Page 29 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind

In the third phase, the teachers were asked to comment on their students’ self- evaluation forms, and they were also asked what feedback they would now give. The results from the third phase were compared with the teachers’ answers from the first phase in order to ascertain whether the feedback and evaluation had shifted at all.
Finally, the teachers were asked to evaluate the evaluation procedure itself: Did the self-evaluation procedure improve their understanding of the individual students? Was it helpful? Would they use it in their own teaching? How would they follow this up in future lessons? What were the advantages and disadvantages of this self-evaluation procedure?
2.5 Results
Table 2.1 is a complete overview of the 17 cases showing how often the teacher agreed with the students’ self-evaluations and how often they changed their feedback because of the self- evaluations. In over half of the cases, the teachers changed their assessments with respect to positive points and errors after reading the students’ self-evaluations. Furthermore, the teachers’ understanding of what was needed for the students to improve their speaking skills changed when they had viewed the students’ own plans for improvement (in the case of 14 of the 17 students). In almost all cases the teachers reported that they had changed their feedback as a result of seeing the self-evaluations. Table 2.2 shows how the focus of the teachers’ intended feedback shifted. As a result of the self-evaluations, the focus of the feedback broadened, was more closely geared to the individual students’ plans and was more specific.
Two cases from our study illustrate how the feedback shifted. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 summarise the self-evaluations of two students selected at random from the 17 cases and the teacher’s assessment of the positive points, errors, plans for improvement and help needed, as well as her feedback on the five aspects of speaking (message, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and fluency), affective factors and regulative characteristics of the student. The last column shows the teacher’s response to the student’s self-evaluation.
Natasja (Table 2.3) made very specific points about her grammatical and pronunciation errors. She admitted to mistakes in all categories and she had made a plan for improvement for all categories too. This contrasts with the teacher’s initial assessment (phase 1): she saw more positive points in this student’s work and only had one concrete point for improvement, that was to use compensation strategies when she could not come up with a word in order to
26
27
2