Assessment

When it comes to assess students language performance this institute does not use a Task Based Assessment approach as it is suggested by the literature review I did. I can assure this because I took a look at the final exams these students took, and there was not much change from the exams I used to proctor there 4 years ago. This is another big issue I found through this field experience, nothing new to its teachers.

Students in this language institute are to take three or two exams before the final one. These exams follow the same description: the first item involves listening (listening and answering questions given by the teacher, or just listening to a conversation and answering comprehension questions), next is one item that evaluates specific grammar points (most of the times embedded in context), other item for reading and questions for comprehension, and finally one last item for testing writing (almost always with context). All exams are taken in 45 minutes or so, all instructions are written in English, and the scoring scale goes from 1 to 5. By policy, no student can get a 2 (because the affective filter may raise dangerously), and the minimum grade to pass is 3.5.

In the last exam of this class I noticed a "speaking" item that was being tested. Students had to conduct a short interview with a classmate and write down a report. I talked to their teacher and this is something the institute has implemented recently and that has been done once a semester for each class. It is an attempt to match -somehow- teaching and assessment, but some teachers don't like it because it can lead to cheating. For example this teacher didn't allow students to interact in the middle of the exam, instead she created and had students practice a similar activity before, and asked students to remember it and from there create the composition.  

Gaps in language

Not everything is perfect, and this approach is not the exception. While I was observing this class I had a big concern in regard to several language gaps most students had. These 10 students were able to communicate their ideas in several topics ... but as they were doing this, there were lots of gaps in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar in general.

I organized these three areas from the most critical to the the least one, not saying there are fewer mistakes in grammar, but that mistakes are less observable there. I'm pretty sure most students know of these three weaknesses because they low their voice and stop talking when they are to talk in front of the class or with a strangers (as I was there), apart from considering shyness and other individual factors.   

This particular teacher did correct most of their grammar and pronunciation mistakes, but she frequently used 'recast', the most typical technique but at the same time most ineffective. It was obvious that this teacher was bugged by their mistakes, therefore she was trying to correct them from time to time; but students didn't care for her corrections, they just wanted to be done with whatever they were saying.

About vocabulary, this teacher was always listing new words on the board, and asked her students to copy them down at the end of the day for them to review and study at home. She even added some other words so students had less academic vocabulary, as the goal of the institute is to prepare students for academic and daily life. But I didn't observe follow up activities or much recycling throughout next classes, so her effort was lost and students continued going around the same paths.

I have observed this in other classes too (when I was working at that institute before) ... I had the same problems with intermediate and higher proficiency students ... and I wondered if it was my fault or the institute's. Now I think it is not the new approach, and that it has to do more with the institute and its policy of accepting lots of new teachers semester after semester. Every semester there are new teachers, who struggle for mastering the new approach (Task Based Learning) and getting familiar with the new environment, but forget about polishing students language proficiency, and making use of Krashen's 'i + 1'. 

I conclude this is a personal policy difficult to control in a language institute as big and important as the one I was doing my field experience, but it is a pity some teachers let basic things pass. Personally I believe I have to do the best for my students to learn, and the product of what they learn is the product of what I am as a teacher.

TBL Framework: teachers' role

Tasked Based Learning distinguishes itself from other approaches by focusing attention on language right at the end of the class. You can see an illustration of the framework in this post. I would like to describe the role of teachers within the framework.

In the Pre-task cycle (besides being the input source number one) the teacher should provide tangible examples of what the task would look like, and accompany this presentation with lots of rich and comprehensible input. The amount of input is decided by the teacher in accordance to the task and of course the proficiency level of the students.

Later, in the task cycle, the teacher is a guide who helps students when they ask for help, or whenever there is something important to highlight. Correction then is done when students need it when trying to fulfill the task.

Finally in the Language Focus part, the teacher takes control of the class and helps students analyze the language just used and practice it. He or she also encourages students to formulate hypothesis, test them and improve them.

In this observation the framework was followed step by step so teaching was somehow easier to do. This was possible because the students have been involved in this framework for more than a couple of years, and also because these students are advanced students of English. More than learning something new, I observed these particular students were going over concepts they already had, and practicing their speaking skill.

Nevertheless I did not observe the teacher provided samples of what the task would look like, I saw her explaining in detail and referring to the book from time to time, but the teacher herself was not doing the task and showing it to her students. I wonder if this was ok in this level but will not work in lower ones. If students are not proficient enough in the target language, and don't see what they are expect to do, would they do the correct thing? If teachers put on students shoes and do with them the tasks proposed, I believe there would be a better understanding for students, and teachers will be able to foresee possible problems in the development of the task.

Finally I would like to add that this framework could be (and personally I feel it should be) changed when working with novice students. This is a fact I found in the literature review I did and supported by the teachers I interviewed. When working with novice students there is a need of language beforehand, therefore it is up to teachers to re inverse the order of this framework and begin by Language Focus, and later go into Pre-task and Task cycles, ending up in Language Focus again. I also found that working with novice students will also require some use of their native language while they get the instructions of the task, as well as the routine of working with the framework. This is something I didn't talk about in my interviews or couldn't observe in my experience, anyway I think it makes sense and will help a lot.

My observation of Task-Based Learning

As I said before, the private English institute I did my field experience at, recently switched to Task-Based Learning. I'm going to describe in this blog my observation of how all classes developed for you to see how this institution teaches EFL using TBL.  

- The class started at 12:10 with all girls but not all boys. 

- The teacher asked her students to compare homework in pairs (usually from the workbook) and later she proceeded to write on the board the objectives and task for the day. 

- Immediately the teacher read and explained what she just wrote; she emphasized on what the final product was and also on what the preparation would take. 

- Then she generally followed the exercises proposed by the text book: American cutting edge level 4 (as you can see in the picture) by Peter Moor and Sarah Cummingham (1998) Pearson, Longam. These exercises activated students vocabulary, provided some authentic material as readings or listening exercises, among other things.  

- Next she named again the task and let students work in pairs, it usually involved lots of talking, recycling vocabulary, activating students' schemata and students were expected to come up with a conclusion or final product.

- Students presented their task verbally (mainly) to the class, or volunteers spoke up their conclusions.

- The teacher then wrapped up everything by eliciting students' opinions, providing her own point of view, or simply by guiding the class into a discussion. 

- Finally she reminded students to work on the vocabulary she copied on the board, and she also assigned homework from the workbook.

If you read carefully this report you didn't find a grammar moment in the class, this is due to two things: first these are advanced students about to finish the whole English program, therefore they already have all the main grammar and are polishing what they already know. Second, this private institute -along with TBL- believes on teaching grammar implicitly which means students discover the grammar rules from the intensive input provided.