Evaluation
Course design project
|
Marie Vlková |
||||
|
Excellent |
Adequate |
Insufficient |
Missing |
Comments |
Description of the context
|
|
√ |
|
|
You were supposed to include at least one pupil with SEN. |
My beliefs
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Educational documents – guidelines and limits |
|
|
|
√ |
Can you indicate what the SVP looks like? And anything from RVP that you want to use? |
Needs analysis, learner preference |
√ |
|
|
|
I like your plan very much. It is very good that you want to analyse the needs continuously and through projects and discussions. |
Aims and objectives
|
√ |
|
|
|
In the non-linguistic aims I would appreciate more focus on learner strategies. Work with a dictionary is non-linguistic. Why is writing missing in your aims? It is part of your content and assessment. |
Content specification
|
√ |
|
|
|
Very clear and logical. Very good special activities. |
Materials
|
√ |
|
|
|
I miss a dictionary. You mentioned work with a dictionary in the aims but there is no dictionary in the materials. |
Pupils with special needs |
|
√ |
|
|
I was expecting something more specific and tailor made (for the pupil who should have been mentioned in the description of the context). I appreciate the individual approach (every child needs different adjustments). |
Assessment and evaluation
|
√ |
|
|
|
Your plan looks realistic. I have just minor comments: what are the “sentences” in quick small tests? Do you mean a translation? I like the idea of playing dialogues but you can hardly assess fluency this way. |
Course evaluation
|
|
|
√ |
|
You cannot rely on the feedback from pupils only. You definitely need other sources of data to evaluate the course. First of all, you should think about how to make your self-reflection systematic and structured. |