Tóm tắt: Việc đánh giá các chương trình giảng dạy
tiếng Anh ngày càng thu hút sự quan tâm của các nhà
quản lý chương trình, các nhà lập kế hoạch, các nhà
thiết kế chương trình và các nhà quyết sách.
Việc đánh giá này nhằm hai mục đích chính, đó là
(i) giải trình và (ii) cải thiện và phát triển chương trình.
Trong khi việc đánh giá theo định hướng giải trình
thường xem xét đến những ảnh hưởng của một
chương trình giảng dạy tiếng Anh sau khi chương trình
đó kết thúc và thường được tổ chức nhằm phục vụ mục
đích của người có quyền quyết định, việc đánh giá theo
định hướng nâng cao chất lượng thì lại nhằm mục đích
cải thiện chất lượng của chương trình trong quá trình
thực hiện.
Nhằm đạt được hai mục đích và quan trọng như
nhau đó thì cần phải có những cách tiếp cận khác nhau
khi đánh giá một chương trình giảng dạy tiếng Anh. Bài
viết này nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của việc cần phải
tiến hành song song đánh giá chương trình hướng tới
đạt được cả hai mục đích – giải trình và cải thiện phát
triển chất lượng chương trình. Bài viết này trình bày
một nghiên cứu điển mẫu ở Trường Đại học Hà Nội,
nơi đã thử nghiệm thành công việc đánh giá chương
trình giảng dạy theo cách tiếp cận toàn diện. Bằng
chứng từ nghiên cứu trường hợp này cho thấy để đáp
ứng được hai mục đích – giải trình và cải thiện chất
lượng chương trình, tiếp cận toàn diện trong việc đánh
giá chương trình dạy tiếng Anh là một cách tiếp cận
phù hợp, thông qua việc tập trung vào đánh giá nhiều
khía cạnh khác nhau, từ việc thiết kế chương trình, nội
dung chương trình, các quy trình dạy và học trên lớp
học, sinh viên, giáo viên, đào tạo giáo viên, môi trường
học tập, việc đưa ra quyết định cho đến cơ quan giáo
dục. Bài viết này không chỉ miêu tả chi tiết cách tiếp
cận toàn diện khi đánh giá chương trình giảng dạy
tiếng Anh mà còn khai thác cách thức thực hiện
phương pháp tiếp cận này trên thực tế ở Trung tâm
Giáo dục Quốc tế, Trường Đại học Hà Nội.
8 trang |
Chia sẻ: thanhle95 | Lượt xem: 89 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Đánh giá chương trình giảng dạy tiếng Anh theo cách tiếp cận toàn diện, hướng tới cải thiện chất lượng dạy và học: Nghiên cứu điển mẫu tại trường Đại học Hà Nội, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng
156
ĐÁNH GIÁ CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH
THEO CÁCH TIẾP CẬN TOÀN DIỆN,
HƯỚNG TỚI CẢI THIỆN CHẤT LƯỢNG DẠY VÀ HỌC:
NGHIÊN CỨU ĐIỂN MẪU TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC HÀ NỘI
Ngô Tuyt Mai
Trường Đại học Hà Nội
Tóm t
t: Việc đánh giá các chương trình giảng dạy
tiếng Anh ngày càng thu hút sự quan tâm của các nhà
quản lý chương trình, các nhà lập kế hoạch, các nhà
thiết kế chương trình và các nhà quyết sách.
Việc đánh giá này nhằm hai mục đích chính, đó là
(i) giải trình và (ii) cải thiện và phát triển chương trình.
Trong khi việc đánh giá theo định hướng giải trình
thường xem xét đến những ảnh hưởng của một
chương trình giảng dạy tiếng Anh sau khi chương trình
đó kết thúc và thường được tổ chức nhằm phục vụ mục
đích của người có quyền quyết định, việc đánh giá theo
định hướng nâng cao chất lượng thì lại nhằm mục đích
cải thiện chất lượng của chương trình trong quá trình
thực hiện.
