1 / 27

Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors

Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors Elana Spector-Cohen Tel Aviv University Ruppin Academic Center TBLT 2009 Lancaster University September 15, 2009 espector@post.tau.ac.il espector@ruppin.ac.il. EAP: Historical Background, Israel.

asher
Télécharger la présentation

Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors Elana Spector-CohenTel Aviv UniversityRuppin Academic Center TBLT 2009 Lancaster UniversitySeptember 15, 2009 espector@post.tau.ac.ilespector@ruppin.ac.il

  2. EAP: Historical Background, Israel Course bibliographies in English; language of communication / tasks is Hebrew • Departmentally-dictated EAP course goals: reading comprehension only • Assessment: traditional reading comprehension tests • Washback effect  classroom teaching / materials • Course materials  isolated texts” plus “inauthentic questions” no thematic link to simulate authentic academic reading • High-stakes final exam  RC questions, often lower-order thinking skills, not part of thematic unit  construct assessed? Had the quest for ‘authenticity’ backfired?

  3. EAP: Background • At the same time, developments in field: • Content- and task-based teaching • Alternatives of assessment, including task-based / performance-based assessment • Academic literacies • World-Wide Web and global communications • Were we preparing our students for the demands of today’s global world?

  4. Stage 1: Fall 2006Research Questions • What are instructors’ beliefs regarding goals and assessment in EAP courses? • Do instructors report that they are adopting methods of teaching and assessment that are aligned with integrative content-based teaching and alternatives of assessment? • Do they report that their practices are aligned with their beliefs? If not, why?

  5. The Study EAP instructors in the Division of Foreign Languages at TAU and in the Center for English Studies at Ruppin Academic Center were asked to complete a questionnaire • Part 1: demographic survey • Part 2: original questionnaire on assessment beliefs and practices (50 questions on 5-point Likert scale) • Part 3: additional comments

  6. Part 1: The Demographic Survey

  7. 1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always Part 2: The Questionnaire: Reading Only?

  8. 1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always Part 2: The Questionnaire: Reading Only?

  9. Course Goals: Conclusions What are instructors’ beliefs regarding goals and assessment in EAP courses? • TAU: Beginning of a paradigm shift? • Disagreement (polarization) regarding goals of program / courses (reading only?) • Move toward assessment that integrates four skills OR still assessing reading only? • Ruppin: More receptive to integrative approach? “Please” the researcher? Exposed to more recent trends in language teaching?

  10. 1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes - Beliefs

  11. 1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes – Practices, con’t.

  12. 1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes – Practices, con’t.

  13. Part 3: Additional Comments • “Some of the questions seemed irrelevant to our courses which do not stress or measure writing and speaking.” • “Some answers are determined by departmental … policy. There is some discrepancy in my answers due to this factor.”

  14. Assessment: Conclusions Do instructors report that they are adopting methods of teaching and assessment that are aligned with integrative content-based teaching and alternatives of assessment? • Beginning of paradigm shift? • Many instructors felt that CBI/TBLT and PBA provide valuable insights into students' abilities to use English in an academic setting • Instructors report using both traditional and alternative modes of assessment • Yet, do self-reports mirror what is really taking place in the classroom? (e.g. confusion regarding rubrics or common language regarding assessment terminology)

  15. Model for EAP Courses Applied to Program at Ruppin Academic Center: 2006-2008 • Simulation of authentic activity • Extended content • Integration of the four skills • Multiple media / resources • Activation / acquisition of background knowledge • Branching / specialization • Integration /application • Sharing information • Multiple modes of assessment UNIT CBI PBI Collaborative Learning (Kol, Schcolnik & Spector-Cohen, 2006)

  16. Stage 2: Formative Evaluation of EAP Program: Spring 2008 Ruppin Academic Center: EAP staff members who had taught in the 2007-2008 academic program post program change n = 12 (academic program only) response rate = 78% “Don’t get too excited. Your idea never really gets off the ground.”

  17. Results of Formative Evaluation Questionnaire:Spring 2008 • What changes, innovations, activities, etc. that were introduced in the English department in the past year were mostbeneficial to you and/or your students and/or the department as a whole? • Please explain why. • You may list as many items as you feel are appropriate. • Please also rank them if you can, according to relative importance (from 1 = most beneficial).

  18. Results of Formative Questionnaire First place = 10 points Second place = 8 points Third place = 6 points Fourth place = 4 points Fifth place = 2 points Sixth place = 0 points

  19. Results of Formative Questionnaire

  20. Results of Formative Questionnaire • What changes, innovations, activities, etc. that were introduced in the English department in the past year were leastbeneficial to you and/or your students and/or the department as a whole? • Please explain why. • You may list as many items as you feel are appropriate. Please also rank them if you can, according to relative importance (from 1 = least beneficial).

  21. Results of Formative Questionnaire

  22. Results of Formative Questionnaire • Do you have any recommendations for future directions for the department for next year?

  23. Results of Formative Questionnaire: Recommendations (Excerpts) • Not to lower the standards • Cooperation with content teachers • Integrate authentic evaluation • Continue ongoing professional development • Develop more writing tasks and rubrics

  24. Stage 3: 2008-2009 Intensive staff development on Moodle and blended learning • EAP staff pilots Moodle… • Based on success of pilot, decision made to offer Moodle to all instructors

  25. Thanks for listening!

  26. Reference Kol, S., Schcolnik, M. & Spector-Cohen, E. (February 2006). Making connections: Content- and task-based EAP. Unpublished paper presented at UTELI (University Teachers of English Language in Israel) Conference, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.

More Related