Pay the People What They are Worth

By Dr. Edwin Weaver

www.we-develop-leaders.com

www.edu-talk.info

January 26, 2009

 

 

We all want to be paid for all the work we do and when we are not paid, we feel cheated. When that happens, usually, we will avoid that type of work in the future. The same hold true in education.

 

What does your scoring say to the students? How you weight quizzes and exams marks sends a strong message to your students. You may think you are being fair and equal about everything, but is that how the student sees it.

 

At the university where I worked teaching English, the program director wanted the four main language skills weighted the same (reading, writing, language knowledge and listening). This sounded fair and correct, however the way that the university assessed these four skills were different.

 

To assess the language knowledge (vocabulary) the students received multiple-choice questions, memory level, not much work required. To assess listening, the student listens to a taped conversation and answered mostly multiple-choice and true/false questions. Even the assessment of the reading skill used multiple-choice questions.

 

Now, the writing is entirely different. The students had to write a 500-word essay. The essay was based on a question, which was related to the reading and listening component. Connecting the writing task to the listen and reading is great however, the students must write 500 words or more. This requires much more work than answering multiple-choice and true/false questions, not to mention you are incorporating the listening task and reading task.

 

Each section of the exam received the same amount of marks. The exam consisted of 20 questions from language knowledge, the 25 questions from reading, the 20 questions from listening, and the 500-word essay (with an outline). Each section, Language Knowledge, Listening, Reading and Writing all received the same amount of marks; 25% of the value of the mid-term or final exam (the final exam for Foundation year was 50% of their final grade and the mid-term was 25% of the final grade).  

 

Here is the question to my fellow educators. How do you suppose this affects the students? Knowing that the amount of work required for writing an essay has no more value than answering multiple-choice and true/false questions, where would you devote you efforts.

 

Of course, the students concentrate on the first three sections and if time permits, they go to the writing section and write something. I have invigilated many of these exams and watched the students ignore the writing section and concentrate on the solving the multiple-choice questions. Afterwards they would spend 10 to 20 minutes writing something, often not even answering the question.

 

Their actions made a clear declaration that they did not value the writing section because it was not worth it. I followed up my theory by giving the students of my classes and two other classes a survey. The results showed that the students felt that 1) the writing took too much time, 2) they could score higher by focusing on the multiple-choice questions, and most importantly that 3) they would attempt to write the essay if the value was higher on the exams.

 

This attitude also affected their learning. Attempting to teach these students how to write well was very difficult. They did not see a need for it. They felt they could pass the course without learning how to write well.

 

Attempting to be fair, we have de-motivated the students in a particular skill. Looking at this true-life example may give you some insights on your own classes.

 

How do you weigh the different tasks the students perform? How do the students perceive the marking? In our case, we performed a survey to gather data on student’s perception to the different tasks and the value of each of those tasks. This told us that if we wanted to promote all four language skills we had to change the weighting to create an environment where the students applied themselves equally to all four skills.

 

Analyzing the impact of our assessments is very important for the continued success of our students. Take a look at how you assess your students, how you mark the assessments and the weight you assign to each task and ask yourself and your students if it is fair. Ask them to rate each task in order of preference and explain their preference. You may be surprised at the answers you get.

Familiarity Breeds Success

By Dr. Edwin Weaver

www.uniqueleaders.org

www.education-report.net

www.edu-talk.info

December 2008

 

 

There used to be an old saying that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’, however in the world of education and especially in second language acquisition, familiarity can mean success.

 

One of the greatest handicaps to language acquisition is the lack of understanding of the context in which the new words are being used. Through a review of literature and personal experiences I will put forth the need to design material which has a familiar context to the language learner.

 

In recent years there has been an increase in the research on text familiarity and cultural context in learning material and its impact on the student’s achievement level in second language acquisition. These observations were made while I  worked with students in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, and having used both, generic material and materials designed to match student’s culture with text familiar to students, I must stand behind the use of text which is familiar to students and text which corresponds to the student’s culture.

 

I have seen familiar text and text conforming to the culture used in language institutes, high schools and universities. I was even a part of a program to rewrite the books used at a university. During the pilot program some students continued with the ‘Headway’ series while other (from the same level) used the new course books. All the students using the new books scored higher on the mid-term, final and oral exams.

