2014- 5- 18
|
#194
|
|
أكـاديـمـي فـعّـال
|
رد: مذاكرة جماعية لمادة اللغة وتقنية المعلومات
اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة m7md.khamis
في اسئلة العام المصورة الاجابة محلولة ب judgment وش الراي !!!
|
خذ العلم يالغالي
الاجابة Checklist
The judgmental evaluation
(A2) However, to regard evaluation as in any way systematic it is necessary at the very least to 'unpack' this armchair approach a bit. The teacher
(or anyone else) acting alone as evaluator should break down the 'overall' or global judgment into parts. This means (a) looking carefully at
different aspects of the materials separately and (b) thinking of all the relevant different aspects of the learning situation, learners, potential
use etc. etc. and (c) judging aspects of (a) in respect of (b), broken down into points. This last in part resembles the process of assessing
'content validity', often talked about in language testing: one can check on an achievement test by analysing the aspects of language tested
and comparing them with what the syllabus or the teaching course before the test covered. Another general principle of language testing also
applies here: it is known that tests with more items are more reliable than shorter ones, and a set of agree/disagree items circling round some
issue is more reliable than a single one targeting it. So here, the summary of a whole series of introspective judgments of specific aspects is
more reliable than one global one.
This is where 'checklists' come in. These are written records of the sort of 'breakdowns' just described. They may be made by the
teacher/evaluator, or adopted from someone else. They at least provide a way of ensuring that important aspects do not get forgotten and that
there is some consistency if the same person evaluates several things. However, the evaluation still remains individual, introspective and
maybe pretty subjective. Checklists generally take the form of sets of headings to be considered or sets of questions to ask oneself. They may
or may not include a system for weighting different elements, or adding up a total score in some way. Two I know of for CALL are the list of
points in Jones and Fortescue, and a more reasoned and systematic framework by Odell (in Leech and Candlin). Recently Chapelle has a set
of 6 points formed from an SLA research perspective (2001 p54ff). John Roberts has a much bigger collection of such checklist used in general
materials evaluation.
However, many published checklists strike one as a rather miscellaneous collection of points or questions, not clearly distinguishing between (a)
and (b) and (c) above, and not obviously exhausting the types of point that should be considered, or organising them in a motivated way.
For teachers, often the checklist-based evaluation just described is the only one feasible, since it is the one that can be done quickly and easily and
before the materials have been extensively used or even bought. It can be enhanced by incorporating the views, arrived at in a similar way
perhaps, of more than one person. I.e. the teacher can get other teachers to do the same sort of evaluation, or read reviews in journals etc.
This makes it less individual, though still introspective and rather subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
|