Volume 8 (2017) Issue 2
Transforming
Can-do
Frameworks
in the L2 Classroom
for Communication and Feedback1
for Communication and Feedback1
Norman
Fewell & George MacLean (both Okinawa, Japan)
Abstract
Can-do
statements have become increasingly popular for language teachers in
recent years, providing a descriptive list of communicative tasks
that may pinpoint areas needing attention. Students may also benefit
with such can-do
lists,
as they are often asked to check off statements of what they believe
they can or can’t do. This allows them to reflect on their
individual needs in language
learning. The idea seems simple enough. Nevertheless, claiming an
ability to achieve a task is one thing and actually being able to
accomplish the task is another. In an attempt to create a more
practical way
of utilizing can
do
statements for an EFL communication class, we have essentially
flipped the framework and reframed the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements
into a “show me you can do” list of commands. The list of can-do
statements was modified into communicative group activities. A
description of the effectiveness of these activities along with
aspects of self and peer feedback will be discussed.
Key
words: Can-do benchmark statements, communication activities,
feedback
1
Introduction
The
NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do
Statements (2013) were created through a collaborative effort between
two educational organizations, the National Council of State
Supervisors (NCSSLF) and the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL). The purpose of this and other can-do
lists are to establish a framework of reference for successive levels
of language acquisition. In addition, can-do
statements may provide a reference point for curriculum designers and
course planners. The can-do
descriptors attempt to cover the basis of all language skill sets,
including: interpersonal communication, presentational speaking,
presentational writing, interpretive listening, and interpretive
reading. A total of eleven proficiency levels have been classified in
the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements with a range from novice-low
to the distinguished
level. In essence, statements indicating what one can or cannot do in
a communicative task provide an indication of an individual’s level
within the framework. The statements have brought needed structure
and standardization to an area of language teaching that has always
lacked clarity. It is now possible, for instance, to classify a
student as having upper-novice interpretive reading skills based on
their ability to perform certain predefined tasks. Likewise,
estimations of the level of educational materials are more accurately
established with the addition of standardized ratings. Teachers can
now more easily find materials that closely correspond to the
proficiency levels of their students. A detailed list of can-do
descriptors may also allow students and teachers to more easily see
if there are any communicative areas that may need additional
attention from them. Furthermore, students may attempt to evaluate
their own range of communicative abilities from the can-do
descriptor list. Self-assessment of this nature is commonplace in
language classes and typically undertaken as a means of determining
the needs and proficiency levels of students. Nevertheless, the
reliability of second language (L2) self-assessment has been
questioned by some scholars (e.g., Janulevičienė & Kavaliauskienė 2010 and Todd 2002). In response, one may take into
consideration the idea of teacher-rated assessments for students.
However, the enormity of items on the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements
would make it impractical for most classroom situations. In practice,
teachers would likely be unable to check students on an individual
basis. We faced such a dilemma. There was a need to assess students’
proficiency levels, and the most practical option required
utilization of student self and peer assessment to some degree. It
should be mentioned that several notable studies examining the
reliability and validity of student self-assessment in the L2
classroom have found positive results when guidance was provided to
students (Brown 2005, Coombe 2002).
In addition, other studies have found that peer assessment has
yielded equally positive outcomes that were either equal to or
exceeding teacher assessment in accuracy (e.g., Topping 1998).
Accordingly, all participants were provided with assessment training
prior to initiation
in the can-do
communicative
project.
2
Literature Review
Conversation-based
university EFL classes are popular among students and large class
enrollment numbers often reflects this fact. As such, it is often the
case that the option of teacher-rated assessments is
impractical due to the sheer number of students. EFL
conversation-based classes affiliated with this study were in such a
predicament. The can-do
descriptors
of the NCSSFL-ACTFL were modified into conversational tasks rather
than relying on the original construct of can-do
tasks with a preset of check-off boxes. For
instance, among the can-do
descriptors listed in Figure 1 of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements
(2013), one item states, “I can tell someone how to access
information online” (p. 8).
