An investigation into the use of presentation-reflection assignments in the American studies syllabus at ULIS-VNUH: Relevance and efficacy as perceived by lecturers and students

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN HOÀNG ANH, K17A AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF PRESENTATIONREFLECTION ASSIGNMENTS IN THE AMERICAN STUDIES SYLLABUS AT ULIS-VNUH: RELEVANCE AND EFFICACY AS PERCEIVED BY LECTURERS AND STUDENTS (Nghiên cứu việc Sử dụng Bài tập Thuyết trình-Viết Thu hoạch Bộ mơn Hoa Kỳ Học Trường ĐHNN-ĐHQGHN: Độ Phù hợp Hiệu từ Góc độ Đánh giá Giảng viên Sinh viên) M.A Combined Program Thesis English Language Teaching Methodology 60 14 10 HANOI - 2011 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN HOÀNG ANH, K17A AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF PRESENTATIONREFLECTION ASSIGNMENTS IN THE AMERICAN STUDIES SYLLABUS AT ULIS-VNUH: RELEVANCE AND EFFICACY AS PERCEIVED BY LECTURERS AND STUDENTS (Nghiên cứu việc Sử dụng Bài tập Thuyết trình-Viết Thu hoạch Bộ môn Hoa Kỳ Học Trường ĐHNN-ĐHQGHN: Độ Phù hợp Hiệu từ Góc độ Đánh giá Giảng viên Sinh viên) M.A Combined Program Thesis English Language Teaching Methodology 60 14 10 Supervisor: Đặng Ngọc Sinh, M.A HANOI - 2011 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii LIST OF FIGURES v PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Background of and rationale for the study Aims of the research Significance of the study Scope of the research Organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Key and related concepts 1.1.1 Content-based Instruction and the teaching context in ULIS-VNUH American Studies courses 1.1.2 The presentation assignments 11 1.1.3 Relevance and efficacy 15 1.1.4 English skills in sheltered course classes 17 1.1.5 Interdisciplinary research skills 18 1.2 How does this study fit into other research? 19 1.3 Summary 19 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 20 2.1 Research questions 20 2.2 Participants 20 2.3 Instruments 21 2.4 Data collection procedures 29 2.5 Data analysis procedure 29 2.6 Summary 30 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31 iv 3.1 Perceptions of teachers and students of the degree to which the presentationreflection assignments have helped to meet the couse's objectives 32 3.2 Perceptions of teachers and students of the degree to which the actual assignment quality has met the assignments' requirements 45 3.3 What teachers and students suggest about modifying the assignments? – Practical implication and suggestions 48 3.4 Summary 50 PART C: CONCLUSION 51 Summary of findings 51 Limitations of the study 52 Suggestions for further research 52 REFERENCES 53 APPENDIX .I Appendix American Studies course outline I Appendix 2a Survey questionnaire form – Student version VIII Appendix 2b Survey questionnaire form – Teacher version X Appendix 3a Summary of questionnaire data – Students' Perception XII Appendix 3b Summary of questionnaire data – Teachers' Perception XIII Appendix Median Values XIV Appendix Correlation between efficacy index and presentation score XV Appendix Summary of relevant suggestions from students XVI PART A: INTRODUCTION Background of and rationale for the study I n the world, research and teaching about the United States of America have a long tradition, dating back to as early as the birth of the country At the University of Languages and International Studies – Vietnam National University, Hanoi (ULISVNUH), however, this multi-disciplinary study field just entered the curriculum as a subject for about a decade (Country Studies Division, 2009) Throughout this period, the academic staff of the Country Studies division assigned to implement the course have been constantly embarking on improving the course's contents, through modifying the structure, updating and refining materials, and perhaps more importantly, the teaching methods This arduous task is bound to increase in intensity as the division has to take the lead in designing an entirely new undergraduate program on American Studies for the university, which will be launched around the 2012-2013 timeframe Therefore, as a junior lecturer working in