A Course Evaluation of English Language Use and Usage: M.Ed. Education first Semester

Abstract

In this paper, I have attempted to evaluate the course of M.Ed. Education first semester entitled English Language Usage and Use. This paper begins with a brief introduction of the course and gradually moves towards the evaluation model which is the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model. The CIPP model of course evaluation is the basis of the evaluation. The analysis is based on the interview with one teacher teaching the same course and two students who have passed the course and practicing grammar teaching at the school level.  In the context evaluation, this paper highlights the overall environment of the university students’ readiness and appropriateness of the causes according to the student’s level.

Similarly, in Input and process evaluation, this paper has highlighted the content delivery methods and prescribed activities referencing the argument of the students and teacher. The last part of the CIPP model product evaluation briefly highlights the evaluation process and critically reflects the evaluation and testing tools. Finally, based on the analysis, I have analyzed the course from my perspective and suggested some of the findings.

Introduction of the course

English Usage and Use is an advanced-level course offered by Tribhyban University for M. Edu students in the Semester system. The course is of English syntax that is directly interfaced with semantic and pragmatic dimensions. The course is integrated as it begins with the broader theoretical perspective on the syntactic aspects of grammar and moves through English usage and its use in action and finally ends with their pedagogical extension.

The objectives of the course are as follows:

• To develop the students’ insights into various approaches to grammar in general and English grammar in particular.
• To enhance sound knowledge of English grammar.
• To enable the students to be aware of grammaticality in language skills.
• To help the students exploit various principles, techniques, and resources of teaching English grammar for pedagogical purposes.

Why did I choose this course for evaluation?

As I was assigned to evaluate the course which is related to English language Education to any educational program I started thinking of different courses. I thought about different courses and talked with my colleagues. They recommended other different courses, however, listening to others, I started seeking my interest. Before choosing this course to evaluate, I thought that I need to have enough knowledge about the course so that I can further dig out the lacunae and the strength of the course. Finally, I decided on the starting point of my course evaluation journey with English Language Usage and Use.

This course was one of my best courses during my M. Ed studies at Tribhuvan University. I had been an English language teacher for five years before I join the Med program at TU. While studying in My B.Ed I felt lacking in the part of grammar and had to learn from my students and junior friends. The striking point in my professional career was that I took the course as a chance to enhance my grammatical knowledge. Though the course is is advanced level learner it had been able to fulfill my appetite for grammatical knowledge.

Context Evaluation

M.Edu. in Tribhuvan University follows the semester system. Previously it was on a yearly basis having two years of classes called first year and second year. Now the course has been four-semester including compulsory research work/ thesis writing. In the semester system, students have to present in class and attendance is a compulsory element of formative assessment which plays a role in achieving a good grade. Students who are committed to learning something can join this program as the classes are run during regular office hours. So the students who were admitted to M.Edu in Tribhuvan University central department are supposed to be full-time students.  One of my participants shares his happiness to have such a wonderful and useful course at the M.Ed level. According to the participants, the course offered for English Education for B.Ed level should have at least one applied grammar so that they will have the basic foundation for such a wonderful course.

‘English Language Usage and Use’ is one of the courses offered in the first semester of the M.Edu program at Tribhuvan University. The course advanced in the sense that it corporated the huge theoretical foundation for grammar teaching, developmental stages of English Grammar, and teaching. It also highlights the different approaches in development in teaching and talks about the generic terms of English grammar. We also found the test of minor elements of grammar, their function in context, and finally goes to the sentence and the discourse level.

The students who study this course are B. Edu. graduates who are supposed to take the four-year full course. In B.Ed there is no such course in particular however they have to study a certain portion in general English of the first year in B. Edu. Which is not adequate for a language teacher.

The Course English Language Usage and Use is all about Grammar in general and English Grammar in particular Which talks about generic grammar in the context of all the languages and funnels down towards the English Grammar. In this, the students have to learn the concept of English language grammar and teaching techniques that deal with the study of new methods of teaching and educational research. Grammar Knowledge is crucial for ELT teachers As It is a central part of linguistics (Crystal, 2011) As being the central part of Linguistics has been additionally focused on and given additional priority in the Nepalese curriculum.  The learner of this course is B.Ed Graduate, who has passed all the language teaching courses for B. Ed Program Under TU.

The graduates from this course are supposed to be competent teachers and researchers in English language teaching and linguistic research. In certain contexts, action research and classroom material design, and lesson planning is a compulsory part of the professional life of the teacher. In this regard, the course offered by TU during M.Ed Master is comprehensible and appropriate.

Input Evaluation

The course has covered a variety of areas in the sense that the content is complete. The content begins with the phone and developmentally goes up to the final level of grammar in the context of discourse. The entire course has been divided into four units and each unit covers the different areas of grammar and grammar teaching in the language teaching context. The first part of the book talks about the approach of grammar in detail. In this chapter, the learner gets to learn about conceptualization, the misconception of grammar, traditional grammar, and structuralism in Grammar.

Similarly, the second part of the course offers English uses in varieties of approaches and proposes. This chapter offers the detailed scope of grammar used in different Englishes (Bhatta, 2001). The use of grammar in teaching approaches like descriptivism and prescriptivism allows the learner to have rules governing the teaching of grammar and the students centered on example to rule approaches of pedagogy in language teaching practice. In particular, the key difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism is that prescriptivism is an approach that attempts to impose rules of correct usage on the users of a language whereas descriptivism is an approach that analyses the actual language used by speakers without focusing on aspects such as language rules or proper usage. Prescriptivism and descriptivism are two contrasting approaches to language usage and grammar. Prescriptivism explains how language should be used whereas descriptivism describes how language is actually used.

The focus of this course was raised from the basic elements of grammar like phone phonemes which are completely linguistic properties and gradually aims to develop the holistic knowledge of grammar. The focus of the course is to develop a brief historical background to support the modern trend in grammar teaching in the learner. While going through the evaluation process of the course I personally believed that the learner who takes this course will be able to develop the basic learning and teaching materials for grammar and basic word-level linguistic elements. More importantly in this chapter, all the parts of speech have been included which is considered the flesh of the language.

Process Evaluation

The course has prescribed the activities to carry out in class for teaching. Of course, there are various ways of undertaking the language course however the process of delivery and the learning activities can differ in a different context. As the courses are entirely based on grammar and English grammar in particular it seems more rigid in rules. The content mentioned in the syllabus can be gathered from easily available materials however the learner and the teachers need to be sure of authorized source and content. The nature of the course demands regular student engagement for better learning. Students can easily understand the concepts of each unit as it starts with easy to complex. Though the Med is a research degree the course has given all the basic elements of grammar teaching in the course of study.

As per the students and the teachers the course has not been available as a textbook. Students are supposed to study the available and prescribed materials. One of my participants talks about the availability of a coursepack or compile of the related chapters. Students were taught the textbook at the B.Ed level but not in the University they had to manage the related course material. One of my participants said:

‘The recommended books are not available in the market and the chapters and the course of study are diverse. However, we are studying the photocopies that are available in the stationeries.’

I have the same experience as my participant expressed. I was taught completely based on a textbook. We were not asked to manage the reference books in B.Ed. but in M.Ed the students should struggle to prepare the reading materials. The learners’ understanding regarding the text materials is complex as they are supposed to manage multiple books chapters and materials to complete the course.  ‘The grammar course is not there in B.Ed English but we can read everything we need in M.Ed so secondary level language teachers should have at least masters in ELT’ Similarly the lecturer who is teaching the course has a similar prescription regarding the grammar and the course. Students focus is on content rather than the activities in class as they wanted to understand the basic ideas of grammar rather than the pedagogy of teaching grammar.

In some cases the experience of teacher teaching grammar and the experience of students who are reading and have been passed out have contradictions. As per my discussion with the teachers and students: students wanted to focus on the content but the teachers wanted to go with pedagogy and the content together. By the nature of the curriculum, the content and pedagogy should go simultaneously. The teacher express the same view, on the other hand, the students gave the reason why do they want to focus on the content of the course rather than pedagogy. They said the pedagogy is also included in other subjects but the grammar was not there in B.Ed ad in other subjects and in another semester either.

The compulsory presentation by the students made the students well informed about the subjects. Regarding the presentation, students express positive changes in them however teachers are not satisfied with the attempt of the students as they have to repeat the content even after students presentation. Teachers feel easy to deliver the content rather than assign presentations to the students. The students’ presentation was found to be beneficial to those students who presented the particular topic. With the teacher’s and students’ prescription of presentation, it is found that there is less time for students’ discussion after the presentation. If students get time for mutual sharing after the presentation they can better understand the topic assigned to each other.

Most of the chapters are easy to understand and enough self-study is required. The limited time for class discussion and teachers presentations requires the students to have enough self-study. Students having self-study comes with confusion and are satisfied with the answers by the teachers. Might be the limited time the illustration made by the teachers is not found to be adequate for the students. The focus is more on reading and presentation whereas the practice and writing tasks are comparatively ignored during the process of lesson delivery.

Product Evaluation

The final evaluation is supposed to be taken by the Examination Division, Office of the Dean, Faculty of Education at the end of the semester. The score division for grading students’ achievement is highly scientific. However, the students do not seem satisfied with the internal assessment. Sometimes due to the carelessness of the department students have to face many difficulties to get the achieved results. The grading scheme is managed is scientific however the evaluation is in the teacher’s hands. Students are not sure to receive the actual grade accoe=rdint tho the labor they paid for the learning. The accountability and transparency of the teachers’ whole grading have been questioned by the participants.

Specific Instructional Techniques and Marking

The following table shows the unit-specific instructional techniques and the marking. In general, the outline of the teaching and evaluation can be further explained with the given table. According to the CIPP model (Daniel, 1991), this table can be presented in input and process as well however it is more related to evaluation so I have mentioned the table in this section.

The timing of the exam schedule for the exam and the result publications are other factors to be worried about according to the students who are passed out for the course. The teachers also expressed the same understanding regarding the result exam and other this as these all things are not in their hands.

The Exam and Marking Scheme

The final grades of the students decide according to the prescribed methods in which 40% of marks are from internal evaluation whereas 60 percent of marks are from the external evaluation. The end semester exam run by the Examination Division, Office of the Dean, Faculty of Education is in the following structure (CDEE, 2020).

1. Objective questions (10 MCQ × 1 point) = 10 points
2. Short answer questions(5 questions × 6 points ) = 30 points
3. Long answer questions (2 questions × 10 points) = 20 points

The response from the students and teachers are positive regarding the exam format and question format in external evaluation. One of the participants raised the issue of the question standard, “some time the question set found in the reference book is completely copied and pasted in the end semester exam”

Reflection

I am also one of the passed out students of the course Reflecting on the evaluation of the M.Ed. first semester course “English Language Usage and Use,” I have gained valuable insights into its strengths and areas for improvement. This reflection highlights my personal and professional growth throughout the evaluation process and underscores the key takeaways from applying the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model.

Personal Growth and Learning

Engaging in this course evaluation has significantly deepened my understanding of course design, delivery, and assessment within the realm of English language education. My background as an English language teacher and a student of this course has provided me with a unique perspective, allowing me to critically assess both the theoretical and practical aspects of the curriculum.

One of the most impactful realizations was recognizing the importance of a well-rounded approach to grammar teaching. The course’s comprehensive coverage of grammar, from foundational concepts to advanced pedagogical techniques, highlighted the necessity of a solid grammatical foundation for language teachers. This understanding reinforced my belief in continuous professional development and the need for advanced studies in English Language Teaching (ELT) to equip teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge.

Strengths of the Course

The course “English Language Usage and Use” is robust in its content and structure, offering a thorough exploration of English grammar and its pedagogical applications. The division of the course into units that progressively build on each other ensures a logical and coherent learning path. The incorporation of various instructional techniques, such as mini-projects, group discussions, and reflective writing, promotes active engagement and critical thinking among students.

The course’s focus on both prescriptive and descriptive approaches to grammar allows students to appreciate the diversity of language use and understand the practical implications of different teaching methodologies. This dual perspective is crucial for developing adaptable and effective language teachers who can cater to varied classroom contexts.

Areas for Improvement

Despite its strengths, the course has certain areas that require attention. A notable issue is the availability and accessibility of course materials. Students and teachers alike expressed concerns about the difficulty in obtaining the recommended textbooks and resources. Addressing this issue by providing a comprehensive course pack or ensuring easier access to required materials would enhance the learning experience and reduce the burden on students.

