ERIC ED437853: A Cooperative Performance Test for Japanese University Conversation Classes.

12 Pages·1999·0.58 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
FL 026 129
ED 437 853
Joritz-Nakagawa, Jane
AUTHOR
A Cooperative Performance Test for Japanese University
TITLE
Conversation Classes.
1999-00-00
PUB DATE
11p.; In: Cooperative Learning. JALT Applied Materials; see
NOTE
FL 026 115.
Descriptive (141)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Classroom Techniques; *Communicative Competence (Languages);
DESCRIPTORS
*Cooperative Learning; *English (Second Language); Foreign
Countries; Higher Education; *Language Tests; *Oral
Language; Second Language Instruction; Second Language
Learning; Teaching Methods; Testing
Japan
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This document discusses a test devised for a university
level English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) course that tests students'
conversational ability. The test has been used successfully in a Japanese
university English communication class over three years. Learning not only to
speak but to listen and respond appropriately to others is also an important
measure of how well one communicates orally in a foreign language. In brief,
the test requires students in groups to prepare and practice a conversation
evaluated by the teacher. It is a performance assessment, by definition a
type of alternative assessment, requiring students to demonstrate knowledge
and skill. This test might be difficult to manage in a class with more than
50 students. Students are divided into groups of four and choose a topic (to
be approved by the teacher). They then have a few weeks to prepare a 20 to 30
minute discussion. Students were not allowed any use of notes, papers, books,
dictionaries, or aids other than visual aids such as photographs, pictures,
maps, or props such as jump ropes, CDs, and musical instruments to be used to
facilitate discussion on the test day. The test has been well-received by
students and meets all six criteria for effective assessment described by
(An appendix with a test comment form in included.)
Good and Brophy (1994).
(KFT)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
14
aaptev4
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
AThis document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
°
Points of view or opinions stated in this
1
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
'est
.ice
per
erf ®k
University
ese
for Jap
se
on
C eve
1
v=1
wa
ritz-N
e
3
Jrt
My gi
University
universi-
in Japanese
conversation courses
teaching English
first began
mostly empha-
,en
My courses
offer the class.
d of test to
what
reflect the
ties, I wasn't sure
felt, should
A fair test, E
up
speaking activities.
sized pair arnd/ ®r
of instruction.
and method
said they gave
course content
they gave, most
the kinds of tests
colleagues about
made it
When I asked
that class size
often with the reason
of some kind,
paper-and-pencil tests
involved read-
tests which
abilities. Some gave
student speaking
ese
impractical to test
ability. However,
only listening
which tested
objective tests
week,
ing or writing or
class every
students to do
I was asking
to what
unrelat
students indi-
tests seemed
by having
concluded the term
teachers
air. Other
speaking was
and therefore
While at least
deliver a speech.
of the class to
vidually get in fro t
appropriately
how to
students learn
focussed ®n having
courses
abilities as
being tested, my
dn't test such
A speech
English in class.
each other in
converse wi
etc.
as a listener,
appropriate responses
turn-taking, offering
(i)
S. McGuire. D.
classes. In D. Kluge,
university conversation
for Language
test roe Japanese
Japan Association
pfeelkagnagleC
ocoperative
(pp 179-1: ). YoNyol
wa, J. (1999/ A
ciesseata amperattae learning
Joritz-Nalsa
Joheron (Eds.),JALT4spilisel
)ohnson, &
Teaching.
Jane joritz-Nakagawa
180
conversational ability. It wanted them to
I wanted a test that tested students'
others, as responding
and respond appropriately to
not only speak but to listen
of being able to communicate suc-
appropriately is also an important measure
With the above goals in mind, 11 eventually
cessfully orally in a foreign language.
Realizing that the success of
I will describe in this paper.
came up with the test
of its participants and
discussion hinges on the cooperation
a conversation or
quickly
whole is responsible for its success, I
that the group of participants as a
this test.
format (group project format) for
decided on a cooperative learning
practice a con-
students in groups to prepare and
In brief, the test requires
by defini-
teacher. It is a performance assessment,
versation evaluated by the
knowl-
requiring students to demonstrate
tion a type of alternative assessment,
d in Choate
rformance assessment may be fo
edge and skill (a definition of
rophy [1995]).
