August 16, 2013
August 16, 2013
Despite having passed fifty, I must still be a teenager at heart because I am never completely satisfied with my lessons. Not a semester goes by without me altering a bit of methodology or classroom content, about the same frequency that my 17-year-old son changes his hairstyle (currently in Semi-Mohawk mode after a brief flirtation with Korean Boy Band).
So, although I'm not a big fan of using EFL blogs as a sounding board for classroom recipes, I can't help but think that three new tricks I've applied might help out someone somewhere. The caveat with these hints is, as always, that YMMV, but to be perfectly frank I got significant mileage out of them and therefore, SO CAN YOU.
1. Project Performance-- Involving the Other Students More
Most group projects require some kind of performance or end product presentation for evaluation (the so-called prestige stage). The problem is that if the teacher is evaluating them team-by-team or if each group does their bit in front of the entire class, it is not the best time and resource management. Why?
What I do:
For a long time, I've held performances over two different class times and have students enter the class only with their own team. The others wait outside until called in.
Why that's not so satisfying:
No one else sees the other groups. Thus they can't evaluate their own relative strengths or weaknesses or learn from other teams' strengths or weaknesses. And students are definitely interested in knowing what others are doing.
How I revised it #1:
I always bring in two groups at a time. One performs while the others watch. This puts a little more pressure on both teams but does not entail the same degree of pressure as an in-front-of-the-full-class performance. It also means that both teams have to pay attention as an audience. How so? I tell the watching team that I will be asking them three questions about the performing team at the end of their performance and moreover, that this is a part of their grade. This guarantees that they pay attention.
How I revised it #2:
After all performances are finished I use the next class not only as a time for evaluation and feedback but also an organized 'sharing' session where members of all teams rotate with others explaining what they did (in English) and showing examples of their work. This satiates the curiosity of the others, allows for extended English practice with real and meaningful communicative language (both input and output), and also provides students hints about their own strengths and weaknesses relative to others.
2. Making Good Use of Semester Ending 'Filler' Classes
What I do:
Actually, this is more like what I don't do. I never, ever give the test in the last class-- mainly because then I will have no opportunity to offer feedback, and the test will have had no pedagogical or diagnostic function. The students will not learn what they did well or poorly at and will therefore not address the weaknesses nor reinforce the strengths.
Why it's not entirely satisfying:
After the test is done and feedback given I often feel the need to expand on or otherwise address some areas that need work. If the semester finishes in that next week, I can't do that. Also, having a major test at the end adds to the belief that the test is the ultimate goal of the course, the summation of all that is good and true. As teachers, the ultimate goal should be the learning-- so I want learning to continue after the 'final' test.
How I've revised it:
I do the (ahem) 'final test' with about three weeks remaining in the semester. So what to do with the final few weeks (after feedback)? Well, there are good, helpful, interesting lessons in my repertoire that would benefit students but they are not exactly what I want to be thought of as a basis for testing. So these I do post test.
But, but how can you hold the students' interest in these classes?
Easy. My grading is 35% (test 1), 35% (test 2), 30% for class attendance, homework completion, effort, and participation. I tell the students that these final classes will go a long way towards deciding that 30% 'effort' part of the grade. As a result, those students who had mediocre test results in particular have a vested interest in attending and actively participating in those semester-ending classes. Last chance to make that good impression...
3. Open-book Exams Don't Really Work
What I did before:
I routinely held open-book, open-note tests on principle. The principle applied was that memory should not be the only, or primary, skill measured and that open-book testing rewarded good note-taking, organization, and a holistic understanding as to how the course holds together. These are important skills and their development should be encouraged.
Why it didn't work #1:
In a word, 'kakomon' ("old tests") fetishism. Students are/were transfixed by old tests. If it was an open-note test they could get my previous year's test from their seniors and consult it during the current test. Although I change about 90% of my test items, it meant that that many just copied answers mindlessly, sometimes even though I had subtly changed the wording or the crux of the task.
What I did to revise them:
I forbade the presence of kakomon because it meant either mindless copying, provided them with an excuse not to study and prepare, or because they actually did poorly when lead astray by similar-looking, but in fact very different, questions and tasks.
Why that didn't work:
So, kakomon are now forbidden, ok-- but what's to stop you from jotting the old test contents down as a 'note', making it look like this was some of your regular class notes? Now, as you can imagine, the subtle scope for cheating is there. This lead to several "this isn't a normal class note, you just copied a kakomon!" confrontation scenarios, including one student (clearly guilty) who threw a monstrous hissy fit over the accusation (meaning that I had to explain and justify the practice before an inquiry board). Well, who needs that hassle?
I banned any mochikomi (desk top aids) outright. The thing is.. this in no way affected their performance! When having to rely on memory, although a little hard to justify pedagogically, they prepared for the test more fully and the results were even better than on the open-book, open-note tests!
I believe that their attempts at memory often included efforts to understand the contents holistically (which was explicitly encouraged when I gave my pre-test criteria handout) so two disparate birds appear to have been killed by this one methodological stone.
I'm always looking for variations and extensions to my teaching approach (kind of like old bands from the 70's re-mixing and re-recording their classic stuff) so any comments or suggestions you have on the above are welcome.