在任務型教學中運用評價課堂表現(xiàn)方法的研究

Using Performance Assessment in Task-Based Language Teaching
                  
在任務型教學中運用評價課堂表現(xiàn)方法的研究

 

Abstract: According to the basic theory of the Task-Based Language Teaching，this essay mainly discusses the method of Using Performance Assessment in Task-Based Language Teaching in English teaching classroom. Performance assessment tools include observation, portfolios, conferences, dialogue journals, multimedia projects, cartoons, long-term projects, the tools measure a student performance and learning. They can make the students be interesting in learning English. I write it down so that we can study it together.
Key Words: performance, assessment, Task-Based, Language, Teaching

摘要： 根據(jù)任務型教學的基本理論，本文主要探討在任務型教學的英語課堂中評價學生的方法, 成績評價這一工具包括觀察，紙張，討論，日常 對話，多媒體設計，卡通， 長期計劃等，這些工具是衡量學生的成績和學習。他們可以激起學生的學習英語的興趣。寫下本文以供大家參考。
關鍵詞：表現(xiàn)，評價，任務型，教學

Ⅰ. Introduction
   Are you familiar with the following”
1. Is it true or false?
2. Is it answer a. b, c. d (or all of the above )?
3. Can you match the definition of the vocabulary word to the word listed beside?
Most teachers’ answers are positive for they are the questions we often see in our examination papers. We’d categorize these questions into the Traditional Assessment type, which is to assess a child’s direct recall of the information. In our English language teaching (ELT) assessment reform, we advocate Performance Assessment, which is to 1) meet the needs of children who learn in a variety of modalities; 2) assess a child’s ability to solve problems, process information, and work in real-world settings.
Ⅱ  Working Definition for Performance Assessment
What distinguishes performance assessment from other types of assessments? According to Cooper (1997), performance assessments are tasks which require children to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in response to authentic activities. So in performance assessment, it appears to be that students must perform tasks, and the tasks should be as authentic as possible. Success or failure in the outcome of the tasks, because they are performances, must usually be rated by qualified teachers. The teachers observe the behavior of the students or examine the product that is reflective of that behavior, and apply clearly articulated performance criteria in order to make a judgment regarding the level of proficiency demonstrated by the students (Pierce & O’Malley, 1992). What we use in performance assessments in English classrooms are posters, reports, tasks and projects, or the creation of plays (Cooper, 1997). By making English posters students demonstrate their creativity and imagination in language learning; English reports show students’ reading and writing skills; tasks and projects show students’ abilities to integrate content knowledge across subject areas (interdisciplinary skills and inquiry learning skills); and in the creation of plays students perform what they have learned. In performance assessments students plan, make decisions, apply (their content knowledge), communicate, and co-operate.
The key characteristics for consideration in designing second language performance assessments are (a) collaboration: Do students share in the learning process? (b) context: Are the objectives taught in meaningful tasks? (c) real-word tasks: Are they relevant to our students’ lives now and later? (d) authentic standards: Do they measure what we are really trying to measure?

Ⅲ. Performance assessment and Task-Based Approaches
Second language performance assessment and task-based approaches to language teaching and assessment share a great deal of theoretical and practical common ground. Performance assessments will typically be based on tasks, which will be judged by raters on the basis of some forms of rating scale. Student performance exists across tasks and content areas and observations must be made carefully and frequently by the teacher.
Tasking students perform should be based on needs analysis (including student input) in terms of rating criteria, content and contexts. They should be as authentic as possible with the goal of measuring real-world activities. Sometimes they have collaborative elements that stimulate communicative interactions. They should be contextual and complex. They involve integrated skills with content and are appropriate in terms of number, timing, and frequency of assessment. They are generally non-in-trusive aligned with the daily actions in the language classroom (Norris et al., 1998). Task raters should be appropriate in terms of number raters, overall expertise, and familiarity and training in use of the scale. The rating scale should be based on appropriate categories of language learning and development, breadth of information regarding learner performance abilities, and standards that are both authentic and clear to students. Tasks are to enhance the reliability; performance assessments should be combined with other methods for gathering information (for instance, self-assessments portfolios, conferences, classroom behaviors, and so forth).

