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.

Google Online Preview   Download