楊麗華 李青芮 李文濤

【摘要】本文以Biggs 的建構性的配合手段和Print周期性課程設計模式為理論依據，對英語專業語法課教學目的、課堂活動和評價方法進行了反思，認為現有的以終結性的測試方式和教學活動存在著不一致，建議語法課程應多采用形成性評價的方式。

【關鍵詞】語法教學 課程設計 評價

【中圖分類號】G642 【文獻標識碼】A 【文章編號】2095-3089（2014）11 -0112-03

Designing and Assessing English Grammar Course for English Major Students

【Abstract】The essay surveys reflectively and critically on the designing and assessing of module 3131023-a English grammar course for English major students. It mainly falls back on Biggs constructive alignment and Prints cyclical models as theoretical supporting. The final finding is that 3131023 is not very well aligned because of the contradictory between learning activity based on portfolio and traditional timed examination as summative assessment. The future recommendation is a combination of a peer assessment and journal writing.

【Key Words】 Grammar course course designing assessment

Introduction

To meet the objective is one of the hardest tasks facing to teachers in higher education. To achieve it effectively， the classroom learning activities and assessment should be planned carefully to well align with the instruction objectives （Biggs， 2003， P11）. The course we are going to introduce has experience a complex procedure from tradition to reformation. Though it finally proved not very well-aligned， we have gained experiences and knowledge which result in some recommendations on our future teaching reflecting especially on the designing of the learning activity.

Context

From Oct. 2006 to June 2007， we had been teaching grammar 3131023-a 1-year required course for all English major freshmen with 4 credits of two semesters. Altogether it was made up of 64 sessions. We met once a week for 100 minutes. There were 56 students from different part of the country. All of them had had the learning experience of English for at least 6 years before entering the university. However because of different social and learning environment and some other factors， they were at different levels in their English according to their grades of college entrance examination and had different motivations， which led to difficulties in teaching and learning activity planning. Also they had diversities of learning strategy and learning styles under the influences of their former learning.

Grammar as a basic knowledge of English language is especially essential for English major students. Examinations， dissertation writing which has a high requirement on grammar are the reasons. And for most of them a lifelong career is related closely to English. In this one year， students would have to finish a textbook from morpheme to transition -A New English Grammar Coursebook assigned by the dean of English Group. In each semester there would be 2 summative assessments—mid-term and final examination. Besides， they will selectively take part in a nationwide examination called Test for English Major （TEM） level 4 including 7-8% knowledge of grammar， which is held once a year at the end of their second year learning.

Objectives

As one kind of Teaching English as Foreign Language （TEFL） courses for English major， the teaching of grammar should be complied with the syllabus-Teaching Curriculum for English Major （2006） made by the Higher Education Institution of National Educational Department. The general objective of teaching English major students in higher education is to educate students of complex ability with good knowledge and high proficiency so that they can apply English in the future life in different fields. It also stresses on students communicative， analytic and creative ability. According to this syllabus， grammar belongs to one of the three learning groups in their four year language study-language proficiencies. The other two are knowledge of English language like linguistics and other subjects concerned with different minor majors like English language test and international politics. Obviously， we could do nothing about the objectives. Besides what they have learned before entering the university， the learning outcomes have been divided into 4 levels in their first 2 years learning. They are：

Before entrance—to identify and use basic sentence components （e.g. nouns， verbs， adverbs， adjectives， objects， subjects）

Level 2—to identify and appropriately use subject-verb accordance， clauses， direct and indirect speech， infinitive verb and participles， active and passive voice and tenses.

Level 4—to identify and appropriately use subjective clause， and appositive， inversion， conditionals and transition between sentences and passages.

--Teaching Curriculum of English Major （2006）

From the above we can see appropriate application of English in real life is the final objective of the learning of these items. The objective sees learning in both quantitative and qualitative way， and learner instead of teacher is the center of creating the meaning （Biggs， 1996）. The ultimate goal of EFL teaching is mastery of the English language； however， prior to becoming fluent in their use of English， students must first acquire a clear understanding of and proficiency including grammar.

The learning activities

Hall， Ramsay & Raven （2002） have ever done a research on classroom learning. They successfully prove that changes made to the learning environment like the use of group-based problem solving exercises， group presentations and group assignments in deed have some influence on the approaches to learning adopted by students， and the effect of the learning environment on students approaches to learning is independent of student age， academic ability or prior accounting education. Students learning has experienced a change from surface to deep learning. In another study， Wilson and Fowler also find that “students who reported themselves as more typically surface were influenced to adopt deeper processing strategies in the action learning design” （Wilson & Fowler， 2005）. These coincide with what we have done in the grammar.