 

I observed some of the same results which Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2002) found. In regards to simple testing of vocabulary with true/false answers (lowest cognitive assessment), there was no difference between those who used the generic course books and those with bespoke course material. However, when testing reading comprehension where the students had to write full sentences to explain their answers, there was a marked difference between the two groups. The students using the course books with familiar text and tailored to their culture surpassed those using the generic course books.

 

Reading is a very complex cognitive process. It requires the learner to connect new words or information with prior knowledge. The use of material which is familiar to the students aided them in understanding new vocabulary and to integrate and construct meaning (Barnett, 1989; Bernhardt, 1991; Carrell, Devine, & Eskey, 1988; Lee, 1997; Nassaji, 2002; Swaffar, Arens, & Byrnes, 1991). It also helped them to understand the grammar and syntax of the documents. This improved their ability to understand and appropriately use English as a Second Language.

 

Not only was their academic achievement improved, but their motivation to learn English improved. Students who participated in the “Headway’ English program found the material uninteresting and at times completely unrelated to them. Learning English was a task to them, whereas students using the books written at the university found the material interesting and relevant to their lives and to their studies.

 

Lack of relevance and unfamiliar text can cause students to disconnect from the learning process. Students in countries which have cultures very different from the UK or the US find much of the material confusing and at time revolting to their values. However, material which is written with the native’s culture in mind and using text which the learner may have seen in their own language increases the learner’s desire to apply himself/herself to the learning process. In fact the material becomes interesting to them.

 

Ever since the 70’s and reports from people like Savignon’s (1972), the emphasis has been on communicative English and communicative English in the context of where the L2/FL will be used. Since the majority of the students will never go to an English speaking country, they will use the language to communicate within their own country or with other countries which also use English as their second language.

 

This is not to say that we take the Western Culture out of English. That would be an impossibility. However, we can begin the student’s journey into acquiring English in a more pleasing, more esthetic manner.

 

As I stated above, I have seen the change in the students’ attitudes toward English when it was adapted to their culture. I have also seen an increase in their ability to acquire the new language. It warrants further investigation, not only formally but informally. I would suggest that you investigate which form of teaching works best with your group of students. You may be surprised that when you change the course material you have happier, more motivated students who apply themselves more and learn more.

 

If you have done any research in this area, I would like to hear about it. At present, I am discussing the possibility of doing more formal research on this topic with my current university. If approved by the committee, I will start adding information concerning our research to this blog. Once finished, I will post the entire research.

 

 

 

References:

 

Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the eye: Foreign language reading, theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 

Carrell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 

Lee, J. F. (1997). Non-native reading research and theory. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp. 152-171). New York: McGraw Hill.

 

Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439-481.

 

Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. 2002.Text Familiarity, Reading Tasks, and ESP Test Performance: A Study on Iranian LEP and Non-LEP University Students,

 

Swaffar, J., Arens,K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

 

As you noted in Table 1, the course has assigned goals, which are normally discussed with the students, all we did is add the Condition and Degree, along with prior knowledge necessary to achieve the stated goals. This is the Pathway.

 

We helped the student understand, on a higher level and with less chance of misconception, everything which is necessary to arrive at the stated goal. The student now has a map which shows him/her what they need to learn first, second, third, etc. They know that they must master certain skills before they attempt other skills. They know how they will be evaluated and what is considered ‘good’.  

 

We have now given the student everything to succeed. They have a qualified instructor, they know where they are going and how to get there, they know what is required to get there and they know the level of excellence they must reach. They know that there is better chance of performing well and they know that they need the course to do well in the university. When a person knows that they will do well and they know that they need something the level of engagement rises (Atkinson 1964; Eccles 1983; Wigfield & Eccles 1992, 2000).

 

It also serves as a troubleshooting map. If the students have problems with one goal they can look at the pathway, which shows the skills they need to be proficient at prior to learning another skill. They can use that information to test their abilities and fix the problem or seek out help (fill the gap). We have brought the student into the learning process and made him/her responsible for their learning.  We have helped form learners who “take charge of their own learning” (Barootchi & Keshavarz, 2002, p.286), and take responsibility for learning (Davies et al., 2004; Hayward et al., 2004; Kirkwood, 2000; McDonald and Boud, 2003).

