In the school year 2004
Project 2 (2004 and 2005 school years): Revitalizing the Curriculum through Teacher Collaboration
Yüklə 1,15 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- (follow-up question)
Project 2 (2004 and 2005 school years): Revitalizing the Curriculum through Teacher Collaboration
The second project started in April 2004. The high school was designated a model school for its excellent English program and assigned to experiment with another two-year project. This time, Sato was asked directly to be an adviser by the prefectural Board of Education. This report of the study was presented at a national conference for high school teachers of English in November 2005. First, there was a heated discussion in the English department about whether they should accept the project or not. Many teachers were reluctant because they felt pressure and thought they would become too busy preparing for the presentation. Then, four teachers, including Takahashi, volunteered and made a team. Sato advised them to create a syllabus and have a weekly meeting. He visited the school and joined the weekly meeting. With the help of Sato, Takahashi made a syllabus and presented it at the meeting. The syllabus was modified and agreed upon among teachers. The next section reports what happened in 2004 when four teachers worked together. The results were surprising.
2-1. The process of revitalization: Sharing ideas and problems Four teachers including Takahashi met several times and made a plan before school started in April. First, teachers organized an orientation meeting for every class. They showed students a video that was made by recent graduates to introduce the new subject—Writing. Takahashi asked two graduates to explain in Japanese what they had learned from her class and how they had prepared for it before school during the spring holidays in March. Instead of teachers’ explanations, Takahashi thought students could understand better what their seniors explained, an idea which other teachers said also worked well in their own classes. In addition, teachers gave each student a syllabus written in Japanese, including goals, topics to be covered, and assessment components (see below). A: Goals
B: Objectives
C: Topics
D: Assessment components
It was the teachers’ first ever experience of showing a complete syllabus to students in an English class. Takahashi commented on it in her first interview. Our new attempt is that we showed our students concrete goals of the class at the beginning of the year. Also, we explained the syllabus by using the video made by our graduates. I guess our students could have an overall picture about this class and were encouraged to see graduates as models. Moreover, they could recognize that all the students in the same grade will take the class using new approaches. (1st interview, September 2004) The orientation meeting was successful in that all the teachers and students were put on the same track. Next, based upon Sato’s request, teachers started to hold weekly meetings. Sato asked Takahashi to arrange each teacher’s timetable so that all four second-year teachers could participate in the meeting. To tell the truth, not all the teachers willingly came to the meeting due to their tight schedule, yet they began to appreciate the opportunity to communicate with other teachers. In the meeting teachers shared their ideas and problems. In particular, around the beginning of the year, the three teachers who had just started to teach the new subject, asked Takahashi and Sato many questions about how to teach and what to do next. Sato observed all four teachers’ classes, videotaped part of each class, and showed the video to the teachers in the weekly meeting, reasoning that they could learn much better by watching other teachers’ classes. Sugiura made a comment in the meeting. I really appreciate the opportunity to watch the video of other teachers’ classes. I can learn a lot about how other teachers use the same activity in a bit different way. Every week I can learn something new in the meeting. (April 21, 2004, field notes) Furthermore, Sato occasionally gave advice to teachers. For example, he advised teachers to create assessment criteria for the speaking test. Teachers sat together, watched the video of a couple of performances, and negotiated the criteria. In this way, they could develop the rubrics. Table 10 shows the original rubric for the speaking test and table 11 shows the modified version after a long discussion. At first, teachers had difficulty defining each criterion; however, they learnt to develop their understanding and clarify the definition in the end. For example, “asking questions” in “Fluency “in Table 10 could be included in “Strategies” and “spontaneity” in “Delivery” could be included in “Fluency.” Also, “Impression” was subjective and deleted in Table 11. Table 10: Rubric for the speaking test – 20 points in total (July 2004)
Table 11: Modified version of the rubric for the speaking test – 20 points (December 2004)
In brief, the weekly meeting offered many teacher learning opportunities. As Sugiura commented, talking about teaching and teaching issues became a norm among these teachers. Moreover, they got together occasionally at other times, whenever they felt the need, in spite of their busy schedules. Finally, teachers started to develop materials and share them. In addition to the materials they were required to cover, they created materials of their own. For instance, Kubo made a handout about the Athens Olympics, which included three quizzes. They were : 1) Where will the Olympic Games be held this year (2004)? 2) There are 28 events in the Athens Olympics. Can you guess the following events? Complete the words. 3)Match the players and the events and fill in the grid with the correct letter and event.
Regarding the topic “The school trip to Okinawa” Sugiura devised a handout to check the use of strategies. She was concerned that her students might not be able to use the conversation strategies she taught and so she had her students interview three students (using four questions) and check the strategies they used (circle the one) based on the following handout.
For the topic about “People I admire” Takahashi created a warm-up activity (a guessing game).  