Ⅳ. Definitions of Tasks
There are various definitions of tasks. Here we list a few:
1.Long (1985:89); A task is “a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form … , and helping someone across a road. In other words, by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between.”
2.  Richards, Platt and Weber (1986:289): A task is “ an activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response)” .
3. Nunan (1989:10): A communicative task is “ a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right.”
4.Skehan (1995): A task is “an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome.”
5.Foreign Language Teaching in Hong Kong’s School: The task-based approach aims at providing opportunities for the learners to experiment with and explore both spoken and written language through learning activities which are designed to engage learners in the authentic, practical and functional use of language for meaningful purposes.

Ⅴ.  Applying Performance Assessment in Task-based language teaching
In a performance Assessment and task-based language teaching, the teacher must create an environment which is conducive to collaborative learning. In this free environment, students perform their best, assess their own growth, feel that their opinions, ideas, and responses carry weight. This allows the teacher to see a more authentic performance and provides the teacher with a more realistic picture of the students’ capabilities (Glazer & Brown, 1993). It is the teacher’s responsibility to provide an appropriate setting in which performance or task can be demonstrated and scored. Depending on the nature of the performance or the work the students are undertaking, the teacher should observe the students; behavior as it naturally occurs in the classroom or in a particular setting created for a specific performance (Airasian, 1994). Students’ performances and other forms of work are often scored holistically or analytically or analytically. The performance and task accomplishment criteria are determined by both the teacher and students.
      To implement performance assessment in task-based language teaching and learning, here’s a six-step plan for developing task-based assessment:
      Step 1. Establish what are the teacher’s specific instructional goals. It is important that the chosen assessment task matches the instructional outcome it is designed to measure.
      Step 2. Identify the specific, discipline-based content and skills that students are expected to attain and determine whether the task adequately represents or uses them.
      Step 3. Ensure that the task is complete to allow students to demonstrate their progress and abilities.
Step 4. Ensure that the task is fair to compensate for a lack of prior knowledge, unequal  access to resource or materials, and so forth.
Step 5. Decide which of the three possible forms the tasks will take: a) authentic, real-world tasks; b) interdisciplinary tasks; c) multi-dimensional tasks.
Step 6. Describe the assessment task so that others can understand and use it in other settings. Such a description should detail the intended outcomes, the content covered, the work and roles in the task, the materials involved, the rating system, and so on. Other areas of consideration in selection include determining whether the task is teachable, credible, and meaningful.
      In task-based language teaching/learning the basic and initial point of organization is the TASK: class work is organized as a sequenc4e of tasks, and it is tasks

[1] [2] [3] 下一頁

that generate the language to be used, not vice versa. So, in task-based language teaching/learning what teachers ask students is that they carry out a series of tasks, for which they will need to learn and recycle some specific items of language. The main focus id on the tasks to be done and language is seen as the instrument necessary to carry then out. Task-based language teaching/learning thus highlights the instrumental value of language.
Individual tasks for the purpose of task-based assessment may better be designed with appropriate themes (theme-learning). If necessary, each task description includes a prompt and descriptions of ways to vary the task difficulty by making (linguistic) code , cognitive complexity, and communicative demand high or low (Norris et al, 1998). This general scheme of factors that can affect the difficulty of a given task. It can also be used to increase or decrease task difficulty. Now let’s explicate the three main features that might affect task difficulty.
1. Code complexity, which is “ concerned with traditional areas of syntactic and  range ” (Norris, et al. 1998: p.52).
2. Cognitive complexity, which is affected by both cognitive processing (the learner has to actively think through task content ) and cognitive familiarity. Cognitive familiarity involves the extent to which the task draws on ready-made or prepackaged solutions (Norris, et al. 1998: p.52).
3.  Communicative stress, which includes time pressure, modality (reading, writing, speaking, or listening), scale (number of participants or relationships involved), stakes (either low or high, depending on how important it is to do the task and to do it correctly), and control (how much learners can “control” or influence the task) (Norris et al. 1998:pp.52-53).
These task difficulty features comprise the ability requirements and task characteristic inherent in a given L2 task (Norris et al. 1998: p.50).

Ⅵ. Some Rewards of Performance Assessment
Through performance assessment in task-based language teaching and learning, students are  more likely to feel ownership over their language learning, resulting in greater self-confidence and intrinsic motivation to learn English. They also feel a sense of achievement and get individual attention from others. Teachers are less likely to grade as many papers or exercises and tend to monitor students’ daily progress as often.