 

 

Example of the usefulness of the Pathway

 

For example, a student trying to identify grammatical structure (step 5) in a reading assignment has trouble doing so. Normally what would happen? The student would not participate in the class or wait for the for someone else to ask how to identify the structure correctly or hope the teacher will explain again how to find the correct structure or if you are lucky the student will come to your office and ask you for help, but often not. End result the student usually does poorly on that particular section on the exam.

 

However, by using the Pathway, we bring the student into the learning process. We are referring to the Pathway constantly. We would be asking the students questions like, “According your handout, what do you need to identify the target structure?”, “What part of the Pathway helped you identify the structure?”. Now, the student can look at the Pathway and sees that he or she needs to have a firm foundation in the skills listed in steps 2 and 4 (reflective). The student knows where to search to find his or her weakness and hopefully how to correct that weakness.

 

Giving a person a destination without giving them a route or map is of little help. They may find the destination after much trial and error, but that may take semesters or years. We need to produce competent students now; therefore we need to map out the complete route.

 

Imagine again the same student from the example above, he or she only has the goals stated at the beginning of the semester. There is no Learning Pathway. He or she can not identify the grammatical structure of the reading assignment. He or she does not know how or where to start in order to fix the problem, what will happen to the student. Will frustration begin to set in? Could the student become discouraged, doubting their ability to handle the material?

 

Giving students a clear Pathway to Learning improves their understanding and motivation. It allows them be become active participants in their education. This understanding enables students to reflect on their performance and then self-define and monitor a plan toward mastery (Fontana & Fernandez 1994; Frederickson & White 1997).

 

However, though we have stated the Pathway we are still assuming that the student is capable of functioning at his/her assigned level. Once you reach the Year 1 or Year 2 students this may or may not be true. The students may or may not have learned all the prior Foundation English skills necessary. Should we just assume they have? The teacher must know what they understand and to what level they understands.

 

To avoid assuming we can incorporate some preliminary assessments to test the student’s readiness to move forward in the course. As educators we are here to ensure successes not reinforce failures.

 

 

Example of ensuring prior learning

 

The students probably understand, to some extent, the prior information or they would not be in this course. However, we need to assess not just if they understood, but to what extent they understood and can use what was presented to them. Therefore, we assess the students on their prior knowledge and abilities with questions designed to provide the teacher with information on which ability is weak and to what extent. Each question is short and focused on one (1) outcome to avoid partial completion and allow the instructor to determine if the objective has been met.

 

Memorization = definition a noun is a person, place or thing

Ability = from sentence structure or other clues, notes that a word is a noun

Competency = without having to think about the word, automatically recognizes a word as a noun

No knowledge of a noun

To what extent does the student understand?

 

 

Though he has passed the prior course, he may not thoroughly understand or be able to use what he should have learned

 

 

We, as teachers need to know the level of our students in order to help them achieve their goals

 

 

To What Extent does the Student Understand

The teacher will analyze the results to determine what, if any, skills need to be re-taught and how. From that information the teacher designs the lesson plans and begins re-teaching. At every step of the way the teacher is re-evaluating the students to ensure that every student understands and can use the material to the stated degree of competency. We can only call what we are doing “Formative Assessment” if we draw the student into the learning process and our along with their efforts enhance the student’s learning. That is our goal. Let’s look at an example…

 

Assuming that our course begins with identifying grammatical structure and proceeds forward, we can test the first three steps in one simple quiz, though the quiz will have multiple parts. We design a quiz with vocabulary which the students should know and will have to use, at least at the beginning of the present course. The words are ordered according to levels. We also add some words which most, if not all, will not know. The reason for the words which none will know is to make sure that the student has to use their dictionary, one of the skills we are assessing.

 

In one part of the quiz, we ask the students to write a definition, in their own words, of the vocabulary (testing basic vocabulary knowledge according to level). In another part we ask them to tell us which part or parts of speech the word represents (testing their ability with parts of speech). We also tell the students that if they do not know the word they should take out their dictionary and look up the word, but should try to answer all the vocabulary without their dictionary (testing dictionary skills).

 

By observing the number of students who use dictionaries along with when and ‘how’ they use their dictionary we can evaluate their ability to use a dictionary correctly. If we notice that there are difficulties (alphabetically order not known, does not understand the abbreviation for parts of speech, etc), we note what type of difficulty the students have and the number of students who suffer from that difficulty.

