Evaluating Ticket To English1 & Gateway1 in Light

Standards-Based Evaluation of
Ticket to English1 & Gateway1
Is there a consistency?
A. ES-SOBTI (essobti@gmail.com)
Inspectors’ colloq. 2007
:General outline of the presentation
1. Rationale:
2. Aims:
3. Defining concepts:
 Standard
 descriptors
 sample progress indicators
 Competency
4. Who sets standards?:
5. The resulting misconception:
6. The impact of the misconception on TB:
7. Evaluation homework:
8. Data collected from classroom observation:
9. Data collected from teachers:
10. Concluding remarks:
11. Recommendations:
:Rationale .1
 Adherence to CBI by the National Charter.
 Learning standards VS materials standards.
 Reacting to some
misconceptions/controversies.
:Aims .2
 Improving the quality of the National

Textbook & making it a flexible tool.
 Resolving controversies & finding a
consensus over the use of key
concepts/terms.
 Speaking the same lge with teachers.
Defining concepts: (TESOL 97) .3
1. Standard:
 what ss should know & be able to do as a result of

instruction.
 Standards describe lge competencies ss need to

acquire to be fully proficient in English.
 Generally agreed upon, relatively stable criteria used

to judge & justify persons, institutions, programs,
performance and/or outcome.
2. Descriptors:
«They are broad categories of discrete,

representative behaviours that ss exhibit
when they meet a standard ».
3. Sample Progress indicators:

« they List assessable, observable activities
that ss may perform to show progress
towards meeting the designated standard».
4. Competency:
 A number of abilities & skills that a learner

should acquire at school to be able to face the
challenges of life.
 It indicates that learners will be able to perform
a task or use a set of information competently.
 It reflects what learners have learned as
opposed to what teachers think they have
taught.
?Who sets standards .4
Goals (Policy makers)
↓
Standards (Educ. Policy makers)
↓
Performance objectives (Teachers)
↓
Standards evaluation (Academy & teachers)
5. The resulting misconception:
 The use of two terms/concepts to mean

‫كفايات‬
” ‫ل‬DD‫ا‬DDD‫لتدريسب‬DD‫“ا‬
 The confusion among teachers of English

as whether the 2 terms should be used
interchangeably.
 What does ”‫ايير‬D‫لمع‬DD‫ا‬DDD‫لتدريسب‬DD‫ “ا‬mean?

:The impact of the misconception on TB .6
 Redundant use of terms. e.g. Standards,

competencies, & skills in Gateway 1.
 Avoidance of use of these terms in Ticket to
English 1.
 Overloaded map of both books.
 Misleading/confusing rubrics in the maps: lge
dev’t – communication (various levels).
:Evaluation framework .7
Stated methodology VS performed methodology
Any consistency?
Data collected from classroom .8
:observation
 Both books are easy to use & inovative in terms of
activities & techniques.
 Ts’ avoidance of using standards/competencies in
lesson planning.
 Classroom activities are highly motivating; yet not well
reshaped by Ts to meet the target standard.
 Lesson planning does not follow the model suggested
in the Guidelines p.8. (resistance to change)
 Continuous assessment does not systematically
measure the 5 Cs to see whether a particular standard
is met.
 Functions are, most of the time, practised in writing
as the books suggest (Focus only on identification).
However, the very few instances in the books are
well designed to promote ss’ pragmatic awareness.
 Functional practice does not make use of cultural
section (pragmatic awarenes is required).
 GW sometimes integrates functions in
listening→interaction.
 The target standard is not clear. The lesson is a
hotch-potch of activities & tasks targetting various
levels of lage proficiency.
:Data collected from teachers .9
The following evaluation is based on the 5Cs:

communication, cultures, connections,
comparisons and communities as well as the
other factors such as skills, language
development in Gateway To English 1 & Ticket
To English 1:
:The 5 Cs in Gw1 & T to E 1
:Communication .1
:Positive feedback
 Students interact with each other in
meaningful ways.
 Activities include authentic language.
 Activities provide guidance and hints for
facilitating comprehension.
 Activities are age-appropriate.
:Negative feedback
 Communication and grammar activities are

