Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 8 (2017) Issue 2

Transforming Can-do Frameworks in the L2 Classroom
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)

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).

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:

Norman Fewell 
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".