 

 

Statement about Formative Assessment and how to use it

 

In Formative Assessment we look for specific skills or knowledge which the student lacks (gaps) and then focus our teaching (using various methods) to correct that problem (fill the gap). We are looking at engaging the students in every step of the learning process. We want to promote self-examination, reflection, critical thinking and a history of success on the summative evaluation.

 

In Formative Assessment we are looking for data not grades and we use the data immediately to dictate what we need to teach or re-teach and to garner ideas on how to teach the material so that the student can understand and use it properly. Therefore, once the quiz, stated above, is done we can address any dictionary problems before class ends. We can review the steps for using a dictionary, use visuals, peer teaching, small groups working together to look up words any number of methods to ensure that our students have learned and can apply the skill. After class we correct the answers to the vocabulary and note the problems, if any.

Clearly defined goals, conditions, degree and prior knowledge needed to succeed

Student engagement in learning

Formative Assessment

Varied approaches to elicit information about learning

Balanced and Descriptive feedback in varied forms

Adjustment of teaching and learning as a result of the assessment

Improved motivation and academic achievements on the part of students

If no errors are found, we can design quizzes, if we have not already done so, to assess the next set of steps; pronouns, sentence construction, etc. However, if there are problems we note the exact difficulty and analyze the best possible method or methods to re-teach the material.

 

As stated above Formative Assessment is designed to evaluate specific skills and give the instructor usable information on what the student knows or does not know what the student can do or not do. Formative Assessment is not for grades, but for information.

 

Having said that we look at the quiz and at the different skills we were assessing. Do the students have a problem identifying many of the vocabulary word? Which level words were difficult? Are there any words which a large portion of the students found troublesome? Do many students have a problem identifying the part(s) of speech which relate to the word? Once we have identified the gaps in the students’ understanding and/or abilities, we are ready to design classes to fill those gaps.

 

Let us assume that many of the students had a problem identifying the part(s) of speech related to the vocabulary. The next class would begin with a review of identifying parts of speech to help them become proficient at that skill. Since they know from the Pathway Chart, that they need that skill, they will be more inclined to be engaged in the review.

 

The instructor has designed his/her lesson and begins to instruct the students on identifying the parts of speech of various vocabularies. All the while the instructor is verifying that the students understand and can use the skill which is being taught. Verification comes through a multitude of channels; body language, direct questioning, group work, peer teaching and reflection to name a few. Until the students are successful at the present skill, the next skill is not taught.

 

Formative Assessment means evaluate the students frequently on specific points or skills which they are learning or have just learned. When utilizing a quiz format, design evaluations which will clearly identify specific skills or knowledge. The evaluation are not just paper and pencil quizzes, they are the multitude of forms for verifying a students understanding and ability to perform and should be done during the instruction and after to ensure quality of learning and retention. At every stage of the assessment, note the skills which are low and address that problem or problems immediately or in the next class.

 

This is where Formative and Summative differ. If the instructor waits until the Mid-Term or the Final Exam and looks at the test he/she may not be able to tell which skill was lacking to perform well and there is no time to go back and fix the gaps in the students’ learning. Plus the instructor normally does not have access to the test to sit down and tear apart the tests to discover which skills are lacking and where along the learning process the student stumbled. For this reason Formative Assessment is frequent assessment; daily, after each new skill or information is taught, at the end of the lesson to ensure that the student can combine the different skills to produce a higher order of knowledge or a higher degree of competence.

      

In a relatively short time we have ensured that the students are at the correct level and that all prior knowledge and skills are functioning properly. Though we spent some time evaluating them, that investment in time will pay huge dividends during the course when you can move quicker through the new material without having to repeat information which should have been learned in prior levels.

 

As you noted we incorporated Formative Assessment in the evaluation process, in fact the evaluation process is Formative Assessment. Formative Assessment is evaluating people to note the exact skill which they lack (gap) and help them to learn that skill and become competent at that skill (filling the gap).

 

Most teachers give homework and quizzes, but usually only place a grade on the assignment. We are missing a wealth of information which could change a failing student into a passing student. Every homework is an opportunity to evaluate our students and learn their weak points and design the next class to repeat information if needed. Every quiz is an evaluation which can be used to assess the strengths and weakness of the student and for redesigning our lessons. Often, we miss valuable opportunities to improve our students.

