research papers in taskbased language teaching

7/29/2019 Research Papers in TaskBased Language Teaching

1/113

Research papers in task-based language teaching:

Issues in curriculum design and development

1


2/113



2

Research papers in task-based language teaching:Issues in curriculum design and development.

Copyright 2008 by Basic English Proficiency Project,Kanda University of International Studies.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any meanswithout permission.

First published 2008 by

Basic English Proficiency Project.Kanda University of International Studies, Japan.


3/113



3

Conducting a Summative Curriculum Evaluation:Aligning Objectives, Tasks, and Assessments.

Brad Curabba

Rethinking the ELI Lounge through Action Researchand Complementing the BEPP Curriculum throughSALC Activities

Roxanne Elliott

Instituting Exit Competencies at the University Level:Procedures, Problems and Future DevelopmentsBenjamin Laskar and Heath Rose

Is Freshman English Meeting the Needs of itsStudents? Student Perceptions of Kanda UniversitysFreshman English Program.

Sandy Lee and Christopher Wyle

Survey of IC and ILC department materials that couldbe adapted for use in BEPP Freshman English

Julian Murphy

Developing classroom personas and language identities

in tandem: Making effective choices in the formation ofacademic and language identity.Chris Stillwell


4/113



4


5/113



5

Conducting a Summative Curriculum Evaluation:

Aligning Objectives, Tasks, and Assessments

Brad Curabba

Introduction

A summative evaluation of a course is essential in

understanding the role of the course within a larger

institutional context, and to provide information on ways

for course redesign or change. The results of a

summative evaluation are used to improve the course forthe future. The following is a description of a summative

evaluation within the context of the Freshman English

curriculum at Kanda University of International Studies.

(K.U.I.S.)

The Freshman English Curriculum at Kanda University

The current Freshman English (F.E.) curriculum was

established during the years 1995 2000. The F.E.

curriculum is meant to span the course of one full

academic year and is a required course for all English

majors at the University. At present there are 1,652

English majors at K.U.I.S.


6/113



6

The curriculum is comprised of eight content-based units;

The Orientation Unit, The Advertising Unit, The

Environment Unit, The Film Unit, The Japan Unit, The

Music Unit, The Relationships Unit, and the Travel unit.

Within each unit there are a series of lessons, the vast

majority of the lessons were designed to last

approximately one ninety-minute class. Each unit is

unique in terms of materials developed and lessons,

however there are some constants. Each unit contains

the following; a video lesson, a listening lesson, a reading

discussion lesson, and a final project. Each unit isdesigned to last approximately sixteen, ninety-minute

lessons. At four, ninety-minute classes per week this is

approximately four weeks of teaching time per unit.

The primary objective of the F.E. curriculum is language

proficiency development. Content is considered to be

mainly a vehicle for developing students language

proficiency. Furthermore, special focus is placed on the

development of learner autonomy. The curriculum was

founded on three principles: individualization,

interdependence, and interaction. These principles are

especially important for the development of

communicative competence in freshman who have been


7/113



7

used to teacher-centered, non-interactive classroom

instruction in the junior and senior high school English

classes. (Johnson, 2002)

Initial Unit Evaluation: From Assessments to Individual

Lessons

This research project initially began with a desire to look

into the assessments for each unit within the F.E.

curriculum in order to determine: (1) whether or not the

skills necessary to successfully complete the final projects

were being taught within the lessons of the unit and (2) ifnot, what lessons could be added in order to make sure

that the students were being given the proper basic skills

necessary to be successful in the final project and also to

be successful overall as language learners.

I began an evaluation of one unit within the curriculum

with the goals stated above. After reviewing the

Advertising Unit within the F.E. curriculum, and creating a

chart highlighting each lesson, (table 1) including lesson

objectives, the task that each lesson asks the students to

work on, and the specific skills necessary to complete that

task, I began to notice that there were some lessons within

the unit that were not being properly scaffolded. That is,


8/113



8

there was something missing between the objectives, tasks,

and product that the students were asked to produce.

This product could be something as simple as leading a

discussion or researching a topic on the internet or

something more complex such as presenting findings of a

survey to a small group. As a result, I began looking more

closely at how the tasks in each lesson properly scaffolded

the lesson itself. Keeping in mind that this is a task-

based curriculum, many of the individual lessons within

each unit require the students to work cooperatively on a

task and report back to a small group or to the class as a

whole. Therefore, each lesson provides the opportunityto see how well objectives, tasks and assessments

(performance) have been aligned.

For example, within the Advertising Unit, there are three

lessons (Product Failures Lesson, Catchy Slogans Activity,

and Internet Advertising Lesson) which require students

to summarize information and present their summaries to

either small groups or to the whole class, however within

the Advertising Unit or the Orientation Unit for that matter,

there are no lessons, teaching students how to summarize

effectively. Additionally, there is another lesson within

this unit (Brand Name Survey Lesson) that requires

students to survey their classmates about their knowledge


9/113



9

of a particular brand name and report their survey

findings (in the form of a pie chart or graph) to the class.

This is a good lesson; however there is no previous

mention of presenting information to the class in the form

of a pie chart or graph. These skills and the language

that is imbedded within those very specific skills should

have been introduced prior to the presentation in order to

ensure both more effective presentations and additional

opportunities for learning and success. This is a good

example of how the objectives of the lesson (1. to interact

with different classmates, 2. to gather data and put it

together in a report, 3. to get an idea of the effectiveness ofcompany advertising in Japan, 4. To practice giving a

mini-report to a large group) and the tasks (survey

classmates, prepare a chart and present) do not align with

the assessment (judging a students effectiveness in giving

a short presentation based on a classroom survey and

using graphs to summarize findings.)

After noticing this lack of scaffolding within the lessons of

the Advertising Unit, I began to make similar

investigations among the lessons within each unit of the

entire F.E. curriculum. Similar discoveries were found

and a number of skills were added to the skills not

taught column on each of the tables. The major skills


10/113



10

that I found to be overlooked within the F.E. curriculum

were: (1) Talking about charts/graphs, (2) Memorizing

Information, (3) Summarizing (4) Giving Opinions in a

Presentation, (5) Conversation Skills Starting and

Continuing a Conversation, and (6) Research Skills.

Adding a Unit Checklist

In addition to creating a list of skills that have not been

taught, thus revealing the lessons that I felt were not

properly scaffolded, an attempt was made at creating a

unit checklist. The unit checklist was the product ofanalyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the units

within the F.E. curriculum. Some units contained such

important elements that they should, I felt, be included in

each unit. A tentative checklist is included below in

Table 2. By including this in each unit, I feel there will be

a better chance to ensure that teachers are properly

equipped with the initial resources and also with a

conceptual framework for each unit.