Learning activities were the most difficult part in our grammar class， which had experienced some struggle from traditional lecture to qualitative student-centered teaching and knowledge using in real life.

In the first semester， we was involved in the difficult situation when preparing the teaching plan because of students jigsaw level of English grammar， which means all of them understand some knowledge of grammar， and some of them knew more and could use them more freely than the others. The teaching method we chose at the very beginning was mainly lecturing with students listening， interpreting， comprehending and note-taking. However we found the students couldnt concentrate on the lecture because all of them have studied most of the content before coming to the university and some of them had acquired them quite well. To listen to what they had already understood was a kind of time killing. Brown and Race （2002） have done a wide range investigation on lecturing and their negative findings locate on “a gloomy picture of unhappy and unproductive practice where learning is often almost completely absent from the scene” （Brown & Race， 2002， P19）. Biggs refers it as mainly quantitative learning and does little to challenge or question students interpretations so they see implicit encouragement to accept the content and the interpretation given （Biggs， 2005）.

To change the situation， students were required to read the material and take notes before coming to the class. Focuses were moved onto students questions about what they were still confused with and what they thought new for them. Also our lecture was shifted to these two parts. Students learning had been improved from unistructural level with the learning activities like identifying， recognizing to mutistructural level like classifying， describing and listing in SOLO taxonomy （Biggs， 2003， P48） Classroom atmosphere became better.

At the same time we was still not satisfied and realized we could do something more. So an informal oral investigation on their understanding of the textbook was held in our spare time during the break of two sessions. An unexpected result occurred that even the students with the poorest grammar knowledge could understand the textbook by self-studying. This contributed to a natural conclusion that what led to the poor using of grammar in their writing and low grading was not due to inadequate， explicit and thorough explanation on the knowledge， but the lack of chance to apply the knowledge in their real life. Also， exercises like multiple choice， blank filling， and replacement etc. could not reinforce what had been learnt， thus couldnt lead to higher level understanding. Another fact that our grammar was becoming better with these years repetitive teaching on it was a sharp contrast to the situation when we wrote our dissertation in our college life. At that time， our tutor commented our paper as being disordered and messy in grammar.

This implied me something. We started to reflect on our teaching activities and realized what the students needed now was to apply the grammatical knowledge in their own life. In the second semester， supported by constructive alignment theories （Biggs， 2003）， we have made some change by finding each student at least one volunteer of none English major students as tutees with the help of our peers. Or students could also find one by themselves. This action fell on Biggs theory of “the more TLAS tie down the topic to be learned to multiple sensory modes， the better the learning” （Biggs， 2003， P80）. He further quotes a resource from Glasser that most people learn 95% for what they teach someone else （Glasser 1988， in Biggs， 2003， P80）. In the new semester， each student was required to tutor at least 10 times， with at least one hour each time. This action was essential in that students were encouraged to have active activities （Biggs， 1996）.

Most of the students seemed to enjoy the way of learning grammar by teaching others. They reflected in their journals that：

Teaching others exposed my own problems. Even though I had spent 2-3 days preparing the teaching content， still I had to turn to the concerned part in the textbook. But this action gave me deeper impression on these sections

--Lixi， Zhang

It was an exciting experiment when I tutored the others， which challenged me a lot. It was helpful because I had learnt to become flexible. I needed to change and advent new ways frequently when my tutees were still confused.

--Chao Yang

Assessment

There was an obvious hiatus between learning activity and assessment in the designing of 3131023. We chose a portfolio as the formative assessment as mentioned above. However students were required to take the middle and final examination each semester. In this way teachers with no alternatives had to grade students in the following way： the mid-term made up of 30% and the final 50% of the final 100 marks. And the rest 20% went to attendance， homework and classroom participation. For TEM4 even though they were not forced to take part in it， the grade and certificate were important in their future work hunting.

