In the school year 2004



Yüklə 1,15 Mb.
səhifə2/5
tarix05.10.2018
ölçüsü1,15 Mb.
#72504
1   2   3   4   5

Roles and Motivations


In spring 2001, Sato, a university teacher, was asked by Takahashi, a member of the Communicative Language Teaching study group organized by Sato (see Sato, 2003), for advice because her public senior high school had just been unexpectedly assigned to experiment with a two-year project (“communication power-up plan” in Japanese) by the prefectural Board of Education. Sato was interested in the project and asked for permission to do research. It took him six months to be finally accepted as a researcher and curriculum adviser by the principal of this school and allowed to visit and collect data. Sato visited the high school once a week, observed classes, and gave some advice to the teachers who were involved in these projects. Furthermore, multiple data sources including interviews (teachers and groups of students), classroom observations, documents (teachers’ materials, videotapes of students’ speaking tests, and students’ portfolios), and surveys (students) were used to document how these teachers revitalized the curriculum and how students improved their communication skills. All the data except for students’ speaking tests, portfolios and surveys were collected and analyzed by Sato.

Takahashi, who became a coordinator for these projects, collaborated with Sato. She had a meeting with Sato every week after his visit. She also received additional advice from Sato through on-line communications. Based on his advice, she made a lesson plan, developed materials, and shared them with other teachers. She also created a student survey based upon Sato’s advice and asked other teachers to conduct it in their classes twice a year (October and February). She was responsible for summarizing the survey data. She also collected comments from students’ portfolios in July, December, and February and translated them into English.



Project 1 (2001 and 2002 school years): Revitalizing First Year Oral Communication and Second Year Writing


1. Introduction

The first project started in April 2001. Most of the teachers were not sure how to teach OC and thought the OC class might become just a fun class and not be useful for university entrance exams. From this point of view, they were forced to change their curriculum and teaching approaches to some extent due to top-down reform initiatives. These teachers often complained because little progress had been seen in students’ speaking tests for the first three months. However, as teachers started discussing assessment criteria in meetings in October and collaborated for the tests, they witnessed a remarkable change in students’ performance. The second year started in April 2002. Even after a long discussion, three teachers could not agree to integrate writing and speaking so as to further improve students’ communication skills. Takahashi took an initiative and tried out the new approach recommended by Sato, while the other two teachers relied on the textbook. Nonetheless, those teachers gradually took risks and moved away from the textbook, as they observed Takahashi’s class and experienced the approach. The following sections first describe revitalizing OC by changing the textbook and adding speaking tests, and then delineate the process of revitalization in the second year by integrating writing and speaking.


2. The First Year: Oral Communication for First Year Students

2-1. The process of revitalization: Changing the textbook and adding speaking tests

OC (twice a week) started with five Japanese English teachers (JETs) and one ALT. One class (about 40 students) was divided into two and the ALT team-taught one of the two classes a week with each JET. Teachers were uncertain how to teach OC and there were no guidelines from the prefectural Board of Education. Sato immediately suggested the following things: 1) to use a textbook “Impact Intro”(Longman) which has many pair activities and self-expression activities, including a teacher’s manual with clear directions in English; 2) to give a speaking test after finishing each unit and make sure speaking test results are incorporated into the total grades of OC class; 3) to have a weekly meeting among the teachers who teach OC class.

Following the advice, teachers stopped using the required textbook approved by MEXT in June and made it a supplementary book1. Instead, they started to use “Impact Intro” in July (after the mid-term exam in the first semester). Also, they thought speaking tests could encourage students to engage in oral activities in class. However, holding a weekly meeting was difficult due to their tight schedule and teacher reluctance. Table 3 shows the schedule of OC in the 2001 school year. In total, nine speaking ‘tests’ (as these assessments were known) were conducted (four individual speeches, four pair presentations, and one group presentation). There are two semesters in a year—the first one from April to September (presentations 1 to 4, see Appendix for sample handouts) and the second one from October to March (5 to 9). “Hello There” was a required textbook approved by MEXT, while “Impact Intro” was purchased later on due to Sato’s suggestion.