The typical procedure in using the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements
would require a student to first guess if he or she could achieve the
communicative task. If the task was considered achievable, the
student would simply check off the box. An alternative to this
routine was created in the form of a communication activity. Based on
the example above from Figure 1, the can-do
descriptor was modified into the following communicative task,
“Explain to someone who has never used a computer about how to find
information online.” Once a student would attempt to actually
complete the communicative task, it would leave less doubt as to
whether the task would be rated as being achievable or not:
Figure
1: Sample of Specific Language Tasks from the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do
Statements
(American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages 2013: 8)
(American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages 2013: 8)
The NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements provide a formidable list of various communicative tasks. It is unclear if students have ever attempted to converse in all of the situations listed in the can-do descriptors. In any given statement, it may be quite challenging to determine if one can or cannot successfully achieve a communicative task - especially if it has never been attempted before. As a result, the authors felt that there was a need to reduce this ambiguity and modify the descriptors in such a way that students could attempt to communicate in each of the tasks before trying to assess their own abilities. In addition to these concerns, the sheer extent of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements provides teachers with a generous amount of content and material for communication instruction. In short, these aspects have led to the creation of the modified can-do communicative tasks. We have adapted the descriptors at each level of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements into tasks that were to be completed by individual students during group communication activities. Students would continue to engage in the communicative tasks at each successive level of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements for the next two months.
A
step-by-step description of the procedure for conducting the can-do
communicative task activity consists of the following:
Step
1:
Formation of groups of three
Step
2: Distribution of evaluation sheets (Figure 2)
Step
3: Announcement of preparation and task time by the instructor.
Step
4: Listing of member names on the evaluation sheets by students
Step
5: (Oral) presentation of a written description of the communicative
task by the instructor
Step
6: Announcement of start / stop time of each task by the
instructor
Step
7: (After task completion) Rating of the speaker’s performance on
the evaluation sheet by students
Step 8: Repetition
of steps 5-7 in sequential order until all members in the group have
completed the task.
The
conventional procedure of having students directly assess items from
the can-do
checklist without first attempting them was omitted for the following
reasons:
- The checklist could be easily modified into communication activities to directly determine if tasks were attainable or not.
- Aspects of self and peer feedback could be monitored in a quasi-experimental classroom setting.
The
resulting checklist had four task components, two of which were
scored in increments ranging from 100, 90, 80, 70, to 60; and another
two at 100, 80, 60, 40, to 20, as can be seen in Figure 2:
Can-Do
Peer/Self-Assessment
|
|
Task
Components
|
Scoring
|
Amount
of English Spoken
|
100%
90% 80% 70% 60%
|
Quality
of Speaking
|
100%
90% 80% 70% 60%
|
Amount
of Speaking
|
100%
80% 60% 40% 20%
|
Completion
of Task
|
100%
80% 60% 40% 20%
|
Figure 2: Sample of the Evaluation Categories and Scoring for the Can-Do Communicative Tasks
Since
students were enrolled in conversation-based language classes, the
NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements used for this study were limited to
those in the category of interpersonal communication (Figure 2). The
communication activities were carefully constructed to exhibit
simplicity and maintain structure. Students would partake in these
group activities in each successive class for a period of two-months:
Novice
Low
|
Novice
Mid
|
Novice
High
|
Intermediate
Low
|
Intermediate
Mid
|
I
can communicate on some very familiar topics, using single words
and phrases that I have practiced and memorized.
|
I
can communicate on very familiar topics, using a variety of words
and phrases that I have practiced and memorized.
|
I
can communicate and exchange information about familiar topics,
using phrases and simple sentences, sometimes supported by
memorized language. I can usually handle short social interactions
in everyday situations by asking and answering simple questions.
|
I
can participate in conversations on a number of familiar topics,
using simple sentences. I can handle short social interactions in
everyday situations by asking and answering simple questions.
|
I
can participate in conversations on familiar topics, using
sentences and series of sentences. I can handle short social
interactions in everyday situations by asking and answering a
variety of questions. I can usually say what I want to say about
myself and my everyday life.
|
Figure
3: Sample of NCSSFL-ACTFL Interpersonal Communication Can-Do
Benchmarks (American
Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages 2013: 4)
The
activities required students to
work together in
groups of three with a turn-based rotation and designate a main
speaker to complete a communicative task. After the task was
completed, students would rate their own performance on the task
alongside peer-ratings from the other two students in the group. This
dual-assessment system provided an additional layer of score
validation. Peer ratings have been found to be reliable and
consistent when compared to teacher ratings (Saito & Fujita
2004). The inclusion of peer ratings in the feedback rubric provided
additional insight into a subject matter rarely studied in EFL (Saito
2000).