11/113



11

Table 2: Unit Checklist

Freshman English CurriculumUnit Checklist

o Table of Contentso Unit Rationaleo Unit Objectiveso Unit Vocabulary Listo Individual Lesson Objectiveso Suggested Teaching Order

Suggestions:o More than two performance based lessonso A scaffolding lesson for the presentationo Pronunciation lesson in each unito Updated readings/videos/listening activities

Assessments:o Develop a standardized assessment for each unito Different options/type of final projectso Universal rubric for each final project

Using the Results for Future Work

Materials Development:

Future work will concentrate on creating materials and

lessons in order to ensure that each of the skills on the

skills not taught column have been addressed

somewhere within the F.E. curriculum. Discussions

have centered on creating a group of core skills lessons

which can be used to supplement the lessons which may

lack the proper scaffolding. Teachers will have the

Unit Basics


12/113



12

option of using the lessons within the core skills folder if

they feel that their students require a review or an

introduction to a specific skill. In this way the overall

format of the existing lessons do not need to change, this

is important since the quality of the lessons are on average

high and have gone through various changes and

improvements, based on teacher feedback, over the years.

Returning to Assessments

The most important next step is to return to the goals that

guided this research from the beginning. To determine:(1) whether or not the skills necessary to successfully

complete the final projects were being taught within the

lessons of the unit and (2) if not what lessons could be

added in order to make sure that the students were being

given the proper basic skills necessary to be successful in

the final project and also to be successful overall as

language learners. During the work that I described

above, a number of the final projects were deemed to be

not properly scaffolded. These projects need to be

reexamined and the skills that are missing will need to be

added among the steps contained in each final project.


13/113



13

Conclusion

Conducting a summative evaluation of a curriculum, I

believe, is necessary to discovering aspects that could be

added and improved upon for the future. Often these

aspects go unnoticed during the course of a semester and

must be reflected upon after the material has been taught.

In the case of the evaluation that I undertook for the F.E.

curriculum at K.U.I.S., there were even unintended

benefits which I believe will help to make the curriculum

stronger in the future. Most importantly is the idea of

giving the students the opportunity to succeed. Asteachers and materials designers we must be aware of the

skills that the students need to successfully complete a

task, especially if the task is performance based and

requires multiple skills to produce. Understanding how

to align objectives, tasks, and assessments though

properly scaffolded lessons and curricula will ensure not

only completion of a task or project, but meaningful

interaction and a higher chance of success.


14/113



14

REFERENCES

Bailey, Kathleen. (1998). Learning About Language

Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions.

Heinle & Heinle.

Graves, Kathleen. (2000). Designing Language Courses, A

Guide For Teachers. Heinle & Heinle.

Johnson, F.C. (2002). Learner Autonomy: From concept to

curriculum - the Kanda experiment: The conceptualframework of the Kanda experiment.

Paper presented at the AILA Congress, Singapore.


15/113



15

Rethinking the ELI Lounge through Action Research

and

Complementing the BEPP Curriculum through SALC

Activities

Roxanne Elliott

Abstract

This study consists of two separate reports, Parts I and II.

Albeit in different ways, both studies aim to promote

student autonomy through activities that supplement theFreshman Curriculum. Part I, Rethinking the ELI Lounge

through Action Research, summarizes action research

regarding the ELI lounge area and its relation to an in-

class warm-up exercise, Free Talk. Feedback on Free

Talk and ELI use was obtained through student surveys

and interviews. This feedback suggested that with in-class

learner training, students feel much more comfortable in

the ELI lounge, especially when conversing casually

among with each other or international students. At the

same time, the students expressed some reticence in

speaking with the native-speaking teachers. Thus, the

study urges rethinking how the ELI lounge is viewed by

both students and teachers.


16/113



16

Whereas Part I is a continuation of previous research, Part

II, Complementing the BEPP Curriculum through SALC

Activities is part of a joint SALC materials design/BEPP

curriculum development project. This project began only

this year, and is still in its initial stages. The concept is to

develop a series of pamphlets containing supplementary

materials to accompany each of the eight Freshman

English Units.

The SALC materials are selected to expand upon BEPP

curriculum covered in class; students can access thematerials on a voluntary basis (thus, they are never

assigned as homework). Four to six resources are

identified in each Unit pamphlet, and cover such areas as

grammar, listening, presentation/discussions/debates,

speaking, video, and vocabulary. By the end of this year,

about four of these pamphlets should be completed.


17/113



17

Part I: Rethinking the ELI Lounge through Action

Research

A) Background

The present study is the current instalment of ELI area

research over the span of the past few years. These studies

have looked into student activities, attitudes and use of

the ELI writing, speaking and lounge areas. In addition,

they have looked into how ELI use can be helped or

hindered by in-class activities. Previous studies have

suggested that affective factors (attitudes) have more of aneffect than linguistic ones (language level). Furthermore,

they have suggested that one way of creating a more

positive attitude towards the ELI areas is prepare them for

the ELI through in-class activities.

Rose (2004) carried out action research to assess how often

students from his freshman class went to the ELI. He held

three interviews throughout the school year to hear

students self-report on their use of the ELI lounge. His

findings were that students preferred assignments that

were positively motivated (such as receiving extra credit)

instead of negatively motivated (completing an

assignment). Furthermore, he found that students often


18/113



18

did not go to the lounge as a result of shyness or lack of

time. In short, affective factors played a large role in

determining the use of the ELI area.

A follow-up study by Elliott and Rose (2005) involved all

freshman students. The study had three main sources of

information: 1) interviews with all teachers and learning

advisors in the ELI, 2) a log book for all visitors to the ELI

over a two-week period, and 3) a survey on student

attitudes that were filled out by all freshmen in the

English, IC and ILC departments. Results indicated that

frequency of use (including number of assignments) in thefree-talk area led to increased comfort and skill in

speaking with native speakers. Problems in using the

lounge were highlighted, including 1) misunderstandings

about what the lounge was for, 2) student confusion

regarding how to relate to the teachers, and 3) how to start,

continue and end a conversation. Thus, conversation

management and affective factors again figure

prominently.

There seemed to be two solutions to this problem. One

was to assign more tasks to be completed in the ELI

lounge, throwing students into a communicative situation

and then hoping that they made their way through by


19/113



19

way of constant exposure and practice. Drawbacks

include forcing the students against their will to go to

the ELI area until they feel comfortable there, as well as

the limited time and resources of the ELI area itself.

However, another solution was to include more time for

free conversation in class. In this way, students could

learn about conversation management in the classroom,

and then use these techniques to feel more comfortable

engaging in conversation in the ELI area.

B) Theoretical Basis: Autonomy

The background of both studies presented in this report,

but above all this one on the ELI, concerns the promotion

of learner autonomy. Several levels and definitions of

autonomy exist. In general terms, Deci (1995) describes an

autonomous person as self-governing and free in his or

her actions. Educators such as Benson (2001) define

autonomy as the capacity to take control of ones own

learning (p. 47). Aoki (1999) slightly expands Bensons

(2001) concept to define learner autonomy as, a capacity

to take control of ones own learning in the service of

ones perceived needs and aspirations (p.144). According

to van Lier (1996), the true meaning of autonomy is

self-regulation (p. 119).