 

It is time to turn all of our homework assignments into true learning assignments. Design the homework to assess a particular skill(s). Be very clear about the skill(s) you are evaluating. As soon as you receive the work evaluate it for errors. Note the errors and prepare the information for your next class.

 

This in itself will change your students. All of the students know that the college requires the teachers to assign 2 hours of homework per week. They have heard that it is used for practice to make them better. However, many of the students look at this homework as duty while others look at it as a burden and some will not do it. The homework has no meaning to them.

 

If the instructor is assigning meaningful homework and clearly stating the reasoning for each assignment, the students’ perception will start to change. As the students see that the homework was used for a valid reason, in their opinion, they will become engaged in the process. Now the homework is not only for practice, it is to find problem areas in their learning and correct those areas. Now it has meaning.

 

The same is true for all the quizzes that we present to the students. Each question must be specifically designed to assess a certain skill which has been taught. It must also be designed to assess a certain level of understanding (memorization, application, etc.). You may design a quiz which will test the skill, but at every level of understanding. Again, as soon as the quiz is complete, evaluate the quiz and note the problem areas and design your next class based on the data you received.

 

We will continue this same process throughout the entire course. At each step of the Learning Pathway we will perform evaluations, not for a grade (though at times it is used to assign a mark or grade), but to evaluate the student’s ability to apply what they have learned. If there are any gaps in the student’s learning we fill that gap before proceeding to the next step.

 

 

Advantages of using Formative Assessment

 

Now I know that some may say that this process is too time consuming, however I wish to prove that in the long run it will prove faster and more efficient. Some will say that the teacher will not be able to cover all the material by the Mid-Term and Final Exams. Assuming that it is true that they can not cover all the material, which from experience I have found that it is not true, but assuming that it is true. The information which the student’s did learn, they learned completely 100%. If we only covered 80% of the assigned material prior to the exam, the students will be 100% competent at 80% of the material and their score will be at least 80%.

 

Teachers in other classes, who do not use Formative Assessment, may cover all the assigned material, but the students do not know 100% and can not apply 100%. Therefore, students in other classes which covered all the assigned material in the stated time will understand or be competent in anywhere from 50% to 90% of each skill. Hence, what will their score be? The other students will have scores from 50% to 90% with a class average of 70%, whereas the group taught under Formative Assessment will have a class average of 80%. Which is better? Which will produce truly competent students?

 

There is another advantage, which will increase the speed of learning. Many of you have studied student motivation. You know from your studies that what a student believes about his/her abilities affects their engagement and effort to study (Bandura (1993, 1997); Schunk (1990, 1991); Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Through Formative Assessment we increase the student’s belief that he/she can perform the tasks, that he/she can learn the material and most importantly that he/she can get good grades in the material. This change in the student’s belief system will cause the student to put more effort into learning the material which will ultimately increase the speed of the classes.

 

What really slows down a class? You know the frustration when students do not seem to be able to comprehend the material you are teaching. This slowness in the learning process is caused by lack of thorough understanding of prior concepts or inability to see where the material is connected to something else they know or both. The Learning Pathway provides the students with a visual map showing how one piece of knowledge is connected to another and how it is important to learn the whole picture and Formative Assessment ensures that all the students thoroughly understand all concept before moving on to the next concept. Therefore the time you lost trying to get the students to understand would not be lost by the teacher using Formative Assessment. In the course of one semester how many times have you had to slow down? The teacher using Formative Assessment would not experience those slow downs, would not experience the students fear of answering, would not experience the disengagement by students because of poor results and a multitude of other setbacks. Therefore, the teacher using Formative Assessment would not be behind the rest of the course, in fact, once in place, the Formative Assessment teacher would cover the same amount of material in one semester.

 

Formative Assessment provides additional benefits for the teachers and the institution. Utilizing Formative Assessment, and the data it provides, allows teachers to monitor the effectiveness of their instruction and make changes to their strategies and/or methods if necessary. Additionally, it provides both the teacher and the institute ways to improve curriculum design, goal assignment and educational standards.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Learning Pathway is a valuable tool for the student, the teacher and the institute. It provides a learning tool for the student, which will aid not only their understanding but their confidence as well. It is also an excellent teaching tool, which will give instructors the opportunity to think deeper about the subject(s) they are teaching. When combined with Formative Assessment the end product will be happier, more content students who develop a history of success, teachers who are happier with the progress of their students and an institute happier with its true success rate.

