Difference between revisions of "The Integrated Approach"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This approach is proposed by McGrath. It aims to address the pros and cons that can be observed in all of the aforementioned methods. This approach must be adapted to the goals of each particular evaluation process. The evaluation criteria may differ in each context and their identification can be a rigorous procedure. One method for easing criteria definition is to establish a clear distinction between generic evaluation criteria, namely those that are applicable in all contexts, and specific ones, namely criteria related to a particular context. Examples of generic or macro level criteria include the students’ age range, proficiency level in the target language, motivation for studying the target language, sex distribution, and so forth. Specific or micro level, criteria may be associated with learner needs such as language skills, which are typically defined as communicative goals, con-texts of use, time frames, and language-system, which refers to grammar, vocabulary, and phonology. | + | This approach is proposed by McGrath (2002). It aims to address the pros and cons that can be observed in all of the aforementioned methods. This approach must be adapted to the goals of each particular evaluation process. The evaluation criteria may differ in each context and their identification can be a rigorous procedure. One method for easing criteria definition is to establish a clear distinction between generic evaluation criteria, namely those that are applicable in all contexts, and specific ones, namely criteria related to a particular context. Examples of generic or macro level criteria include the students’ age range, proficiency level in the target language, motivation for studying the target language, sex distribution, and so forth. Specific or micro level, criteria may be associated with learner needs such as language skills, which are typically defined as communicative goals, con-texts of use, time frames, and language-system, which refers to grammar, vocabulary, and phonology. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| Line 6: | Line 10: | ||
Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== References ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press | ||
Latest revision as of 16:41, 28 November 2013
This approach is proposed by McGrath (2002). It aims to address the pros and cons that can be observed in all of the aforementioned methods. This approach must be adapted to the goals of each particular evaluation process. The evaluation criteria may differ in each context and their identification can be a rigorous procedure. One method for easing criteria definition is to establish a clear distinction between generic evaluation criteria, namely those that are applicable in all contexts, and specific ones, namely criteria related to a particular context. Examples of generic or macro level criteria include the students’ age range, proficiency level in the target language, motivation for studying the target language, sex distribution, and so forth. Specific or micro level, criteria may be associated with learner needs such as language skills, which are typically defined as communicative goals, con-texts of use, time frames, and language-system, which refers to grammar, vocabulary, and phonology.
Please click here to go back to the Evaluation Methodologies for Language Learning page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
[edit] References
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press