20/113



20

The concept of learner autonomy is already tricky, and

promoting it inside the classroom even more complex.

Autonomy is often viewed as an independent endeavor,

pursued and achieved outside the classroom. Furthermore,

it is seen as not necessarily collaborative, and as the

learners responsibility. Dam (2003) claims the reason

autonomy is not promoted has to do with the distribution

of power in the classroom. The teacher is in a one-up

position while the learners are in the one-down position.

In order to promote autonomy, it is absolutely essentialthat a teacher let go of the idea of a traditional, teacher-

centered classroom. More often than not, it is the teacher

not accepting his or her peripheral rolenot the students

shirking their responsibilitythat foils attempts for

autonomy (Dam, 2003, p. 138). In sum, Dams (2003) point

of view is that learner autonomy develops not only in the

classroom but also, and perhaps more importantly, in the

teachers own development and awareness as regards his

or her role in the whole process (p. 135-136).

The process of promoting learner autonomy thus requires

a redistribution of power in the classroom, along side

reflective teaching. Dam (2003) argues that to promote


21/113



21

learner autonomy it is necessary to follow the Four steps

to learner responsibility, which represent a cumulative

process.

1.Experience with and insight into useful and relevant

activities, suitable partners, appropriate ways of

organizing the work undertaken, and various ways

of evaluating process as well as progress

2.Awareness of what, why and how to learn;

awareness of ones role in the learning process

3.Influence on and participation in decision making

as regards ones own learning (choice of activities,

partners, materials, etc.)4.Responsibility for ones own learning (Dam, 2003, p.

139)

This is the four-step process that I am trying to replicate in

the classroom through Free Talk to promote the use of the

ELI. I feel that if I can emphasize the experience, awareness,

and influence processes of Free Talk, then the students can

take responsibility for their learning through seeking out

English speaking conversation partners outside the

classroom. I view the conversations in the classroom as a

stepping stone to the ELI, and the ELI in turn as a

stepping stone to (non-assigned) conversations with other

speakers of English.


22/113



22

C) Free Talk and Promoting Learner Autonomy

I decided to promote autonomy in the classroom through

applying Dams (2003) experience, awareness, influence, and

responsibility model to the concept of Free Talk. Michael

Torpey first introduced incorporating Free Talk into each

lesson during his observation of my class in the Spring of

2005. Free Talk is a warm-up conversation that lasts about

five to ten minutes on the topic of the students choice. It

can be done in partners or in groups (organized by the

teacher or the students choice). Students come into the

classroom and chat until the teacher stops them andbegins the more task-based part of the lesson. Free Talk,

though less structured than other in-class activities, is just

as valid and important in increasing language ability as

other parts of the lesson. Starting each class of this year

with Free Talk has given my students experience (step 1)

with speaking in an unstructured manner with their

classmates in English.

Periodically I go to the awareness step (2), when I add

another component to Free Talk though integrating it with

a few awareness-raising questions. We have class

discussions on the concept of Free Talk itself. The teacher

asks questions of the class and the class raises their


23/113



23

concerns or questions about Free Talk. Some of the sample

questions are listed below:

Why does the teacher not give you a topic?

How do you go about choosing a topic with your

partner?

How do you change the topic?

How do you start a conversation?

How do you end a conversation?

How do you keep a conversation going?

In addition, once every semester I conducted surveys andinterviews to figure out how the students felt about Free

Talk, using free response, multiple choice, and rankings

(See Appendix 1). Through our in class discussions and

the continuous feedback that I received from students, I

was able to understand their impressions about Free Talk.

Using feedback gathered both publicly and privately, the

class then made changes to the way that Free Talk was

carried out, thus leading to increased student influence

(step 3) over the activity. Finally, I hope that students

will be able to take more responsibility (step 4) for their

learning, which for me is evidenced by using resources

such as the ELI lounge more often.


24/113



24

D) Findings

Teacher Journals and Observations

Here I will summarize my impressions as a teacher using

Free Talk. Integrating more free speaking tasks into the

curriculum brought about multiple benefits, according to

my observations. First, students practiced topic and

conversation management. Second, it encouraged

teambuilding and cooperation among class members and

allowed them to get to know one another on a more

personal level. Third, it increased student awareness andreflection through focus tasks. Fourth, it weaned students

away from relying on the teacher as facilitator, and to

instead look to each other. Fifth, it increased student

fluency. Finally, Free Talk also validated conversations

between non-natives.

From a classroom management point of view, as well,

there are many benefits. First, it is a relaxing activity, as

students have the time to decompress from their lives

outside the classroom before diving into the days lesson.

Second, there is no need for the teacher to prepare or give

instructions, as students already know what they need to

do. Third, the problem of a few minutes of tardiness is

solved because groupings can gain or lose a member


25/113



25

easily, and there is no need for explicit instruction in order

to participate in an activity. Finally, it also promotes the

use of English-only, since students begin using English as

soon as they come in the door.

Student Feedback

In general, as expressed through class discussions,

interviews, and surveys, student reactions to Free Talk is

overwhelmingly positive. In fact, the more experience the

students had with it, the more positive they felt. The

results by the second semester were striking. Out of aclass of 28 students, 16 said gave it the highest mark

possible regarding how much they enjoyed it (on a scale

of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest), whereas 12 gave it the

second highest mark possible (4 out of 5). No one went

lower than those two high marks, which shows the

popularity of the activity. No other task or activity that I

have ever done in class has gotten such overwhelmingly

consistently positive feedback.

Grouping issues were important, and I found that

students had strong opinions about how they were

grouped for Free Talk (e.g. choosing their own partners,

getting into smaller or larger groups). I found that


26/113



26

students in general enjoyed doing Free Talk in pairs. As a

teacher, though, I think that groups are more effective as

preparation for the KEPT exam. In addition, students

enjoyed mixing up the groups is a good idea. Again as a

teacher I accommodated their requests, although I have

heard of research that says that staying in the same groups

encourages team building. This is difficult because it

depends on the teachers own ideas.

One of the more successful Free Talk variations, which

lasted over the course of about seven or eight weeks, was

to give students a list of names of all classmates. Each daythe students would find a new partner, and once that

person was marked off their list they would try to find

another partner for the next day. Students enjoyed this

activity, although the search for a new partner every class

period took some students out of their comfort zone as

they had to approach students they did not know very

well. The positive side was that students were able to

enjoy the company of classmates they would not normally

talk with.