Table 3: Schedule of OC in the 2001 school year




Lesson/Unit

Topic

Speaking test

1

Introduction (Hello There)

Self-introduction

Individual presentation

2

Lesson 1 (Hello There)

What are you interested in?

Individual presentation (What I am interested in)

3

Lesson 2 (Hello There)

This is my class schedule.

Individual presentation (My favorite subject)

4

Lesson 3 (Hello There)

What club do you belong to?

Pair presentation

(Club activity)



5

Unit 1 (Impact Intro)

My family

Pair presentation

(My…won’t let me go!)



6

Unit 2 (Impact Intro)

My friends

Pair presentation

(Nice to meet you!)



7

Unit 3 (Impact Intro)

My pastimes

Pair presentation

(Are you doing anything on…?)



8

Unit 6 (Impact Intro)

Modern sounds

Individual presentation

(My favorite bands)



9

Unit 7 (Impact Intro)

Food

Group presentation

(At the restaurant)



Five speaking tests (three individual and two pair presentations) were held from April to July. Students prepared for the presentation, memorized what they wrote, and presented their performance in front of the class. Other students watched and assessed each performance. However, little improvement was found in terms of fluency, delivery, and enthusiasm during this period. Thus, teachers started questioning the effectiveness of speaking tests. Some of them said that speaking tests were too difficult without basic grammatical knowledge. Moreover, they faced another problem—students’ grades varied to a great extent, depending on teachers.

Sato was eventually allowed to visit the school as a researcher and advisor in September. As he strongly recommended that teachers have regular meetings to discuss assessment criteria, they finally started to have weekly meetings from October. In the meetings, they watched students’ videotaped performances and discussed the assessment issue. Some teachers had previously relied on the ALT for assessment, but they all agreed that both JETs and the ALT would participate in assessing the speaking test and discuss the differences. In the following meetings, they gradually came to share some of their problems and ideas about the class.

There was a remarkable change in students’ performance as teachers collaborated toward coherent assessment and performance tests. Students started to enjoy their original presentations and improved their communication skills in terms of fluency, delivery, and enthusiasm. As teachers saw students enjoy, for example, creating a skit and performing it, they came to think that speaking tests were useful for their students. For instance, Ishikawa2 reported.
Students developed presentation skills over the year. They could perform with gestures and emotions. (2nd interview, March 2002)
Mike, the ALT, commented on the speaking tests.
Students gained self-confidence. They still may be very very shy. I think their confidence is growing. Certainly, they are learning new skills. They are becoming more and more interested in presentations. Once we did a group presentation, and there were some really original skits. (2nd interview, March 2002)
Concerning the final grade for OC, teachers discussed the ratio of each assessment component in a meeting. Although they used to rely only on term examination as a single assessment component, they decided for the first time to incorporate speaking tests to count for as much as 40 % of the final mark. Thus, they had three assessment components for OC.


  1. Term examination: 50%

  2. Speaking tests: 40%

  3. Participation, assignments: 10%

These teachers learned: 1) Giving nine speaking tests throughout the year is important because it takes time for students to get used to and to gain confidence in using English. Teachers need patience; 2) Constant speaking tests can develop students’ speaking and listening skills; 3) To discuss assessment criteria is important because teachers come to observe more carefully students’ performance and learning stages; 4) Both teachers and students should participate in assessing speaking tests. Students can learn much from watching other students’ performance. JETs no longer rely on the AET; 5) A weekly meeting is important because teachers can share their problems and teaching ideas.

However, teachers stopped having a weekly meeting in January as students got used to making oral presentations. Without weekly meetings, they stopped sharing their ideas and the problems of the classes. It seemed that they were satisfied with students’ performance and felt no need for the meetings.


2-2. Student learning: The pleasure of using English

In the end of year departmental meeting, teachers did not have enough time to discuss what they had learned, what kind of problems they had had, and how they could develop the OC class in the following year. Although they had conducted a student survey twice a year, the results were not fully discussed, either. It was clear, however, that students wanted the challenge of participating in more spontaneous and natural conversations, as their comments in their portfolios show.