Nhằm đạt được hai mục đích và quan trọng như
nhau đó thì cần phải có những cách tiếp cận khác nhau
khi đánh giá một chương trình giảng dạy tiếng Anh. Bài
viết này nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của việc cần phải
tiến hành song song đánh giá chương trình hướng tới
đạt được cả hai mục đích – giải trình và cải thiện phát
triển chất lượng chương trình. Bài viết này trình bày
một nghiên cứu điển mẫu ở Trường Đại học Hà Nội,
nơi đã thử nghiệm thành công việc đánh giá chương
trình giảng dạy theo cách tiếp cận toàn diện. Bằng
chứng từ nghiên cứu trường hợp này cho thấy để đáp
ứng được hai mục đích – giải trình và cải thiện chất
lượng chương trình, tiếp cận toàn diện trong việc đánh
giá chương trình dạy tiếng Anh là một cách tiếp cận
phù hợp, thông qua việc tập trung vào đánh giá nhiều
khía cạnh khác nhau, từ việc thiết kế chương trình, nội
dung chương trình, các quy trình dạy và học trên lớp
học, sinh viên, giáo viên, đào tạo giáo viên, môi trường
học tập, việc đưa ra quyết định cho đến cơ quan giáo
dục. Bài viết này không chỉ miêu tả chi tiết cách tiếp
cận toàn diện khi đánh giá chương trình giảng dạy
tiếng Anh mà còn khai thác cách thức thực hiện
phương pháp tiếp cận này trên thực tế ở Trung tâm
Giáo dục Quốc tế, Trường Đại học Hà Nội.
Abstract: Evaluation of English language programs
has become of an increasing interest to program
managers, program planners, educators and policy
makers. Two major different purposes for English
language program evaluation are (i) program
accountability and (ii) program development. While
accountability-oriented evaluation examines the effects
of an English language program at significant end
points of an educational cycle and is usually conducted
for the benefit of an external audience or decision
maker, development –oriented evaluation aims at
improving the quality of a program as it is being
implemented. Toward achieving such two major
different purposes, different approaches to evaluation
of an English language program are needed. This
paper takes both purposes of program development
and program accountability into consideration and
presents a case study conducted at Hanoi University
where a holistic approach to evaluation has been
successfully taken of an English language program
towards improving its academic quality. The evidence
from the case study well illustrates that to fit for the
dual purposes of program accountability and program
development, a holistic approach to English language
evaluation is recommendable by focusing on many
different aspects, ranging from program design,
program content, classroom processes, the students,
the teachers, teacher training, the learning environment,
decision making to the institution itself. The paper not
only describes what such a holistic approach to English
language evaluation involves but also investigates how
it is being implemented in reality in an English
language program in Hanoi University.
Key words: evaluation, program development,
English language program, academic quality.
Chin lc ngoi ng trong xu th hi nhp Tháng 11/2014
157
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO EVALUATION
OF AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAM
TOWARDS IMPROVING ITS ACADEMIC QUALITY:
A CASE STUDY AT HANOI UNIVERSITY
1. Introduction
Evaluation of an English language program
really matters. It really matters as it is concerned
with answering a wide range of questions such as
whether the program in place is responding to
learners’ expected needs, whether it is achieving
its goals, or whether students are learning
sufficiently from it, whether further teacher
training is required for teachers working in the
program, or more generally, whether those
affected by the programs (e.g., teachers,
administrators, students, employers, external
agencies) are satisfied with the program.
According to Richards (2005, p. 286), evaluation
of an English language program “focuses on
collecting information about different aspects of a
language program in order to understand how the
program works, and how successfully it works.”
Based on such important information collected,
concerned stakeholders will make different kinds
of important decisions about the program. This
explains why evaluation of English language
programs has become of an increasing interest to
such key stakeholders as program managers,
program planners, educators and policy makers.
As far as the Vietnamese public universities’
context (where many English language programs
are run) is concerned, evaluation has not
practically been paid due attention to. Many
efforts have been made instead into planning and
implementing English language programs without
reflective and purposeful analysis of the practices
that are involved in planning, teaching and
implementing the programs. In order to help
Vietnamese program managers, planners,
educators and policy makers to collect adequate
information, analyze reflectively practices
involved in planning and teaching/implementing a
language course, and to make wise decisions
about the English language programs, this paper
(i) reviews relevant the literature on the topic of
curriculum evaluation, (ii) explores different
purposes for English language program evaluation,
and (iii) presents a case study conducted at Hanoi
University where a holistic approach to evaluation
has been successfully taken of an English language
program towards improving its academic quality.
2. Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation
2.1. The Nature of Curriculum Evaluation
There are many different aspects that
evaluation may focus on. Such aspects are many,
ranging from the quality of program planning and
organization, the syllabus and program content,
classroom processes, teaching materials, the
teachers, teacher training, the students, monitoring
of student progress, learner motivation, the
institution, learning environment to staff
development and decision making (Sanders, 1992;
Weir & Roberts, 1994). It is also important to note
that all such key factors represent an overall and
interlinked system of elements (i.e., needs, goals,
teachers, learners, syllabuses, materials and
teaching). Such elements are those determining
the successful design and implementation of
language programs (Richards, 2005). In other
words, the scope of evaluation should not be
limited. Rather it should be comprehensive. For a
language program to be successfully designed and
implemented, evaluation should focus on all such
key elements. However, in reality, evaluators who
are program managers, program planners,
educators and policy makers, tend to focus on one
single aspect at a time, or in some cases, focus on
few aspects at a time. As a consequence,
judgments about one aspects or some aspects have
been made without due consideration to other
equally important aspects and decisions have been
thus made without adequate information and
evidence. The author of this paper argues that an
effective approach to evaluation should focus on
all the key aspects well described by Sanders
(1992) and Weir and Roberts (1994) because all
those aspects from program planning to
Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng
158
implementation are all worth being evaluated and
any lack of judgments over any of those aspects
may consequentially result in inadequately
informed decisions about the program.
2.2. The Audience of Evaluation
Language teaching programs have many
different levels of involvement and thus create
different kinds of audiences for evaluation.
According to Elley (1989), to conduct an
evaluation, it is important to identify who the
different audiences are and what kind of
information they are most interested in. In other
words, different audiences of evaluation might be
interested in different questions. For example,
students want to evaluate whether they learnt
something from the course and/or how well their
performance compared to other, or whether they
need another course. Whereas teachers teaching
the materials might be primarily concerned that
the books provide sufficient material for all the
classes on the given timetable. Teachers might
also be interested in knowing whether students
were satisfied with the course and how effective
the course organization was. Program
administrators might be interested in knowing
whether the timeframe of the course was
appropriate or whether the program has achieved
the set objectives and the learning outcomes. At
the macro level, officers in the Ministry might be
keen on knowing whether how the money
provided for the project is well spent and whether
all components of the invested language teaching
program or project are available and well
implemented according to the schedule and the set
objective. The sponsors of the course were keen
on such information as whether the cost of the
course was justified, or if the course delivered what
was promised, or if the course was well managed.
2.3. Purposes of Evaluation: Program
Accountability vs. Program Development
Purposes of evaluation vary according to the
intention of program managers, planners, educator
and policy makers. Weir and Roberts (1994)
review the literature and make a distinction
between two major purposes for language
program evaluation: (i) program accountability
and (ii) program development. Accountability, in
their words, “refers to the extent to which those
involved in a program are answerable for the
quality of their work” (Weir & Roberts, 1994, p.
288). Accountability-oriented evaluation thus
examines the effects of an English language
program at significant end points of an
educational cycle and is usually conducted for the
benefit of an external audience or decision maker.
Whereas program development refers to the
quality of the program being evaluated itself and
development –oriented evaluation aims at
improving the quality of a program as it is being
implemented. Development-oriented evaluation
has a development focus and it may involve staff
who are directly involved in the program, for
example, language teachers and it has a teacher –
development focus.
2.4. Approaches to Evaluation
In order to achieve different purposes, different
approaches to evaluation are suggested. Using a
comprehensive typology of approaches to
evaluation, Richards (2005) referred to three
approaches, namely, formative, illuminative, and
summative evaluation. Each of these three
approaches will be discussed in details below,
starting with formative evaluation.
2.4.1. Formative Evaluation Approach
Formative evaluation is carried out on an on-
going basis, as part of the process of program
development with the aim of finding out what is
successful and what is not and what challenges or
issues need to be addressed. This type of
evaluation is generally known as formative
evaluation in the evaluation literature. Its focus is
on the continuous development and improvement
of the program. Formative evaluation typically
attempts to answer a wide range of questions in
relation to, among others, whether enough time
has been allocated to particular objectives,
whether teachers’ used methodologies are
appropriate, and whether students benefit from the
teaching program. Rich information is often
collected during formative evaluation, ranging
from students’ achievement outcomes, to teachers’
methodologies, programs’ teaching materials and
Chin lc ngoi ng trong xu th hi nhp Tháng 11/2014
159
the adequacy of the pacing of the material. Such
information is often used to not only identify
issues and problems and to address the identified
ones and to improve the implementation of the
program for the sake of a better quality program.
Formative evaluation, during the implementation
of any new or old programs, can be carried out
creatively in different forms or in a combination
of various forms or evaluation activities, ranging
from workshops, review meetings (with such
stakeholders as teachers and students), to teachers’
reports, peer observations and student needs
analysis surveys. Such evaluation activities or a
combination of all those activities can reveal a
holistic picture of what is working well and what
is not, and what need to be addressed in the
program before specific actions are taken to
improve it.
2.4.2. Illuminative Evaluation Approach
Besides formative evaluation, another common
type of evaluation, generally known as
illuminative evaluation is often carried out.