liaison with the group, the author had the need to help revise some elements of the current teaching method used in the American Studies courses, and so this thesis was an ideal chance to aid in the effort During the three recent academic years from 2008 to 2011, the majority of students' casual feedbacks to teachers of American Studies courses mainly expressed concerns about assignment requirements, assignment quality, and, naturally, assignment grading Rather than catering to the sporadic questions about different aspects of the course assignments, this study took the chance to investigate the core and overarching dimensions of the course assignments already in place, i.e oral presentation and written reflection, as tangible and available products of the teaching and studying processes Aims of the research With said purposes, the study aimed at answering the three main questions below: i To what degree American Studies lecturers and students at ULIS-VNUH think the design of the courseworks have helped to meet the course's objectives? Chapter 1: Introduction ii To what degree they think the actual assignment quality has met the assignments' requirements? iii What they suggest about modifying the assignments? Significance of the study The research did not aim to and thus did not suggest the best assignment design to be used in the course Instead, it was expected to have a certain impact on the way how the current assignment types of American Studies courses – and even of similar courses offered by the division e.g British Studies or General Geography of the UK and the US – would be designed, both in paper and practice, to better meet the preset course objectives It also served as a referential material for researchers and teachers alike who are interested in the testing and assessment aspect of curriculum design Scope of the research As stated, the study would look at the American Studies assignments in only two main dimensions: relevance and efficacy – whose meanings within this research context would be interpreted later in the next chapter In terms of research population, the study targeted at students and lecturers involved in the American Studies courses at ULIS-VNUH Specifically, for practical reasons, these are students from the classes of QH081E, since they were the latest groups to take the courses – while all the previous groups had graduated As for the lecturers, all of them came from the Country Studies Division – Faculty of Linguistics and Cultures of English Speaking Countries Chapter 1: Introduction PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Key and related concepts 1.1.1 Content-based Instruction and the teaching context in ULIS-VNUH American Studies courses S ince the early 1980s, there has been a growing interest in combining language and content teaching In the American context, programs, models, and approaches have proliferated in all levels of instruction, creating various forms of incorporating language and content teaching (Met, 1991) In the mid 1990s in European countries, curriculum innovations have been directed toward the content and language integrated learning approach, in which both curriculum content – e.g science or geography – and English are taught together (Graddol, 2007) All these forms of incorporating language and content teaching fall under the heading of Content-based Instruction Overall, it is clear that the term CBI is commonly used to describe a curricula approach which seeks to integrate language and content instruction This paper thus adopts the view similar to that of Curtain and Pesola (1994) in which CBI involves the curriculum concepts being taught through the foreign language, appropriate to the grade level of the students Content Met (1999) proposes that "…'content' in content-based programs represents material that is cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture" This paper adopts the definitions of Met (1999), Curtain and Pesola (1994), which is most relevant to the research context Therefore, "content" here is seen as materials, or specifically "curriculum concepts", that are cognitively engaging and demanding for the learner, and