In short, these teachers developed materials and shared them with other teachers. In this way, they could learn from one another and further develop the curriculum. Sugiura commented in her first interview. I am glad that I could join this team. I think I could develop my teaching repertoire. Now I have many choices and can choose a suitable activity in the future. We shared our teaching experiences with one another. I really think we became open-minded and talked about many problems. In the past, we didn’t share what we were doing. (1st interview, September, 2004) 2-2. Takahashi’s episode 2: The power of peer-editing Sato advised us to try peer-editing in a meeting. He demonstrated each step to follow and we started to try it out in our classes. I learned from my students that peer-editing actually works well for slow learners, too. With the help of peers, they can deepen their ideas and are encouraged to rewrite a composition. What’s more, they enjoy sharing their writings. For instance, after their nine-month study, they started to write and talk about a new topic “People I admire” in January in 2005. When Hideki in a general class finished writing about it, he had managed to write only four sentences. To be honest, I was quite shocked to see his poor writing. Then it was time for peer-editing. Students exchanged papers and started peer-editing following the four steps listed below.
After the first peer editing, Hideki added three sentences. He tried to answer the questions from his peer (see Composition 1 below). Then they did two more peer editing sessions with different students, and were asked to rewrite the composition at home. In the next class, I was very surprised to find that Hideki’s composition had become longer (see Composition 2). He even brought a magazine which featured his fishing hero in class. After having one more peer-editing and conversation activity with several different students, he finished his final draft with some pictures. He was very proud of his final product (see Composition 3)  
 
2-3. Takahashi’s episode 3: The power of conversation strategies In Writing for second-year students, students wrote and talked about a topic many times in class. Students had a conversation with several different partners for three to four minutes. Thus, we called this activity ‘timed-conversation’. A final timed-conversation was recorded on tape so that students could transcribe and analyze the conversation. To keep a conversation going, we introduced conversation strategies in every topic. Students practiced useful expressions such as “How ‘bout you?”, “Sounds great!”, “Pardon me?” and “What does that mean?” They also practiced useful strategies such as how to shadow (echo) the key words and how to ask follow-up questions. Some students are so quiet that they rarely have conversations with their classmates in their daily life. They do not have communication skills even in their first language. Therefore, I often wondered whether they could improve communication skills through timed-conversation. I was also worried that they could never enjoy timed-conversation or any interactive activities in class. However, I have learned that even quiet students enjoy having conversations as they learn to use more and more conversation strategies. What’s more, English timed-conversation makes them more open-minded, which is a new discovery for them. For example, I would like to tell how such a quiet girl (Ami) came to enjoy timed-conversation. Ami was a very quiet student who could speak with only a few friends at school. At the beginning of the course, I often found that she had a tense face and spoke in a small voice. She had to have a conversation with different partners, which had never happened in her life. I felt sorry for her and I didn’t expect she would enjoy this class. However, as Ami learned more and more conversation strategies, she came to enjoy timed-conversations. Since she learned how to keep a conversation going in English, she found that she could relax more when she had a conversation. After the third speaking test in February, she said to me excitedly, “This was a test, but I really enjoyed having a conversation. I feel so happy.” She also wrote the following comments in her portfolios: As I had timed-conversations many times, I got used to having a conversation little by little. At first, I didn’t know what to say, but I started to use “How ‘bout you?” and shadowing during a conversation. Then gradually I could understand what my partner said. (1st portfolio, July 2004) Before the summer vacation, I just said what I had memorized. However, as I came to use conversation strategies such as “Me, too!”, ”Sounds good!” and shadowing, conversations became more natural. I’d like to practice asking follow-up questions more, and I will make effort to say something even if I don’t know the right expressions. (2nd portfolio, December 2004) In April, I was very nervous when I had timed-conversations. Today I had a speaking test and I was surprised to notice how much I relaxed and enjoyed having a conversation. I was happy because I could enjoy talking. I explained to my partner what I didn’t understand and asked her to explain more. It was wonderful! I can manage a conversation if I practice a lot. (3rd portfolio, February, 2005)
Ami: Who do you admire? Maki: I admire Tabuse Yuta. Do you know him?(follow-up question) Ami: He is a basketball player. ---cut---- Maki: OK.OK Bur recently he…Tabuse laid off from Phoenix Suns. Ami: Laid off? (Shadowing: Asking for clarification) Maki: Ah…hmm..laid off….Now he can’t play in the Phoenix Suns. So…. Ami: He leaves the team. (using other words) Maki: Yes! Yes! Ami: I see! Maki: So he is …..now he is free. He is waiting offer from another team in NBA. He is very small.