 

In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s Formative Assessment was consider a theory. The 90’s saw it come to application stage and over the last 10 years it has become common place to implement this learning process in the schools. In my years of experience using these two tools, I have found that the tools improved the students, the teachers and the institutes in which they were implemented. My hope is that Sur College will attempt to use these tools on a wide scale basis to validate their usefulness to the school.

 

 

References:

 

Al-Essa, A., Al-Malik, A. (1999). The Effects of Individualized Motives of Failure in the Learning Process. KSA : Riyadh College of Technology

 

Atkinson JW. 1964. An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand

 

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117- 148.

 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

 

Barootchi, N. & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests. Educational Research, 44 (3), 279-288.

 

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change, November/December, 13-25.

 

Davies, P., Durbin, C., Clarke, J. & Dale, J. (2004). Developing students’ conceptions of quality in geography. The Curriculum Journal, 15 (1), 19-34.

 

Eccles JS. 1983. Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Achievement and Achievement Motives, ed. JT Spence, pp. 75– 176. San Francisco: Freeman

 

Fontana, D., and Fernandez, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64 (3): 407-417.

 

Frederickson, J. R., and White, B. J. (1997). Reflective assessment of students’ research within an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

 

Hayward, L., Priestley, M. & Young, M. (2004). Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor: Merging practice, policy and research in assessment in Scotland. Oxford Review of Education, 30 (3), 397-415.

 

Hermann, R. & Lewis, B. (2004). A formative assessment of geologic time for high school Earth Science students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(3), 231-235.

 

Kirkwood, M. (2000). Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: A case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (4), 509-535.

 

McDonald, B. & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education, 10 (2), 209-220.

 

Schunk, D. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71- 86.

 

Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207 - 231.

 

Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Classroom Assessment for Learning. Phi Delta Kappan.

 

Wigfield A, Eccles JS. 1992. The development of achievement task values: a theoretical analysis. Dev. Rev. 2:265–310

 

Wigfield A, Eccles JS. 2000. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25:68–81

 

Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27 - 47.

 

Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3 - 17.

 

Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51 - 59.

 

 

 

 

Can You Speak English

A Look at What Fluency Really Means

By Dr. Edwin C. Weaver

www.we-develop-leaders.com

www.uniqueleaders.org

 

 

 

How fluent are you at English? Almost every application for employment will ask the question, ‘how fluent are you?’, yet the relationship that fluency plays in proficiency is still unclear (Butler-Wall 1986; Hieke 1985). A person may be considered fluent, yet not proficient or via versa.

 

There is little understanding of what comprises fluency in nonnative speakers (Riggenbach 1989). For the most part fluency is defined as ‘planned, smooth, effortless speech without numerous pauses’ (Raupach 1989:268).  It is easier to judge if a person is proficient at written English than to judge if they are fluent in speech.

 

We can give oral exams to assess the person and normally that is the way we determine their level of fluency in most institutions. However, the type of testing or the type of conversation will determine if the speech is considered fluent or not.

 

A person may be rated fluent in one type of test (dialogue, cued dialogue, monologue or cued monologue) yet not rated fluent in a different type of test. Additionally, different examiners focus on different parts; fluency in grammar, utterance, discourse, phonetic or sociolinguistic levels. The context and the examiner determine the rating. All of this adds to the confusion in determining if a person is fluent or not.

 

As an educator working with mainly ESL/EFL learners, I am always confronted with the task of determining if a person is fluent or not. There are so many aspects to look at when making this decision. I have had occasion to pronounce a person fluent and later informed that the person was not considered fluent.

 

As an administrator, I have outlined the criteria for assessing students for fluency. We, as an institution, have proclaimed that a student is fluent, yet the teacher disagreed with our ruling. There is always the other side of the coin, so to speak.  I know many of my colleagues have faced the same difficulties.

 

For example; you are the teacher of a group of young learners. You give periodic exams, according to the institution where you work, and at the end of the course or term, write a report about the student. In this report you claim that the student is fluent at English. Later, the student has a planned oral exam in which he/she does poorly.

 

Were you wrong? Are you a poor instructor? Was the institution wrong? What happen?

 

That is easy to explain. In class, you work with the student in an atmosphere which is relaxed. The student knows you and has become accustomed to your way of teaching, habits, etc. The student feels confident talking to you. You have great conversations, but soon the student goes to take a formal exam.