During the first semester I interviewed every student to

see how they were interested in improving their English

outside the classroom. Half the students were interested


27/113



27

in the speaking lounge, which was a number I considered

low (14 out of 28). However, during the course of the

semester I continued to make it clear that it was possible

to enjoy the area without necessarily talking with a

teacher.

My students enjoyment and frequency of use of Free Talk

and of the ELI lounge steadily increased over the course of

the year. Interest in the ELI lounge started with a fairly

low attendance (about half the class went more often than

once a month during the first semester). However, during

the second semester, fourteen claimed to go at least once aweek, six at least once every two weeks. This means that

20 out of 28 students in my class were in the ELI lounge

once every week or two. As for the remaining students

four went once a month, two once every two months, and

only two had not been that semester. Keep in mind that

when I distributed the survey, I had made no assignments

to go to the ELI lounge. Thus, the students were going to

the lounge purely of their own volition.

Another question that was what they most enjoyed doing

in the ELI lounge area. One question asked the students to

order their preferred activities in order, from 1 as the most


28/113



28

favorite to 8 as the least preferred. Here were the results of

that ranking:

1.Talking with their friends

2.Relaxing

3.Watching TV

4.Talking with a teacher

5.Reading books

6.Doing other activities

7.Eating

8.Doing homework

It is interesting to note that the camaraderie within theclassroom, as promoted by Free Talk encouraged students

to look to each other as conversation partners instead of

seeking validation from a teacher as a conversation

partner. In fact, speaking with a teacher ranks fourth, in

the mid-range on the list of favorite activities.


29/113



29

E) Suggested changes in curriculum and ELI lounge

This study has prompted the rethinking of activities both

in and outside the classroom. In the classroom I think it

would be a good idea to include Free Talk in the

curriculum as a universal Freshman-level warm-up

activity. Free Talk promotes a positive classroom

atmosphere, most importantly. In addition, it increases

fluency, autonomy, interaction, reflection and

interdependence. All these points support its inclusion as

a universal warmer.

The results of this study also indicate a rethinking of the

role of the teachers in the ELI lounge might be useful.

Perhaps ELI teachers in the ELI lounge could be viewed as

resource, and not as mandatory conversation partners.

Currently, both the teachers and the administration see

the ELI as an area where conversations are validated by

the teachers. Teachers are openly encouraged to

participate in all conversations that the students are

having. This study calls into question the value of

mandatory teacher involvement.

Is an older native speaker makes a more appropriate

partner than an English-speaking peer (native or non-


30/113



30

native)? The age difference between teachers and students,

as well as the role of a teacher as an authority figure,

indicate that unless invited directly by the students to

participate in a conversation, the administration might

want to rethink its policy of unconditional teacher

involvement. If it is English-only, natural conversation,

that is attainable with or without teacher participation.


31/113



31

Part II: Complementing the BEPP Curriculum through

SALC Activities

A) Introduction

This project turned out to be much bigger and more

complex than I had originally envisioned. In fact, this is a

new project, never before done by either the SALC or

BEPP, much less a joint project with both. The efforts

summarized here encompass my work not only as a BEPP

member and Freshman English teacher, but also as a

Materials Designer for the SALC.

B) Project Description

This series of pamphlets is a joint BEPP/SALC curriculum

development and materials design project. The goal of the

project is to compile a list of SALC resources into a

pamphlet that supplements each of the eight BEPP

Freshman Curriculum Units. The eight units of the

Freshman Curriculum are:

Orientation (all students)

Japan (lower level students)

Advertising

Environment


32/113



32

Film

Music

Relationships

Travel

The SALC resources referenced in the pamphlets are

meant to be accessed autonomously by learners, and thus

are never assigned as homework or done for extra credit.

At the same time, the materials are directly related to

material covered in the BEPP lessons. For example, the

Presentation lesson in the Orientation Unit has a

presentation pamphlet resource in the SALC; the ThreeGenres lesson in the Music Unit to a Bob Marley CD. The

teachers and learning advisors only obligations are to

make students aware of the resources available. There is

no outside evaluation of the work produced.

The pamphlets have pictures and references to resources

in the SALC that expand upon material covered in class.

Four to six resources are identified in each pamphlet,

covering a selection of the following areas:

grammar

listening

presentation/discussions/debates

speaking (e.g. phonetics, fluency)


33/113



33

video

vocabulary

Depending on the theme of the unit and the resources

available, some areas may be more relevant to some units

than to others. For example, perhaps more videos could

be provided for the Film Unit, or more CDs for the Music

Unit. These areas have been chosen because they

correspond to areas that teachers would like to improve

on. The subject areas are based on what teachers have

highlighted as not being covered in their classes, but that

could benefit from increased coverage (See Appendix 2 forthe BEPP list of useful supplementary resources). With

limited time and resources in class, it is perhaps preferable

for students to follow up on resources that they find

useful for their own goals and studies. These pamphlets

fulfil that need.

C) The Process

One of the challenges of compiling the brochures for this

unit has been taking all of the concerned parties into

account. For example, in order to produce just one

brochure, I had to:


34/113



34

1.Go through each BEPP Freshman English lesson

and identify key points to build on

2.Find SALC materials that filled that need

3.Write a blurb for the pamphlet describing the

SALC material and referencing it back to the

BEPP lesson

4.Submit the wording for the pamphlet for

drafting by the SALC materials designers

5.Submit images used in the pamphlet for the

SALC materials designers to scan

6.Have the designers return a draft version to me

7.Trial the brochure8.Obtain rights to copyrighted materials

9.Submit the trialed and edited brochure for

publishing

10. Receive the pamphlet back from the

outside publisher

11. Distribute among the classes and make

available in the SALC itself

There were many breakdowns and problems in this

process, and as of now I have not been able to complete a

single brochure. For example, I found that the designers

wanted the materials trailed before they would give me a

draft of the materials. However, the form and content are


35/113



35

basically inseparable, so this created somewhat of an

impasse. Furthermore, there are many copyright issues

surrounding the pamphlets, mainly because they are

produced out of house. However, the student trialing is

fairly straightforward, as there are students available (for

pay) to help with the trailing. So far I have drafted

pamphlets for the Orientation, Music, and Relationships

Units. For a sample of work in progress I have completed

so far and given to the Materials Developers, please see

Appendix 3.

D) Conclusion

In the future, BEPP will need to decide whether

complementing the curriculum with the help of these

brochures is a high priority. It requires a lot of effort and,

as I explained earlier, requires cooperation with many

people (SALC Learning Advisors and Managers, BEPP

members, Materials Designers). I hope that with the

lessons learned through the course of this year, BEPP can

continue its involvement.

The ideal candidate to continue this project is someone

with a knowledge of or interest in SALC resources who is

also familiar with BEPP goals and curriculum. Signing up


36/113



36

for a koma of Materials Design would be highly beneficial,

as well, as it gives the person more time to explore the

resources and more access to SALC staff (especially the

Materials Designers, who are employed directly by the

SALC, not BEPP).

