CRITICAL ISSUES IN THE EVALUATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL PROJECT DEDICATED TO TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED TBLT (PETALL)

• Authors: António Lopes
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The CEFR encourages teachers to resort to task-based activities in the language classroom. However, some resistance has been offered to this approach, due to lack of appropriate training and difficulty in meeting some basic practical conditions, as well as in finding resources and examples of good practices, as shown in a survey conducted within the scope of ETALAGE. PETALL (Pan European Task-based Activities in Language Learning [2013-2016]) seeks to construct a transnational strategy for ICT-based task design management and aims to design tasks that can be implemented in different educational contexts. This paper offers an overview of the internal evaluation procedures to be followed at different levels and stages of the project, and discusses the objectives, underlying principles and criteria applied.

Keywords

EN

Task-based Language Teaching; ICT; European-funded projects; project evaluation; CEFR

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 4-18

Contributors

author

António Lopes

• University of Algarve

References

• Birbeck, D. (2010). Benchmarking and peer review of teaching practice for the purpose of evidencing excellence in teaching and learning. Ergo 1(3), 5–10.
• Chesterton, P. & Cummings, R. (2007). ALTC grants scheme – Evaluating projects. Retrieved from: http://www.olt.gov.au/evaluation.
• DeLuca, C., Poth, C., & Searle, M. (2009). Evaluation for learning: A cross-case analysis of evaluator strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation 35(4), 121–129.
• Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. Y. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(1), 59-84.
• European Commission (2013). ICT in Education - ESSIE survey (SMART 2010/0039). Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ict-education-essie-survey-smart-20100039.
• Hashimoto, K., Pillay, H. & Hudson, P. (2010). An evaluation framework for sustaining the impact of educational development. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(3), 101–110. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.12.002.
• Hedberg, J., Wills, S., Oliver, R., Harper, B., & Agostinho, S. (2002). Developing evaluation frameworks for assessing quality ICT based learning in higher education. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (eds.). Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=edupapers
• Huber, E. & Harvey, M. (2013). Time to participate: Lessons from the literature for learning and teaching project evaluation in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 240-249. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.004.
• Lawrenz, F. & Huffman, D. (2002). The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 331–338.
• Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2003). How can multi-site evaluations be participatory? American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 471–482.
• Lopes, A. (2012). Changing teachers’ attitudes towards ICT-based language learning tasks: the ETALAGE Comenius project (the Portuguese case). The EUROCALL Review 20(1), 100-103.
• Lopes, A. (2014). PETALL: A European project on technology-mediated TBLT. In S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. Meima and S. Thouësny (eds.), CALL Design: Principles and Practice - Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands (pp. 209-213). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
• McLeod, L., Doolin, B., & MacDonell, S. (2012). A perspective-based understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 68-86.
• Mathison, S. (1991). Role conflicts for internal evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14, 173-179.
• Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ryan, K., Chandler, M. & Samuels, M. (2007). What should school-based evaluation look like? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 197-212.
• Schrooten, W. (2006). Task-based language teaching and ICT: Developing and assessing interactive multimedia for task-based language teaching. In: K. van den Branden (ed.), Task-based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 129-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Seyyedi, K., Ismal A. M., Orang, M. & Nejad, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ narrative writing performance. English Language Teaching 6(12). Retrieved from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/31746/18508.
• Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards, & J. Willis (Eds.). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 33-39). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.) (2010). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology. New York: Continuum.
• Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 173-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
• Yuan, F. (2001). The Effects of Planning on Language Production in Task-Based Language Teaching, Doctoral thesis. Philadelphia: Temple University.