1 / 30

Evaluating the effectiveness of a task-based syllabus for teaching speaking to advanced learners of English

Evaluating the effectiveness of a task-based syllabus for teaching speaking to advanced learners of English. Melanie Ellis Foreign Language Teacher Training College, Zabrze, Poland melanie@ellis.pol.pl. Defining terms.

patia
Download Presentation

Evaluating the effectiveness of a task-based syllabus for teaching speaking to advanced learners of English

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluatingtheeffectiveness of a task-basedsyllabus for teachingspeaking to advancedlearners of English Melanie Ellis Foreign LanguageTeacherTraining College, Zabrze, Poland melanie@ellis.pol.pl

  2. Definingterms Evaluation: theprocess of determininghow a program workedinpractice, by collectingvariedinformative data from a variety of sources Why? When? Whom? What? How? For whom? (Alderson 1986)

  3. Task-basedsyllabus • Processmerging ‘what’ is to be learnt and ‘how’ thisis to take place (Nunan 1989) Specification of tasks: type, topic Specification of performance conditions: support, planning time, rehearsal, interaction Sequencingcriteria: progessionfromeasy to moredifficult (afterEllis, R. 2003:206) Plus syllabus design principlesbased on Stenhouse (1975)

  4. Stenhouse (1975:4) An attempt to communicatetheessentialprinciples and features of an educationalproposalinsuch a form thatitisopen to scutiny and capable of effectivetranslationintopractice *Seen as key, as littleresearchavailable on TB syllabusesinpractice

  5. Definition of task • Activitywherecommunication of meaning is of first importance • Successfulcompletion of thetaskis one of themainaims • Usuallyinvolvessomecommunicative challenge to solve • Isopeninterms of language (‘unfocused’) (based on Skehan 1998:95)

  6. Whyevaluate? • Accountability: Isthe program effective? Doesthesyllabusmeetitsobjectives? Isitvalid? • Curriculum development and betterment: Is a task-basedsyllabusfeasible? Doesitgivelearners a sense of progress? • For purposes of teacherself-development Doctoralresearchconducted by theteacher as researcher (Rea-Dickens & Germaine 1992:26)

  7. When? Whom? What? • 3 year foreign languageteachertraining college in Zabrze, Poland • First yearundergraduates, schoolleavers and maturestudents. 3 classgroups, n=39 • Academicyear (2002-3) one 2 hourclass a week, over 30 weeks • Learnersat B2-C1 (CEF) Target on graduationfrom college is C2 • ‘Conversation’ course

  8. Syllabus design principles:sequencing 1. Taskcategory Description>description/instruction>narration> opinion-giving/analysis/synthesis (Brown & Yule 1983, Bloom 1956) 2. Performance conditions-organization & support, feedback Closedpair………………………………………open forum Prompts + planning + rehearsal…………………………..spontaneous speech (Bygate 2001, Nunan 1989) 3. Taskdifficultycode & cognitivecomplexity Familiarity. No. of elements, Structure etc. (Skehan 1998, Robinson 2001)

  9. Syllabusobjectives Thecourseaims to help learners: becomemoreconfidentinspeakingEnglish developfluency increasevocabulary increaseawareness of theirstrengths and weaknessesinspeaking and how to improvethese developcompensationstrategies

  10. How was theevaluationdone ? • Questionnairesafter first and secondsemesters, closed and openquestions • 9 Casestudies, 8 guidedinterviewsconducted • Teacher notes • Quantitativeevaluation of speech samples for evidence of development of fluency (MLU, words /min., % pause ) and increaseinlexicalcomplexity (type-tokenratio, no. of clauses) • Intactclass group resultscomparedwithsubgrpsdividedaccording to ability

  11. Expectedoutcomes Learners • becomemoreconfidentinspeaking • developgreaterfluency • producemorecomplex speech, particularlyricherinlexis • feelthatthereis a progressionfromeasier to moredifficultinterms of tasksequencing

  12. More confident? Questionnaire 1 In whatwayshasyourspeakingimprovedinthisclassinthissemester? 40% ‘moreconfident’, ‘moreself-assured’ ‘morebrave’ inspeaking 35% morefluent 55% vocabularyhasincreased 20% betterpronunciation

  13. More confident? Questionnaire 2 26% moreconfident, particularlyatspeakingin front of the group Interview data: In whatwayhasyourspeakingimproved? 6/8 mentionconfidence I gainedlots of confidence NowI’mmoreconfidentin my use of thelanguage. I’m less stressed I’m not afraidnow to talk inEnglish I break thebarriers. Thebarrierswere my shyness

  14. Was there a gaininfluency? Caveats Learnersarein an English-medium program 24 hours a week Comparability of first and finaltasks- problematic Picture descriptionis not representatative, ‘task’ ?