Although it is a challenge and a time investment, I believe

that developing these materials could be of enormous

benefit to both the students and the teachers. However, it

is up to BEPP to decide the extent of its involvement. If the

committee decides to emphasize other priorities, it will

probably become an exclusively SALC project.


37/113



37

References

Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the

development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold (Ed.),

Affect in language learning (pp. 142-154). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Basic English Proficiency (BEPP). (2005). Possible areas of

support: BEPP and SALC materials. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in

language learning. Harlow, England: Pearson Education

Limited.

Dam, L. (2003). Developing learner autonomy: The

teachers responsibility. In D. Little, J. Ridley and E.

Ushidoda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language

classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, (pp.

126-150).Dublin: Authentik.


38/113



38

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of

personal autonomy. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons.

Elliott, R. and Rose, H. (2005). Kanda Freshman English

majors and the ELI. Unpublished manuscript.

Rose, H. (2004). Activities to promote ELI use in Freshman

English. Unpublished manuscript.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum:

Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman

Group Limited.


39/113



39

Appendix 1

Sample Interview Questions and Survey

For Assessing Use of the ELI Lounge and the Effectiveness of Free Talk

Interview Questions

Tell me about activities you most enjoy in our class? Are there any activitiesyou dont enjoy as much? Why?

What kinds of activities do you enjoy doing outside of class to improve yourEnglish?

How do you feel about the Free Talk warm-up activity in our class?

Survey Questions

Tell me about your in-class Free Talk Experience

Please mark between 5 (absolutely true) and 1 (not true at all).

1. I enjoy free talk time in this class. 5 4 3 2

1

2. I prefer doing free talk in pairs. 5 4 3 2 1

3. I prefer doing free talk in groups of 3 or 4. 5 4 3 2 1

4. I think we spend enough time doing 5 4 3 2 1

Free Talk in this class.

5. Additional comments about in-class Free Talk Experience:

ELI Lounge Experience

Please mark between 5 (absolutely true) and 1 (not true at all).

6. I like the yellow sofa free talk area. 5 4 3 2 1

7. I like the yellow sofa reading area. 5 4 3 2 1

8. I like the Writing Center. 5 4 3 2 1

9. I like the Practice Center. 5 4 3 2 1


40/113



40

10. When you go to the ELI lounge area, what activities do you prefer? Please putin order from your most to least favorite activity. Example: Doing homework (_1_),

Chatting with my friends (_2_).

a. Eating my lunch or a snack (___)

b. Chatting with my friends (___)

c. Talking with a teacher (___)

d. Doing homework (___)e. Relaxing (___)

f. Reading (___)

g. Watching TV (___)

e. Other activities (___)

11. How many times have you been to the ELI lounge, Writing Center, or Practice

Area this semester? (Please circle only one.)

a. At least once a week.

b. About once every two weeks

c. About once a month

d. About once every two months

e. I have not gone yet this semester

12. Comments about ELI lounge Experience:


41/113



41

Appendix 2

Possible Areas of Support: BEPP and SALC Materials (2005)

The following are a few areas in which the Freshman English curriculum couldbenefit from further materials development outside the classroom. While the points

mentioned are dealt with to some degree in the teacher student scenario, materials that

treat these matters in further depth, and that could be accessed independently by the

student via the SALC, would be of enormous benefit.

Focus on form: As FE is concerned mainly with listening and speaking in acommunicative fashion, a concentration on grammar and its specific

applications/conjugations is absent from the current curriculum. Supplemental

materials with a focus on form could greatly aid the overall language proficiency of

the students. These grammar points could even be directly related to units taught in

FE. For example, Grammar you might use when talking about Travel, etc,.

Research: Students need to broaden their knowledge base concerning research and

performance strategies. Further areas that could benefit from further support include

-where to find and how to access materials

-how to summarize from primary sources

-what specific language to use in structuring a presentation-how to use technology effectively

-how to lead a discussion

-how to ask questions about a presentation

Pronunciation: Sentence level pronunciation, supra-segmental, intonation, word-

blending, etc. Detailed activities designed to employ existing materials (i.e.,

speaking booths, texts).

Vocabulary: Materials that offer further recycling, practice and explication with

vocabulary currently found in Freshman.


42/113



42

Appendix 3

Sample Brochure for the BEPP/SALC Joint Pamphlet

The brochures will be the size of one piece of A4 paper, folded lengthwise into three

sections.

Front cover: The Freshman English Collection

The Orientation Unit

SALC and BEPP logos

Inside flap: Take a look inside to find out which SALC materials can help you

succeed in your Freshman English classes!

Inside p. 1: The Orientation Unit (Below a map of the SALC with various

sections: Drop-in Desk, VVocabulary section, PRESPresentation

section, OCOral communication section)

Inside p. 2: This brochure will help you learn more about some of the ideas youre

talking about in Freshman English class: Learning Styles, Discussions,

Presentations, and even the ELI Lounge Area.

Whether you have a few minutes or a few hours, please take the time

to choose the resources most useful to you and have a look. If you have

any questions about the location of these activities or materials needed,

please ask at the SALC desk.


43/113



43

(Items 1 & 2 Location) On the Shelves near the Drop-In Desk

Learning Styles: The best way to understand about different ways of

learning is to take the SALCs First Steps Module. But even if you

didnt sign up for the module, you can still understand more about

what kind of learner you are! Just take a look at the multicolored

SALC worksheets on display. These only take a few minutes to

complete, and they can help you understand a lot about the way you

learn. Take a look at these two: What are Learning Strategies? and

Solo, Partner or Group?

(Item 3 Location) Oral CommunicationOC

Discussions: At Kanda you will have discussions in most of your

classes, so improving this skill is something that will help you more

and more as you continue your studies. Take a look at Speaking self-

check: Do you know how much you can express yourself in English?

This worksheet is especially helpful because you can record and assess

your speech every day, week, month or semester and check your

progress.

Inside p. 3: (Item 4 Location) Presentation SectionPRES


44/113



44

Presentations: How comfortable do you feel speaking in front of a

group? If the thought of public speaking makes you nervous, please

take a look at our presentations section. This section has lots of helpful

hints on how to improve your skills. Want a lot of helpful information

in a small, easy-to-use pamphlet? Take a look at Down to Business:

English for Presentations, which gives you lots of great advice in a

glance.

(Item 5 Location) Vocabulary SectionV

The ELI Lounge Area: Would you like to feel more prepared when

talking with the native-speaking teachers who come from all over the

world? A pamphlet like Need-to-KnowAmerican & British English

Differences Explained might help you understand some of the

differences between different types of English.

Feel free to take a look at any or all of the resources mentioned here.

Keep an eye out for brochures on more Freshman English Units!