Despite
variability in communicative proficiency among the students who
participated in the activity, they were instructed to begin at the
novice-low level of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements. At each
level, several different communicative tasks were undertaken by each
of the students. Since there were multiple tasks at each level,
students did not have to contend with identical tasks. Although
presenting a more challenging activity, this measure provided
students with
a closer degree of equality for
mutually assessing each other’s performance. A preset time for
preparation was given to all students along with a set time
designated for completing each communicative task. The preparation
time was gradually shortened along each successive level, and the
time to complete each communicative task was extended as well.
Adjustments were made to condition students to gradually develop the
skills necessary for spontaneous speech. In every class, each student
would typically complete three tasks, and the total time allotted per
task for this activity consisted of fifteen minutes on average for
the group as a whole. Immediately following each task,
peer / self-evaluation forms were completed by students in
each group. Ratings were given by each student to measure aspects of
speaking performance.
3
Method
3.1
Research Questions
In
this study, the following research questions were examined:
- Did the activity promote communication in the target language (TL)?
- How was the activity perceived by participants?
- What impact did the feedback format have in terms of the activity and student perspectives?
3.2
Data Collection and Participants
The
present study investigated in-group communication activities that
were modified from a list of communicative tasks in the NCSSFL-ACTFL
Can-Do Statements. Communication activities were performed by EFL
learners at successive levels of difficulty. The total number of
participants in the study consisted of 98 students from two public
Japanese universities: Meio University and the University of the
Ryukyus. Instructors at both institutions followed identical
procedures in directing students in groups to perform each
communicative task followed by an evaluation of peer and
self-performance on the tasks. Students assessed the following:
- amount of English;
- amount of speaking;
- quality of speaking, and
- completion of task.
Peer
and self-assessment
scores
were
input immediately
after each activity using Google Forms and were based on a percentage
scale. Scoring
for two task components, Amount
of English Spoken
and Quality
of Speaking
was rated according to increments ranging from 100, 90, 80, 70, to
60; whereas the more easily quantifiable tasks of Amount
of Speaking
and Completion
of Task
were rated according to increments ranging from 100, 80, 60, 40, to
20 (Figure 2).
4
Findings
4.1
Self and Peer Ratings
Items
being assessed on the rating scale consisted of the following: the
amount
of English
used as opposed to Japanese, the quantity
of speaking
versus silence, the quality
of speaking,
and the degree of task
completion.
Students
were asked to rate their own performance on tasks for each category
and to rate the performance of others in the group as well. This
provided a means to not merely measure potential differences between
self and peer ratings, but to also promote critical self-awareness in
areas of speech delivery. For instance, the scale of 'English use and
Japanese use' was explicitly included to encourage students to
maintain an English-speaking environment during the course of group
communicative activities. Reluctance
to communicate in the L2, even in instances involving simple
communication, are a noted obstacle in conversational tasks in
Japanese university EFL classes (Eguchi Eguchi 2006). The
inclusion of the English
use and Japanese use
item was an attempt to encourage students to strive towards using the
L2 rather than the L1.
After
providing students with a thorough explanation of the procedures and
goals of the can-do
activity, it was encouraging to find that they were quick to adjust.
Compliance in attempting to maintain an ‘English-speaking’
atmosphere was immediate (Table 1). Likewise, at the beginning stages
each of the task components measured in the self / peer
assessment forms were completed with a high degree of success. This
may be due to the level of simplicity at the novice-low level. The
inclusion of the most basic levels of the can-do
list was based on the premise of raising levels of self-confidence
for students to communicate in the target language and to ensure they
gained a formidable grasp of the routine of the activity:
Table
1: Amount of English Used at Each Level: Peer & Self-Assessment
After
providing students with a thorough explanation of the procedures and
goals of the can-do
activity, it was encouraging to find that they were quick to adjust.