  15. Samplepicturefromfinalassessment

  16. First assessment: October • Picture description: repeatedtask • Describepicture for partner to identify • Describefrom a prompt: newtask, no preparationeg. Describesbyouknowwell; Describe a member of yourfamily; Describe one of yourrelatives

  17. October-June: Fluency

  18. October to June /Wellthe lady isisabout I thinkshe’sinherfifties/she’s a bit plump/she’swearing a blackpleatedskirt/under a umstripedcoat/um:umshehas:blondhairtied er in a plait/ /OK/: thesearetwomotherswiththeirchildren/one iswith a boy with a boy and theother one iswith a little girl/: umthewomanthemother on theleftiswearing a whitesweater/she’salso a necklace/: and herhairisbrown/

  19. Sub-groups: October to June • SignificantincreasesinfluencyinallmeasuresinStrong group and BelowAverage group • Average group: significantgainsin MLU, significantreductioninamount of pause, no gainobservedinwords per minute (SD = 17.17 October; 21.97 June) • WPM as usefulmeasure of fluencyacross a group? Very high SDsinallcases

  20. Isthere a sense of progression? Sampletasksequence • Knowntasks (matura); rehearsed: describepicture of house • Parallel: youvisitedthis place last weekend, tell a friendatworkaboutyourimpressions • Personalise: place youoftenvisited as a child Take your partner on a guidedtour. They will laterhave to explain to someoneelsewherethey went and whattheyexperienced.

  21. Isthere a sense of progression? Data from 2 questionnaires Learnersratedtasks 1 (verydifficult for you) – 5 (veryeasy for you) Openquestions: Explainwhichtaskswere most difficult for you and why Explainwhichtaskswereeasiest for you and why

  22. Most difficult Picture story (new task, no preparation) : 52% People and placestaskswith no support: 10% Peopletask no support: 10% All unfamiliartasks: 10% Why? Lack of vocabulary 40% Not enoughpreparation time 22% Didn’tknowwhat to say 17%

  23. Easiest All picturesseenbefore 35% Re-telling a story 35% Describingpeople 25% Places: pairtask (describe and identify) 25% Why? I hadpractised and learntvocabulary 37% Task was familiar 12% Task was interesting 10%

  24. Sequencingcriteriaconfirmed • Familiarity • Repeated, rehearsedtasks • Describingpeople • Minus support • Minus familiarity • Minus preparation • Minus structure

  25. Increaseinvocabulary? Contradictoryevidence Questionnaire 1: In whatwayshasyourspeakingimprovedinthisclassinthissemester? 55% report increaseinvocabulary Questionnaire 2: In whatwayshasyourspeakingimproved and how much (1-5 where 5 = a lot) Vocabulary : meanvalue 4.67 But: No gainsinTypeTokenRatioalthoughincreaseinnumber of clauses > > > More researchneeded

  26. Complexity: October- June

  27. Conclusions • Syllabusachievesobjectivesintheeyes of thelearners • Fluencyincreases • Sense of progressionperceived • Design principlesconfirmed • Vocabulary development? Othermeasures ? Othertests? More researchneeded

  28. Thankyou for yourattention melanie@ellis.pol.pl

  29. References • Alderson, J.C. 1986. The nature of the beast. Trends in Language Programme evaluation. Bangkok: ChulalongkornUniversity Language Institute • Bloom, B.S. (ed.) 1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: David McKay Company Inc. • Brown, G & Yule, G. 1984. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press • Ellis, M. 2004. Developing speaking skills in the teaching of English at the advanced level. Design, implementation and evaluation of a task-based syllabus for trainees in pre-service education. Unpublished PhD thesis . University of Warsaw, Poland • Ellis, M. 2008. Design & evaluation of a task-based syllabus for developing speaking skills. In Pawlak, M. (ed.) Investigating English Language Learning & Teaching. Poznan-Kalisz: Faculty of Pedagogy & Fine Arts in Kalisz, Adam Mickiewicz University ,Poznan • Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press • Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press • Rea-Dickens, P & Germaine, K. 1992. Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press • Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22/1: 27-57 • Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press • Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:Heinemann

More Related