A blog is an interesting assignment, as it’s hard to know when you’re finished. There is a multitude of posts which I haven’t had the time to write, or haven’t had the time to write properly that will remain, for now, unpublished. There are also a fair few posts which have turned into much lengthier ramblings than I originally intended them to be. I have been challenged to properly consider my position on materials for the language teaching classroom, to examine my learners’ needs and to create materials to meet them.
The first of these was a worksheet, designed to help my exam preparation students develop their skills in part 6 of the Cambridge First reading paper. I received some encouraging and useful feedback from my peers during the evaluation session. The clarity of the instructions, presentation and topic choice in particular were praised. It was also useful to have the opportunity to trial this worksheet with my class. It was the first time I had used any form of materials not explicitly intended for First preparation and I wondered how the learners would react. As it turns out, it was positively. There is a value in using authentic texts, even when they do not precisely replicate what will be demanded in the exam. Firstly, there is more to life than striving to meet externally set standards and it was motivating to my students to see how well they were able to cope with a text taken unaltered from the mainstream media. Secondly, it enabled them to see how they could self-replicate what we had done in class with any text, thus giving them the tools to take further steps towards exam success.
How does all this relate to my evaluation criteria? One question that arose for me in the process of evaluating two course books was whether the same criteria could be applied to the evaluation of materials such as this worksheet. On reflection, I think that if anything, they are better suited to that purpose due to the fact that the materials were created with the principles from which these criteria were generated in mind. So how does my worksheet measure up? I would argue that one strength is how this worksheet promotes autonomy. As I described above, the learners left the lesson with the understanding of how they could use any text to practice the skills needed in the examination. This casts the teacher into the role of facilitator, rather than expert. In addition, the authenticity of the text presented a positive challenge to the learners, and was certainly one of the factors which pushed them beyond their comfort zone. Authenticity of task is a difficult question to answer – in the sense that they practised the skills that they will need to demonstrate on exam day, it’s a yes. Whether that’s what ‘authentic’ truly means is up for debate.
Based on the positive feedback from my peers and my students’ reactions, I would like to think that despite my novice-level graphic design skills, the presentation of the materials and the fact that they are clearly targeted at a very specific need would be factors affecting the face value learners’ see in this worksheet. Having said all those positive things, there are some definite areas for improvement. The question of flexibility is an important one to me. I think there are some significant possibilities in the idea of flexi-materials and I wonder how I could develop the activities here to somehow be more flexible. Secondly, the question of feedback is ever-present. How can it best be delivered? How often should it happen? I wonder if there is a way to improve the kind of feedback that would be generated from this kind of task? And if the design of materials can help facilitate that? Finally, the question of relevance. This is an overarching concern for my exam candidates. How much of the material I use do I select for its relevance to the examination, and how much for its relevance to my learners’ lives? And how much do those things overlap? There are some big questions inherent here, on the nature of testing and the power wielded by exam boards which are beyond the scope of my answers here.
What about my TED-ED lesson, this time focussing on part 3 of the Cambridge First speaking exam. My learners trialled this in class this week, and reactions were mixed. Firstly, there was some grudging acceptance of the need to sign up for (yet another!) account, especially as this was not made apparent until they had already begun the lesson. Secondly, there were some formatting problems with one part of the lesson (the discussion questions) which made this quite difficult to read. I am awaiting a response from TED-ED support on what has gone wrong there. Despite those hiccups, my students had positive feedback. We often watch footage of speaking exams in class, but this approach gave them the opportunity to watch at their own pace, pausing and replaying as much and as often as useful. The multiple choice questions about the format of the exam seemed to hammer home the task requirements and timescales in a way that written summaries or oral explanations have failed to do. For a class whose time together is so restricted, they valued above all else the way that the provision of the lesson online would, in future, free up valued classroom time for discussion, comments arising from the videos, answers to questions and small group practice. So whilst there are clearly some creases to iron out on the technical side, I am happy with this initial experiment.
Does it measure up to my evaluation criteria though? Again, the autonomy factor is a strength in my view. With these learners in particular, I am always looking for ways to maximise the use of our classroom time. However, there is a danger that if simply assign this task or that one for homework, that it gets lost, forgotten or put off. One big benefit of using TED-ED is that I can track who has engaged with the material. All this necessitates a very active role for the student, which I see as wholly positive. On a different note, the way this lesson moves learners beyond their present abilities is quite different from the last. In this case, I see the evaluation they are asked to conduct of other candidates’ performance as a key factor in providing that challenge. By recognising others’ strengths and weaknesses in attempting the same task, my learners are better able to improve their own performance.
The question of relevance looms here too. I find – as do my learners – that the tasks they are asked to undertake as part of their First speaking exam are artificial and contrived. However, they are designed to elicit the language of negotiation – agreement, disagreement, persuasion, reasoning – that are valid communicative needs outside of the classroom and examination. On a connected note, the task is quite cognitively demanding. Learners are required to evaluate and pass judgements – firstly, on the other candidates performance, and then when completing the task themselves, and finally when making an assessment of their own performance. I hope this is another strength of the lesson. This is tied to the final issue of feedback – I value the opportunity to facilitate peer feedback (as do my students!) but by encouraging the use of mobile technologies, this lesson also makes it possible for the learner to receive individualised feedback from the teacher, which would not ordinarily be possible when practising for a speaking task outside of class. Although I am yet to test out this aspect of the lesson, I hope it is going to make a difference to my learners.
Having sung my own praises so extensively, there must be some room for improvement here also. First and foremost, solutions to the technical and presentational problems described above would improve the face value of these materials. Secondly, there is the question of authenticity, the same dilemma of what that truly means in an exam preparation context presents itself. In honesty, I am still seeking an answer to that question. A final area for improvement would be more careful consideration of how these materials take into account the need for recycling. This is something I think is probably lacking from the lessons I teach to my exam preparation classes, a problem which arises from the time constraints. What to prioritise – and consequently, what to leave out – is another question which I never truly answer.