REPORT ON MOCA 2018 - WordPress.com · REPORT ON MOCA – 2018 TED University English Language...

MOCA - 2018: Engaging the Language Learner

within and beyond the Classroom

REPORT ON MOCA – 2018

TED University English Language School

28th April 2018

2018

MOCA – 2018: Engaging the Language Learner within and beyond the Classroom /28 April 2018, TED University English Language School

CONTENTS

Hosting & Founding Teams ………………………………………………………………….. 3

Programme …………………………………………………………………………………… 4

List of Participants …………………………………………………………………………… 5

Focus Groups ………………………………………………………………………………… 6

General Report ……………………………………………………………………………….. 8

Appendix-1: Notes from the Focus Group Presentations

Focus Group 1 (Teachers) …………………………………………………………... 11




Focus Group 5 (Students) …………………………………………………………... 15




Appendix-2: Feedback Received through the Post-Event Evaluation Questionnaire

Questions & Responses …...………………………………………………………… 19


MOCA - 2018 Hosting Team

(TED University ELS)

Students Lecturers

Arda Seçilmiş Özge Öncü Ahmet Taşkın Taş

Ayşenur Öztürk Öznur Demir Ayşegül Çetin

Aziz Umut Öztürk Perla Acar Burcu Yeşilyurt

Beril Demirel Selen Seferoğulları Eren Özaslan

Buse Yatar Şevval Kır Fulya İçöz

Ece Ege Yağmur Özçelik Funda Kelahmetoğlu

Ecesu Demirtaş Zehra Arslan Gülşah Kalın

Fatma Aybüke Babacan Zeliha Demir Herbert Mehmet Stevenson

Hakan Güneş Zeynep Şarkaya Melike Demir Bektaş

İkranur Alban

M. Nur Karadenizli Çilingir

Koray Yazıcı Sana Salam

Mehmet Süer Selda Deliktaş

Ömer Faruk Kavlak Sercan Çelik

Özge Öktem Serkan Yıldız

Contact: [email protected]

MOCA Founding Team

(Ege University SoFL)

Tuğba Yeğin

Şule Ar

İlkay Gökçe

Eren Alkan

Hale Alkan

Contact: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Programme (28.04.18)

09:00 – 09:30

Registration

(Welcome with tea & pastries)

Multi-Purpose

Hall 09:30 – 10:00

Opening Session

Nuray Lük Grove, PhD (Director of TEDU ELS)

Şevval Kır (TEDU ELS Student Representative)

A. Taşkın TAŞ (TEDU ELS Lecturer Representative)

Music Recital (Zehra Arslan, Koray Yazıcı, Kutay

Dedeoğlu, Ilgar Yılmaz, Beyza Sevinç)

10:00 – 10:15 Group Photo

10:15 – 10:30 Coffee Break with Refreshments

10:30 – 12:00 Focus Groups F – Building

12:00 – 13:30 Lunch Break TEDU

Cafeteria

13:30 – 15:00 Focus Groups F – Building


Multi-Purpose

Hall

15:15 – 17:00

Panel Discussion

(Focus Groups’ Feedback to whole group)


17:15 – 18:00

Closing Session

(Feedback, Reflections, Founding Team’s Message and

Selection of Next Year’s Hosting Institution)


Participants of MOCA 2018 – 28.04.18 / TED University, Ankara

# Institution (in alphabetical order) Lecturer Student

1 Abant İzzet Baysal University Fatih Zeren Kuas İrem Şeker

2 Adana Science & Tech. Uni. Ceyda Örük Yağnur Derya Tetikcan

3 Alanya HEP University Ali Ünal Mustafa Celal Paydaş

4 Anadolu University Sinem Türkyılmaz Emre Görkem Aslan

5 Ankara University Nursevinç Karakuş Sıla Çelik

6 Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University

Tarık Uzun İpek Aleyna Kara

7 Stephanie Lea Howard Abdülkerim Taş

8 Atılım University Zeynep Doğu Yusuf Tuğberk Türken

9 Başkent University Pınar Temoçin Başak Dilek

10 Bilkent University Nurdan Yeşil Simay Kurak

11 Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

Ferdiye Güner Atak Gülüzar Nur Karahan

12 Oksana Yeshshorkina Hacer Seha Solak

13 Dumlupınar University Fehime Aslan Feride Şeymen

14 Düzce University Merve Kıymaz Rüstem Emre Sungurbaş

15 Ege University Beste Emül Merve Baykara

16 Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Uni. Pınar Kartal Fatma Sena Küçük

