In Part 1, I described the challenges Conversation teachers face when deciding which students should be promoted to the next level. Also, I had included descriptions of the skills that teachers should consider when determining which students at five different levels should demonstrate in order to pass.

In this Part 2, we will analyze three methods teachers can apply to a final conversation task using these criteria:

The three methods including a recommended one.

Method 1: The teacher has a conversation with one student at a time. After each conversation, the teacher makes notes to use as an evaluation.

Method 2: In pairs or triads, students carry on a conversation or discussion. The teacher observes, taking evaluative notes. The teacher uses these notes to make an evaluation.

Method 3: In pairs or triads, students are video recorded carrying on a conversation or discussion. After the recordings are finished, at least one other teacher watches the videos and assists in the evaluation.

Discussion of each method.

Method 1) Teacher-student conversations.

Process: Each student is assigned a time to meet to have a conversation with the teacher. At the start of the conversation, the teacher or student chooses a topic (depending on the level). During the conversation the teacher is mentally evaluating the student’s conversation skills. (See my next posting, Part 3, for a description of possible final tasks and evaluation forms.)

Time: Depending on the level, it will take 8-10 minutes per student to have a student come into the room, have the conversation and leave. For a class of 16, that can take between 128-160 minutes.

Teacher’s energy: This can be mentally draining as the teacher tries to engage without dominating and at the same time evaluate the student’s skills objectively.

Effectiveness: Often this can seem like an interview to the students rather than a conversation. Although the teacher encourages the student to initiate the conversation, change topics when they want, and ask conversational questions and follow-ups, students tend to let the teacher take the lead. As a result, borderline students may fail to show their true ability. Also, the teacher will be relying on their memory about the interaction when making the evaluation.

Credibility: Because the evaluation is subjective, students who fail may feel that the teacher had some bias against them. Also, teachers at the next level may not be confident that the teacher had applied the criteria accurately and objectively. In other words, they may feel that the teacher’s decision was influenced by factors besides skills.

Method 2) In pairs or triads. students have a conversation while the teacher observes.

Process: Students are assigned times when they will come to the class. For lower-levels, pairs of students will be assigned to the same time. For higher levels, it can be triads. The two students (or three) sit facing each other and are given possible topics to discuss. They are told to choose one of the topics and start a conversation, ask questions, ask follow-up questions, answer with details and perhaps even change topics when they want. The teacher sits several feet away and takes notes on how well each student demonstrates their conversation skills. (See my next posting, Part 3, for a description of possible final tasks and evaluation forms.)

Time: It is easy for the teacher to simultaneously listen and evaluate more than one pair or more than one triad at a time. For lower-level students who are in pairs, it will take 8-10 minutes per pairs to have the students to come into the room, have the conversation and leave. Thus, depending on the level, for a class of 16 who are working in two sets of pairs at a time (i.e., eight sessions), it will take 60-80 minutes.

For higher-level students who are in triads, it will take 10-15 minutes per groups to have the students to come into the room, have the discussion and leave. Because we can evaluate two triads at a time, for a class of 16 students, it will take 30-40 minutes.

Teacher’s energy: With a good, user-friendly evaluation form, teachers can easily observe four to six students and “keep score.” (See my next posting, Part 3 for a description of the final tasks and evaluation forms.)

Effectiveness: It’s best to match students up with classmates who are at a similar skill-level. By doing that, it will increase the chance that each student will interact equally, having a chance to demonstrate their abilities.

The set up with students having a conversation or discussion with a peer or peers is natural and similar to how they had practiced interacting every day in class. Each student has the opportunity to show that they are able to apply the techniques that they have studied.

Credibility: Because the teacher is evaluating each student in real time and is able to document, for example, each time the students ask a follow-up question, uses an understanding response (rejoinder), and respond with a rejoinder, the grade given to each can appear relatively objective. However, a student who fails may still feel that the teacher had some bias against them. And a teacher may be swayed to still pass “weak” students because of their effort or personality or background.

Method 3) In pairs or triads, students are video recorded carrying on a conversation or discussion.

Process: As with Method 2, students are assigned times when they will come to the class. For lower-levels, pairs of students will be assigned the same time. For higher levels, it can be triads. The two students (or three) sit facing each other and are given topics to discuss. They are told to choose one of the topics and start a conversation, ask questions, ask follow-up questions and answer with details. (See my next posting, Part 3, for a description of possible final tasks and evaluation forms.)

However, unlike in Method 2, the teacher does not need to take notes, but instead merely arranges for the pair or triads to be video recorded.

After all the recordings are completed, a different teacher or teachers (consultants) watch the videos. Here are some options for doing this:

• Option 1: The consultant(s) could watch all the videos or only watch the videos of students whom the teacher considers borderline and would like a second opinion about.
• Option 2: Each consultant watches and evaluates the students privately and then discusses their recommendation with the teacher.
• Option 3 (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: A PANEL PROCESS). After the students in all the levels have been video tape, all the Conversation teachers (and perhaps program administrators and future Conversation teachers) meet as a panel. They follow these steps:

        Step 1: Starting with the lowest-level, the teacher(s) show the recordings of their borderline students whom they would like assistance evaluating.

       Step 2: At any point during the viewing, they can pause and discuss what stands out to them (either a strong or weak point) about any of the students. It is especially valuable to hear what the teachers at the next level notice.

      Step 3: After viewing a pair or triad, they can make their recommendations and explain their justification.

     Step 4: Later, the teacher of that class, makes the final decision taking into consideration what the panel had said.

Time: As with Method 2, It is easy to record more than one pair or more than one triad at a time. For lower-level students who are in pairs, it will take 8-10 minutes per pairs to have the students to come into the room, have the conversation and leave. Thus, depending on the level, for a class of 16 who are working in two sets of pairs at a time (i.e., eight sessions), it will take 60-80 minutes.

For higher-level students who are in triads, it will take 10-15 minutes per triad to have the students to come into the room, have the discussion and leave. Because we can evaluate two triads at a time, for a class of 16 students, it will take 30-40 minutes.

Needless to say, this panel method does take time outside of class for the teacher.

Teacher’s energy: The teacher is merely involved in the logistics of recording. (They can ask one or two of the classmates who are not being recorded at that moment to assist.)

Because of the panel support, the stress level for the teachers is greatly reduced when making the final decision.  (See my next posting, Part 3 for a description of the final tasks and evaluation forms.)

Effectiveness: As with Method 2, it’s best to match students up with classmates who are at a similar skill-level. By doing that, it will increase the chance that each student will interact equally, having a chance to demonstrate their abilities.

Because a teacher can review the videos multiple times, their ability to give full attention to each student is greatly enhanced.

Credibility: Students are told that they will be evaluated by a group of teachers, not just their Conversation teacher. Thus, they can feel confident that if they fail, it won’t be due to some bias on their teacher’s part.

In addition, teachers at the next level can feel confident that the students who are being promoted to their class have the skills needed to succeed.

One final note about this panel process. This process provides a great opportunity for a program. When discussing what they are observing on the videos, they are clarifying what they see are the standards for a particular level. This will result in more cohesiveness throughout the program.

(For a discussion of a panel process for Writing classes, see • This Process Contains Huge Benefits For Writing Teachers, Students and Programs.)

As mentioned above, my next posting (Part 3) will be more specifically about the tasks that pairs and triads will do and evaluation forms that teachers can use.

David Kehe