Compliance in attempting to maintain an ‘English-speaking’
atmosphere was immediate (Table 1). Likewise, at the beginning stages
each of the task components measured in the self / peer
assessment forms were completed with a high degree of success. This
may be due to the level of simplicity at the novice-low level. The
inclusion of the most basic levels of the can-do
list was based on the premise of raising levels of self-confidence
for students to communicate in the target language and to ensure they
gained a formidable grasp of the routine of the activity.
Peer
and self-evaluation scores for the amount of English used at the
novice-low level were 9.43 and 9.19, respectively. These scores went
down
a bit (9.05
and 8.90 at the intermediate-low level) as students progressed to
more sophisticated tasks. Scores,
however, increased
by the culminating intermediate-high level to scores that were
slightly higher than the initial ones. The
difference between peer and self-evaluation scores was minimal, and
the
standard deviation
was
normal.
It
is interesting to note that as students progressed to more advanced
levels of the can-do
framework and faced increasingly difficult tasks, the
amount of speaking mirrored the scoring pattern noted above for the
amount of English used:
Table
2:
Amount of Speaking at Each Level: Peer & Self-Assessment
Peer
and self-evaluation scores for the amount of speaking at the
novice-low
level
were 8.22 and 8.38, respectively. Scores went down
a
bit
until
a point shortly after the intermediate-low
level
(9.05 and 8.90), likely due to the increasing complexity of the
tasks.
However,
scores
began
to rise thereafter and were again slightly higher than the initial
scores by the end of the intermediate-high
level
tasks. The
difference between peer and self-evaluation
scores remained minimal throughout. Standard deviation was slightly
elevated, but still within a normal range.
Students
reported a fairly high level of task completion, although this was
the task component in
which
they
rated themselves most severely. Once again, their ratings dropped
initially, before recovering at the uppermost level and ultimately
surpassing scores from the initial level:
Table
3:
Student
Peer and Self-Assessment Intermediate High Level
Peer
and self-evaluation scores for the
completion
of task at the novice-low
level
were 8.19 and 7.90, respectively.
At
the intermediate-low level, scores reduced to 7.81 and 7.71, and
subsequently rebounded to 8.35 and 8.76 by the end of the
intermediate-high
level.
The
difference between peer and self-evaluation scores
remained minimal
throughout.
Standard deviation was again slightly elevated, but still within a
normal range.
Peer
and self-assessment ratings for the quality of speaking were
relatively high, and they gradually increased after each rendition of
the tasks at each level:
Table 4: Quality of Speaking at Each Level: Peer & Self-Assessment
At
the novice-low level, peer and self-evaluation ratings were 8.22 and
8.05, respectively. Scores increased (8.56 and 8.43) by the
intermediate-low level, and continued to steadily rise through the
intermediate-high level tasks, where the final scores were 8.97 and
9.05, respectively. The
difference between peer and self-evaluation scores was very small
throughout the tasks, and the standard deviation was within a normal
range.
4.2
Points of Assessment
Another
item highlighting self-awareness, quantity
of speaking versus silence,
likewise added emphasis into a key area of concern for language
teachers. There remains
an eerie
familiarity for many EFL teachers in witnessing students sitting in
silence during communication activities. It is often the case that
these students have completed the stated goal of the activity, but
often with minimal language use. Carless
(2004) and Lee (2005) observed that students’ output achieved only
minimal language use in their investigations of task-based
instruction (as cited in Littlewood 2007:
245).
In the observed communication activities, students in both studies
produced only the minimal level of language needed to complete each
task. Therefore, the purpose
of
including an evaluative measure for speaking
versus silence
was to encourage students to fill in the designated time of the
activity with language. Extending responses beyond short utterances
became an ongoing communicative goal for students in completing each
task.
In
regard to
the
item degree
of completing the task,
it was included to provide numerical values for task completion.
