Indirectly Speaking / The three P's and project work
Mike Guest Special to The Daily Yomiuri
In my last article I talked about testing, specifically how testing can and should serve a more educational function. Today I would like to expand upon that idea, but instead of talking about testing I'd like to discuss both a methodology and a wider approach to evaluation.
What's the difference between testing and evaluation? Testing is merely one kind of evaluation, a type that often reduces the complexities of language to a few fill-in-the-blank or multiple choice, so-called objective questions about, but not really using, language. Now, if our classes aim to get learners to start using language we will need a measuring stick much wider and more appropriate than this type of discrete-point testing. Specifically here I am talking about using graded projects to evaluate learners.
But before I get into this more deeply, let me talk briefly about a language teaching model known as PPP, the Presentation-Practice-Production methodology. Although this methodology has been widely used for many years it has recently come under criticism. Among those criticisms is the claim that PPP does not really resemble the way in which learners actually absorb or internalize language, that this methodology is somewhat artificial and classroomish.
Another criticism is that PPP does not allow sufficient time for learners to really grasp the teaching points or language items offered, which are often teacher-selected and controlled, and usually wrapped up and "put away" after one lesson. Rather, it is argued, learners would be better off not by merely slotting the "presented" language items into exercises designed to practice their usage but by exposure to examples of authentic language that might be relevant to their needs, raising awareness about these forms and then applying them into a final, polished "prestige" form of language.
This is where projects come in. In the early part of the year learners will probably have been bombarded with new language items, forms, and features which they likely have not yet mastered and may well be utterly confused about. Rather than packaging these language items or features into single-lesson presentation, practice and production settings I think it is more valuable to allow students to become engaged in long-term group projects that will allow them to experiment with the language before eventually putting this language to use.
In projects, learners will spend time together not only coming up with thematic ideas that provide meaningful contexts for communication but also will have to interact with each other in order to find and use an appropriate "prestige" English form for the final presentation. If they do this while interacting in Japanese that's OK, as long as they are thinking how to put the language into a form that best expresses their intentions. In doing so, projects allow learners to use and show, in a holistic and meaningful way, what they have mastered over the term.
Personally, I have three long-term projects that I offer to my students. The first is a skit which the students write and perform in English. As they are medical students, I ask them to perform on a medical theme which will hopefully make them think deeply about the language needed in the skit and to look back at the authentic samples they had previously been exposed to in the class.
The second project is a class survey in which groups of students choose a theme, develop a related questionnaire, calculate and interpret the results and then present these results to me in English, both in report form and verbally. Again, they will need to research, reconsider and ultimately apply the language of surveys as a part of his project. The third is a "guidebook" to local attractions that older students make for incoming students which involves the same steps but with a greater focus upon writing.
So, what is the connection to evaluation? Unlike the traditional testing of discrete items, project work allows for realistic, concrete and meaningful production of communicative language. If that is in fact the goal of our classroom then shouldn't great evaluative weight be given to such projects? Moreover, project work has numerous side benefits. Projects tend to decrease the feelings of extreme stress and competition that traditional tests cause.
Projects also "belong" to the learner and not the teacher. That is, learners control the language that is being put into the project. This sense of learner control and personal investment often results in a much greater effort and level of care on behalf of the learners--not to mention a genuine sense of fun and interest! By giving learners such control over the product, a greater sense of personal achievement can be noted.
For project work the bulk of evaluation, in my opinion, should be feedback regarding the language used in the final form of the project. As I mentioned in my previous article, no educational function is served if one merely assigns a numerical grade without either explanation or detailed commentary. With projects, such general comments about language form and style are much easier to make, given that the language is arising within clear and specific communicative contexts, contexts in which the learners will usually have a genuine interest in improving their communicative skills.
Of course, the grading of project work might be considered less "objective" than that of traditional discrete-item tests, but given that projects tend to utilize more holistic, communicative language it can actually be a more objective indicator of student abilities than discrete item tests, which tend to cover only a narrow, exclusive range of items. Moreover, instead of focusing on surface features of language, grading projects can encourage important qualities such as cooperative groupwork, organizational skills and a wide range of personal communication skills that go far beyond grammar and vocabulary.
Since project work seems to incorporate so much of educational value and often realizes our goal of having learners master meaningful communication in English, shouldn't we put more emphasis on project work when it comes time to give our final student evaluations? Guest is a lecturer of critical thinking, counseling and medical English discourse at Miyazaki Medical College.