45/113



45

Instituting Exit Competencies at the University Level:

Procedures, Problems and Future Developments

Benjamin Laskar

Heath Rose

Introduction

A system of assessment based on exit competencies is

under development in the English Language Institute

(ELI) at Kanda University of International Studies in

Chiba, Japan. It seeks to measure student languagecompetence across a broad range of objectives, reflecting

the emphasis placed on communication in ELI classes. In

this way, it provides a wealth of information about what

students can actually communicate in the language.

Currently this system is being developed under the

auspices of the Basic English Proficiency Project. The

reasoning behind this is Freshman English is

representative of many of the principles the ELI was

founded upon and furthermore, it has become somewhat

of a template for other courses that have been developed

under the ELI umbrella. This paper will outline the


46/113



46

rationale behind the development of such a system,

current developments, feedback and future plans.

Background to exit competencies

Competency-based approaches have become increasingly

common in language testing around the world, with

several large-scale testing programs using this kind of

assessment. This trend has developed out of the broader

communicative language testing movement, which

emerged in the 1970s. On a practical level, the trend hasalso been advanced by demands for vocational standards

and by economic rationalism. As Docking (1994:9) points

out, some in the field of language testing have opposed

competency-based approaches because of the connections

with economic rationalism and also a perceived

connection with behaviourist psychology, which Docking

disputes. He goes on to explain problems with many of

the features of standard assessment, then outlines the

main benefits of competency-based approaches, such as

being a means of rewarding excellence among students,

raising standards, ensuring consistency of standards

across different classes and empowering students to take

more responsibility for their learning (ibid: 15).


47/113



47

Rationale for exit competencies in the ELI

Exit Competencies are a series of objectives that outline

students communicative capabilities--an inventory of

what they can do in a communicative sense. This

approach to assessment is in-line with Kandas principles

of developing a curriculum that takes a communicative

approach centering on developing independence,

interpersonal interaction and interdependence. Having a

system that outlines curriculum objectives serves

numerous educational functions:

(1) It makes a public statement about the level

of language proficiency communication skill

attained by all Kanda students

(2) It allows students to progress through the

curriculum at a speed in accordance with

their skill

(3) Accommodates differing levels of

proficiency

(4) It is a statement of accountability on

curriculum design and efficacy

(5) Enables students and teachers to become

aware of course objectives


48/113



48

(6) Allows students to become aware of their

own weaknesses

(7) Encourages more engagement from

students in classes due to a realization of

accountability

The aim of the English curriculum at KUIS is for all

students to attain a stated level of ability expressed in

terms of a

(1) score on a test of global proficiency theKEPT

(2) Demonstrating competency in using

language the exit competencies.

Initial Vision

1)Kanda English courses will be divided into Basic

courses (Basic English Proficiency, Basic Writing,

Basic Reading, Intensive Reading, Extensive Reading,

Oral Communication, Media English,) and Advanced

Courses (SOGOs). Students will continue to take


49/113



49

Basic courses until they are exempted. Successful

completion of exit criteria and attainment of the

required KEPT score will secure exemption from

Basic courses and enable students to move from

Basic courses into Advanced courses. See Figure 1.

Figure One: Movement from Basic to Advanced Courses

2)Exit competencies will be administered by the BEPPteacher to students who have already attained therequired KEPT score. If the student is successful in

meeting the established criteria, the BEPP teacher

will meet with the students Reading and Writing

teachers to confirm that the student is capable in all

skills areas.

3)For social and other reasons ( the development ofautonomy, team work skills etc) the earliest time

students will be permitted attempt exit by


50/113



50

performing the exit competencies is during the

second semester of First Year.

4)Students will still be required to accumulate the samenumber of credits of English proficiency for

graduation over a four-year period. Exemption from

Basic courses will simply mean that some students

will take more advanced courses than others. It may

be possible to acknowledge this in student

transcripts at graduation.

5)SOGO courses will become of a more advanced

nature through a natural process. Because students

taking SOGO courses will all have attained therequired level of proficiency required for graduation,

such courses will be able to be offered assuming a

higher standard of English ability with materials able

to be pitched at more challenging levels.

Proposed System

1)Assessment for exit competency shall not be viewedas a test and will be customized to the specific needs

of the Basic English Proficiency course materials.

2)The assessment is to occur during the natural

development of the class. What this means is that

during the class presentations the teachers will


51/113



51

without notice grade those students for exit criteria

that have met the KEPT requirements.

The proposed system requires a movement of students

from basic into advanced courses. The process by

which is this is carried out is shown in figure 2.

FIGURE 2: Process for students moving from Basic to

Advanced courses

Incoming students to Kanda University of International

Studies would be filtered into tiers of language

proficiency through the Kanda English Proficiency Test

(KEPT). As has always been the case, the KEPT is usedas an instrument to stream students into Basic classes each

year according to their language proficiency. However,


52/113



52

in the proposed system, the KEPT would take on a new

function to divide students into two groups by means of a

cut off score in the KEPTthose students who make the

cut off would then qualify to be measured for competency

assessment throughout the first year. Those students

below the cut off would have to wait until the next KEPT

before qualifying. Students who have qualified for

competency assessment and then pass the competency

checklist would then be free to move into advanced

courses. Those students who didn't pass the competency

checklist would have to wait until the second cycle of

assessment before being assessed again with the newqualifiers from the next KEPT. Students would need to

pass both KEPT and the competency assessment in order

to move into advanced. In theory, therefore, some

students might move into advanced courses after one year

in basic, while others might spend three or four years in

the basic course level. In addition to this, it is to be

understood that the following principle apply:

Methodology

The research was carried out as an action-based research

project. According to Nunan (1994), action research is a

form of research that is becoming increasingly significant


53/113



53

in language eduction. He states that in the area of

language education it involves research that is carried out

by practitioners, or classroom teachers, rather than outside

investigators (Nunan 1994). According to Kemmis and

Taggart:

A distinctive feature of action research is that those

affected by planned changes have the primary

responsibility for deciding on the course of critically

informed action which seem likely to lead to

improvement, and for evaluating the results of

strategies tried out in practice. Action research is a

group activity. (1988: 6)

Action research was deemed the most appropriate

methodological framework to use because it allows the

researcher to trial a number of systems within real

learning environments. In addition, another benefit of

conducting the project as action research was that the

practitioner as researcher role takes advantage of

knowledge of class dynamics and student personality that

may go unnoticed by an outside researcher. Such

knowledge is vital when dealing with a study involving

the trialing of a system in regards to its feasibility of use in

real classroom settings and its accuracy at measuring

student competency. The study, therefore, was


54/113



54

conducted as action-based research to take advantage of

the researchers knowledge of his own class, rather than it

become a liability as viewed under other methodological

frameworks.

The methodology used in the current research uses an

action research framework to investigate methods of exit

competency assessments, through a series of cycles.

Each cycle consists of the following processes: system

development, trailing, data collection and system reform

based on results of the trial (shown in figure 3).

