Difference between revisions of "The Impressionistic Method"
(→References) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Cunningsworth | + | Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson (1987), Johnson (1986), Lee (1975), and Stevick (1972) have all discussed the Ιmpressionistic method, including its variations. This method aims to help the evaluator / teacher obtain a general impression on, or overview of, the added value of educational content. In practice, this method allows the evaluator to quickly review content and form an opinion on its strengths and weaknesses, its design, and its structure. The method may be more applicable in evaluating printed rather than digital content. Of particular interest when reviewing content through the impressionistic method are language elements, the types of exercises used in learning, and the author’s view of the learning process. |
| − | According to Ellis | + | According to Ellis (1997) this evaluation method is predictive in nature. McGrath (2002) suggests that it is more effectively applied in the pre-use stage for developing an early overall impression on the potential impact of content. This quick forma-tion of an informed opinion is the strength of the impressionistic method. Its weakness lies in the fact that it may be perceived as superficial even when find-ings are the result of systematic information gathering. Finally, the impressionistic method may be integrated in the first stage of a cyclical evaluation process that repeats throughout the development and deployment life cycle of content or processes offering incremental feedback. |
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== References ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook, Oxford: Heinemann | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hutchinson, T. (1987), `What's underneath?: an interactive view of materials evaluation', in L Sheldon (ed. ) (1987), ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development, ELT Documents 126, Oxford: Modern English Publications/the British Council, 37-44 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Johnson, R. (1986). “Selecting a coursebook: a realistic approach”, in S. Holden(ed.), (1986), Techniques of Teaching From Theory to Practice, Papers from the 1985 Bologna conference. Oxford. Modern English Publications/British Council 54-7 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lee. J. (1975) `Choosing and using a textbook', English Teaching Forum 13:3 /4 (Special Issue Pt 2): 364-4 | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press | ||
| + | |||
| + | Stevick, E. (1972), “Evaluating and adapting language materials', in H. Allen, and R. Cambpell (eds) (1972), TeachingE nglish as a SecondL anguageA: Book of ReadingsN, ew York McGraw Hill, 101-20 | ||
Latest revision as of 16:36, 28 November 2013
Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson (1987), Johnson (1986), Lee (1975), and Stevick (1972) have all discussed the Ιmpressionistic method, including its variations. This method aims to help the evaluator / teacher obtain a general impression on, or overview of, the added value of educational content. In practice, this method allows the evaluator to quickly review content and form an opinion on its strengths and weaknesses, its design, and its structure. The method may be more applicable in evaluating printed rather than digital content. Of particular interest when reviewing content through the impressionistic method are language elements, the types of exercises used in learning, and the author’s view of the learning process.
According to Ellis (1997) this evaluation method is predictive in nature. McGrath (2002) suggests that it is more effectively applied in the pre-use stage for developing an early overall impression on the potential impact of content. This quick forma-tion of an informed opinion is the strength of the impressionistic method. Its weakness lies in the fact that it may be perceived as superficial even when find-ings are the result of systematic information gathering. Finally, the impressionistic method may be integrated in the first stage of a cyclical evaluation process that repeats throughout the development and deployment life cycle of content or processes offering incremental feedback.
Please click here to go back to the Evaluation Methodologies for Language Learning page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
[edit] References
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook, Oxford: Heinemann
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42
Hutchinson, T. (1987), `What's underneath?: an interactive view of materials evaluation', in L Sheldon (ed. ) (1987), ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development, ELT Documents 126, Oxford: Modern English Publications/the British Council, 37-44
Johnson, R. (1986). “Selecting a coursebook: a realistic approach”, in S. Holden(ed.), (1986), Techniques of Teaching From Theory to Practice, Papers from the 1985 Bologna conference. Oxford. Modern English Publications/British Council 54-7
Lee. J. (1975) `Choosing and using a textbook', English Teaching Forum 13:3 /4 (Special Issue Pt 2): 364-4
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press
Stevick, E. (1972), “Evaluating and adapting language materials', in H. Allen, and R. Cambpell (eds) (1972), TeachingE nglish as a SecondL anguageA: Book of ReadingsN, ew York McGraw Hill, 101-20