is material that extends beyond the target language or target culture Chapter 2: Literature Review and Practical Basis The rationale of CBI Content-based instruction (CBI) bases its rationale on the premise that students can effectively obtain both language and subject matter knowledge by receiving content input in the target language Although it has been recently recognised by influential authors such as Rodgers as "one of the Communicative Language Teaching spin-off approaches" (2001), some authors contemplate the paradigm within an even wider perspective: according to Stryker and Leaver (1997), for instance, CBI "is a truly and holistic approach to foreign language education … (which) can be at once a philosophical orientation, a methodological system, a syllabus design for a single course, or a framework for an entire program of instruction" The benefits of the approach are directly or indirectly associated with an extensive body of research from a variety of fields Strong empirical support for CBI can be found in second language acquisition research, in teacher training studies and in cognitive psychology, as well as in the outcomes documented by successful programs in a variety of contexts and levels of instruction (Adamson, 1993; Dupuy, 2000) Classification of CBI and current teaching context Through a careful review of related literature, this paper adopts the classification used by Met (1999) Met (2007) has specified the approach as follows: CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING: A CONTINUUM OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATION Content-Driven Total Immersion Partial Immersion Language-Driven Sheltered Courses Adjunct Model Theme-Based Courses Language classes with frequent use of content for language practice Among the models above, the actual instruction model seems to fit in most with the Sheltered Courses as the latter is defined by Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D (2004) (cited in Short, D & Himmel, J., 2007) as shown above Chapter 2: Literature Review and Practical Basis Its neighbor, the adjunct model, can be refuted as being noted by Davies (2003) as "[its] emphasis is placed on acquiring specific target vocabulary" and "they may also feature study skills sessions to familiarise the students with listening, note taking and skimming and scanning texts." These two characteristics are too distant from the course's objectives (Country Studies Division, 2007) 1.1.2 The presentation assignments Based on a review of theoretical foundation, the assignments for a typical American Studies course include group presentations on a certain topic and individual reflection essays of group members on that same presentation and topic Other groups have to write reports/evaluation on the presentation performances of their classmates as well Both the presentation and the reflection are graded (Dang, 2008) Since the last school year of 20102011, another assignment has been integrated into the syllabus – which is essentially a series of mini tests, called "quizzes" However, due to its relative novelty and experimental nature, the assignment is not considered in the scope of this paper On a side note, beside presentation, the other assignment is known under several names in different class – report, reflection, evaluation, comment sheet, etc Nonetheless, for convenience, this research report would use "reflection/report assignment", or simply, "reflection assignment", with the intent to encompass all varieties of the name 1.1.3 Relevance and efficacy Relevance Contextualized, in this research's terms, for both teachers and learners, the relevance factor of the assignments referred to the degree to which the actual implementation of the assignments can help realize the objectives set out for the course Perception from both sides regarding this factor, however, is treated separately then discussed jointly Efficacy The term, particularly in this research, referred to the quality and quantity of work performed by students in its relation with the assignments' requirements (level of adherence to guidelines) It stems from the belief that if the requirements