FIGURE 3: Process of research

System

Development

System

ReformTrial

DataCollection


55/113



55

The research has completed three cycles since its

implementation in 2005. One trial was carried out,

outside of the classroom environment in December 2005.

The second trial was carried out in select first tier classes

in May and June 2006. The third trial was carried out

from September to December 2006. Each trial yielded

information through interviews with teachers and

researchers on the feasibility of using the system in class

and on its perceived accuracy, leading to the further and

on-going development of the system itself. Theprocedure, for the current study, therefore, is as outlined

in figure 4.


56/113



56

FIGURE 4: Research Procedure

CYC

LE

1

A system was developed to measure students'competency through a series of tasks to be

completed in class. Competency was

measured through peer understanding and

response to the task in conjunction with

teachers' assessment.

The system was trailed withsix groups ofstudents.

Data revealed short-comings The system was reformed

CYCLE

2

The system was adapted from that trailed inthe first cycle. Competencies were assessed

in conjunction with usual assessment inFreshman English.

The system was trailed in two upper tierclasses.


CYCLE

3

The system was adapted from that trailed inthe second cycle. Competencies wereassessed in a more holistic manner.

The system was trailed in 8 classes over awhole semester.



57/113



57

Results

Results of First Cycle

In the first cycle one the system was developed into a

number of tasks that would be used elicit certain

competencies from students. Previous research (Rodda,

2004) had indicated that a system whereby students were

assessed outside of the classroom in test conditions and by

multiple raters was not practical for the Kanda University

Infrastructure. The proposed system required too many

man-hours and too much focus of students' attention andtime away from the curriculum. Therefore, the system

developed in the first cycle used task, which were

designed to be implemented within class and assessed by

a single teacher and by peers.

A number of students from all proficiency levels were

chosen to take part in this trial. The tasks were carried

out and filmed. Data collected in the form of feedback

from the teachers of these classes indicated a number of

flaws in the system. Lower proficiency students

displayed higher levels of language competency than

higher-level students, according to both teachers and

verified by three researchers who watched the filmed


58/113



58

tasks. However, data collected by peer reaction to the

task indicated higher-level students completed the task

more successfully. This result indicated a serious flaw in

the system design that indicated that audience reaction

was not a reliable method to assess a performer's

competency. Thus, in the reformation of this system at

the end of the trial cycle, the aspect of peer assessment

was abandoned. Other data, which was collected at this

time, included competencies displayed by 'best practice',

through the filming of a model performer in the task.

This aspect provided invaluable data into what

competencies teachers expect students to possess in orderto complete classroom tasks successfully and therefore,

move to advanced classes.

Results of Second Cycle

In the second cycle, a system whereby students would be

assessed in conjunction with their regular assessment in

class was development. Exit competencies were mapped

to certain tasks where competencies could be observed.

For example, presentation skills competencies were

mapped to assessment rubrics used to assess performance

in Freshman English presentations. The underlying

concept of this was that, now that the teacher was the sole


59/113



59

rater of competencies and it had been decided

competencies were to be measured in class, if these

competencies were mapped to existing tasks, this

assessment would not distract from the curriculum and

would be easier for teachers to utilize. Also by mapping

competencies to a standardized rubric that all teachers

used, subjectivity could be partially minimized. (See

Figure 5 for example).

Feedback from the trial of this system was collected by

two teachers of a top-tier and second-tier class, as it was

assumed that it was in these levels that students whoqualified for exit competencies would be. This feedback

revealed a number of flaws in this system also. Firstly,

due to the nature of some of the assessable tasks in

Freshman English, standardized rubric was difficult to use.

For example, while some presentations adopted a formal

presentation style, others came in the form of introducing

film or advertisements, or 'selling' a country to potential

vacationers. It became difficult for teachers to judge

whether a student had fulfilled certain competencies that

were not always apparent in these presentations.

Furthermore, it became ambiguous to teachers as to where

the line of passing a competency rested in terms of

assessing the student on a scale of F to A+. While it was


60/113



60

the intention to keep competencies separate from this

assessment scale, by mapping the competencies to the

assessment grid, similarities in language invariably

caused confusion, and it became unclear to teachers why

an A+ would not just mean a student had passed the

competencies. The proposed system of exit competencies

indicates that students who no longer benefit from

advanced courses would pass through the system. This

would indicate that students have mastered a skill,

resulting in an A+ if demonstrated in an assessed task,

such as a presentation. However, this raised the concern

that if all students are expected to pass through thissystem and master these basic skills, this would result in

all students scoring A+ near the end of their second year

of studies. Such a system, would therefore, severely

interfere with teacher use of the full range of the grading

system. Due to exit competencies and assessment being

inevitably intertwined, the use of exit competencies

mapped to assessment items was abandoned, and the

system was reformed.


61/113



61

FIGURE 5: Example of Competencies mapped to presentation assessment.

F C B A A+Exit Competencies

(Check all that apply)

Content

Has not provided

enough

information to

satisfactorily

complete the

task.

Has given

enough content

to satisfactorily

finish the task.

Could have dealt

with topic in

more depth / with

better

information.

Appropriate

content on topic.

Could have been

improved with

further research

of relevant

information from

different sources.

Relevant, well-

researched and

well-selected

content from a

number of

sources. Has

dealt with topic

in depth.

Shows excellent

research skills,

selecting relevant

information from

a variety of

sources to

discuss topic

with originality

and depth.

Can interpret,organize,

summarize/paraphrase

information from a

number of sources

Can respond toquestions on their

presentation

Presentation

Skills

Very little eye

contact.

Shows no

awareness of

voice and body

language in oral

presentation.

Has shown some

awareness of

voice, eye

contact and body

language in oral

presentations, but

needs to improve

these skills.

Uses appropriate

eye contact.

Shows awareness

of voice and

body language in

oral

communication,

but somewhat

unnaturaldelivery.

Makes eye

contact and uses

body language to

communicate.

Good voice /

delivery of

information, but

may not always

be perfectlyexecuted.

Has mastered

presentation

skills in terms of

voice, natural

delivery of

information and

body language.

Can make effective eyecontact and gestures

to communicate

information

Can make persuasive,informative

presentations with

natural delivery.

Can use voice to stressimportance, interestand to clarify

information.

Language

Competence

Grammar and

lexical errors

frequently

interfere with

meaning.

Lexical and

grammatical

knowledge

insufficiently to

complete task

satisfactorily.

Frequent

grammatical and

lexical errors,

especially in late-

acquired

grammar.

Language is

competent

enough to

satisfactorily

complete the

task.

Grammatical and

lexical errors

may be present,

but does not

interfere with

meaning.

Pronunciation

and intonation

not always

clearly executed.

Speaks with few

grammatical and

lexical errors.

Clear

pronunciation

and intonation.

Somewhat

complex

language used.