Mika: I enjoyed presentations but I don’t have confidence in speaking with a native speaker. I want to be able to have a natural conversation in English. (3rd portfolio, February 2002)
Takeshi: I want to be able to think in English so that I can speak more freely in a conversation. I hope we can have many interactive activities. (3rd portfolio, February 2002)
The students evaluated their own speaking and listening skills in October and February, comparing them with those in the previous April. They responded to a questionnaire developed by Takahashi. These figures show that they noticed that their speaking and listening skills improved through the oral presentations. As Table 4 shows, the number of students who felt “I could hardly speak” decreased from 19% to 1%. The number of students who felt “I could speak aloud without any script” increased from 17% to 29 %. The number of students who felt “I could speak with gestures without any script” increased from 4% to 31 %.
Table 4: Speaking skills




I can hardly speak.

I can speak a little using a script.

I can speak aloud without any script.

I can speak using gestures without any script.

I can speak with emotion without any script.

April

19%

59%

17%

4%

1%

October

5%

40%

30%

23%

2%

February

1%

38%

29%

31%

1%

(209 first-year students)
For listening skills, as Table 5 shows, the number of students who felt “I could hardly understand” decreased from 28% to 4%. The number of students who felt “I could understand a little” decreased from 41% to 25%. The number of students who felt “I could understand half of the class” increased from 22% to 39%. The number of students who felt “I could understand most of the class” increased from 10% to 30%.

Table 5: Listening skills




I can hardly understand.

I can understand a little.

I can understand half of the class.

I can understand most of the class.

I can understand everything.

April

28%

41%

22%

10%

0%

October

12%

35%

33%

20%

0%

February

4%

25%

39%

30%

1%

(209 first-year students)
Since the students’ level of English was not high, teachers were afraid that pair activities and speaking tests/assessments would be too difficult for them to enjoy. These surveys, however, reveal that on the contrary, the students liked the student-centered and communication-oriented classes better than the teacher-centered, grammar-translation class. As the students made oral presentations, their communication skills gradually improved. Then as they became used to making these oral presentations, they started to enjoy using English in class.

Unfortunately, most teachers did not notice how much students wanted to continue to learn oral English. As their comments’ show, students had a strong desire to try more spontaneous and natural conversations. However, these teachers did not spend time evaluating their OC classes based on the student survey. Nor did they attempt to share what they had experienced in a meeting. Although teachers became aware of the improvement in students’ oral skills, they had never thought of further improving students’ communication skills. In fact, there was no OC class in the second year. Consequently, the new school year started without enough discussion and evaluation of the program. The next section describes how second-year teachers struggled with a writing class.




  1. The Second Year: Writing for Second Year Students

3-1. The process of revitalization: Integrating writing and speaking

There was no OC class for second-year students. Instead, teachers had to teach Writing class. Takahashi was at a loss again and asked Sato for advice. He recommended that three second-year teachers try the approach used in his university, which integrates writing and speaking and has been successful (see Cholewinski & Sato, 2005). Brown (1994) gives six reasons why the integration of language skills is the only plausible approach within the framework of communicative language teaching. He affirms that “[b]y attending primarily to what learners can do with language, and only secondarily to the forms of language, we invite any or all of the four skills that are relevant into the classroom arena” and that “[o]ften one skill will reinforce another” (p. 219). Moreover, the student survey and the group interview conducted at the end of the first year clearly showed that they wanted to continue to improve their oral communication skills. Sato visited the school and demonstrated how to teach early in April. However, except for Takahashi none of the teachers liked the approach. The other two teachers thought it was a speaking lesson and not a writing one at all. In particular, they resisted abandoning their familiar textbook that included many translation exercises.3 After a long discussion, they compromised. The two teachers would mainly use the textbook with some incorporation of free composition. They might try out the new approach after they observed how Takahashi’s writing class went. Thus, in April, they started to have different writing classes for second-year students. Mori, an experienced teacher, reflected on those days.