 

When the student goes to an exam the student is stressed. He/she probably does not know the other examiners. He/she has no idea of how to act or react. Therefore, the formal exam will prove disastrous compared to the classroom conversation and this is normal. Students will perform their best in a situation in which there is the least amount of stress (Brown & Yule 1983).

 

Additionally, if the student is talking about a series of events instead of answering multiple questions, they will exhibit a higher degree of fluency. If you give the student a topic to plan a discussion, he/she will perform better than if you ask questions where they have to give shorter, unplanned answers. Of course, even with the planned discussion, you still need to apply sufficient cueing to provide structure to the discourse, otherwise the exam could be bias and the student will be evaluated as having less fluency that actual.

 

Another problem is culture, yes culture. As stated, fluency is defined as ‘planned, smooth, effortless speech without numerous pauses’. Every culture has its own speech patterns. The pauses we consider numerous or long, may in fact be normal for the culture. The student will speak English in the same style in which he/she speaks their native tongue (Olynyk 1990). Often we will describe the person as having problems with fluency, when they are speaking properly for their culture.

 

There are so many variables when considering if a person is fluent, which can be confusing to student as well. Imagine the student who graduates from a course at one institute and enrolls for an advance course at another institute and is denied direct admission because he/she is not consider sufficiently fluent. The student thinks that the first institute did not complete their responsibility to him/her or if he/she has confidence in the first institute believes that the second institute is trying to get extra money from him/her.

 

Indeed, we as educators have great challenge before us. We must attempt evaluate every student fairly and correctly and at the same time take into account all the variables which may affect the outcome. Take into account the variables, judge fairly and if someone differs with your verdict, take it with a grain of salt. We are all trying to get the student to the same point, but we all look from our own point of view. After all, the other person may have seen something that you missed or something that will make the student a better speaker of English. By cooperating with each other we will succeed in helping the student.

 

 

   

 

References:

 

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: an approach based on analysis of conversational English. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Butler-Wall, B.A. (1986). The frequency of disfluencies in native and non-native conversational discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Califormia, Los Angeles.

Hieke, A.E. (1985). A componential approach to oral fluency evaluation. Modern Language Journal. 69(2), 135-142

Olynyk, M., D’Anglejan, A., Sankoff, D. (1990). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of speech markers in the native and second language speech of bilinguals. In C.R.Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, & S.D. Krashen (eds). Developing communicative competence in a second language. New York, N.Y.: Newbury House

Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language production. In H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds). Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honor of Frieda (Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mounton.

Riggenbach, H.R. (1989). Nonnative fluency in dialogue verse monologue speech: A microanalytic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

 

Other material not quoted but used in consideration of this article;

 

ALDERSON, J. C., 2006. Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: the interface between assessment and learning. London: Continuum.

BACHMAN, L. F. AND PALMER, A. S., 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BACHMAN, L. F. AND SAVIGNON, S. J., 1986. The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: a critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern language journal, 70 (4), 380-390.

BROWN, H. D., 2004. Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education.

DAVIES, A., 1992. Is proficiency always achievement? Melbourne papers in language testing, 1, 1-16.

 

 

 

©2005 Unique Leaders        www.we-develop-leaders.com

Great Methods - Poor Results

Dr. Edwin Weaver

Unique Leaders Educational Leadership

www.we-develop-leaders.com

www.uniqueleaders.org

May 25, 2008

 

 

For years the educational world has been talking about Formative Assessment. It has been more than 100 years since Formative Assessment was first researched. Since that time, reams of research have proven its effectiveness, yet we appear to be no closer to solving many of the educational problems which exist.

 

Governments around the world have instituted standards based educational systems. They have mandated Formative Assessment for all school, yet many students continue to fail. Are the standards wrong? Is Formative Assessment wrong? I would have to answer a resounding no to both of these questions. The answer is much closer to home.

 

You can have the best system, the best methods, however if the people utilizing these systems, these methods do not truly believe in the system, its benefits or themselves, the system and/or methods will fail. Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997 and Shepard, in 2000 found that the belief system and the practices of teachers need to be changed in order for Formative Assessment to function properly.

 

For more than twenty years I have worked in education and training as a teacher, school principal, teacher trainer and corporate trainer. I have been in charge of implementing Formative Assessment in schools around the world. I have seen the implementation of Formative Assessment produce great success and great failure.