[19951 or Good
ch the Test Has !Leen Used
Overview of the Courses in
three year period at a
of the courses I taught over a
I have used this test in all
the focus
oral English communication was
four year private university in which
the first,
five different courses, offered at
of the course. In total, there were
ranged
which I used this test. Class size
second, and third academic years in
a week for 90 minutes
from approximately 20 to 50 stude, ts. Courses met once
throughout the academic year.
[conversa-
for any similar eikaiwa
This test is appropriate, in my opinion,
speaking
student pair and/or group
tion] course where the focus has been
have to
with a class size of over 50 will
activities. However, a teacher teaching
difficulties (see below) and will need to
consider how to remedy scheduling
for learning before undertaking the test.
set the appropriate stage
Overview of the Test
before the end of the semester, preparation
Usually, about six or seven weeks
needed to do all of the following: explain
for the test began. Three weeks were
(these first two generally take half a
the test to the class, get them into groups
work on
time (about 2 1/2 periods) to
period or less) and give them in-class
three weeks was usually needed for
prepari g their test. An additional two to
testing.
for the test, including the criteria for
After explaining the basic requirements
(explained further below) each group
working together and the grading criteria
for
class or a new topic) to Ai Iscuss
chose a topic (one previously discussed in
each group was
e. On the test day,
approved by
e test. The to ics were
four
discussion. In general, I required a
instructed to have a 20 to 30 nu ute
161
A Cooperative Performance Test
second year
member group of first year students to converse for 20 minutes; a
students 25 to
student group of the same size 20 to 25 minutes, and third year
30 minutes.
generally grouped into
My class size ranged from 20 to 48, and students were
class tended to be
four member groups. Therefore, the number of groups per
need to make sched-
between 5 and 12. Teachers with larger enrollments may
reduced further, non-in-
uling adjustments. If instructional days are not to be
lunch hours, etc.) would
structional time (at the beginning or ending of the day,
the tests outside of class
have to be used for testing. Videotaping or audiotaping
minimally that students do this outside of class
may be possible, but requires
listen to the tapes outside of
and also perhaps additional teacher time to view or
could be reducing the test
class, as well as access to equipment. Other options
where the teacher needs to shorten the
time or increasing group size. In cases
be increased. Teachers
t e difficulty level of the topic could perhaps
test time,
concerned about
who schedule the test during instructional periods but are
do other work outside of class to
missed instructional days could ask students to
need to come to class for all the
make up the time, assuming students do not
be required to atte d (though 1 did not
testing days. Alternately students could
below).
choose this option for reasons It will explain
books, dictionaries, or
Students were not allowed to use any notes, papers,
pictures, or maps used to
aids other than visual aids such as photographs,
whose topic was, for ex-
facilitate discussion on the test day. Some students
.iphs and area maps which they showed
ample, fforeivi7 travel, used travel photo
conversed. Other aids used artfully by students
oup members as they
their
photographs, charts or pictures they
included high school year books, family
which they talked about in En-
drew on the black board, Japanese magazines
and props including such things as jump
glish, and miscellaneous paraphernalia
aids; these
Students were very creative in their use of
ropes, C s, and guitars.
comprehensible. Texts were
more lively and more
made the conversations bo i
disallowed so that there was no reading from a paper.
students at the time
.,ding criteria (explained below) were given to
The full
grouping the class for the test.
the test was explained, immediately preceding
Grouping the Students into Test Groups
the class:
I have used three methods for grouping
available;
free to sign up for any test day and time
a. The students were
students choosing a card with
ouping was the result of chance, where
b. The
work with;
number on it determined which VI oup they were to
a letter or
hand picked the tu,loups using as my criteria atten-
ve on one occasion
c.
grouped to-
a similar rate of attendance were
dance patterns (those wit
4
give Performance T
183
to rise to theft ighest level of col opined strengths in the
oup. Since i prefer the
test to be a learning tool (doing double duty as an evaluation tool), not a separat-
ing or screening device, this
.uping meth, .1 appears wanting. Such tit ouping
may bias the teacher just at the time she is engaged in the task of assivriti ig grades
to students. Further, a positive class experience while working on this test may
encourage so-so contributors to contribute more in the future to the course.
it
believe
's grouping method was one of my early mistakes in learning myself to
use cooperative learning. (Another was assigning individual grades to each is .trtici-
pant but it was impossible to extricate t
e group
I le in .1Ividual contributions c t cin
performance, and I feel this me
does not reflect the teacher's commitment to
the idea that the group must be accountable as a group.)
