Page 135 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind

feedback on affective factors, and more feedback in communicative contexts with time to recap (procedure 3) and to discover what exactly ensures students’ self-efficacy (other goal).
Florence carried out three SpeakTeach lesson series in the third year of havo. She experimented with the maximum design (score 3) of the procedures of the teaching method, such as the final activity of speaking with self-evaluation at the beginning of the lesson series followed by improving the performance (procedure 1). She gave her students freedom of choice in working method and type of activities (procedure 2) and she used a broad feedback repertoire. The feedback was tailored to the students' questions and their self-evaluations (procedure 3). This was a major change compared to her regular teaching practice. In the process of experimenting with the SpeakTeach method, she took a step back to shared steering at a certain point (procedure 2, from 1 to 3, to 3 and back to 2) in order to achieve a good structure and alignment with the final speaking objective in line with her intentions (procedure 1).
As the most important positive aspect of the SpeakTeach lessons, Florence mentioned efficiency and the demand-driven way of working, based on the involvement of the student (procedure 2). In accordance with her intentions and the design of the SpeakTeach lessons, Florence became much more satisfied with the number and type of speaking activities (other goals) and the structure and alignment in the speaking activities in the SpeakTeach lessons (procedure 1). According to Florence, the purpose of the speaking activities and alignment with other components of the lesson series were not clear in her current teaching practice, but by applying the SpeakTeach method the purpose and the alignment of the speaking activities and exercises became clear and the students saw their usefulness. Florence also became more satisfied with the working methods: much more variety through the activities designed to improve the speaking activity and students worked well because they had freedom of choice in working method and learning activities (procedure 2). The teacher was also satisfied with the students’ performance and development. Note that the teacher became more negative about her own feedback repertoire (procedure 3). She was initially satisfied, but after the intervention she saw points for improvement. The teacher wanted to give more feedback and more consciously. She was satisfied, however, that students were working more and more independently and as a result she had more time to give feedback on speaking performance and there was time to recap.
132
133
5