17 İstanbul Gelişim University Aslıhan Demir Hanife Çelik

18 İstanbul Medeniyet University Görkem Beydilli Ecem İnci

19 İstanbul Şehir University İpek Acar Esra Yılmaz

20 İstanbul Yeni Yüzyıl University İrem Oğhan Aleyna Özger

21 Kapadokya University Altan Öztürk Yiğit Yılmaz

22 Karabük University Pınar Mızrak Simge Top

23 Okan University Asuman Şimşek Fatma Yaman

24 Eskişehir Osmangazi University Onur Ergünay Betül Yaşar

25 Özyeğin University Saadet Şahin Melisa Sarıgül

26 Sabancı University

M. Mine Bağ Zeynep Akant

27 Dalince Çongara Hilal Yıldırım

28 TED University Deniz Keser Firuze Doğan

29 Uni. of Turkish Aeronautical Association Fırat Akdoğan Çağatay Yıldız

30 TOBB Uni. of Economics & Technology Nurhan Tütüncü Başak Kozacıoğlu

31 Torku Konya Food & Agriculture Uni. Nurefşan Gül Dilara Güngör

32 Ufuk University Özlem Gençer Buket Atik

33 Yaşar University Banu Özkaya Cemile Dinçer

34 İstanbul Kültür University Gonca Dayı (Unregistered)

35 Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Osman Çetin (Unregistered)

36 Cambridge U.P. – MyELT İbrahim Ozan (Observer Participant)


TEACHER FOCUS GROUPS

Focus Group 1

Room: F-012

Moderator: Fulya İçöz

Participants

Asuman Şimşek

Nurdan Yeşil

Onur Ergünay

Pınar Mızrak

Merve Kıymaz

Ali Ünal

Aslıhan Demir

Pınar Temoçin

Focus Group 2

Room: F-014

Moderator: Herbert M. Stevenson

Participants

Nurhan Tütüncü

Pınar Kartal

Ferdiye Güner Atak

Oksana Yeshshorkina

Beste Emül

Sinem Türkyılmaz

Deniz Keser

İrem Oğhan

Focus Group 3

Room: F-017

Moderator: Serkan Yıldız

Participants

M. Mine Bağ

Dalince Çongara

Özlem Gençer

Fatih Zeren Kuas

Nursevinç Karakuş

Altan Öztürk

Nurefşan Gül

Görkem Beydilli

Fırat Akdoğan

Focus Group 4

Room: F-018

Moderator: Burcu Yeşilyurt

Participants

Zeynep Doğu

İpek Acar

Tarık Uzun

Stephanie Lea Howard

Ceyda Örük

Fehime Aslan

Banu Özkaya

Gonca Dayı

Saadet Şahin


STUDENT FOCUS GROUPS

Focus Group 5

Room: F-019

Moderator: Gülşah Kalın

Participants

Fatma Yaman

Simay Kurak

Betül Yaşar

Hacer Seha Solak

Simge Top

Rüstem Emre Sungurbaş

Mustafa Celal Paydaş

Hanife Çelik

Başak Dilek

Focus Group 6

Room: F-023

Moderator: Eren Özarslan

Participants

Hilal Yıldırım

Başak Kozacıoğlu

Fatma Sena Küçük

Gülüzar Nur Karahan

Merve Baykara

Emre Görkem Aslan

Firuze Doğan

Aleyna Özger

Focus Group 7

Room: F-025

Moderator: Melike Demir Bektaş

Participants

Zeynep Akant

Buket Atik

Abdülkerim Taş

İrem Şeker

Sıla Çelik

Yiğit Yılmaz

Dilara Güngör

Çağatay Yıldız

Focus Group 8

Room: F-029

Moderator: M. Nur K. Çilingir

Participants

Yusuf Tuğberk Türken

Esra Yılmaz

İpek Aleyna Kara

Yağnur Derya Tetikcan

Feride Şeymen

Cemile Dinçer

Melisa Sarıgül

Ecem İnci


General Report

Introduction

The first MOCA Event that had been organized by EGE University School of Foreign

Languages in May 2017 had participants from 22 universities. The second MOCA Event

(MOCA 2018) that was hosted by TED University in Ankara on 28 April 2018 received a

total of 66 representatives from 30 institutions all over Turkey. In addition to the student and

teacher participants from the Prep. Classes of 18 private and 12 state schools from 13 cities,

MOCA 2018 hosted, for the first time, an ‘observer participant’ from a publisher. Like the

first event, MOCA 2018 was also structured around Focus Group Meetings and a Panel

Discussion which enabled interaction among both small-groups and the whole-group.

