Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors Elana Spector-Cohen

Beliefs and Practices of EAP Instructors Elana Spector-Cohen Tel Aviv University Ruppin Academic Center TBLT 2009 Lancaster University September 15, 2009 espector@post. tau. ac. il espector@ruppin. ac. il 1

EAP: Historical Background, Israel Course bibliographies in English; language of communication / tasks is Hebrew ¡ Departmentally-dictated EAP course goals: reading comprehension only ¡ Assessment: traditional reading comprehension tests l Washback effect classroom teaching / materials l Course materials isolated texts” plus “inauthentic questions” no thematic link to simulate authentic academic reading l High-stakes final exam RC questions, often lowerorder thinking skills, not part of thematic unit construct assessed? Had the quest for ‘authenticity’ backfired? 2

EAP: Background ¡ At the same time, developments in field: l Content- and task-based teaching l Alternatives of assessment, including taskbased / performance-based assessment l Academic literacies l World-Wide Web and global communications ¡ Were we preparing our students for the demands of today’s global world? 3

Stage 1: Fall 2006 Research Questions ¡ What are instructors’ beliefs regarding goals and assessment in EAP courses? ¡ Do instructors report that they are adopting methods of teaching and assessment that are aligned with integrative content-based teaching and alternatives of assessment? ¡ Do they report that their practices are aligned with their beliefs? If not, why? 4

The Study EAP instructors in the Division of Foreign Languages at TAU and in the Center for English Studies at Ruppin Academic Center were asked to complete a questionnaire Part 1: demographic survey ¡ Part 2: original questionnaire on assessment beliefs and practices (50 questions on 5 point Likert scale) ¡ Part 3: additional comments ¡ 5

Part 1: The Demographic Survey TAU Number of respondents: 24 (31 staff members, including hourly staff) 77% response rate 24 female 0 male Ruppin Number of respondents: 16 (21 staff members, including hourly staff) 76% response rate 13 female 3 male Native language: Bulgarian (1), Dutch (1), English (12), Hebrew (1), Russian (4), Spanish (3), Turkish (1), Yiddish (1) Native language: English (7), Hebrew (8), Swedish (1) Years teaching EAP: ranged from 8 – 36 years; mean = 22 years Years teaching EAP: ranged from 1/2 – 30 years; mean = 8. 28 years 6

1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always Part 2: The Questionnaire: Reading Only? mean SD % answered 1 % answered 2 % answered 3 % answered 4 % answered 5 The goal of EAP courses in my context should be reading only. TAU 2. 54 RUPPIN 1. 60 1. 50 41. 67 12. 5 4. 17 33. 33 8. 33 . 80 53. 33 40 0 6. 67 0 7

1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always Part 2: The Questionnaire: Reading Only? mean SD % answered 1 % answered 2 % answered 3 % answered 4 % answered 5 Assessment in my context involves reading only. TAU 3. 17 1. 55 25 12. 5 8. 33 29. 17 25 Ruppin 1. 94 1. 03 43. 75 31. 25 12. 50 0 8

Course Goals: Conclusions What are instructors’ beliefs regarding goals and assessment in EAP courses? ¡ TAU: Beginning of a paradigm shift? l. Disagreement (polarization) regarding goals of program / courses (reading only? ) l. Move toward assessment that integrates four skills OR still assessing reading only? ¡ Ruppin: More receptive to integrative approach? “Please” the researcher? Exposed to more recent trends in language teaching? 9

1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes mean SD % answered 1 Beliefs % answered 2 % answered 3 % answered 4 % answered 5 Assessment should integrate language with performance on a "real-world" task. TAU 4. 29 . 89 0 4. 17 16. 67 25 54. 17 Ruppin 4. 38 . 70 0 0 12. 50 37. 50 50 Self-assessment and peer-assessment are valuable measures. TAU 3. 5 1. 29 8. 33 16. 67 20. 83 25 29. 17 Ruppin 4. 06 . 97 0 6. 25 25 25 43. 75 10

1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes – Practices, con’t. I use performance-based assessment involving authentic academic tasks in my course. % % % answered answered 1 2 3 4 5 mean SD TAU 4. 27 1. 09 4. 55 9. 09 22. 73 59. 01 Ruppin 3. 73 . 77 0 6. 67 26. 67 53. 33 12