are stricly followed, the intended results will be achieved Chapter 2: Literature Review and Practical Basis Accordingly, the following figure proposed another way to visualize the two concepts relevance and efficacy in their relation to each other and to course objectives: Course objectives Power (Efficacy) Angle (Relevance) Assignment Figure - Relevance & Efficacy Concept 1.1.2 Notions behind the objectives There are key concepts in ULIS' American Studies course objectives which might not be readily obvious Due to their importance, it is imperative that these concepts are made clear in light of existing literature – "English skills" (in a sheltered instruction class context), and "interdisciplinary research skills" Acknowledgedly, "presentational competencies" and foci of American Studies were important concepts, too, but they were adequately defined by the course syllabus already 1.1.4 English skills in sheltered course classes According to The Education Alliance at Brown University, Sheltered English instruction is an instructional approach that engages English language learners above the beginner level in developing grade-level content-area knowledge, academic skills, and increased English proficiency In sheltered English classes, teachers use clear, direct, simple English and a wide range of scaffolding strategies to communicate meaningful input in the content area to students Learning activities that connect new content to students' prior knowledge, that require collaboration among students, and that spiral through curriculum material, offer English language learners the grade-level content instruction of their English-speaking peers, while adapting lesson delivery to suit their English proficiency level Among all sheltered instruction models applied, the SIOP model by Echevarria, Vogt and Short (2000) is widely considered to be one of the most effective (e.g Pearson Education, Chapter 2: Literature Review and Practical Basis 25 Guion, L.A., Diehl, D.C & Donald, D.M (2009) Conducting an In-depth Interview University of Florida Hitchcock, G & Hughes, D (1989) Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research London: Routledge Ibrahim, J (2001) The Implementation of EMI in Indonesian Universities: Its Opportunities, its Threats, its Problems and its Possible Solutions Paper presented at the 49th International TEFLIN Conference in Bali, November 6-8, 2001 Jamieson, S (2004) Likert scales: How to (ab)use them Medical Education 2004: 38: 1212-1218 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Kvale, S (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Larson, E.L., Landers T.F., & Begg, M.D (2011) Building Interdisciplinary Research Models: A Didactic Course to Prepare Interdisciplinary Scholars and Faculty Clinical and Translation Science, (1) Likert, R (1932) A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Archives of Psychology, No.140 McIntyre, F.S., Hoover, G.A., & Gilbert, F.W (1997) Evaluating oral presentations using behaviorally anchored rating scales The Free Library (1997) Retrieved July 23rd, 2011 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Evaluating oral presentations using behaviorally anchored rating -a0208746129 Met, M (2007) Content-based Instruction: Defining Terms, Making Decisions Retrieved 6th November 2009 at http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html Nguyen, T.T.H (2008) Content-based instruction: Beliefs and reality in EFL reading classes at English Department, College of Foregin Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Patton, M Q (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation California: Sage Publications, Inc References 26 Richards, J (2005) Communicative Language Teaching Today Retrieved 13th August 2011 at http://www.cambridge.com.mx/site/EXTRAS/jack-CD.pdf Schneider, B and Räsänen, A (2008) English-Medium Instruction in Multilingual Universities: The Case of Finland Challenges and requisites for success Paper presented at the Day of Languages at UPF, 28 October 2008 Sclove, S.L (2001) Notes on Liker Scales Short, D & Himmel, J (2007) Effective Research-Validated Instruction for ELLs in Middle