Evaluation and Testing of Students - Practice & External Proficiency Tests
This video is part of our video series on "Evaluation and Testing of Students". In this video, we look at practice and external proficiency tests. Practice tests are usually used for revision purpose before internal and external exams to prepare the students. There are three types of external proficiency tests that English learners can take. Find out which ones in this video.
Below you can read feedback from an ITTT graduate regarding one section of their online TEFL certification course. Each of our online courses is broken down into concise units that focus on specific areas of English language teaching. This convenient, highly structured design means that you can quickly get to grips with each section before moving onto the next.
The unit is giving us an image of two contrasting lessons which provide us with an idea of what a good and what a bad lesson looks lik.
Lesson two was more effective than lesson one for several reason.
First of all, lesson two was well structured and well-prepare.
The teacher had a positive attitude, he was more engaging and encouragin.
He used positive reinforcement and praised students for giving correct answers and in lesson one he looked unfriendly because he rarely smile.
His speech and pronunciation of was slow and understandable for the students, while the teacher?s speech in lesson one was fast and inadequate for students? comprehensio.
The teacher in lesson one wasn?t very encouraging and he reacted negatively when the students gave incorrect answer.
In lesson two, there were clear instructions before every activity, and the teacher made an effort to learn and use his students? name.
He used simple language in order to make it easier for students to understan.
There were many interesting ways in which activities were presented to students in lesson two such as use of flashcards, miming, gestures which made it more interesting, where as in lesson one the students have difficulties in understanding the whole concept of the lesso.
Time limits were also set in lesson tw.
The teacher used language that was appropriate to the level of the student.
He gave students clear explanations what to do before letting them work on the worksheet.
The teacher?s instructions in lesson one were limited or lacking even for some activitie.
The teacher did not offer any explanation even if the students were confused on what to d.
He didn?t rephrase his questions and sentences even if the students clearly didn?t understand what he was sayin.
In lesson one, student participation was very minima.
It was more of a teacher-centered lesso.
Most of the language input was provided on the board instead of asking the students for their inpu.
In lesson two, student talking time was hig.
They had a lot of input in class, from the engage stage to the activate stag.
All the students had the chance to speak up because the teacher tried to involve all the student.
Lesson two was more effective than lesson one for several reason.
First of all, lesson two was well structured and well-prepare.
The teacher had a positive attitude, he was more engaging and encouragin.
He used positive reinforcement and praised students for giving correct answers and in lesson one he looked unfriendly because he rarely smile.
His speech and pronunciation of was slow and understandable for the students, while the teacher?s speech in lesson one was fast and inadequate for students? comprehensio.
The teacher in lesson one wasn?t very encouraging and he reacted negatively when the students gave incorrect answer.
In lesson two, there were clear instructions before every activity, and the teacher made an effort to learn and use his students? name.
He used simple language in order to make it easier for students to understan.
There were many interesting ways in which activities were presented to students in lesson two such as use of flashcards, miming, gestures which made it more interesting, where as in lesson one the students have difficulties in understanding the whole concept of the lesso.
Time limits were also set in lesson tw.
The teacher used language that was appropriate to the level of the student.
He gave students clear explanations what to do before letting them work on the worksheet.
The teacher?s instructions in lesson one were limited or lacking even for some activitie.
The teacher did not offer any explanation even if the students were confused on what to d.
He didn?t rephrase his questions and sentences even if the students clearly didn?t understand what he was sayin.
In lesson one, student participation was very minima.
It was more of a teacher-centered lesso.
Most of the language input was provided on the board instead of asking the students for their inpu.
In lesson two, student talking time was hig.
They had a lot of input in class, from the engage stage to the activate stag.
All the students had the chance to speak up because the teacher tried to involve all the student.