Opening Remarks

Nuray Lük Grove, PhD, Director of TED University English Language School, started

her speech by emphasizing the student-centred nature of the MOCA that distinguishes it from

the other events in ELT field, making it a unique and significant one in this sense. After that,

she stated that since it fills a much-needed gap by bringing together students and teachers as

well as by giving them equal voice and chance to discuss certain matters together, it would

actually be highly valuable in all the academic disciplines and that such events should be

organized by all the departments in the future. Dr. Grove then mentioned the similarity

between the student-inclusive approaches of MOCA Events and TED University’s top

management as well as the English Language School. The Director concluded her speech by

thanking Lecturer Tuğba Yeğin on behalf of the MOCA Founding Team as well as the

MOCA 2018 Hosting Team members and by wishing the participants a fruitful event with

useful outcomes.

Şevval Kır, TEDU ELS Student Representative, welcomed the participants on behalf

of the Hosting Team and mentioned the importance of having a good command of English in

terms of achieving her dreams and goals in addition to being able to lead a quality life and

pursue a successful career due to its current status as a ‘lingua franca’ across the globe.

Having acknowledged that there may still be room for progress in the ELT field for both

teachers and students in Turkey, she expressed her belief in the fact that the participants of

this event are definitely ready and willing to take on the challenge of improving the quality of

ELT in this country. She then stated that MOCA is on its way to become an umbrella event

that brings together devoted teachers and students from Prep Classes and ended her speech by

wishing the participants a very beneficial day full of discussions conducive to progress.


Lecturer A. Taşkın TAŞ, TEDU ELS Teacher Representative, started his speech by

explaining the mutual rationale and motivation of TEDU ELS and EGE Uni. SoFL for

selecting this year’s theme as Learner Engagement. Having given a brief history of the

research on Learner Engagement, he then synthesized some findings from the literature

review that the hosting team found noteworthy while preparing for the event. He moved on to

name a few of the different approaches to learner engagement that were / are popular in the

field and focused on the multi-dimensional, variably-defined aspect of the term. He then

stressed the significance of the term particularly in the ELT field. After that, he presented a

few possible challenges and constraints on learner engagement in different contexts of ELT,

Prep Classes and Institutions. He thus highlighted the requirement for flexibility while

discussing the term in details and finished his speech by thanking the participants for their

invaluable input in advance.

Focus Group - 1 (10:30 – 12:00)

The students and teachers worked in separate groups in respective rooms,

brainstorming and discussing about the following questions:

Student Focus Groups: How do you define an engaging language lesson?

What makes it challenging to keep yourself engaged?

Teacher Focus Groups: How do you define an engaging language lesson?

What makes it challenging to keep the students engaged?

Focus Group - 2 (13:30 – 15:00)

The students and teachers worked in separate groups in respective rooms,

brainstorming and discussing about the following questions:

Student Focus Groups: How do you eliminate those factors and keep yourself engaged?

How can we develop institutional approaches to learner engagement?

Teacher Focus Groups: How do you eliminate those factors and keep the students engaged?

How can we develop institutional approaches to learner engagement?

Panel Discussion

The panel session included a representative from each focus group to summarise the

outcomes of their discussion. (The notes from these presentations can be found below in

Appendix-1.) The audience had the chance to ask questions to each speaker after their

presentation and then there was a whole-group Q & A session in the plenary.


Closing Session

In the first part of the closing session, the participants were asked via an online survey

(on Mentimeter.com) to reflect on the following questions and share their opinions with the

Hosting Team as well as the other guests:

1) In general, how satisfied are you with the MOCA 2018 Event?

Responses: 63% - “Extremely satisfied” (5/5)

28% - “Satisfied” (4/5)

2% - “Undecided” (3/5)

7% - “Could’ve been better” (2/5)

2) What are some things about MOCA 2018 that you think went well / could’ve been better?

Went Well:

* Cooperation among teachers and students

* Hospitality, professionality and helpfulness of the

Hosting Team members

* Discussions & exchange of ideas in the focus

groups

* Getting to hear more about the students’ ideas

* Facilities (Physical Conditions)

* Snacks

Could Be Better:

* Duration of the Panel Discussion

* Length of the Event (maybe 2 days)

* Maybe a bit more time for reflection at the end?

