Learners’ insights into the team-teaching of GSFL at university

The purpose of this research is to examine and evaluate students’ reaction to the new methods used in teaching German as a second foreign language (GSFL). Two new methods were introduced: conducting German courses in the third and fourth years in a team-teaching format and implementing an oral examination component to the final examinations starting with 2006 Fall Semester. German courses which are four hours a week were divided into grammar and conversation sections, and conversation courses which were one hour a week in the third year and two hours a week in the fourth were taught by a different instructor. The subject of this study was students in their 8th semester at the University. A survey with yes/no and open-ended questions was distributed to 160 students, who participated in the final oral examinations. We used a qualitative research method that asked open-ended questions in the survey since we aimed to obtain detailed descriptions of the students’ ideas as well as to discover problematic areas of the program, if any.Survey findings on this new model of teaching in GSFL classes were of great importance to us because they allowed us to see the program through the eyes of the students. We observed that the students expressed their views openly and in detail. The responses to the survey were first grouped into negative and positive responses and then analyzed accordingly. The data collected showed that out of 160 students, 150 participated in the survey (93,75%) and 14 (9.33%) expressed negative views regarding team-teaching. The negative comments were as follows: nothing had changed; it would be easier to get used to learning from one lecturer rather than two; the subjects were divided, and thus the students could not perform effectively; and that the difference in pronunciation between the two lecturers was a hindrance to their learning. The feedback from the students was overwhelmingly positive (136/150=90.66%). They gave detailed explanations and said that they had found this model of teaching to be beneficial, and as a result they felt more confident. They also found that the distinct conversation section increased their language skills and concentration; they benefited from the differences in the teaching methods of the two lecturers; they found the teaching to be more effective and less stressful; and that repetition expanded and reinforced their vocabulary, making it easier to succeed in the oral exam.Overall, we found that the conversational classes were a positive force in the development of students’ conversational skills, we decided to continue team-teaching and to expand the oral exam to all levels of German classes during the 2008-2009 Fall Semester and continue to do so.

PDF

___

ALTE [The-Association of Language Testers in Europe] Handreichungen für Testautoren Modul 1: Modelle der Sprachkompetenz. Erhalten im Juli 2010, von http://www.testdaf.de/ aktuelIe/pdf/ALTE_Deutsche_HR_Modul 1 .pdf
Atılgan, H. (Ed.). (2007). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Clark, J. M. (1995). Suggestions for effective university teaching. Erhalten am 07. Juli 2008, von http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark/acad/teach/effteach.html
EUROPARAT, Rat für kültürelle Zusammenarbeit. (2001). Gemeinsamer europaische Referenzrahmen fiir Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Linz: Landesverlag.
Hilbert, S., Robert, A., Schümann, A., Specht, F., Gottstein-Schramm, B., Kalender, S., u.a. (2008). Schritte International 6. Ismaning: Hueber Verlag.
James Madison University, College of Education. Co-teaching. Some approaches to co-teaching. Erhalten am 9. Juli 2010, von http://www.jmu.edu/coe/esc/consortium/Co-Teaching.shtml
Longaretti, L., Godinho, S., Parr, G. und Wilson, J., Rethinking peer teaching, (The University of Melbourne). Erhalten 18. August 2008, von http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/lon02122.htm
Miles, M. B. und Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, s. 40. Erhalten am 11. Juni 2010, von http://wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.html
Neill, J. (2007). Qualitative versus quantitative research: Key points in a classic debate. Erhalten im Mai, 2010, von http://wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitative Research.html
Sampson, J., Cohen, R., Boud, D. und Anderson, G. (1999). Peer learning: A guide for staff and students, Sydney: University of Technology Press.
Scheid, N. M. und Hössle, C. (2008). Wie Schüler unter Verwendung syllogistischer Elemente argumentieren. Eine empirische Studie zu Niveaus von Argumentation im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Zeitschrift fiir Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften; Jg. 14. Erhalten am 14. Juli 2010, von http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/zfdn/pdf/14_008_ MittelstenScheid.pdf
Spiller, D. (1998). Using the peer group as a teaching and learning resource - redefining the role of the teacher. Transformation in higher education: Conference proceedings, Auckland, NZ, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
University of Wyoming, College of Education. College-wide learner outcomes. Erhalten im Juni 2008, von http://ed.uwyo.edU/LearnerOutcomes.asp#LO
Veenman, S., Van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., Van Dieren, J., und Van der Kemp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Erhalten am 15. Juli 2008, von http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD8-44HSX3P-7-14&_cdi=5976&_user=4366190&_pii=S0742051X0100052X&_orig=search&_coverDat e = 01 %2F3 l%2F2002&_sk = 999 8 1 999 8 & vie w = c&wchp = dGLbVzz-zSkzk&md5=2707436e9f4a43b9cd2 leb Ie4f244577&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
YÖK, (2007). Türkiye'nin yükseköğretim stratejisi. Ankara. Erhalten im Juli 2008, von http://www.yok.gov.tr/duyuru/yok_strateji_kitabi.pdf