The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which performance on the TOEFL iBT speaking section is associated with other indicators of Japanese university students’ abilities to communicate orally in an academic English environment and to determine which components of oral ability for these tasks are best assessed by TOEFL iBT. To achieve this aim, TOEFL iBT speaking scores were compared to performances on a group oral discussion, picture and graph description, and prepared oral presentation tasks, and their component scores of pronunciation, fluency, grammar/vocabulary, interactional competence, descriptive skill, delivery skill, and question answering. Participants were Japanese university students (N = 222), who were English majors in a Japanese university. Pearson product–moment correlations, corrected for attenuation, between scores on the speaking section of TOEFL iBT and the three university tasks indicated strong relationships between the TOEFL iBT speaking scores and the three university tasks and high or moderate correlations between the TOEFL iBT speaking scores and the components of oral ability. For the components of oral ability, pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary/grammar were highly associated with TOEFL iBT speaking scores while interactional competence, descriptive skill, and delivery skill were moderately associated with TOEFL iBT speaking scores. The findings suggest that TOEFL iBT speaking scores are good overall indicators of academic oral ability and that they are better measures of pronunciation, fluency and vocabulary/grammar than they are of interactional competence, descriptive skill, and presentation delivery skill.

No abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted traditional approaches to education and forced educators to adopt and adapt technologies to allow institutions to remain open, offer courses and other services to enable students to continue their education. This rapid shift to online teaching and learning has shone a light on the need for institutions to support students in working out how to maintain autonomy through meaningful interaction in the online world. In this paper we discuss the transition of a face-to-face university writing center to a synchronous online writing center that is hosted in the videoconferencing application Zoom. In doing this we explain the rationale that informed our thinking throughout the transition process and how sound pedagogical principles and a focus on the student experience guided our decision-making. Preliminary findings regarding how self-regulated learning was maintained and nurtured in the virtual writing center are presented and discussed.

No abstract

Evaluations of teaching effectiveness have taken many forms over the years, but none have been as persistent or commonplace as student ratings of instruction (SRI). SRIs have become a fundamental component of evaluating faculty effectiveness in higher education. Support for SRIs comes from end-users of the data who believe that students are uniquely positioned to evaluate faculty based on their experiences and perceptions of the instruction they received. Pragmatically, institutions tend to rely on SRI results for teacher evaluations because they reason that students learn more from faculty who are highly rated by students. However, to what degree is this enthusiasm warranted? Are SRIs reliable, valid, or trustworthy at all? The main goals of this chapter are to present an overview of SRI research, explain ways of preparing students for SRIs (both formative and summative), and present methods for teachers to use when examining the SRI data. To these ends, this chapter will briefly review the SRI research, including evidence for the value of SRI data despite commonly held misconceptions about the possible influence of factors such as class size, GPA, gender, and professor rank. Attention is then given to understanding how to improve responses to questions that tap constructs students are unlikely to be readily able to respond to, such as “Did this course improve your critical thinking skills?” and to general agreement questions about learning, such as “The pacing of the materials was appropriate.” Techniques for interpreting constructed responses from students, such as “Stop lecturing!” are also provided. Finally, the paper moves on to highlighting the connection between collecting and acting on formative classroom surveys that support positive transfer to end-of-term SRIs and offers methods to analyze SRIs individually as well as outlining an approach to teacher development with SRI data and teacher-centered consultations by PD programs.