The piece of reading starts with a fair account of the teaching methods developed over time. The table provided also illustrates adequate account of the methods, ranging from method- explanation, treatment of error to student- teacher roles and current use. The reading also provides information on the theories and studies based on which the changing methods were based. However, in terms of utility, there seems to be certain gaps. When a developmental trend is presented, it is always important to shed light in considerable details on what impact of factor- internal or external, explicit or implicit- triggers the development of the next trend or method in the concerned field.
What this part of the reading provides is the changing trends in the perception of learning and teaching of language and the consequent methodical developmental route. Notably, the aftermath of the individual methods on the level of users and teachers seems to have been absent a bit. Firstly, the account states that DM develops as a “reaction” to GTM. It would have been useful if it also explained why it was a reaction; to what impact or deficiency. That would validate and clarify the next perspective even more. Secondly, while it clearly implies the possible similar grounds between DM and ALM, it simply does not express the differences between the two. Thirdly, the evolution of TPR is more or less a disconnected one in that; it was based on a study quite alien to that of its previous one. The difference of the two theories is very much understandable. But it was important to mention how and why learning and teaching research diverted to this new direction and to what objective. The detailed account of the mechanism of TPR could be a valued addition. Lastly, the sudden jump to the mere mention of CALLA as a method with no details provided seems fairly inconsistent. Above all, the fact that the final objective now is achieving communicative competence needs clearer defining of the term Communicative Competence.
The developmental route of perception about teaching and learning of a language seems pretty clearly defined:
The last part of the reading deals with language tests and assessment. Importantly enough, the difference between test and assessment has been clarified in clear terms.
A language test is a formal, uni-dimensional, single-occasion, time-constrained format which incorporates standard norms of comparison of the collected performance. The assessment conditions are same for everyone starting from designing to administering. The only shortcoming is that, any such single assessment occasion may cause misinterpretation of performance provoked by cultural bias or lack of or wrong assumptions about the students’ common knowledge of concepts. Even improper placement or insufficient instruction may also cause so and may result in unexpected dropout or underperformance.
In contrast, language assessment is an informal, continual series of data gathering about the students based on which much deeper insight about individual students can be gained. Over a required period of time, all sectors of a student’s life which might affect his proficiency are explored gradually using formats like Home Language Survey and through exploiting documents like portfolio or school or interview records or direct observation of the individual student in different occasions. This leads effectively to find out whether any assistance is needed to get the specific student up to speed in acquisition. At the cost of having apparently unspecific scoring criteria, it is more effective in terms of analysis and consequent designing required instruction. However, certain features alone ensure whether tests would be effective or not.
Every test has certain fixed objective and when the content of a test addresses the focal areas or skills successfully, then it is a Valid test. No other factor matters if a test is not valid. The content of a test should be of such form that administering it at different periods of time or contexts should yield similar result from a single student. A test that is not reliable is not considered applicable. Above all, a test must be practically administrable in terms of ease of administering and scoring, comfortable and affordable time allocation and appropriate interpreting of performance. Otherwise, materializing the test itself would be difficult along with thwarting the purpose of proper evaluation.
Between language test and assessment, assessment should be the form of proper evaluation of a student’s proficiency level. Because the immediacy and single occasion format of a test does not allow consideration of other effective factors that might affect a learner’s performance in the specific occasion. A single occasion is always inadequate to provide anything close to a complete picture of the proficiency of a student.
Sources:
- Brown, H. Douglas. Teaching by Principles- An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education, 2001.
- Collier, C. “The Assessment of Language Acquision”. Handbook for Second Language Acquision. 166-228. Print.