The summative assessments in mid-term， final and even in TEM4 were all held in the way of timed examinations. These exams were in the measurement models like multiple choice， grammatical correctness， sentence structure and variety， short answer， translation， and blank filling etc. characterized as quantitative， focusing declarative knowledge and encouraging surface learning. According to Tang， this kind of assessment creates its backwash negatively in that students memorize specific points to be recalled at speed （Tang 1991， in Biggs， 2003， P175）. The only advantage assumed is the coverage. However， Gardner mentions that “the greatest enemy of understanding is coverage” （Gardner 1993， in Biggs， 1996）.

Students grades of grammar have always not been satisfactory. The main reason is English is a thorough new language system for them. Another reason attributes to the traditional way of teaching and learning and assessment. With the new teaching skill， students marks were better （from 60 to 63） in the second semester than those in the first. However the traditional way of assessment did not align with the learning activity， still the final result was not satisfactory with only 3 marks higher in average.

Learning theories and frameworks

Print gives a detailed analysis on where and how to develop a curriculum and the factors which he defines as presages should be taken into account （1993， P28）. Then he ranges the models of course design from rational， cyclical to dynamic approaches （1993， P60）. The curriculum of grammar course 3131023 has already been designed before we were involved in its teaching. We category this course model into cyclical model in that it has always been changed according to the teaching curriculum of middle school， the novice theories of grammar and the social requirements on English. Besides it does not give a specific description of ways in teaching and learning activities. Instead， teachers are encouraged to take any way that is creative and novice according to students formal learning experience. This curriculum reflects Prints summarizing on cyclical models that it sees the whole process as continuing and is ready to accept new information and practices as a change （1993， P69）.

Nicholls and Nichollss cyclical approach is refined by considering situational analysis （Nicholls and Nicholls， 1978 in Print， 1993）. Print sees highly of this phase and regards it “a deliberate move to force curriculum developers in schools to be more responsive to their environment and particularly to the needs of learners” （Print， 1993， P72）. As mentioned in the context， 3131023 has been designed with the full consideration of students learning experience-their required grammar situation before entering the university.

Biggs constructive alignment is the further development of these curriculum models. Biggs explicitly refers teaching “a complex system” in a classroom including teacher， students， the teaching context， student learning activities and the outcome， and all these components align with each other to reach a balance （Biggs， 1996）. The curriculum of 3131003 was not well aligned in that teachers were forced to adopted a traditional timed examination even though it has quite up-to-date objectives based on situational analysis and flexible “selection and organization of methods” （Nicholls and Nicholls， 1978 in Print， 1993）. “And without a robust and up-to-date picture of teaching-learning processes and practices， it becomes difficult to identify ways of strengthening present provision which will make a significant， positive impact on the quality of student learning” （Hounsell et al， ）. We had some effort to use portfolio in 3131023 by asking students to write teaching plan before their tutoring and also a journal （appendix1） after it. Biggs highlights that in a portfolio “students have to reflect and use judgment in assessing their own work and explain its match with the unit objectives” （Biggs， 2003， P189）. Many students gave positive feedback. They thought tutorial as a new adventure. However exam backwash discouraged their motivation and influenced the participation of this activity.

Besides， we have to admit the deficiency of the teaching strategy. It did not offer students clear levels of evaluation on students teaching plans and journals， figure of times is the only requirement for this task. Students were vague on specific objectives and lose the effective to monitor their learning， thus lose the chance to get improved.

The final factor influencing the alignment of this course is the “selection and organization of content” （Nicholls and Nicholls， 1978 in Print， 1993）. Textbook had been assigned by the department and the teacher could only accept the existed textbook. The content of grammar is relatively fixed because of the self-features of grammar， but textbooks loading the content are selective.

Conclusion

Obviously， instructional objectives， learning activities and assessment strategies should be aligned if student deep learning and progress are expected. While reflecting on the curriculum， we find some strengths and weaknesses of the whole course design. If we cannot change the way of assessment， another alternative might be change the approaches to teaching so that they will align well and lead to the deep learning. Gibbss peer assessment implies me that it can be a combination of peer work and tutorial in the future grammar teaching.

References：

Biggs， J.， （1996）. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education， 32（3）， PP347-364.

Biggs， J.， （2003）. Teaching for Quality Learning at University：2nd ed. Buckingham： SRHE and Open University Press.

Brown， S.， and Glasner， A.， （2003）. Assessment matters in higher education： choosing and using diverse approaches. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Hounsell et al， （2005） Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses. [Online] http：//www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl

Print， M.， （1993）. Curriculum development and design. 2nd ed. Allen &Unwin.