Ⅶ. Factors That Affect Task-Based Assessment Practicality
In implementing task-based assessment, we should take the following factors into consideration: 1) time and effort; 2) teacher development; 3) public acceptance; 4) cost; 5) all parties’ (students, teachers, parents, communities, authorities, etc.) willingness to cooperate, It is time and effort consuming, especially at a beginning stage. Teachers are not used to giving students responsibilities or tasks to take and have to put special effort to design tasks and activities related to what the students are learning and to show their abilities. To design workable and meaningful tasks students can perform, teachers need to develop themselves and equip themselves with skills required in task-based language teaching and performance assessment. It takes time for the public to accept this kind of teaching or assessment for the majority of people believ3e that students go to school to listen to and learn from the teachers ------ if the students are doing all the work, what do the teachers do? They don’t realize the teachers’ effort in designing the activities that will bring out their children’s potentials and in preparing their children for more efficient and effective learning. The existing examination system hinders performance assessment practice, for, in the end students are to be enrolled by universities according to their examination scores. It is not an easy task for all parties to understand that as students’ language competence and proficiency grow, they are able to take any examination. 

Ⅷ. Ethical Guidelines
During the classroom performance assessment, teachers should be aware of the basic rights of students: confidentiality, privacy, their rights to know and fair treatment. And it is the teachers’ responsibility to take learning and teaching into consideration. They are responsible also to report the assessment results of students’ achievement, progress, and to document further needs and future plans.
Here are the ethical guidelines teachers need to be aware of.(Adapted from Jerosky,1997:13)
1.Confidentiality: Teachers are responsible for the confidentiality of information collected by them in the assessment process.
2.Privacy: Generally assessment should not require the disclosure of sensitive information including personally-held beliefs and views on controversial issues. Teachers need to be sensitive to signals that students are not comfortable with something they have been asked to do or talk about.
3.Rights to know: Any student affected by the assessment has the rights to know the assessment results or to obtain information about the results. Teachers need to be responsive to questions from the student and parents.
4.Fair treatment: Throughout assessment activities involving members of a class, participants should be treated equally and receive equivalent learning opportunities. Also, if the assessment requires that students are selected from a large group, the selection process should be based in fair criteria.

Ⅸ.How to using performance assessment in task-based teaching
Performance assessment tools measure a student performance and/or learning within the context it was learned and will be performed and allow students to demonstrate or share their learning with others. The tools include observations, portfolios, conferences, dialogue journals, multimedia projects, cartoons, long-term projects, etc. The popularity and usefulness of performance assessment methods have led to the incorporation of the results the provide into students’ grades. But we also use these assessment tools for purposes of individualization of instructional planning.
1.The challenge of classroom observation is to plan observation and record keeping of observations in a manner that will benefit instruction and ultimately student learning.
2.Portfolios and conferences involve learners as active collaborators in documenting and monitoring their own progress and in identifying learning goals. They give students opportunities to use language with teachers in ways that rarely occur during regular class time and for student self-assessment.
3.Journals and interviews are used to collect information about teaching and learning processes; about students’ educational backgrounds and experiences; their attitudes, goals, likes and dislikes. They are also used to collect information about language proficiency: writing in the case of journals and speaking in the case of interviews.
Performance assessment promotes reflection on both a teacher’s teaching performance and a student’s learning performance as a means to develop and improve themselves constantly. Classroom performance assessment involves the school, community, parents and students themselves and challenges both students and teachers in making decisions themselves.
We need all kinds of information such as student achievement, student behavior, student attitudes towards schools or themselves, student goals and needs concerning the outcomes of foreign language learning, student wording habits, learning styles and strategies to assess our students and to improve the chances of educational success.
Performance assessment requires a change in curriculum priorities from coverage of content to mastery of skills. Content becomes a way for students to develop intellectually, to generalize, to recontextualize, to synthesize and to apply this learning to new situations. This change in curriculum will empower students to take responsibility for their own learning.
Most important, at the heart of an integrated teaching, learning, and assessment system is creativity. Performance assessment is an effective way to get a better “picture “ of what students have really learned and also what they value in their learning.
Now give a Sample Item: Guidelines and Examples
Theme: Dinner at a restaurant
This (common) theme could pose effective circumstances for eliciting performances on numerous relatively low-level tasks that require a certain amount of pragmatic, strategic, and quite a certain amount of pragmatic, strategic, and formal knowledge /ability of using the language in real communicative situation.
Task 1. Reserving a table
Task 2. Ordering drinks and appetizers
Task 3. Ordering the main course
Task 4. Sending back the dish that tastes bad
Task 5. Ordering coffee and dessert
Task 6. Paying the bill
Now there is a sample for Task 6  Paying the bill
1.Prompt
Read through the bill that the waiter gas left on your table. Compare the prices on the bill with the prices listed in the menu. If the bill is incorrect, recalculate the amount that you should gave been charge. Be sure to examine the bill to see if a service charge has been included. If not, then calculate an appropriate tip for the waiter.
2.Linguistic code low
Understanding parts of a bill, parts of a menu, and the tipping system in the us; writing a check; doing simple mathematics.
3.Linguistic code high
Depend on system of writing out or printing bill, structure of menu, tip information given, construction for check writing and calculating percentage.
4.Cognitive complexity low
 The bill is correct: composed of easily understood and listed components; easy decimals; service is included; menu prices are obvious.
5.Cognitive complexity high
The bill is incorrect: service is not included; menu prices are listed obscurely; bill difficult