Presenting the
Objectives a d Criteria to Students
I gave students a handout wl 1 ich explained the basic information they needed to
know to pre
for
l to test. Students read this hail. ctn. Then, it was explained by
ere was a question and answer period about the objectives
me orally. Finally,
and guidelines. There were few if any questions and answers because students
already knew a ut the test, as it was explained at the onset of the course, and was
not a am. ;cal departure t i.m our regular instruction. (See
e Appendix A for a
sample of a handout vi yen to a second year oral English class.)
Pr ,,,
Gro
ration for the Test
As mentioned above, each coup met usually for 2 ii2 class periods to discuss
what topic they will discuss, decide the content, and practice their discussion
for the test. In my experience students request and seem to want very little help
from me during this time. The sort of help II gave, upon request, was usually
restricted to answering language questions (often, checking the grammaticality
of questions or confirming word usage as a propriate). Most t.t oups wished to
use all of the allotted time to prepare; occasionally I had a group who said they
had finished preparing early (e.g in 1 'a or 2 class periods). I brought along
work for students to do (usually something such as a conversation board game
or vocabulary game) just in case some finished their work early. In this instance,
N allowed those groups who wished to prepare to do so, and others could take
from me an activity (or devise their own activity if appropriate).
Most students approached preparation for the test with visible diligence and
seriousness; in fact, the vast majority of students appeared to wholeheartedly
extremely
enjoy preparing for the test. The classroom atmosphere tended to
animated during this time, often punctuated by a lot of laughter. (Many students
eir discussion.) Occasionally II had some groups
incorporated humor into
111
the
eir class preparation time though these were
who seemed to be wasting
111
and at-
n observing this, E approached the group
exception to the rule. U
fr
5
jam jo7ggz-ATA 4gowo
182
cchoice remained (e.g., 12 students all have
gether) and secondarily where a
r,. ups).
versity (e.g., creating gender diverse
perfect attendance), and
.11
Results of the Three Metboi
available, which
Method A. Being free to sign up for any test day and time
been the over-
I sup, has
allows students to choose the membership of their
particularly smaller
whelming favorite of second and third year student classes,
the tfirer described ale 4ve,
classes. When asked to pick a meth1 from among
third
classes but one showed 80 to 4,4+% of second and
a show of hands of all
dents in favor of this method.
year s
the over-
The grouping by chance (lottery) method has been
Method A
.
in favor) of the first year students, who
ut ,,air'
whelming favorite (usually a
a show
ouping method they preferred throu
also were asked to vote for the
because, unlike second
of hands. I believe first year students prefer this meth.
the class as well socially.
and third year students, they don't know the others in
for them
ing less defined in first year perhaps it is uncomfortable
With cliques p.
oose whom to work wit
to
have me to mak the
Method C. In the one second year class which voted to
decided (and they concurred) that going by atten-
groups rather than them, I
them. Perceni..rge of
dance record in the class was a fair meth. i of grouping
further options the
classes attended was the first criterion and where that left
idea, as
1versity (gender, nationality, or age) with the
secondary criterion was
donna=
ow-
Maznevski (1444) has noted, that silversity improves group
s
meth. t. The reason I disliked
ever, I think 11 will probably not repeat this
out to be
method was that it seemed that performance on the test did turn
words, those with
directly correlated with the attendance patterns; in other
those with so-so
high or perfect attendance ended up with A's on the test, and
with ability
attendance got so-so marks, etc. I wondered if, as is often the case
prophesy. I c 1 bought
groupings, the results were based on a kind of self-fulfilling
igent student
seemed unfair to put a
at first this method was fair, because it
"lazy" one who
in a group, for example, who had never missed a lesson with a
had perhaps missed nearly half of the lessons. Certainly, the latter can pose a
of the work
problem to be worked out, but working out such problems is p rt
such problems
of a cooperative learning class. Trying to sI ',cid students from
(Of course laziness is not the only
may diminish their growth experience.
explanation for student absence.)
balance of
Diversity of any kind can be beneficial to all in terms of offering a
...itively influence each other.
strent. ,1 and weaknesses and allowing members to
eity and
(See joritz-Nakagawa, 1.47, for a brief look at the advantages of hetero
noted
lfilling prophecies.) In my experience, and as has been
dangers of self-
ups, most often the lit .up seems
-functio
above to be char cteristic of
Jane joritz-Neakagenin
el to encourage
and tri
g questions,
tempted to see what was going on by as
be
preparation if they didn't seem to
them toward working diligently on test
that were the
help resolve a problem if
working hard. In these cases I might
detailed questions about
in work or ask the group
reason for the interruption
they could further prepare.