Speaks with very

few grammatical

and lexical

errors.

Complex

language used.

Clear

pronunciation

and intonation.

Negotiates

meaning.

Can speak fluentlywithout long pauses

Can speak with clearpronunciation

Speaks with fewgrammatical/lexical

errors.

Can negotiatemeaning

Organ-

ization

Little evidence ofpreparation and

practice,

resulting in a

disorganised and

ineffective

presentation.

Information isorganised into

key areas /

concepts.

Presentation

needed more

preparation and

practice to really

be effective.

Information iswell organised

according to

presentation

conventions.

Presentation was

well practiced

and prepared, but

some aspects

could have been

improved.

Information iswell organised,

leading to

relevant

conclusion.

Evidence of a

good deal of

preparation and

practice resulting

in a well-

organised and

presented

presentation.

Information ismasterfully

organized,

leading to a

relevant and

original

conclusion.

Evidence of

extensive

preparation and

practice.

Can research to findrelevant information

for a task.

Displays a concreteknowledge of the

organization of a

presentation.

Shows co-operativelearning in group

presentations

Speaks within timelimits.


62/113



62

Results of Third Cycle

In third cycle of the study, competencies were simplified

into one single competence checklist, which was to be

filled out by the teacher four times throughout the year.

Of all the previous systems trailed, this was the most

holistic, involving teacher inference for many of the

competencies. However, in order to maintain some

partial level of objectivity, teachers were asked to fill out

competencies as much as possible based on real

observations of student achievement in class, rather than

inferences made based on subjective recollections ofachievement. This system was trailed with 8 Freshman

English classes (2 in each tier). Preliminary findings

indicate some concerns that require attention:

1) Teachers have indicated difficulty in accurately

assessing certain capabilities. For instance, Freshman

English is an integrated skills course, however teachers

found it very problematic to assess writing and reading as

they rarely directly teach these skills, and as a result, do

not require students to submit any examples for

examination. Furthermore, other aspects the Freshman

curriculum proposes to teachautonomy, independence,


63/113



63

etc is very hard to accurately judge under the current

system of in-class observation.

2) Time constraints. Teachers found it difficult to assess all

the students in their class simultaneously. Even when

assigning certain aspects of the assessment to different

days, it was difficult for teachers to assess the large

amount of listed competencies. As well, certain tasks

required were so involved that only a few students could

be observed per class period.

3) Subjectivity. It was very hard for teachers to agree onwhat exactly was an effective, competent student and

what was not. It is necessary that some agreement on this

issue be reached by teachers. As well, objectives were not

clear as to what Advanced courses constituted, therefore

making it problematic to decided whether students were

capable of entering into them.

Plan of Action

As the trialling is still on-going, it is difficult to design a

detailed plan of action, however it is clear certain issues

need to be addressed:


64/113



64

1) During the process of trailing it has become clear that

the curriculum needs to be modified and further

developed in order to bring it into closer consistency with

our outlined objectives.

2) Some form of uniform assessment needs to take place

across all classes and agreement reached on English level

standards.

3) Other methods of assessment need to be experimented

with in order to better discover whether certain

competencies have been achieved. For example, filming ofclasses could or occur, or draft work collected and

considered with grading final projects/presentations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a system of exit competencies could have

many benefits for the English course at the university.

Although there are logistical difficulties and perhaps some

opposition to the concept, it has potential benefit in terms

of positive learning outcomes for its students and in the

long term by developing a reputation for producing

students of a higher standard.


65/113



65


66/113



66

References

Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in

Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L.F. 1991. What does language testing have to

offer? TESOL Quarterly, 25, 4, 671-704.

Brindley, G. 1994. Competency-based assessment in

second language programs: Some issues and questions.

Prospect, 9,2: 41-53.

Docking, R. 1994. Competency-based curricula the big

picture. Prospect, 9, 2: 8-17.

Kemmis, S. and R. Taggart. 1984. The action research

planner. Geelong, Australia:

Deakin University Press.

Nunan, D. 1994. Research methods in language teaching.

UK: Cambridge University Press.


67/113



67

Is Freshman English Meeting the Needs of its Students?

Student Perceptions of Kanda Universitys Freshman

English Program.

Christopher Wyle

Sandy Lee

Introduction

In an effort to identify strengths and weaknesses of the

Freshman English Program at Kanda University wewanted to look at the big picture in regards to the needs

of the students, the perceptions of the students and how

the curriculum, overall, is performing. The Freshman

English curriculum has been honed and improved upon

through successive semesters over the years since its

inception. While many of the teachers feel as though the

program is a success in its overall objectives, some

teachers and students have complained about the

curriculum and its foci on student-centered learning and

presentations over traditional, testable skills and materials.

The overall objectives of Freshman English are as follows:


68/113



68

help students improve their general English skills

especially speaking and listening - through a

variety of authentic communicative tasks

develop group work skills, cooperation and

interdependence among students

develop internal motivation and confidence in

English-learning environment

help students transition from teacher-centered

learning to individual, student-centered learning,

with students eventually becoming independent

learners

use English to demonstrate and build general critical

thinking skills

increase students self awareness of their own

learning style and their strengths and weaknesses in

English1

Our interest is in investigating students attitudes

towards the Freshman English and whether they feel their

goals of becoming better language learners are being met.

We conducted qualitative research in the form of a focus

group (which may be ongoing) and written as well as

online questionnaires.

1From the Orientation Unit of KUIS Freshman English Program, BEPP Research Committee


69/113



69

Research Questions

Our research question, simply stated, is Is Freshman

English achieving its overall objectives and, if so, are these

objectives meeting the needs of the students? Through

our research, qualitatively, we wanted to examine

students ideas and perceptions and understand better

their needs and interests in becoming better language

learners.

Focus Group

After meeting with Kanda Universitys educational

consultant, Professor Christopher Candlin, we decided to

use the focus group as an effective forum for the framing

of questions in a general questionnaire. While this was the

main purpose for the focus group, the results yielded

interesting information and allowed students to express

their opinions more thoroughly about strengths and

weaknesses in the F.E. program.

The focus group, held on November 2nd at Kanda

University with students in the Freshman English

program, involved four student volunteers. Two of the

students were from Freshman English Class 6 and two


70/113



70

from Freshman English Class 12. The session was

recorded on MD and lasted approximately 50 minutes.

Four discussion questions were given as prompts but

students were allowed to discuss any aspect of the

Freshman English program that they wished to.

The discussion was intended to draw out aspects that

might be overlooked in traditional surveys and to both:

a) Generate material for future questionnaires

and

b) Provide supplemental information as to theperceptions of students

enrolled in the Freshman English program.

The main emphasis in Freshman English is on

communication. Therefore the activities are heavily reliant

on the students being communicative. Additionally,Freshman English does not only teach students English,

but also how to learn English. Thus

research papers in taskbased language teaching

Documents