上一頁  [1] [2] [3] 下一頁

to decipher.
6.Communicative demand low
       Undirectional: relatively unlimited planning time; only reading and writing, no interaction involved.
7.Communicative demand high
Need to question waiter for clarification of confusing or unclear entries in the bill, special prices, etc.; restaurant is closing and waiter is hovering around, waiting for the bill; higher stakes if the bill is wrong.
Conversation 1:
 [between a waiter (W) and a customer ( C ) ] (beginning level)
W:  Can I help you?
C:   Check, please. … Here’s the money.
Conversation 2: (intermediate level)
C: Waiter, may I gave check, please?
W: Oh yes. I’m sorry. I’ll be back in a minute. ( after a few minutes)
W: (hanging over the corrected check ) I’m sorry to have kept you waiting.
C: It’s OK . Thank You.
     
      Ⅹ.. Conclusion
       To assess accurately, to record, and to give feedback on what the students are accomplishing and where they are on the learning continuum, we need to gather as much information as possible before making decisions about the students. Besides, the information we gather should be accurate and reliable. In this way, we can make the students be interesting in English.
__________________
Bibliography:
1. Airasian, P.  W.  1994    Classroom Assessment.   New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Cooper. J. D.  !997. Literacy: Helping Children Construct Meaning. Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin.
3. Estaire, S, and J, Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Macmillan  Heinemann English Language Teaching.
4. Glazer, S. M. and C, S. Brown .1993. Portfolios and Beyond: Collaborative Assessment in reading and Writing. Norwood, MA: Macmillan Heinemann English Language teaching.
5. Harris, M.  and P.  Mc Cann. 1994. Assessment.  Macmillan,  Heinemann English Language Teaching.
6. Jerosky, S. (ed.) 1997. Field-Based Research: A Working guide, Queen’s Printer for British Columbia.
7. 羅少茜： 2001. A Handbook of Performance Assessments.
8. Norris, J. M., J. D. Brown, T. Hudson and J. Yoshioka. 1998. designing Second Language Performance Assessments. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
9. Pierce, L. V. and J. M. O’Malley. 1992. Performance and program Information Guide Series, 9 (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ERIC document Reproduction  Service No. ED346  747).
10. Sjoquist,  R. 2001.  An Introduction to Performance Assessment Presentation at Nanjing, China.
11. Skehan, P. 1998.  A  Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

上一頁  [1] [2] [3] 

【在任務型教學中運用評價課堂表現(xiàn)方法的研究】相關文章：

任務型英語教學在新課標中的運用論文08-15

任務型教學在英語學科素質(zhì)教育中的運用08-17

談任務型教學的課堂設計08-17

任務型課堂教學設計08-17

“任務型”教學模式在英語課堂中的應用08-03

英語任務型語法教學任務中階段的實踐08-08

淺談在信息教學中運用”任務驅(qū)動”教學08-03

任務型英語寫作教學評價概述08-19

真實運用任務教學法在小學英語教學中的運用08-17