* Seating Plan (Rows of 6?)

* Insufficient English summary / translation for

Non-TR Speakers

3) What are your suggestions for the theme of next year’s event?

Inspiration in the Classroom / Use of Technology in the Classroom / Aims and Functions of English Prep

Classes / Content Based Methods / Task Based Practices / Authentic Materials / Critical Thinking in Language

Classrooms / Learner Autonomy / Gamification in the Classroom / Teaching Generation Z / Testing and

Assessment in Prep Classes / Teacher Engagement / How to Change the Perception of Prep Classes in Turkey …

Next, Lecturer Tuğba Yeğin from Ege Uni. SoFL presented the closing remarks of this

year’s event on behalf of the MOCA Founding Team wherein she briefly shared the history of

MOCA so far, shared her visions and predictions on its future, and concluded her speech by

thanking the MOCA 2018 Hosting Team Members for their arduous work.

In the final stage of the closing session, the participants were asked whether they

would like to organize the next year’s event at their own institutions. Upon this question, four

schools (Sabancı University, Ankara University, Okan University and Başkent University)

expressed their interest in hosting MOCA 2019. The names of these candidate universities

were written on a piece of paper, folded and put into a bowl. The Hosting Institution of

MOCA 2019 was elected via lucky draw by one of the MOCA 2018 Hosting Team Student

Members as Sabancı University from Istanbul.


Appendix-1: Notes from the Focus Group Presentations

Focus Group 1 (Teachers)

Spokesperson: Asuman Şimşek

Participants: Asuman Şimşek, Nurdan Yeşil, Onur Ergünay, Pınar Mızrak,

Merve Kıymaz, Ali Ünal, Aslıhan Demir, Pınar Temoçin

Moderator: Fulya İçöz

The importance of a human-centred approach to education rather than a material-based

or technology-oriented one

The use of books and materials purely as a tool and means; being aware of the

individual needs and differences of the students as people

Relationship between Motivation and Engagement?

Problems:

Low self-confidence as a potential barrier hindering learner engagement

Students’ tendency to perceive the Prep Year as an obstacle to, rather than a

preparation for, their departments

Solutions:

Significance of creating a safe-space where students feel free to take risks

Involving students in the decision making as well as lesson execution process

Relationship between Feedback and Engagement?

Positive and constructive feedback, not only error-correction

Focusing primarily on meaning / content and then structure / grammar

Teacher beliefs and sense of belonging reflected on to the Students

Relationship between Assessment and Engagement?

Teachers’ awareness of the fact that learning is an individual process that’s

different for each learner and getting the students to realize the same thing

Guiding learners on how to learn to manage their own learning process

In-class activities won’t suffice; learners have to make English an internal part

of their lives

The institutions have to support the teachers in their efforts to engage the

learners



Spokesperson: Deniz Keser

Participants: Nurhan Tütüncü, Pınar Kartal, Ferdiye Güner Atak, Oksana Yeshshorkina,

Beste Emül, Sinem Türkyılmaz, Deniz Keser, İrem Oğhan

Moderator: Herbert M. Stevenson

How to define an engaging lesson?

Ss physically, mentally, affectively involved in the lesson

Key Elements: Motivation, Interest, Entertainment

Content should be applicable to real life

Various instructional methods

How to increase learner engagement?

Group activities, games

Teachers’ own engagement, behaviours, attitude and prep

Transparency in explaining aims, objectives, rationale and purpose of activities

Teachers should involve the learners instead of taking sole responsibility

Relationship between Autonomy and Engagement?

Providing options addressing different levels and needs in the same class

Making use of cooperative teaching methods

Giving learners the opportunity to create and contribute

How to monitor learner engagement?

Interaction & asking questions

Giving them false info to see if they correct it

Outside class conversations

Getting feedback related to tasks

When does learner engagement diminish?

Issues:

Towards the end of the semester / Lecturing / Before & after lunch / First &

Last hours of the day / While covering difficult topics / Sometimes “just

because...” / negative events in the family or city

Suggestions:

Energizers (cognitive results?) / Change your lesson plan and play games /

Find an interesting topic / Have the lesson outside in the garden / Ted talks &

Short movies / Show them that they are learning a language rather than just

trying to pass an exam

How can we adapt a standardized curriculum?