Mike Guest Special to The Daily Yomiuri
In my last article I talked about testing, specifically how testing can and should serve a more educational function. Today I would like to expand upon that idea, but instead of talking about testing I'd like to discuss both a methodology and a wider approach to evaluation.
What's the difference between testing and evaluation? Testing is merely one kind of evaluation, a type that often reduces the complexities of language to a few fill-in-the-blank or multiple choice, so-called objective questions about, but not really using, language. Now, if our classes aim to get learners to start using language we will need a measuring stick much wider and more appropriate than this type of discrete-point testing. Specifically here I am talking about using graded projects to evaluate learners.
But before I get into this more deeply, let me talk briefly about a language teaching model known as PPP, the Presentation-Practice-Production methodology. Although this methodology has been widely used for many years it has recently come under criticism. Among those criticisms is the claim that PPP does not really resemble the way in which learners actually absorb or internalize language, that this methodology is somewhat artificial and classroomish.
Another criticism is that PPP does not allow sufficient time for learners to really grasp the teaching points or language items offered, which are often teacher-selected and controlled, and usually wrapped up and "put away" after one lesson. Rather, it is argued, learners would be better off not by merely slotting the "presented" language items into exercises designed to practice their usage but by exposure to examples of authentic language that might be relevant to their needs, raising awareness about these forms and then applying them into a final, polished "prestige" form of language.
This is where projects come in. In the early part of the year learners will probably have been bombarded with new language items, forms, and features which they likely have not yet mastered and may well be utterly confused about. Rather than packaging these language items or features into single-lesson presentation, practice and production settings I think it is more valuable to allow students to become engaged in long-term group projects that will allow them to experiment with the language before eventually putting this language to use.
In projects, learners will spend time together not only coming up with thematic ideas that provide meaningful contexts for communication but also will have to interact with each other in order to find and use an appropriate "prestige" English form for the final presentation. If they do this while interacting in Japanese that's OK, as long as they are thinking how to put the language into a form that best expresses their intentions. In doing so, projects allow learners to use and show, in a holistic and meaningful way, what they have mastered over the term.
Personally, I have three long-term projects that I offer to my students. The first is a skit which the students write and perform in English. As they are medical students, I ask them to perform on a medical theme which will hopefully make them think deeply about the language needed in the skit and to look back at the authentic samples they had previously been exposed to in the class.
The second project is a class survey in which groups of students choose a theme, develop a related questionnaire, calculate and interpret the results and then present these results to me in English, both in report form and verbally. Again, they will need to research, reconsider and ultimately apply the language of surveys as a part of his project. The third is a "guidebook" to local attractions that older students make for incoming students which involves the same steps but with a greater focus upon writing.
So, what is the connection to evaluation? Unlike the traditional testing of discrete items, project work allows for realistic, concrete and meaningful production of communicative language. If that is in fact the goal of our classroom then shouldn't great evaluative weight be given to such projects? Moreover, project work has numerous side benefits. Projects tend to decrease the feelings of extreme stress and competition that traditional tests cause.
Projects also "belong" to the learner and not the teacher. That is, learners control the language that is being put into the project. This sense of learner control and personal investment often results in a much greater effort and level of care on behalf of the learners--not to mention a genuine sense of fun and interest! By giving learners such control over the product, a greater sense of personal achievement can be noted.
For project work the bulk of evaluation, in my opinion, should be feedback regarding the language used in the final form of the project. As I mentioned in my previous article, no educational function is served if one merely assigns a numerical grade without either explanation or detailed commentary. With projects, such general comments about language form and style are much easier to make, given that the language is arising within clear and specific communicative contexts, contexts in which the learners will usually have a genuine interest in improving their communicative skills.
Of course, the grading of project work might be considered less "objective" than that of traditional discrete-item tests, but given that projects tend to utilize more holistic, communicative language it can actually be a more objective indicator of student abilities than discrete item tests, which tend to cover only a narrow, exclusive range of items. Moreover, instead of focusing on surface features of language, grading projects can encourage important qualities such as cooperative groupwork, organizational skills and a wide range of personal communication skills that go far beyond grammar and vocabulary.
Since project work seems to incorporate so much of educational value and often realizes our goal of having learners master meaningful communication in English, shouldn't we put more emphasis on project work when it comes time to give our final student evaluations? Guest is a lecturer of critical thinking, counseling and medical English discourse at Miyazaki Medical College.