Surprisingly, the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements and other frameworks
are systematically arranged with an all-or-nothing approach that
typically consists of a check-off list with only yes
or no
responses. The inclusion of numerical values in the communication
activities provide learners with a more precise measurement scale to
assess the degree of success in completing any given task.
As
for quality
of delivery,
it is quite possibly the most controversial item on the scale.
Although the accuracy of assessing the ‘quality’ of speech for a
L2 learner may be a daunting task, the inclusion of this item may
serve best as a motivational tool of support; that is, assuming
feedback is generally positive. Students in our
classes were often enthusiastic and less critical of one another.
This particular item was not necessarily used as a means of acquiring
raw data on the actual speaking performance of students; rather, it
was a positive reinforcing mechanism to show support to one another.
4.3
Progress and Developments
Throughout
the two-month duration that the communication activities were
integrated in class, both
self and peer evaluations were recorded and monitored. As previously
mentioned, communication activities and assessment occurred within
groups of three students.
Although details of individual assessment categories have been
discussed earlier, an overview of general findings will be presented
here.
Three
of the areas being assessed had similar patterns in responses
throughout the duration of the activities. The overall results
displayed a U-shaped pattern among three of the areas investigated:
the amount of speaking, the amount of English, and the completion of
tasks. In the first few weeks, students engaged in novice-level
communication activities. Since the can-do
communication activity included the full realm of descriptor levels,
the initial weeks consisted of activities that were at the beginner
level and easily attainable for students. As a result, ratings tended
to be high. After several weeks, scores began to drop in three
categories. Here, the U-shape pattern began to take shape. The
content of the communicative tasks entered
a higher degree of difficulty. The intermediate-mid marks the point
when the dip in results was
at its lowest. In essence, a significant portion of students seemed
to
have difficulty in completing the tasks. A drop was expected as the
degree of difficulty gradually increased in each ensuing week.
However, it was unexpected to find that the scores began to gradually
increase in the last few weeks as the study neared completion. It is
unclear as to the reason for this increase in assessment. Students
may have begun to
adapt to the routine of the activity, to anticipate the expected
difficulties and to handle the areas of assessments more effectively.
The general U-shaped patterns found in this study have been observed
in several other studies in second language acquisition (Shirai
1990). The range, content, variables, and focus of these studies are
too widespread to consider. Still,
in the realm of second language acquisition, it is customary for
researchers to investigate aspects of learning, such as facing
difficulties and overcoming them. In this sense, the students engaged
in the
can-do
communicative tasks likewise faced
difficulties
initially
and
seemed to overcome them.
As
for the initial high scores, the educational routine of providing
students with an obtainable entry communicative element is
commonplace and could offer an explanation for this occurrence.
Nevertheless, this is a more or less speculative observation that
would demand further investigation.
Among
the four assessment areas evaluated, the quality of speech was unique
in maintaining a relatively high rating throughout each level of the
can-do
communication
activities. Although the factors that have contributed to this
outcome have not been precisely identified, there are several
possibilities to consider. The quality
of speech
is a subjective area that cannot be easily evaluated. It may be
important to consider the cultural element of collectivism,
as a potential influential variable, whereby students may consider
socialization
as being more important than the accuracy of a score evaluating a
student’s quality of speech. Nevertheless, the slight differences
between peer and self-evaluations for this task component indicate
that a considerable degree of consensus existed between students as
to what constitutes the notion quality
of speech,
and further inquiries should consider potential factors influencing
these results:
Table
5: Comparison of Student Peer and Self-Assessment Scores at Each
Level by Task
5
Discussion
Class
observations of students engaged in the activities revealed a degree
of excitement in the group dynamics. As students were periodically
reminded that tasks would gradually become more challenging at each
successive level, they became aware that they were progressing in a
straight and systematic direction. This seemed to be a motivating
factor for students who are typically exposed to activities with
ambiguous goals or purpose. It also seemed that students were
interested in finding out specifically what they were able to
communicate in English and what level they were able to successfully
achieve. Students appeared strongly motivated to attempt each and
every task.
Since
students were able to gain an immediate understanding of the basic
directives and soon became well-adjusted to the routine of the
activity, minimal instructions before each activity saved valuable
class time. At the beginning of each activity, students were given
preparation time to briefly contemplate the task beforehand.