School Science Center for Applied Linguistics Spencer, B.H., & Bartle-Angus, K (2000) The Presentation Assignment: Creating Learning Opportunities for Diverse Student Populations The Free Library (2000) Retrieved August 1st, 2011 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The Presentation Assignment: Creating Learning Opportunities for -a062924950 Snow, M A and Brinton, D M (1988) The Adjunct Model of Language Instruction: Integrating Language and Content at the University ERIC Stryker, S.N., & Leaver, B.L (eds.) (1997) Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press Verma, G.K & Mallick, K (1999) Researching Education: Perspectives and Techniques Falmer Press References I APPENDIX Appendix American Studies course outline Appendices II Appendices III Appendices IV Appendices V Appendix 2a Survey questionnaire form – Student version Appendices VI Appendices VII Appendix 2b Survey questionnaire form – Teacher version Appendices VIII Appendices IX Appendix 3a Summary of questionnaire data – Students' Perception Item\Scale 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Students' Perception Distribution 3.47% 4.10% 24.29% 47.63% 2.52% 12.30% 38.80% 35.33% 3.15% 10.41% 26.50% 47.32% 0.95% 5.36% 18.30% 56.15% 1.89% 5.68% 23.66% 57.73% 0.95% 5.68% 24.92% 54.89% 0.95% 9.15% 18.61% 55.84% 5.05% 27.44% 39.75% 26.18% 4.73% 5.05% 12.30% 50.47% 1.58% 4.10% 28.39% 42.90% 2.21% 12.62% 41.64% 32.49% 3.15% 9.15% 23.66% 46.69% 5.68% 29.97% 41.96% 18.30% 7.57% 23.97% 47.95% 17.98% 8.20% 25.24% 43.22% 19.87% 2.21% 6.31% 12.93% 59.94% 3.79% 7.57% 41.64% 36.28% 1.26% 16.72% 35.33% 41.64% 3.47% 5.05% 26.81% 46.06% 2.84% 13.56% 47.00% 29.65% 1.58% 6.62% 30.60% 49.21% 3.15% 4.42% 37.85% 44.48% 1.26% 9.78% 19.87% 54.89% 6.31% 17.03% 34.70% 33.75% 1.26% 7.26% 26.50% 43.85% 1.58% 10.09% 28.08% 47.63% 1.58% 5.99% 30.91% 49.53% 1.58% 4.73% 26.81% 50.79% 4.42% 4.73% 27.76% 45.43% 5.99% 9.78% 23.34% 44.48% 2.52% 8.20% 29.34% 41.96% 0.00% 6.31% 20.50% 50.79% 7.57% 0.95% 3.47% 30.91% 6.62% 10.41% 17.98% 42.90% 5.99% 5.05% 9.78% 40.38% 4.73% 7.26% 21.45% 44.16% 2.52% 7.26% 19.56% 52.05% 2.21% 7.89% 32.81% 41.01% 2.52% 4.73% 43.22% 41.64% 20.50% 11.04% 12.62% 19.24% 11.04% 13.56% 15.46% 1.58% 27.44% 23.03% 11.04% 17.35% 4.10% 2.52% 3.47% 18.61% 10.73% 5.05% 18.61% 6.94% 11.99% 10.09% 14.20% 8.20% 21.14% 12.62% 11.99% 16.09% 17.67% 16.40% 17.98% 22.40% 57.10% 22.08% 38.80% 22.40% 18.61% 16.09% 7.89% *Shaded boxes indicate areas of median value Appendices 11 10 3 16 15 10 18 24 26 12 11 10 20 5 14 19 24 21 19 15 8 13 39 33 17 18 18 29 87 16 13 40 29 95 76 80 20 24 53 16 43 21 14 31 54 23 32 19 15 15 31 26 20 33 16 23 23 25 15 Total 77 123 84 58 75 79 59 126 39 90 132 75 133 152 137 41 132 112 85 149 97 120 63 110 84 89 98 85 88 74 93 65 11 57 31 68 62 104 137 151 112 150 178 183 174 177 83 160 136 103 148 58 57 63 190 115 132 146 94 156 141 174 107 139 151 157 161 144 141 133 161 98 136 128 140 165 130 132 65 35 40 61 35 43 49 87 73 35 55 13 11 59 34 16 59 22 38 32 45 26 67 40 38 51 56 52 57 71 181 70 123 71 59 51 25 X Appendix 3b Summary of questionnaire data – Teachers' Perception Item\Scale 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Teachers' Perception Distribution 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 83.33% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 66.67% 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% *Shaded boxes indicate areas of median value Appendices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 2 2 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 0 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 XI Appendix Median Values Item Student Teacher Item Combined Student Teacher 3.0 3.0 1-2 GenK-C 2.50 3.00 2.0 3.0 3-7 SpeK-C 3.00 3.00 3.0 3.0 8-11 PreP-C 2.50 2.50 3.0 3.0 12-15 RepP-C 2.25 1.63 3.0 3.0 16-18 EngP-C 2.33 3.00 3.0 3.0 19-21 EngR-C 2.67 2.83 3.0 3.0 22-24 ResSk-C 2.67 2.17 2.0 2.0 25-28 FurS-C 3.00 3.00 3.0 3.0 29-36 P-C 3.13 3.31 10 3.0 3.0 37-39 R-C 2.67 3.00 11 2.0 2.0 29-39 PR-C 3.00 3.23 12 3.0 3.0 13 2.0 1.0 Abbreviation: 14 2.0 1.0 GenK-C General knowledge combined 15 2.0 1.5 SpeK-C Specific knowledge combined 16 3.0 3.5 17 2.0 