1 = Strongly disagree / Never 3 = No opinion/Not sure 5 = Strongly agree / Always The Questionnaire: Assessment Modes – Practices, con’t. I regularly use assessment rubrics in my classroom. % % % answered answered 1 2 3 4 5 mean SD TAU 2. 74 1. 29 21. 05 31. 58 5. 26 36. 84 5. 26 Ruppin 3. 13 1. 27 12. 50 25 12. 50 37. 50 12. 50 13

Part 3: Additional Comments ¡ ¡ “Some of the questions seemed irrelevant to our courses which do not stress or measure writing and speaking. ” “Some answers are determined by departmental … policy. There is some discrepancy in my answers due to this factor. ” 14

Assessment: Conclusions Do instructors report that they are adopting methods of teaching and assessment that are aligned with integrative content-based teaching and alternatives of assessment? ¡ Beginning of paradigm shift? l Many instructors felt that CBI/TBLT and PBA provide valuable insights into students' abilities to use English in an academic setting l Instructors report using both traditional and alternative modes of assessment l Yet, do self-reports mirror what is really taking place in the classroom? (e. g. confusion regarding rubrics or common language regarding assessment terminology) 15

Model for EAP Courses Applied to Program at Ruppin Academic Center: 2006 -2008 ü Simulation of authentic activity UNIT ü Extended content ü Integration of the four skills CBI PBI Collaborative Learning ü Multiple media / resources ü Activation / acquisition of background knowledge ü Branching / specialization ü Integration /application ü Sharing information ü Multiple modes of assessment (Kol, Schcolnik & Spector-Cohen, 2006) 16

17

Stage 2: Formative Evaluation of EAP Program: Spring 2008 Ruppin Academic Center: EAP staff members who had taught in the 20072008 academic program post program change n = 12 (academic program only) response rate = 78% “Don’t get too excited. Your idea never really gets off the ground. ” 18

Results of Formative Evaluation Questionnaire: Spring 2008 What changes, innovations, activities, etc. that were introduced in the English department in the past year were most beneficial to you and/or your students and/or the department as a whole? l ¡ ¡ ¡ Please explain why. You may list as many items as you feel are appropriate. Please also rank them if you can, according to relative importance (from 1 = most beneficial). 19

Results of Formative Questionnaire First place = 10 points Second place = 8 points Third place = 6 points Fourth place = 4 points Fifth place = 2 points Sixth place = 0 points 20

Results of Formative Questionnaire 1. TBLT / PBI (84 pts) 2. Content-based teaching (80 pts) 3. Theoretical framework/clear syllabus/raising standards (30 pts) 3. Blended 3. Official midterm test 4. Empirical research learning/variety of task and fewer classroom article for teaching and modes (30 pts) testing (28 pts) 5. Teacher Cooperation (14 pts) 5. Administrative and pedagogical leadership of dept. head (14 pts) 5. Professional development of teachers (14 pts) 5. Improving testing/ the test-writing process (14 pts) 6. Use of library/staff to teach databases and to prepare for presentations (10 pts) 7. Committees (2 pts) 8. Fewer staff meetings (0 pts) 21

Results of Formative Questionnaire What changes, innovations, activities, etc. that were introduced in the English department in the past year were least beneficial to you and/or your students and/or the department as a whole? l ¡ ¡ Please explain why. You may list as many items as you feel are appropriate. Please also rank them if you can, according to relative importance (from 1 = least beneficial). 22

Results of Formative Questionnaire 1. Failed committees (20 pts) 2. The Ruppin web site (14 pts) 3. The place of proper 3. CBI in engineering (10 pts) linguistic subjects such as grammar and translation skills in EAP (10 pts) 3. Grades (find solutions to grade calculation on site / Excel) (10 pts) 3. Integrating empirical research articles in business administration—boring and tiresome (10 pts) 3. No make up midterm exam 4. Accommodations: (10 pts) cassettes (8 pts) 23

Results of Formative Questionnaire l Do you have any recommendations for future directions for the department for next year? 24

Results of Formative Questionnaire: Recommendations (Excerpts) ü Not to lower the standards ü Cooperation with content teachers ü Integrate authentic evaluation ü Continue ongoing professional development ü Develop more writing tasks and rubrics 25

Stage 3: 2008 -2009 Intensive staff development on Moodle and blended learning l EAP staff pilots Moodle… l Based on success of pilot, decision made to offer Moodle to all instructors 26

Thanks for listening! 27

Reference Kol, S. , Schcolnik, M. & Spector-Cohen, E. (February 2006). Making connections: Content- and task-based EAP. Unpublished paper presented at UTELI (University Teachers of English Language in Israel) Conference, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. 28