
|she needs for work (email) and so has face validity – J can see its |be argued to weaken the test’s content valid. |
|relevance to her writing needs. | |
| | |
|• To prepare for this part of the test J would need to practise writing | |
|emails, which would be relevant for her work. This would be positive | |
|backwash. | |
| | |
|• Clear specific task instructions mean that J is unlikely to do the | |
|task incorrectly. This means the test has construct validity. It also | |
|makes it more reliable, since it tests actual ability and not just the | |
|learner’s familiarity with the test format. | |
[pic]
Guideline Answer
a Comment on the similarities and differences in: the principles informing the teacher’s approach
Similarities in principles informing the teacher’s approach:
• learners need to extend their vocabulary in general and in this topic in particular
• single-word items / lexical sets are an important part of the lexicon
• communicative activities in language teaching allow student interaction and communication
• learner interaction helps learning / aids memorisation
• language is used for communication and is not an ‘academic’ subject for study / communicative function / purpose is important for learning language
• semi-authentic tasks make language and practice meaningful for learners.
• personalisation motivates learners
• beginning a lesson with a personalised activity reduces the affective filter and engages relevant schema
• language needs to be explicitly focussed on
• meaning has to be focussed on (and checked)
• phonology is needed to ‘know’ an item of language / learners need to use the language in speaking
• collaborative learning encourages cognitive engagement / aids learning and retention
• immediate / nearly immediate error correction is required(otherwise may lead to fossilization)
• ending a lesson with an activity which engages learners’ cognitive skills leads to greater involvement / learning
• a communicative approach is useful for introducing new target language.
Differences in principles informing the teacher’s approach:
Lesson A
• use of PPP
• the teacher knows what learners need to learn
• it is necessary to focus on form and meaning before using the language,
• it is necessary to practise the language in a controlled environment before in a freer one / where the learners can make more choices
• use of realia (typical of communicative approaches) – helps learners engage / is effective for providing meaning of concrete items
• repetition drilling assists in language learning/memorisation
• scaffolding and support are needed throughout a lesson/ learners need a framework to guide them.
Lesson B
• use of Test-Teach-Test / TBL approach
• the content of a lesson is dictated by learner needs / the teacher does not know the content in advance
• an initial ‘test’ stage is needed to determine what language input is needed. / language focus must come after an initial task / ‘test’ phase
• a task allows learners to ‘notice the gap’ in their knowledge and means that they are more motivated to learn the language that fills the gap
• evidence of the (Brumfit) principle of ‘fluency first’ (stage 2)
• learners should be involved in the correction process.
Comment on the similarities and differences in: the teachers’ role
Similarities in the teacher’s role:
• ‘teacher as manager’ plans / controls the activities and interaction patterns in the class (based on the belief that teachers have wider pedagogical knowledge than learners and are expected to use it for others’ benefit)
• monitors learner output for feedback / correction
• corrects errors in form and pronunciation (belief that teachers have wider content knowledge than learners and are expected to provide the ‘correct’ model)
• finds out what students already know (in A by eliciting at the beginning of the lesson, in B by monitoring)
• decides (ultimately) the language input (either before or during the lesson).
Differences in the teacher’s role:
Lesson A:
• prescribes language items (based on the belief that teachers have wider content knowledge than learners, provide the ‘correct’ model, and can predict learners’ needs)
• ‘informs’ in the presentation stage and the written record / provides accurate models
• drills to correct pronunciation / aid retention.
• corrects errors in form and pronunciation explicitly in the role of ‘knower’
• controls more than in Lesson B.
Lesson B:
• diagnoses learner needs (rather than predicting what these are)
• ‘informs’ at stage 3 - not at the beginning of the lesson
• encourages learner autonomy through st-centred correction
• adopts a lower profile / makes the lesson more learner centred.
b Comment on the effect of each approach on different learner types and learning contexts
Lesson A would appeal to / be appropriate for:
• learners who expect teacher to be the ‘knower’ due to previous learning experience
• step-by-step / serialist learners
• educational cultures where accuracy is prized over fluency OR Lesson B appeals more in educational cultures where fluency is prized over accuracy
• Younger Learners as the lesson has a lot of structure / it has real objects / it doesn’t demand as high a level of cognitive awareness e.g. self correction OR Lesson B appeals more to Younger Learners because it is more task based and there is less overt focus on language
• larger classes because the teacher can control the amount of input OR In a large class, the input generated in Lesson B might be overwhelming for teacher and learners
• lower levels OR Lesson B may be inappropriate at lower levels as learners may have very little to build on
• visual learners (who would respond positively to looking at objects / pictures) in Stages 2 and 3.
Lesson B would appeal to / be appropriate for:
• learners who like to be challenged / treated like ‘adults’ / given more autonomy.
• analytical learners – individual learners and those from some cultures may not be analytical (so Lesson A would appeal more)
• multi-lingual groups as the range of vocabulary items they bring up is likely to be wider and more interesting. Both lessons may appeal to / be appropriate for
• auditory learners (who like discussions / listening to others) in Stage 1
• learners who enjoy group work / learning from each other.
Neither lesson may appeal to / be appropriate for
• cultures where the ‘dinner party’ is not a norm
• learners who do not see the value in communicative activities in class
• very small groups / classes.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- communicative approach methods and techniques
- 5 communicative language teaching
- communicative teaching and cognitive processes
- definition of communicative language teaching
- running head intercultural communicative
- aspects of communicative competence
- social contact and communicative competence in the oldest
- delta course verona
Related searches
- decaf caffe verona starbucks
- 75000 delta miles offer
- amex delta platinum foreign transaction fee
- delta skymiles gold offer
- delta skymiles promotion
- delta skymiles bonus miles offer
- 480 delta diagram
- 480 delta wiring diagram
- delta wiring diagram
- delta to wye transformer
- delta vs wye transformer
- delta y transformer