Difference between revisions of "Evaluation Methodologies for Language Learning"
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In the specific domain of foreign language syllabus evaluation both product- and process-oriented approaches have had great impact. Recently the process-oriented approach has seen greater currency | + | In the specific domain of foreign language syllabus evaluation both product- and process-oriented approaches have had great impact. Recently the process-oriented approach has seen greater currency (Lynch, 1995). |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | A variety of evaluation methods has emerged in relation to syllabus and content evaluation ranging from experimental design to social anthropology methods. The dominance of action research models in language teaching, especially in English language teaching (ELT), has introduced the integration of evaluation within practice (Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1998). This method has as a result the greater involvement of learners and paves the way for the reinforcement of constructivist patterns in evaluation practice (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | It can be safely argued that the evaluation and development of content are interconnected and complementary activities (Hemard, 2003; Hubbard, 1988). The outcomes of educational content evaluation can be applied towards the effective development of additional material. The experience developed during the evaluation process in relation to design can further enhance future content design efforts (Hubbard, 1988)]. Emerging internet and multimedia technologies have a direct effect on the efficiency with which educational content is designed and developed. In this context, educational con-tent evaluation has gained importance and complexity (Levy, 1997)]. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | Language teaching content may be commercial or may be developed in house by teachers addressing specific student needs, educational objectives, and learning settings. Published and widely available content typically has already undergone through some form of formative and summative evaluation before reaching end users, which in the case of the language learning are teachers and language students. In the case of adhoc language teaching content, which is very frequent in the L2 field, evaluation procedures must address solid, varied, and predefined criteria set during the design and development phase in relation to specific learning needs and requirements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Content may be in printed form; this includes textbooks, supplementary notes, worksheets, and more. Printed content is often accompanied by audio or video learning packages and more recently by web based activities. Alternatively, con-tent can be exclusively in digital form or it can be available on the internet either for free or as a paid product. Irrespective of format, the objective of educational content evaluation must be well defined. It is important to identify a clear set of evaluation criteria based on subjective and objective content analysis taking into account learner needs. The terms subjective and objective analysis with respect to educational content evaluation were first discussed by Hutchinson and Waters (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evaluation usually spans different stages which, according to McGrath (2002), are '''“pre-use”, “in-use”''', and '''“post use”'''. Each phase may be based on different evaluation methods such as: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[The Impressionistic Method]] | ||
| + | *[[The Checklist Method]] | ||
| + | *[[The In-depth Method]] | ||
| + | *[[The Integrated Approach]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|Home]]page. | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|Home]]page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== References ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lynch, B. R (1996). Language program evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hubbard, P. (1996). Elements of CALL methodology: Development, evaluation, and implementation. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 15-33). Bolsover, TX: Athelstan | ||
| + | |||
| + | Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rea-Dickins, P. and Germaine, K. (1998), The price of everything and the value of nothing. Trends in language program evaluation. In P. Rea-Dickins & KP Germaine, (Eds). Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching. Building Bridges. London. Longman | ||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 28 November 2013
In the specific domain of foreign language syllabus evaluation both product- and process-oriented approaches have had great impact. Recently the process-oriented approach has seen greater currency (Lynch, 1995).
A variety of evaluation methods has emerged in relation to syllabus and content evaluation ranging from experimental design to social anthropology methods. The dominance of action research models in language teaching, especially in English language teaching (ELT), has introduced the integration of evaluation within practice (Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1998). This method has as a result the greater involvement of learners and paves the way for the reinforcement of constructivist patterns in evaluation practice (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
It can be safely argued that the evaluation and development of content are interconnected and complementary activities (Hemard, 2003; Hubbard, 1988). The outcomes of educational content evaluation can be applied towards the effective development of additional material. The experience developed during the evaluation process in relation to design can further enhance future content design efforts (Hubbard, 1988)]. Emerging internet and multimedia technologies have a direct effect on the efficiency with which educational content is designed and developed. In this context, educational con-tent evaluation has gained importance and complexity (Levy, 1997)].
Language teaching content may be commercial or may be developed in house by teachers addressing specific student needs, educational objectives, and learning settings. Published and widely available content typically has already undergone through some form of formative and summative evaluation before reaching end users, which in the case of the language learning are teachers and language students. In the case of adhoc language teaching content, which is very frequent in the L2 field, evaluation procedures must address solid, varied, and predefined criteria set during the design and development phase in relation to specific learning needs and requirements.
Content may be in printed form; this includes textbooks, supplementary notes, worksheets, and more. Printed content is often accompanied by audio or video learning packages and more recently by web based activities. Alternatively, con-tent can be exclusively in digital form or it can be available on the internet either for free or as a paid product. Irrespective of format, the objective of educational content evaluation must be well defined. It is important to identify a clear set of evaluation criteria based on subjective and objective content analysis taking into account learner needs. The terms subjective and objective analysis with respect to educational content evaluation were first discussed by Hutchinson and Waters (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).
Evaluation usually spans different stages which, according to McGrath (2002), are “pre-use”, “in-use”, and “post use”. Each phase may be based on different evaluation methods such as:
Click here to go back to the Homepage.
[edit] References
Lynch, B. R (1996). Language program evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press
Hubbard, P. (1996). Elements of CALL methodology: Development, evaluation, and implementation. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 15-33). Bolsover, TX: Athelstan
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage
Rea-Dickins, P. and Germaine, K. (1998), The price of everything and the value of nothing. Trends in language program evaluation. In P. Rea-Dickins & KP Germaine, (Eds). Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching. Building Bridges. London. Longman