presented in de-contextualized settings as far
as the theme of the unit is concerned. Some
activities do not respond to students’ interest
(Unit 1: Our Cultural heritage: History of
Morocco) GW > TE
 Activities poorly allow students to demonstrate
their knowledge & skill in English (lack of
production stage).
:Cultures .2
Positive feedback:
 Culturally-based visual images are current and
authentic.
 Some of these images depict different
peoples/cultures that use English for
communication.
 Text activities integrated with the visual images
incite students’ observation, identification,
discussion, and analysis of cultural practices or
products.
 A variety of regions/countries where English
is spoken are represented.
 Students are asked, in some units, to identify,
analyze and discuss perspectives, behaviors,
and practices of the foreign culture (English
Speaking countries and others) school,
family, games, sports, etc
Negative feedback:
Not all the themes in the syllabus are culturally
explored.
3. Connections:
Positive feedback:
 Students have opportunities to discuss and discover
more about topics learned in other subject areas.
(maths, science, history, geography, etc)
 There are opportunities for students to build on prior
personal experiences and existing background
knowledge.
 Students are encouraged and given opportunities to
use English for leisure activities (media, sports,
games, travel, music, etc.) (Units of Mass Media,
Health and Welfare, Our Society)
 Students are given opportunities to participate
in projects in which they acquire information
through Hi-Tech, personal interviews, print
media (newspapers, magazines), visual
media (television, videos, advertising) or print
references (dictionaries, encyclopedias), and
the assigned projects + rubric of learn to
learn.
4. Comparisons:
Positive feedback:
Activities offer opportunities for students to
demonstrate understanding of similarities and
differences between their own language/culture and
the English one. (See Boost your Cultural
Awarenes/cultural corner)
Negative feedback:
Activities do not present discussion or activities
based on borrowed words, cognates, and idiomatic
expressions in Arabic, Amazigh and French.
5. Communities:
Positive feedback:
Students are asked to communicate with
speakers outside their own classroom in
conversation, writing, performances, and
presentations ( Projects in the five Units)
Negative feedback:
The textbook rarely presents the English culture
projects that involve interacting with members
of the local community or using community
resources. (Most projects revolve around self-
centered work about native issues).
:Concluding remarks .10
 There is enough room for innovation in the 2 books.
 The activities and procedures undoubtedly are well
designed to meet a number of standards related to the
goals of EFL in Morocco; yet, the books do not
explicitly state the learning standards in their maps &
match them with procedures & activities.
 The 2 books do not share the same conceptual
framework (see the maps). While GW defines the
terms in Teacher’s Book, TE does not.
 Gw presents Richards & Roger’s definition of
competencies which actually overlaps with the
definition of standards presented (p.6).
11. Recommendations:
 Reconsider the map of the book & use the terminology
related to standards-based approach (see Guidelines
2007). Content standards – performance standards –
proficiency standards) + taxonomies used in the
literature: descriptors & sample progress indicators
(see TESOL 97)
 State standards explicitly in relation to EFL goals & in

relation to the components of the TB. «The necessity
for having clear, straightforward and well-articulated
standards is self-evident” (Guidelines 2007:7)
 Be consistent in terminology: CBI
(Canadian/French) VS SBA (American).
 Evaluate a standard in terms of its descriptors
to help textbook writers & teachers identify
curriculum objectives.
 Design sample progress indicators that show
ss’ progress towards meeting the target
standard.
 Relate the teaching of functions to the teaching
of culture to raise ss’ pragmatic awareness.
THANK YOU
References.
1. Carr & Harris (2001) Succeeding with
Standards. ASCD
Premium
2. Gudelines (2006)
3. TESOL (1997) ESL Standards for Pre-K12
students.

Evaluating Ticket To English1 & Gateway1 in Light

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Ticket To English1 & Gateway1 in Light

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Ticket To English1 & Gateway1 in Light

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standards-Based Evaluation of

Ticket to English1 & Gateway1

 Learning standards VS materials standards.

 Improving the quality of the National

 what ss should know & be able to do as a result of

 Standards describe lge competencies ss need to

 Generally agreed upon, relatively stable criteria used

«They are broad categories of discrete,

3. Sample Progress indicators:

 A number of abilities & skills that a learner

 The use of two terms/concepts to mean

 The confusion among teachers of English

 What does ”‫ايير‬D‫لمع‬DD‫ا‬DDD‫لتدريسب‬DD‫ “ا‬mean?

 Redundant use of terms. e.g. Standards,

Stated methodology VS performed methodology

The following evaluation is based on the 5Cs:

 Communication and grammar activities are

 State standards explicitly in relation to EFL goals & in

You might also like