their topic to identify areas where
worked diligently as
be clear if any groups haven't
On the test day it should
than other groups.
be substantially lower
the quality of their work will generally
levels in your class
have a very broad range of
The exception may be if you
could do well
facility in English who perhaps
including students with very high
is
effort. However, I feel while it
of test without expending a lot of
on this type
for even an espe-
this test, it is also unlikely
possible for anyone to succeed in
somewhat
function well without preparing
cially talented individual or group to
together, for this test.
seriously, and especially preparing
the key determinants of
oup cooperation are
In short, individual effort and
I liy will have a ran-
prepared thorou
oups who haven't
of
s ccess. Discussions
ected; there will
discussion will be adversely
dom character to them; the pace of
If they
example when groping for something to say.
be many more hesitations, for
together well (will
members say may not flow
didn't practice well together, what
the test and may pre-
qualities lower the grade on
sound disjointed, etc.). These
Students are
criteria explained above shows.
e test and grading
vent passing, as
off more like
discussion is supposed to come
instructed to speak naturally but the
know in advance what the topic
TV, where the participants
a panel discussion on
smoothly,
which enables iem to partici* .ite
is and have taken some pains to prepare;
sound overly
students are advised not to
intelligently, and effectively. However,
criteria explained above.)
rehearsed. (See test instructions and
The Examinations
occasions. The first
have given this test on over 30
At the time of this writing, I
I was
student groups in five different courses,
time I administered this test to
particularly
students could do. I had been
overwhelmed at seeing what the
this
students, for example, couldn't carry on
worried that many of my first year
the case. The success
discussion successfully, but this was not
type of 20 minute
these have been few, being
the only disappointments, and
rate continued with
suffi-
for the test and t idn't prepare
students who had ignored the instructions
academic year, and
midterm and at the end of the
ciently. I gave this test both at
amends at
poorly at midterm tend to make
have found the few groups who test
midterm
that students who do very well at
the final. However it may be possible
if they are not highly motivated
could slack off at the final for full year courses
of the final grade, for ex-
the weight of the test in terms
or depending upon
this test, the
e course grade to
of half of
ample. Though I gave a weighting
weighting in her situation makes sense.
teacher needs to determine what
7
185
Performance Test
A Cooperative
mixed level
teamwork evident in
been to witness the
Anor er pleasure has
another
it is usual that
stuck during the test,
groupings. If one student gets
that the
the word or sentence
example, supplying
member will assist by, for
the other has said
w* I clarify what
in fact learned, or
other can't recall or hasn't
might be unclear
that the meaning
in such a way
if they have communicated
.? B: Yes, yes!).
(e.g., A: Do you mean .
.
.
strengths of
complement the varying
the varying of roles to
II have also seen
leader or
choice of a discussion
through the group's
members, for example,
interest as they are
the group's best
these behaviors are in
"emcee." Of course
everyone appearing com-
based on such criteria as
being evaluated as a group
the teacher will
and so forth, but
flow of communication
petent, unimpeded
relations whether or not
with harmonious
naturally in groups
also see it occur
natural
view this as the
In other words, I
evaluation is being done.
any formal
IQ.
5) term, a high group
(1
to use Goleman's
result of groups wit
should be
but rather test criteria
force the cooperation
The test need not
There is
valued in the classroom.
that have been
consistent with the practices
by one, group by
seeing your students, one
experience II think to
no greater
conversations done en-
frequently stimulating
in effective and
group, engaging
and helping
of notes or a dictionary,
without reaching for a set
tirely in English
students prac-
witnessed numerous
Interestingly, I have
each other be effective.
students
of class. Since many
their own time outside
ticing with their 4' oups on
sign indeed.
to me a good
do homework, this seems
otherwise appear loathe to
think-
when I first explain it,
will balk at the test
Occasionally, some students
in their abilities
students a confidence
this!" Succeeding gives
ing "I can't do
the midterm
've them. Success on
be the best gift you can
this confidence may
during the sec-
confidence in speaking
often lead to increased
test appears to
ond semester.