For
instance, at the novice-high level students were given a preparation
time of 30 seconds to contemplate the task before speaking. This
preparation component was
a critical and effective addition to the speaking tasks.
It was also important to condition them to achieve the desired goal
of spontaneous conversation with little or no preparation time.
Therefore, the preparation time was gradually shortened at each
successive level. At the beginning of each activity, the teacher
would read the task aloud from directions that were displayed on a
large screen. As each student would finish a task, followed by
peer / self-assessment ratings, another student would
immediately prepare for the next task. In order to avoid monotonous
redundancy with identical content, each student was given a different
communicative task from other members in their group. Tasks were
slightly altered to provide variation while maintaining the
difficulty level of the targeted communication objective. For
instance, at the novice-high level, students were asked to give
simple directions. As such, adjustments in the locations (e.g.,
cafeteria, gym) were sufficient enough to provide some variety while
maintaining the objectives of the can-do
level.
The
communication activities were effective in several respects. For
instance, the establishment of a set routine reduced confusion among
students and eliminated the need for time-consuming explanations that
can often entail a significant portion of class time (e.g., Sinclair
& Brazil 1982). Since these activities were integrated into
classes for a two-month period, students became quite familiar with
the procedure in the ensuing weeks. They
seemed to anticipate each step of the process. For example, they
would
immediately place their scores on the assessment sheet once time
expired in the communication activity. Soon afterwards, the next
student in the group to attempt the communication task would
attentively wait and prepare for the upcoming activity. In essence,
the activity became systematic and predictable for students from one
step to the next.
As
one student mentioned,
This activity is good for me since I am able to make a short conversation, and I can easily understand the task at hand.
A
well-structured activity should be logically sequenced in a way that
students can clearly understand (Richards 1987). As such, these
routine activities minimized potential confusion in the classroom and
provided students with more opportunities to communicate in the L2.
Practicing
the target language with a direct and clear path towards gradual
intensity was a motivating factor for many students. As advocated in
numerous studies (e.g., Long & Porter 1985, Sato 2003, and
Storch 2002) communication activities in small groups are
advantageous for L2 learners. Accordingly, the construct of a small
three-member group was helpful in enhancing motivation levels. The
group activities were beneficial for most students as one of them
described it as
…allowing me to get to know more about my classmates
Another
student felt the activities were helpful because he
…became motivated by others in the group
In
addition, the evaluation forms were helpful in not only providing
students with instantaneous feedback following each task, but the
evaluation items also highlighted critical concerns faced by language
teachers in group communicative activities. These included the
following:
- raising self-awareness and subsequently self-control in the use of the L1 while participating in target-language activities,
- emphasizing extended speaking rather than silence during the designated time for each task, and
- providing a supportive assessment scale to enhance motivational levels of group members in measuring the quality of tasks.
The
consciousness-raising effect
of the feedback forms was able to effectively control L1 use during
the activities as one student mentioned:
…while doing the activity, I try to use English only, even when some members had a hard time understanding me, but once the activity is finished, I used Japanese to explain to them what I wanted to say.
The
activities were praised by one student for providing
…good opportunities to speak English.
While
another student stated that the
…group talk is a good time for me to express my opinions and to practice speaking English.
The
can-do
communication activities helped promote a positive and dynamic
atmosphere for students to practice their English language skills.
6
Conclusion
The
modification of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements into a routine and
systematic group communication activity may offer teachers a more
practical way of utilizing framework descriptors for language class.
Contemplating one’s language proficiency from a collection of
descriptors may offer
some benefit to L2 learners, but transforming the framework from a
checklist into an interactive communication activity may
arguably be a more effective means for enhancing the learning
experience. In interviews and questionnaires that were conducted at
the conclusion of this two-month project, students indicated
overwhelmingly positive responses. Additionally, the inclusion of a
feedback scheme incorporating a number of aspects that promoted
motivational support and reinforced awareness of potential obstacles
during communication (e.g., silence and L1 use) may help fulfill the
needs of teachers searching for feasible alternatives to integrate
the can-do
framework component into language classes. The reduction of L1 use
and silence during the activities was achievable with the utilization
of a feedback construct that promoted self-awareness of these
communicative objectives.