To be honest, I didn’t like the approach. Although I participated in the demonstration and received explanation from Takahashi afterward, I was at a loss about how to teach. Because I am a teacher, I want to teach students with confidence in my class. Then we had a meeting among us. We had to compromise. I mean I had to be in the middle between Takahashi and Kawai. Otherwise, I thought we would do our own ways and go nowhere. So I made effort little by little and tried to cooperate with other teachers. (2nd interview, March 2003)
Consequently, two different kinds of class started. Kawai and Mori mainly taught according to the textbook with some inclusion of free writing. Takahashi told her students to do all the exercises in the textbook as homework. In class, she attempted the new approach and had students express their ideas in writing. Table 6 shows the topics she used.
Table 6: List of topics

Topic 1

Three things about Me!

2-minute conversation

Topic 2

Sports and recreation

3-minute conversation

Topic 3

Food

3-minute conversation

Topic 4

The World Cup

3-minute conversation

Topic 5

Summer Holiday

3-minute conversation

Topic 6

How was the Break?

4-minute conversation

Topic 7

My Favorite Song

4-minute conversation

Topic 8

The School Trip to Okinawa

4-minute conversation

Topic 9

People I Admire

4-minute conversation

Topic 10

Asking about Japan

4-minute conversation

The students in advanced classes covered ten topics and the students in general classes covered seven topics, following the eight steps listed below:


(1) Introducing three questions about a topic

(2) Practicing conversation strategies                                     

(3) Writing assignment (Homework):

a. what you want to say

b. vocabulary you want to use for this topic

c. three new questions you will ask in the next conversation

(4) Peer correction of the composition

(5) Timed-conversation, changing partners

(3-minute timed conversation and 2-minute summarizing)×3 times


(6) Recording: Record the timed conversation on tape

(7) Self-assessment (homework):



  1. transcription of the recorded conversation

  2. self-assessment of the recorded conversation

  3. setting a goal for the next conversation

(8) Writing assignment (homework):fun essay writing with pictures

For each topic, the students were required to analyze their recorded conversation at home. After transcribing their recorded conversation, they answered the following self-assessment questions: 1) What were three things you said that you are proud of? 2) Find three mistakes you made and try to correct them. 3) What conversation strategies did you use? 4) What useful expressions did your partner say? 5) What advice can you give to your partner? 6) What is your goal for the next conversation?

Takahashi gave a demonstration class in November and showed how much progress students had made since June. Other English teachers, two junior high school teachers, an inspector from the prefectural Board of Education, and Sato participated in the classroom observation. Students had 4-minute conversations and wrote a 15-sentence composition about a serious topic. After that, participants had a meeting where divergent views were expressed. The inspector was impressed with the class and commented that this could be a model of communication-oriented English, which is the goal of the guidelines of MEXT. However, toward the end of the meeting Kawai spoke up, commenting “I have been teaching the other half of the class that Takahashi taught today, relying on the textbook based on grammar-translation method.” Then Kubo said, “Why was our school assigned to do this project? How about higher level high schools? All they have to do is to prepare students for prestigious university entrance exams.” The inspector replied: “The most important thing is to improve students’ communication skills. We cannot ignore this goal. Teachers need to change their beliefs about English language teaching.”

After the demonstration lesson and the meeting, other teachers (including teachers of other grades) attempted using pair-work positively. For example, Mori tried recording conversations for the first time after practicing pair-work. Kawai also tried pair-work for the first time. Interestingly, after that, Kawai sometimes went to Takahashi to ask her what the next topic would be and what kind of materials they would use. Both Kawai and Mori started to use innovative approaches little by little. Kawai recalled what he did and made a comment.


Well, I started to use a new approach which would integrate writing and speaking in the second semester. I mainly used the textbook in the first semester because I was not sure of how to use new approaches. Anyway, when I saw students enjoying using English with their partners, I thought this might work well. Actually, I enjoyed teaching, too. Gradually, I got used to the new approaches and spent more time on free writing and speaking. (2nd interview, March 2003)



Yüklə 1,15 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə