The list of criteria may be rather long but, as Steve Haysham mentioned, most of the items on it have been placed there because (some) trainers felt they were important. Naturally, some of the criteria are more important than others when it comes to grading trainees but I personally don't feel that the list needs any significant change.
In the center where I work we have always regarded a trainee's ability to analyze and deal with language well as being a/the key factor to examine when considering the award of a Pass B. This is also true of all the centers where I have assessed in the recent pass. The current system allows for this.
Before the criteria-based approach to grading was introduced, my personal experience was that some centers significantly underestimated the importance of trainees' language ability. It was not unusual for trainers to adopt their own idiosyncratic (often labeled as being "holistic") approach to grading and to award a Pass B to trainees who had good interpersonal and class management skills but little language awareness. "He's a good teacher," trainers would tell me when I assessed. "But is he a good language teacher?" I would have to ask. I find that I rarely if ever have to ask this question nowadays. So trainers seem to be managing to apply the grading criteria in a sensible and appropriate manner.
Incidentally, I don't feel that the course has become significantly more difficult over the years. In fact, I suspect that from the trainee's point-of-view it has actually become a little easier. Why? Centers are generally more organized than they used to be, they have better facilities and resources, there is more emphasis on pre-course preparation, coursebooks are easier to use, etc.
Jeff Mohamed
Cypress (nr. Houston), Texas
In the center where I work we have always regarded a trainee's ability to analyze and deal with language well as being a/the key factor to examine when considering the award of a Pass B. This is also true of all the centers where I have assessed in the recent pass. The current system allows for this.
Before the criteria-based approach to grading was introduced, my personal experience was that some centers significantly underestimated the importance of trainees' language ability. It was not unusual for trainers to adopt their own idiosyncratic (often labeled as being "holistic") approach to grading and to award a Pass B to trainees who had good interpersonal and class management skills but little language awareness. "He's a good teacher," trainers would tell me when I assessed. "But is he a good language teacher?" I would have to ask. I find that I rarely if ever have to ask this question nowadays. So trainers seem to be managing to apply the grading criteria in a sensible and appropriate manner.
Incidentally, I don't feel that the course has become significantly more difficult over the years. In fact, I suspect that from the trainee's point-of-view it has actually become a little easier. Why? Centers are generally more organized than they used to be, they have better facilities and resources, there is more emphasis on pre-course preparation, coursebooks are easier to use, etc.
Jeff Mohamed
Cypress (nr. Houston), Texas
No comments:
Post a Comment