The
communication activities were effective in the sense that despite an
extended two-month period with tasks increasing in difficulty for
speakers with a shared L1, students were able to complete the tasks
with a minimal amount of L1 use and fill the void of task time with
continual speaking. In regard to the completion
of tasks,
the scores were fairly high overall. However, as in the pattern of
scoring among most of the other areas investigated, there was a drop
in self and peer ratings initially followed by a late recovery of
higher ratings at the last stages of the communication activity
(Table 3 above).
Although
these levels varied among participants, this was a reoccurring
pattern. Among the feedback items, it is important to note that the
ratings on the quality of delivery had an underlying purpose.
Accuracy in calculating speaker performance was not a primary
concern; rather, this item served as a supportive tool. Students were
instructed to be less critical and more constructive in the rating of
this item. The purpose of its inclusions was to provide a means of
peer encouragement and support. Nevertheless, it is interesting to
note that self and peer feedback assessments were similarly rated
across all can-do
levels. The transformation of the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements into
class activities could have a positive effect in addressing practical
communication needs while fulfilling requirements to include a
language framework construct.
References
American
Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2013). NCSSFL-ACTFL
Can-Do Statements: Progress indicators for
language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
(http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Can-Do_Statements.pdf; 14.09.2016).
(http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Can-Do_Statements.pdf; 14.09.2016).
Brown,
A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent language
learning programs: The value of annotated
samples. Assessing
Writing, 10 (3)
(2005), 174-191.
Carless,
D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based
innovation in primary schools. TESOL
Quarterly 38 (4)
(2004) 639–662.
Eguchi,
M. & Eguchi, K. (2006). The limited effect of PBL on EFL
learners: A case study of English magazine projects. Asian
EFL Journal, 8 (3)
(2006) 207-225.
Janulevièienë,
V., & Kavaliauskienë, G. (2011). Self-assessment of vocabulary
and relevant language skills for evaluation purposes. Coactivity:
Philology, Educology/Santalka: Filologija, Edukologija, 15 (4)
(2011),10-15.
Lee,
S.-M. (2005). The pros and cons of task-based instruction in
elementary English classes. English
Teaching 60 (2)
(2005) 185–205.
Littlewood,
W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East
Asian classrooms. Language
Teaching, 40 (3)
(2007) 243-249.
Long,
M., Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things
with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group
classroom situations in Fanselow, J. and Crymes, R. (eds.)
(1976),
in On
TESOL ’76
(137-153). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Richards,
J. C. (1987). The dilemma of teacher education in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 21 (2)
(1987) 209-226.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1) (2004), 31-54.
Sato,
K. (2003). Improving
our students’ speaking skills: using selective error correction and
group work to reduce anxiety and encourage real communication.
Japan: Akita Prefectural Akita Senior High School. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 475 518).
Shirai,
Y. (1990). U-shaped behavior in L2 acquisition. In H. Burmeister & P. L. Rounds (Eds.), Variability
in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the tenth meeting of
the Second Language Research Forum
(Vol. 2, 685-700). Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics,
University of Oregon.
Sinclair,
J. McH, & Brazil, D. (1985). Teacher
Talk.
London: Oxford University Press.
Storch,
N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language
Learning, 52 (1)
(2002), 119-158.
Todd,
R. W. (2002). Using Self-Assessment for Evaluation. English
Forum 40 (1),
16-19.
(http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/;
12.05.2016).
Topping,
K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and
universities. Review
of Educational Research, 68 (3)
(1998) 249-276.
Authors:
Senior Associate Professor
Meio University
College of International Studies
Okinawa
Japan
Email: norman@meio-u.ac.jp
George MacLean
Professor
University of the Ryukyus
Global Education Center
Foreign Language Unit
Okinawa
Japan
Email: george.university@gmail.com
1This
research was supported by Grants in Aid for Scientific Research from
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, under project
26370665 "Immediate Feedback and the Use of Polling Systems for
EFL Instruction".