3.0 PreP-C Presentation's influence on presentational skills combined 18 2.0 2.5 19 3.0 3.0 RepP-C Reflection's influence on presentational skills combined 20 2.0 2.5 21 3.0 3.0 EngP-C Presentation's influence on English skills combined 22 3.0 2.0 23 3.0 2.5 EngR-C Reflection's influence on English skills combined 24 2.0 2.0 25 3.0 3.0 ResSk-C Interdisciplinary research skills combined 26 3.0 3.0 27 3.0 3.0 FurS-C Preparation for further study combined 28 3.0 3.0 P-C Presentation efficacy 29 3.0 3.5 R-C Reflection efficacy 30 3.0 2.5 PR-C Efficacy combined 31 3.0 3.0 32 3.0 3.5 33 4.0 3.5 34 3.0 3.5 35 3.0 4.0 36 3.0 3.0 37 3.0 3.0 38 3.0 3.0 39 2.0 3.0 Appendices XII Appendix Correlation between efficacy index and presentation score ALL C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 Pres 8.10 9.00 7.28 7.51 7.95 8.50 7.90 7.60 8.40 8.10 7.70 8.30 8.20 8.52 8.78 7.60 8.14 9.20 9.00 7.50 7.30 P-C 2.80 3.01 2.74 2.81 2.92 2.89 2.75 2.94 2.63 2.98 2.75 1.82 2.64 3.06 3.24 2.54 3.31 3.49 3.06 2.68 2.46 P-C Dif 0.00 0.21 -0.06 0.00 0.11 0.09 -0.05 0.13 -0.17 0.18 -0.05 -0.98 -0.16 0.25 0.44 -0.26 0.51 0.69 0.25 -0.12 -0.34 PcD/P 2.14 4.30 12.67 0.00 -1.32 4.48 3.79 -3.71 -1.76 0.00 7.57 -0.20 -0.63 1.65 1.54 1.93 0.08 1.60 3.53 4.91 2.32 R-C 2.62 2.87 2.40 2.81 2.63 2.58 2.53 2.59 2.71 2.53 2.64 1.99 2.69 2.91 3.02 2.14 3.13 3.52 2.72 2.56 2.14 R-C Dif 0.00 0.25 -0.22 0.19 0.01 -0.04 -0.09 -0.03 0.09 -0.09 0.02 -0.63 0.07 0.29 0.40 -0.48 0.51 0.90 0.10 -0.06 -0.48 RcD/P 0.85 3.53 3.70 -3.15 -13.24 -9.40 2.21 19.45 3.33 0.00 -16.29 -0.32 1.39 1.44 1.70 1.04 0.08 1.23 9.03 9.56 1.67 PR-C PR-C Dif PRcD/P Pres Dif 2.75 2.97 2.65 2.81 2.84 2.81 2.69 2.84 2.65 2.86 2.72 1.87 2.66 3.02 3.18 2.43 3.26 3.50 2.97 2.65 2.37 0.00 0.22 -0.11 0.05 0.09 0.05 -0.06 0.09 -0.10 0.11 -0.03 -0.89 -0.10 0.26 0.43 -0.32 0.51 0.74 0.21 -0.11 -0.38 1.54 4.06 7.63 -10.86 -1.75 7.51 3.17 -5.50 -3.03 0.00 12.61 -0.23 -1.03 1.59 1.58 1.57 0.08 1.48 4.23 5.66 2.10 0.00 0.90 -0.82 -0.59 -0.15 0.40 -0.20 -0.50 0.30 0.00 -0.40 0.20 0.10 0.42 0.68 -0.50 0.04 1.10 0.90 -0.60 -0.80 Abbreviation: Pres Presentation score Dif Difference compared with average (ALL) XcD/P Amount of presentation score increased (or decreased) per point of X increased (or decreased) *Conforming to the anonymity principle, real class IDs were replaced by ordinal ID Appendices XIII Appendix Summary of relevant suggestions from students Ts provide more materials for reference Presentation topics more varied, practical Ts suggest topics and offer guide in choosing topic Ts approve outline via email – because otherwise the waiting time is too long Ts offer more help during the preparation process Presentation topics must stick to the book(!) More time to prepare for presentation Reflection bedone individually rather than in groups Ts give more detailed Remove the reflection comments assignment (a considerable number of students Ts evaluate team mates 'suggested' this) OR more fairly replace it with reflection essay on each of the teacher's lecture Consistent criteria to mark Higher requirement for Steer away from topics presentation scores research content in related to economy or preparation for politics because they are presentation too difficult More flexible criteria to More discussion after each Conduct a minitest after mark presentation presentation each presentation, which scores(!) will be graded Bored with presentation, Requirement for better should be replaced by sharing and discussion discussion/seminar about topics before presentation Consistent presentation Reduce presentationfollow-up questions reflection group's size Presentations be better supported with facts and figures, etc (!) indicates conflict of suggestion It may stem from the difference in classroom context or difference in students' learning preference Appendices Less time to deliver presentations – some were lengthy and boring Longer presentation time(!) Presentations focus more on updated information and knowledge about the US Separate room for each class (two classes are often crammed into one classroom) Ss spend more effort on assignments Ss discuss more actively in follow-up discussion