Illuminative evaluation is often described as
evaluation that “seeks to find out how different
aspects of the program work or are being
implemented” (Richards, 2005, p. 289). Unlike
formative evaluation which covers a wide range of
aspects of a program, illuminative evaluation
often focuses on one single aspect of a program.
Rather than providing a holistic or comprehensive
picture of a program, illuminative evaluation
seeks to illuminate or provide a deeper
understanding of the processes of teaching and
learning that occur in the program without
necessarily seeking to change the course in any
way as a result. Different illuminative evaluations
focus on different aspects of the program,
depending on what single aspects that evaluators
and program managers are keen on illuminating.
Within a certain illuminative evaluation, certain
questions might be asked to find out how a certain
aspect of the program work or is being delivered
or implemented. If error-correction strategies are
of evaluators’ interests, such questions as what
type of and how error-correction strategies are
used by teachers might be asked. In case teacher-
student interaction patterns are of their interest,
the question as to what type of teacher-student
interaction patterns typically occur in classes.
To conduct illuminative evaluation, various
evaluation activities can be of use by evaluators
who are language teachers, for example, the
questionnaire surveys among stakeholders
including teachers and students or classroom
observations with purposeful investigation, the use
of recorded videos can be of use. The most
popular type of illuminative evaluation is
classroom action research. Block (1998)
highlights the importance of using classroom
action research as a type of illuminative
evaluation in understanding learners’
interpretations of the language courses they attend
and how learners make sense of their lessons.
Block recommends that teachers should interview
learners on a regular basis to get their perspectives
regarding what is going on in the course. Through
classroom action research, teachers can collect
evaluation information about learners and their
performance over a certain period of time,
normally over an academic term of fifteen weeks
or so, using classroom observation, learner
journals, interviews and test/exam results. In some
situations, such an illuminative evaluation activity
of action research might provide some surprising
findings. In other situations, evaluators or action
researchers might not learn anything particularly
surprising from their evaluation or investigation,
such information collected from action research
can help confirm and make explicit some things
which they knew intuitively. Teachers can learn a
useful strategy or technique to use in order to
more effectively facilitate their students’ learning.
As a result, the illuminative evaluation can
provide teachers/evaluators with answers to such
questions and how the teacher (in spotlight) went
about doing a certain thing (e.g., group work,
reading strategies, helping students understand the
teacher’s intentions), and which way of doing it
works best for the teacher.
2.4.3. Summative Evaluation Approach
Summative evaluation is a type of evaluation
seeking to determine the effectiveness, its
efficiency and its acceptability of a program and
to make decisions about the worth or value of
Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng
160
different aspects of the curriculum. According to
Richards (2005), most teachers and program
administrators are familiar with this approach to
evaluation which takes place after the completion
of a program. Shaw and Dowsett (1986, p. 66)
suggest that three audiences are identifiable for all
summative evaluation of language course, namely,
other teachers in the program (the main audience)
for course design and planning purposes,
managers of the institution or program for the
purpose of determining course offerings and
placement, and the curriculum support or
development unit for the purpose of monitoring
the curriculum. This approach generally seeks
answers to a wide variety of questions such as to
how effective the course was, whether it achieved
its aims, or how well the course was received by
students and teachers, or how appropriate the
teaching methods were. Answers to all such
questions help reveal the effectiveness of a course
or a program.
In order to decide whether a course is effective
or not, criteria for effectiveness and different
measures of a course’s effectiveness are identified.
Measures of a course’s effectiveness include
mastery of objectives, performance on tests,
measures of acceptability, retention rate or
reenrollment rate, and efficiency of the course
(Weir, 1995) and each measure can be used for
different purposes (Richards, 2005). For example,
to measure the extent to which the students have
mastered a certain objective at the end of the
course, each objective set in the course is
examined and criteria for students’ successful
achievement of each objective are chosen.
However, the mastery of objectives is not
sufficient and does not always provide a full
picture of the effectiveness of a course. The reality
often shows that objectives can still be achieved
despite defects or shortcomings in the course. Or
perhaps mastery of an objective was achieved
simply because students spent a lot of extra time
in private study to compensate for the poor
teaching performance or insufficient materials
provided during the course. Therefore other more
formal ways of assessing mastery of objectives
such as formal tests (e.g., unit tests given at the
end of each unit of teaching materials, class tests
or quizzes devised by teachers and administered at
various stages throughout the course) are used to
measure students’ achievement.
Besides measures of mastery of objectives and
performance on tests, measures of acceptability
can be used through assessm