As Ami’s transcription shows, she could maintain a four-minute conversation by using conversation strategies (or communication strategies). This is completely different from a memorized conversation, because she could negotiate the meaning with her partner. The next section indicates that other students also acquired these conversation strategies to improve their communication skills. The results support Sato’s (2005) finding that developing learners’ communication strategies leads to their overall acquisition of a second language. In the next section, student outcomes are shown. 2-4. Student learning: Developing confidence in using English Both teachers and students were unsure about what would happen in this writing class. Yet, by the end of April, teachers began to see some positive results. Inagaki said in the meeting, “This approach is good because students are busy working on activities and they have no time to sleep in class” (April 28, 2004, field notes). As teachers became accustomed to this approach and began to see students engaging in activities enthusiastically, they built up their confidence. Although there were ups and downs, students reflected what they had learned in February 2005, reporting in their portfolios that they had improved their writing and speaking skills. Tomoko: I wrote only five sentences in April and it was difficult. Now I can write 10 sentences even if it takes a long time. And I now use a dictionary when I write! This is a big change for me! (3rd portfolio, February 2005) Satoshi: We had a lot of timed-conversations with different partners. After this conversation class, I managed to have a conversation for three minutes. It is important to have a lot of conversation practice. I also learned many expressions from my friends. (3rd portfolio, February 2005) Hiroko: Conversations helped me write more about the topic, because I got more ideas during and after conversations. (3rd portfolio, February 2005) Furthermore, student surveys conducted in October 2004 and in February 2005 corroborate the results. Table 12 (in Appendix) shows how much students thought their writing skills had improved. Table 13 (in Appendix) shows the improvement in student speaking skills. In April, 58% of the students thought they could write fewer than 5 sentences, while only 8% thought they could write 15 or more sentences about a topic. In contrast, in February, only 8% reported they could write fewer than 5 sentences while 57% reported they could write 15 or more sentences. As Table 13 indicates, 77% of the students thought they could not maintain a 2-minute conversation. Only 2% thought they could speak for two minutes without looking at a written paper. In contrast, in February, only 13 reported they could not maintain a 2-minute conversation, whereas 87% reported they could keep talking for two minutes without a paper. Furthermore, 84% of the students reported that they could achieve a 3-minute conversation without a paper. As for advanced class students (two classes out of 6), 89% reported that they could maintain a 4-minute conversation. Interestingly, compared with Table 9 (p. 15), in 2002 only 58% reported they could achieve a 3-minute conversation. This means that in 2004 there was a 26% increase in the number of students who could maintain a 3-minute conversation. Takahashi commented in her interview why a great majority of students achieved the goal. A good thing about this year is that we established goals and objectives, and showed them to our students in April. Also we used the videos of speaking tests and written materials of our previous students two years ago. Our students were encouraged by the good models. Moreover, teachers collaborated more and held weekly meetings, which we could not do two years ago. As a result, students in all six classes worked toward the same goals. That made a difference, I think. (1st interview, September 2004) Another teacher Inagaki said that students in her class were impressed with fun essays displayed on the wall, which Takahashi’s students had written. When they wrote about the Olympic games, they wrote more than I had expected. Moreover, they were influenced by students in other classes. For example, some boys wrote using only a pencil at first. Then, after they saw other students’ work displayed on the wall, they started to write with colored pens and add pictures. I was impressed with how all the classes were involved in this project. (1st Interview, September 2004) In short, teacher collaboration resulted in better student outcomes. Compared with the first project, Takahashi felt that “all six classes worked toward the same goals.” Successful teaching experiences encouraged teachers such as Kubo, a senior teacher. He reflected on his experience in this year. To be honest, I was really surprised to know this kind of teaching approach exists. I will retire in three more years. But, I really had a great experience this year. If I had studied English with this kind of approach as a high school student, I would have improved my communication skills. I had been teaching English based on a traditional approach for over 30 years. Therefore, it was an eye-opener for me. (2nd Interview, March 2005) The next section describes how three teachers continued to teach in 2005. 3. The Second Year: Challenging Discussion and Debate Takahashi and two other teachers, Inagaki and Kubo, continued teaching the third-year students and made a team. With Sato’s advice, they set goals to further improve students’ communication skills. As they did the previous year, they made a syllabus and showed it to students at the beginning of their Writing class. A: Goals
B: Objectives
C: Topics (from “Impact Topics” Longman)
D: Assessment components
Furthermore, Sato advised teachers to use a video camera instead of a tape-recorder so that students could actually see how they interacted with their partners. On a recording day, students brought their own videotapes and watched them after recording for self-evaluation. As students became accustomed to discussions, they started to try a debate in July according to the syllabus (see above). This was another challenge to teachers, because they had never tried a debate in class before. Yet these teachers practised a debate with Sato’s help, made a videotape, and showed it to their students in class. Takahashi tried a debate in her class (see Appendix for sample handouts). Although it had not worked well two years previously, it worked well this time. She reported in her first interview in 2005. I tried a debate in my class. It was successful and I have learned a lot about debate. When I tried it two years ago, it did not work. Since then I have learned what skills are necessary for debate. Following Sato’s advice, we had our students practice summarizing what their partner said. Also, students were encouraged to use conversation strategies when they could not understand what their partner had said. I could understand that this kind of practice led students to successful debate. (1st Interview, September 2005) In November 2005, Takahashi presented the results of the two projects at a national conference for high school teachers of English. The other teachers helped her to prepare for the presentation. More than 3,000 teachers and educators attended the conference. The projects were highly evaluated among educators and these teachers gained confidence in curriculum revitalization at their school. Inagaki commented on the presentation. To be honest, before the conference, I did not clearly understand what we had been doing. I guess other grade level teachers did not understand, either. However, as we reflected on what we had done over five years, we could confirm the significance of the projects and some achievements we had made. (2nd Interview, February 2006) Yüklə 1,15 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