The books have topics related to professional lives that don’t attract students

We can omit some unrelated parts like CV writing for prep students

We should avoid killing teacher’s creativity



Spokesperson: Fırat Akdoğan

Participants: M. Mine Bağ, Dalince Çongara, Özlem Gençer, Fatih Zeren Kuas, Nursevinç

Karakuş, Altan Öztürk, Nurefşan Gül, Görkem Beydilli, Fırat Akdoğan

Moderator: Serkan Yıldız


Teacher-Student interaction and communication / Turning the lesson into a

“show” / Wish to learn as well as have fun / Use of audiovisuals / Course

materials prepped for specific classes / Integration of technology and social

media into the classroom activities / Pair work & Group work / Timing

How to monitor engagement?

Frequency of eye contact / Body language (gestures and mimics) / CCQs and

ICQs / Quality of student questions

What can be done to prepare an engaging lesson?

No. of students in class / Length of lessons / Clear objectives / Personalized

programmes / Authentic materials / Interactive activities / High level of energy

shown by teacher / Effective warm-up / Audiovisual materials / Various

instructional methods (eg: team teaching) / Learning Portfolio / Changing

seating plan often


Issues:

Spring / Distractions in university or campus life / Smartphone notifications /

Student attitude / Dominance of stronger students / Teacher’s concern to

“catch up with the curriculum” / Lack of integration and cooperation between

Testing and Curriculum units / Testing-Curriculum members who don’t teach /

Inappropriate level of materials

Relationship between Curriculum and Engagement?

Issues:

Potentially limiting Programmes / Aimed level of a Prep Graduate student /

Curriculum based on academic skills / Standardized lesson content

Suggestions:

Extra materials to supplement to programme / Focusing more on the every day

functions of the language / Constantly collecting students’ ideas & feedback

Relationship between Teacher’s character and Engagement?

Style of interaction with students / Sharing personal information / Differences

btw introverted and extroverted teachers? / Compatibility / Students’ need to

be individually recognized / Pros and Cons of being a strict or flexible teacher?

/ Progressive teachers who are open to changes, receiving feedback and

professional development / Different class dynamics / Sense of humor in class

/ Motivated Teachers who also motivate students



Spokesperson: İpek Acar

Participants: Zeynep Doğu, İpek Acar, Tarık Uzun, Stephanie Lea Howard, Ceyda Örük,

Fehime Aslan, Banu Özkaya, Gonca Dayı, Saadet Şahin

Moderator: Burcu Yeşilyurt


Students

Actively involved students who listen, speak, produce and share / Students’

high awareness level of their own needs and expectations / Responsible and

motivated learners who are able to cooperate, have fun, and are willing to learn

Teachers

Teacher as a mentor who is aware of his/her students’ needs and expectations /

Motivated / Positive attitude / Trusting and Trustworthy / Constructive and

continuous feedabck / Open to change and innovation / Interactive activities

via authentic materials applicable to real life / Empathize with students


Uninteresting topics / Materials / Busy schedule / Obligatory attendance / Long

and complex learning process / Lack of motivation / No need or purpose to

learn / Perception of Prep Class as a barrier / Different expectations and

backgrounds

Sustainable Active Participation?

Awareness-raising / Activities and speeches designed to increase motivation /

Counselling / Opportunities for one-on-one and individual studying /

Opportunities abroad (eg: exchange programs) / Use of technology / Projects

Institutional Approach?

Empowerment of and support mechanisms for the teachers / Physical

conditions / Cooperation between Management-Student-Teachers, especially

in decision-making processes / Financial support (eg: abroad) / Inviting

speakers (professionals, experts, trainers...) / The university management’s

approach to Prep Classes


Focus Group 5 (Students)

Spokesperson: Hanife Çelik

Participants: Fatma Yaman, Simay Kurak, Betül Yaşar, Hacer Seha Solak, Simge Top,

Rüstem Emre Sungurbaş, Mustafa Celal Paydaş, Hanife Çelik, Başak Dilek

Moderator: Gülşah Kalın


Students with a high level of interest, involvement and concentration who can

actively contribute to the lesson and who aim to learn, improve and share


Issues:

Intensive, exhausting curriculum

Lengthy lessons and semesters / Lack of motivation

Suggestions:

More efficient transfer of knowledge (high quality, shorter time..)