 

In an international school where I was the principal, everyone admitted that the school needed a change. In some subjects, 87% of the students were failing. In addition, there were incredible discipline problems (due to the lack of learning opportunities).

 

I met with the directors and proposed implementing Formative Assessment. I presented the successes which I had experienced in other institutes when Formative Assessment was used for educating the students. The directors were unanimously in agreement that the school should change and implement Formative Assessment to improve the level of education and change the attitudes of the students.

 

The teachers were informed of the change and those who wished to stay and be a part of the new system where given training in Formative Assessment. Though a person is trained, if they do not thoroughly believe in the training and/or the results of the training, they will not produce the desired results.

 

We trained teachers to use Formative Assessment, however many did not apply Formative Assessment in the classroom. Others applied the system when they were being observed, but when no one was watching they went back to old style of teaching.

 

At the end of the first 10 week period when the report cards were process, it was easy to identify the teachers who were not using Formative assessment. Failure rates were as high as 47% of the class for the teachers who were not utilizing Formative Assessment. In the other classes the failure rate was 0% to 3%. The difference was obvious, but the reasons were not.

 

We started interviewing the teachers to find the reasons for the high failure rates. We also interviewed the successful teachers and compared their answers to questions about Formative Assessment to the answers given by teachers with high failure rates. Upon examining the answers, we learned that the successful teachers had a very different attitude towards Formative Assessment. Even the teachers who used what appeared to be Formative Assessment in their classes and who had high failure rates answered differently than those who were 100% behind Formative Assessment. The attitude and/or belief system kept the teachers from applying Formative Assessment properly.

 

There was no one group of teachers (old, young, new) which disbelieved, however those teachers who had been in the school for 10 to 15 years made up the highest percentage. The smallest percentage was from recently graduated teachers. They appeared more open to learn something new or to learn a different way of teaching.

 

We began working harder with the group of unbelievers. Again the hardest group to convince was the group of teachers who had been teaching the longest. They believed that their ways had worked for the last 15 to 20 years; therefore there was no need to change.

 

They admitted that they were not getting the results needed or required, but no one had complained before and these were the results they had obtained for 10 to 15 years. Furthermore, they believed that the failure rate was due to the students which they were teaching. We showed them the results of the teachers who were correctly using Formative Assessment.

 

They agreed that these teachers were enjoying a great success with their students. However, they felt that this group of students performed better. We examined school records and found students who had been taught by teachers in the unbelieving group in prior years. We questioned the teachers in the unbelieving group about certain students. They confirmed that these students did nothing in their classes. We showed them the report cards for this year. These “do nothing” students were obtaining “B”s and even a few “A”s.

 

What is the difference? The teaching method made the difference. The students were allowed to learn. The students were encouraged to learn. All the gaps were filled and the students felt confident that they could learn. The “Do Nothing” students became achievers and even leaders.

 

Formative Assessment works, when implemented properly. It is the responsibility of the educational leaders (Rector, Dean, Head Master, Principal or Director) to evaluate the belief system of the teachers. The belief system and the attitude towards change will determine the success of the implementation.

 

As you have probably already guessed, we had to dismiss some of the teaching staff and bring in new personnel. We have been working on a questionnaire which will help us to eliminate the candidates which do not whole heartily believe in the benefits of Formative Assessment or who are resistant to change. Thankfully, all the teachers who were implementing Formative Assessment properly are still with us.

 

Formative Assessment provides an additional benefit; not only do student learn more and learn it better, but discipline problems drop substantially and because there are fewer problems and happier students, the teachers are happier, more content with their positions and their life in the school.

 

Formative Assessment works, when used properly! If you would like more information about Formative Assessment contact www.we-develop-leaders.com . If you would like to have you staff evaluated and train in Formative Assessment contact www.we-develop-leaders.com or info@we-develop-leaders.com .

 

Unique Leaders Educational Leadership Development prides itself on helping educational institutes around the world to produce better students; students who are competent in all areas, ready to meet the challenges of life. Contact us today.

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Borko, H. , Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L., & Cumbo, K. B. (2000). Exploring and supporting teacher change: Two third-grade teachers’experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff development project. Elementary School Journal, 100 (4).

 

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7),1-14.