Another area for improvement is the balance between content and pedagogy. While the course content is rich and informative, there is a perceived gap in the integration of pedagogical practices. Students tend to focus heavily on content, often at the expense of understanding how to effectively teach that content. A more integrated approach that equally emphasizes pedagogical strategies and content mastery would better prepare students for their future teaching roles.

The internal assessment process also warrants scrutiny. Concerns about the transparency and consistency of internal evaluations suggest a need for clearer guidelines and more rigorous oversight to ensure fair and accurate grading. Enhancing the accountability of internal assessments will build student trust in the evaluation process and better reflect their true academic efforts.

Professional Implications

From a professional standpoint, this evaluation has underscored the importance of ongoing curriculum review and adaptation to meet the evolving needs of students and the educational landscape. The insights gained from the CIPP model can inform future course design and implementation, ensuring that courses remain relevant, comprehensive, and effective.

The reflection process has also highlighted the need for collaboration between educators, students, and administrative bodies to address systemic issues such as resource availability and assessment transparency. By fostering open communication and continuous feedback, educational institutions can create more supportive and effective learning environments.

In conclusion, the evaluation of “English Language Usage and Use” has been an enlightening experience, providing valuable insights into the strengths and areas for improvement within the course. The application of the CIPP model has proven to be a robust framework for comprehensive course evaluation. Moving forward, addressing the identified challenges and building on the course’s strengths will enhance its effectiveness and better prepare students for their roles as competent and confident English language teachers.

Findings and Suggestions

The course was found to be appropriate for the M.Ed level of students as they are the future teacher and they have to practice the grammar in language teaching at the school level. M.Ed degree is to produce teachers and teacher-researcher in this context the course is important to bridge for the novice language teachers. Similarly, the organization of the course content is diverse and integrated into nature as it covers the basic theoretical grammar, history, and the vast grammatical structure at the discourse level.

In the case of classroom teaching practice of this course, the finding reflects the activities prescribed are fewer practical and are more traditional as teachers are the center part of the lesson delivery. The course is theory-driven by nature and requires more lectures in a real class setting. The grammatical rules cant be taught by practical however there are other interesting techniques that are not included in the prescribed course syllabus.

As the course is linguistically and theoretically driven the students to get less opportunity to explore. The teaching of grammar is prescriptive. At the higher level, the rule-driven courses are taught prescriptively. The prescriptive nature of the course and teaching allows students fewer chances to interact and explore beyond the context.

Reference

Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (Vol. 30). John Wiley & Sons.

Bhatt, R. M. (2001). World Englishes. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 527-550.

CDEE. (2020) Syllabus of English Language Education, TU Kritipur

Appendix

Interview Questions for Students:

Context

1. Do you have the course of study of your M.Ed English first Sem? We had studied the course called English Language Use and Usage. Do you remember? [For passed-out students]
2. How many subjects are there in the first sem? How do you remember the course as you are teaching English at the school level? Was it appropriate for us to have this course at the M.Ed level? [For passed-out students]
3. Was this course new to you? What about the environment, students number of classroom teachers, and other things in the University?

For Teachers:

1. If you don’t mind, could you please tell me how you are teaching English Usage and Use?
2. How is the students’ reaction during the classroom discussion?
3. What have you found the level of students and interest of students?
4. Are there enough materials for this course to teach and for students to learn?

Input

1. At what time the class starts? How long does it take? Is the prescribed time enough for the course of content?
2. How often do you assign/make the presentation in class? Is your/Student’s presentation enough for the course?
3. Students motivation ( Some open questions)
4. Is the course well organized? Is it easy to follow and understand? What about the language?

Process

1. The course has prescribed certain procedures for teaching this course. Are these procedures followed in the class?
2. Do you do your given assignment regularly? What are the difficulties in doing the assignments?
3. What is your understanding of the group discussion and demonstration?
4. Is the textbook easily available? How do you manage reference materials?
5. Do you follow the teachers’ instructions to get the reference materials?
6. Do you find the materials easily?

Product

1. How do you evaluate the students in internal evaluation? Do you know about your evaluation process? Are you satisfied with this?
2. About the score division.
3. About Attendance
4. Mini research – How?