Difference between revisions of "The Checklist Method"
(Created page with "Tucker [56], Williams [63], Cunningsworth [17], Sheldon [51], Matthews [37] and McDonough, and Shaw [38] have all conducted serious and systematic work in the field of develop...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | According to Skierso (1991) a checklist consists of a comprehensive set of exhaustive criteria based on the linguistic, psychological, and pedagogical principles present in current trends of language teaching such as communicative and task-based approaches. The items on a checklist can be adapted to address the objectives of a specific evaluation process. In some cases checklists address language content, skills, topics, and teaching methods but ignore the role of culture and institution. In others, they focus on content design. Common sections on a check-list include: | |
| − | According to Skierso | + | |
| − | + | *Content, which refers to elements, cultural orientation, primary and secondary learning objectives, and more | |
| − | + | *Quality of content, namely appropriateness in relation to age, cultural groups to which is oriented, accuracy, learning objective identification, and more | |
| − | + | *Effectiveness as a teaching and / or learning tool, including characteristics such as addictiveness and for addressing diverse teaching and learning styles, integration of well-accepted educational methodologies, and more | |
| − | + | *Ease of use by both educators and learners, including layout, integration of multimedia features, attractiveness, practicality, and more | |
| − | + | *User comments, i.e. the opportunity to submit open feedback | |
| − | The strength of this method lies in its capacity to provide a systematic framework for organizing evaluation feedback. It is cost effective and convenient as it allows the documentation of information in a rather practical and explicit format that facilitates effective comparison of content. Its limitation lies in the “non-universality” of checklists, which are context-oriented | + | |
| + | The strength of this method lies in its capacity to provide a systematic framework for organizing evaluation feedback. It is cost effective and convenient as it allows the documentation of information in a rather practical and explicit format that facilitates effective comparison of content. Its limitation lies in the “non-universality” of checklists, which are context-oriented (Ellis, 1997; McGrath, 2002). This implies that existing checklists must be carefully adapted for re-use in different evaluation process. Another important limitation is that checklists cannot be considered static. They reflect the particular points of view and attitudes of their designers in the specific time period in which they were developed (Zyda, 2005). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please click here to go back to the [[Evaluation Methodologies for Language Learning]] page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== References==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Zyda, M. (September 2005). "From visual simulation to virtual reality to games". IEEE Computer | ||
| + | |||
| + | Skierso, A. (1991), “Textbook selection and evaluation”, in M. Celce-Murcia, (ed.) (1991) (2nd edn), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 432-453 | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42 | ||
Latest revision as of 16:39, 28 November 2013
According to Skierso (1991) a checklist consists of a comprehensive set of exhaustive criteria based on the linguistic, psychological, and pedagogical principles present in current trends of language teaching such as communicative and task-based approaches. The items on a checklist can be adapted to address the objectives of a specific evaluation process. In some cases checklists address language content, skills, topics, and teaching methods but ignore the role of culture and institution. In others, they focus on content design. Common sections on a check-list include:
- Content, which refers to elements, cultural orientation, primary and secondary learning objectives, and more
- Quality of content, namely appropriateness in relation to age, cultural groups to which is oriented, accuracy, learning objective identification, and more
- Effectiveness as a teaching and / or learning tool, including characteristics such as addictiveness and for addressing diverse teaching and learning styles, integration of well-accepted educational methodologies, and more
- Ease of use by both educators and learners, including layout, integration of multimedia features, attractiveness, practicality, and more
- User comments, i.e. the opportunity to submit open feedback
The strength of this method lies in its capacity to provide a systematic framework for organizing evaluation feedback. It is cost effective and convenient as it allows the documentation of information in a rather practical and explicit format that facilitates effective comparison of content. Its limitation lies in the “non-universality” of checklists, which are context-oriented (Ellis, 1997; McGrath, 2002). This implies that existing checklists must be carefully adapted for re-use in different evaluation process. Another important limitation is that checklists cannot be considered static. They reflect the particular points of view and attitudes of their designers in the specific time period in which they were developed (Zyda, 2005).
Please click here to go back to the Evaluation Methodologies for Language Learning page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
[edit] References
Zyda, M. (September 2005). "From visual simulation to virtual reality to games". IEEE Computer
Skierso, A. (1991), “Textbook selection and evaluation”, in M. Celce-Murcia, (ed.) (1991) (2nd edn), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 432-453
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42
