SPLIS Newsletter - March 2020 (Plain Text Version)
|
|||||||||||||
|
In this issue: |
SMARTPHONES, SMART SPEAKING, SMART ASSESSMENT Yu-ju Hung, Air Force Academy, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
The following discussion between the instructor of an EFL speaking class and the coordinator (the author) of a campus-wide English curriculum led to the teaching idea of integrating smartphone technology into student assessment.
A smartphone is considered not just a handy device but indispensable by the generations who grew up surrounded by computers, video games, music players, cell phones, and other tools of the digital age (Prensky, 2001). In Taiwan, every college student has a smartphone and is familiar with its functions, including voice recording and sending files via the Internet, which can allow every student in class to speak and transmit the recording for an instructor’s evaluation. Thus, class time is used efficiently, every student gets to practice speaking without fear of losing face in front of peers, and speaking practice can be easily repeated to maximize learning opportunities. This idea addresses many common challenges faced by English learners in Chinese cultures, including low linguistic proficiency, negative self-evaluation, lack of confidence, failure to see tangible progress, and insufficient opportunities to use English for spoken communication (Gan, 2013). The biggest issue that arises with implementing this idea is how instructors, traditionally regarded as sole assessors of students’ learning, can respond to the large volume of voice recordings and give students the feedback they need. To address this issue, the coordinator and the instructor decided to incorporate student assessment, including peer and self-assessment (Boud, 1991; Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000), as strategies to encourage learners to learn by interacting communicatively and reflecting upon their performance. To make the activity feasible and effective, assessment criteria need to be carefully formulated so that learners are aware of the features of high-quality speaking for both performance and assessment. In addition to being informative, the assessment criteria should be provided in a form that is easy to follow. Knowing what and how to assess will help students successfully carry out their assessment roles and avoid unconstructive experiences that might lead them to reject the legitimacy of peer- and self-assessment and regard their instructors as their only valid assessors. Accordingly, the assessment form suggested in this article consists of questions, not scales, that guide students to analyze their speech output and evaluate speech components, which involve macrocriteria, such as topic and main idea; microcriteria, including details and examples; and technical skills, including linking words, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. The following is an example of how this teaching idea has been implemented in college English classes in Taiwan (Hung, 2019). Practice Example The instructor implemented five repeated trials of students’ self-assessment of their voice recordings with smartphones in his three EFL speaking classes in a university located in southern Taiwan. In total, 97 students went through the entire process. In each trial, the instructor gave a question based on the course content after one unit was completed. The students had 30 seconds to prepare and 30 seconds to record their responses, followed by 1 minute to listen to their own recordings and reflect upon their performance. This procedure was administered two more times for the same question. Finally, the students selected their best performance and submitted the audio file to the online course site. In the next class, they listened to their audio files and answered the questions on the self-assessment forms (Figure 1). They could listen as many times as needed until they finished the form. These procedures were repeated five times during the semester. Self-Assessment Form
Data included students’ audio recordings, self-assessment forms, and end-of-semester surveys as well as an instructor interview. These were analyzed and cross-checked to determine students’ learning outcomes and their perspectives as language learners and as self-assessors. The criteria in the self-assessment form were used by two raters to evaluate the voice recordings, and the results indicated that these students’ English-speaking abilities improved overall, but they made less progress in using linking words, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation than in other criteria, suggesting greater mastery of content than of linguistic knowledge. Also, the responses in the self-assessment forms and student survey corresponded with the researchers’ evaluation of the audio recordings, which suggested that students’ self-assessment abilities improved over time. Common errors, including verb tense and form, pronoun gender, and plural nouns emerged from the assessment forms and required further overt instruction. Finally, the students were highly engaged and gave very positive feedback concerning the impact of self-assessment on learning. They particularly appreciated having opportunities to detect their own errors, improve their speech performance, and witness their real learning outcomes. Pedagogical Implication The preceding example demonstrates how abundant practice, repetition, reflective assessment, and sensitive support can help to develop students’ English-speaking abilities. The students’ own handy devices, smartphones, maximized learning opportunities by allowing each individual to make 15 recordings in five trials. Using their own phones while recording for self-assessment enables students to speak in a comfort zone and eliminates anxiety about losing face in public. Self-assessment activities then inform them of criteria for high-quality oral performance, providing learners with opportunities to observe their speech output, reflect upon their performance by analyzing their speech, and finally learn from their weaknesses. The assessment form provides guiding questions to inform students of what they should pay attention to in their oral performance. To respond to the questions, students attend to details in their talk and recognize their strengths and weaknesses by analyzing their performance according to each criterion. Throughout this process, in addition to planning the activities and monitoring the procedures, instructors need to be sensitive to students’ needs and provide timely support. For example, instructors can present the best recordings and lead a whole class discussion on the characteristics of good speech while students check their own understanding. Also, students’ responses concerning language issues, such as linking words, grammatical errors, vocabulary use, and pronunciation problems, provide valuable feedback to instructors so they can seize teaching moments for explicit instruction. Last but not least, repeated cycles of speaking practice and self-assessment are crucial because they allow learners opportunities to practice, find ways to improve, and achieve recognizable learning outcomes, which are the best rewards for their efforts and provide the most effective incentive for continued work. However, it is important to integrate repeated practice with the instructor’s sensitive support, so that smartphones, smart speaking, and smart assessment work together to support learners in improving their English-speaking abilities. References Boud, D. (1991). Implementating student self assessment (2nd ed.). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287–322. Gan, Z. (2013). Understanding English speaking difficulties: An investigation of two Chinese populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34, 231–248. http://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.768622 Hung, Y-j. (2019). Bridging assessment and achievement: Repeated practice of self-assessment in college English classes in Taiwan. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1191–1208. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1584783 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Yu-ju Hung is chair of the Department of Applied Foreign Languages in the Air Force Academy, Taiwan. She obtained her PhD in language education, Indiana University–Bloomington. Her research interests include classroom-based assessment, culture and reflective pedagogy, and curriculum design. [ORCID] |
||||||||||||