classes in which
be, if she has many
for the teacher may
One other difficulty
take a lot of her
weeks will actually
the two or three test
this test will be given,
six
fact the last five or
for the teacher (in
there is little preparation
energy. While
here based on my
I have outlined
following the schedule
weeks of the term,
part), listening
preparation on my
calendar, required little
class size and school
responsible for evaluating
and being, of course,
attentively to group after group
the popularity of this
resilience. But
doing so requires some
the students while
the teaching situation
and fair given
feeling that it is appropriate
test and my
worthwhile.
makes it, II think,
Grading and Feedback
grades for each
English courses student course
above, in my oral
As mentioned
50% individual participation
test grade and
as 50% group
term were
calculate-
the group
impression of how well
grade reflected my
grade. The group test
J ays e jorkz-Nakageouv
186
fulfilled the criteria described a* ve. The participation grade reflected the per-
centage of classes students individually attended, and also took into account
factors such as tardiness and level of participation (class behavior). A student
who attended all courses in the term and participated adequately each time
would thus receive 100 points for their participation grade.
Students received their individual participation grades during a private confer-
.ide during a group conference with the
ence with the teacher, and the vi oup
teacher. Students were encouraged to give their own impression of their work
during these conferences. Students also 41 id anonymous evaluations of the course
as a whole usually during the first semester, and often again in the second semes-
ter. These evaluations solicited such information as which topics they were inter-
al. ut I.e balance between listening and speaking
eir fee
ested in discussing,
activities, and what size vi 'ups they preferred for conversation.
ndix). d merely
I gave each group a copy of a test feedback form (see Ap
circled strong/weak points; this made it easy for me to complete the form and
explained to the whole
easy for the group to understand it. The form can
'ving the feedback. This information is not new but is the same as
class before
the test instructions and criteria students received before the test, explained
above, but in a different form. Any additional comments were written in the
margins or on the bottom or reverse side of the form. Additional comments
were, for example, responses to specific ideas from or comments a..ut specific
language used in the discussion.
At the end of the list d have mentioned vocabulary, structure, pronunciation,
and intonation. However, these elements were considered important for pur-
I ey (e.g., word choice/grammar/
poses of grading the group only as far as i
pronunciation) might inhibit comprehensibility of the discussion or diminish its
impact (e.g., consistently flat intonation, though perhaps indicative of lack of
English mastery, may come off as lack of enthusiasm).
Summary
In general, I have been abundantly pleased observing the process of student
groups working together on this test as well as their finished products. Students
e test at
frequently commented that they enjoyed this test. Some having taken
midterm have asked me: Could we please have this same test again at the final?
While test grades have varied, only those who have ignored the test instructions
e test; it is designed so that any group of individuals, with effort
have failed
and cooperation skills, have i
i e possibility of passing the course.
I
This test also meets important criteria for performance tests as described by
p. 641): 1) students should be assn.. ed assessment tasks
Good as d Brophy (14 k
that are educative and enga
g (i.e., not just memorize lists); 2) stucb, i its should
187
Performance Test
r tive
A Coo
subjected to minimal
(they should be
performance standards are
know what the
work;
criteria for grading
there should be clear
and grading); 3)
secrecy in testing
produce successful
(e.g., enough time) to
ample opportunity
4) students need
their
display and document
be 'yen
i le opportunity to
work; 5) students should
6)
their weaknesses); and
aim to reveal
(versus tests which
positive achievements
..ides and test practices.
chance to question vi
students are even the
and
semester of pair
fair conclusion to a
appropriate and
I feel this test is an
has been
setting, where care
Japanese university
conversation in the
group
and schedule
cooperative learning
atmosphere conducive to
taken to create an
engaged in a
participating in the test are
appropriately. Students
the activities
for creating and
be responsible
which requires them to
learning experience
discussion in a !iloup.
carrying out a
References
Bantam.
intelligence. New York:
E otional
Coleman, Daniel. (1995).
New
psychology (5th ed.).
ty educational
rophy, J. 1995. Contempor
Good, T. L.
an.
in the
York: Lon
learning: Cooperation
Smith, K. (1991). Active
Johnson, R.,
Johnson, D.W.,
r4 .4k Company.
Edina: MN: Interaction
college classroom.
Educators' Newslet-
College and University
Track and stream.
Joritz-Nakagawa, J. (16.67).
Teachers, inc.
ter 5(1).
Resources for
San Clemente, CA:
Cooperative learning.
Kagan, S. (1994).
Relations, 47(5), 531-552.
differences. Human
Understanding our
Maznevski, M. (1994).
0