Close and sincere interaction between Teacher and Students

Students should: take equal responsibility with teachers, and, question their

reasons and aims to learn English continuously

Awareness = Activeness

Teacher’s guidance while learning how to think in English

Integration of technology into classroom activities (Convert the students’

addiction into sth useful, use the competitive nature of digital games to

increase ambition, cover ¼ of classes via use of technology...)



Spokesperson: Aleyna Özger

Participants: Hilal Yıldırım, Başak Kozacıoğlu, Fatma Sena Küçük, Gülüzar Nur Karahan,

Merve Baykara, Emre Görkem Aslan, Firuze Doğan, Aleyna Özger

Moderator: Eren Özarslan


Integration and use of technology in the lessons / Clear aims and objectives /

Enabling reassuring interaction in the class / Continuous Student-Student and

Teacher-Student feedback / High level of curiosity and interest


Issues:

Teacher attitude and behaviour / (Daily and Weekly) Length of Lessons /

Morale and motivation of the students / Physical shortcomings of a campus /

Inconsistent curriculum

Individual Suggestions (for Students):

Take up a hobby / Enlarge your social circle,

Autonomy,

Get academic support

Institutional Suggestions (for Teachers and Schools):

Considering students’ ideas and feedback,

Getting the students to gain new and different perspectives,

Open-Door Policy of the Management

Giving the students the chance to choose

Betterment of the physical conditions

Balance of number of teachers and students in an institution



Spokesperson: Sıla Çelik

Participants: Zeynep Akant, Buket Atik, Abdülkerim Taş, İrem Şeker, Sıla Çelik,

Yiğit Yılmaz, Dilara Güngör, Çağatay Yıldız

Moderator: Melike Demir Bektaş


Issues:

Hard to concentrate for 40-50mins / Uninteresting topics

Suggestions:

Clarified aims and objectives / Class time allocated for games and audio-visual

materials / A variety of materials and methods employed / Friendly and

empathetic teachers / Safe environment with freedom to make mistakes

Enabling students to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and reflect

their own style in their work / Active speaking clubs (sometimes with other

students rather than always with teachers) / Division of students according to

their future departments or skills


Insufficient physical conditions and technological devices / Negative teacher

attitude / Bad weather / Mood of the student (personal problems etc) /

Different levels of fluency and accuracy within the same class / Distant or

isolated location of the campus / Lack of sense of belonging / Family matters /

Disinterested students in the class / Unaware learners of their own

responsibilities / Class hours (too early / late hours)



Spokesperson: Cemile Dinçer

Participants: Yusuf Tuğberk Türken, Esra Yılmaz, İpek Aleyna Kara, Yağnur Derya

Tetikcan, Feride Şeymen, Cemile Dinçer, Melisa Sarıgül, Ecem İnci

Moderator: M. Nur K. Çilingir

Too much formality decreases the level of engagement of a student.

If a student doesn’t want to be engaged, there’s only so much a teacher can do to

foster engagement.

Both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation may be equally important & valid.

A possible source of motivation can be the learners’ awareness of the

opportunities they have at their disposal. Students can motivate themselves by

considering the less fortunate learners who don’t have access to the same

facilities and resources as their own.

Teachers’ attitudes are crucial in learner engagement.


Appendix-2: Feedback Received through the Post-Event Evaluation Questionnaire

Part 1: General Feedback

1. What do you think were the strongest aspects of the event?

Student & Observer Participants Feedback Teacher Feedback

Planning and organization

Having a small number of people in the

focus groups allowed for efficient

exchange of ideas

Hosting Team

Moderators facilitated the focus group

discussions successfully and created a

fruitful sharing environment

Panel Discussion

Feedback from students were shared

Providing a wide perspective on the

solutions of the issues by enabling

cooperation among teachers and students

General flow and organization

Time Management

Hosting Team

Guidance and hospitality

Diverse participant profile and creation of

an appropriate environment for exchange

of ideas

Active use of social media

Moderators in the Panel Discussion and

Focus Groups

2. What do you think could be better about the event?


Advertisement and announcement

Duration of panel presentations could be

shorter or the number of presenters could

be decreased

Time allocated for focus groups should be

longer

Spokespeople could be given time to meet

and prepare together for the session in

order to avoid repetition of the same issues

Panel discussion could be moderated on a

more standardised basis such as all-PPTs,

visually aided or all-debate format to

ensure unity in format and share group

thoughts as opposed to individual

thoughts.

Fitting all the sessions into 1 day reduces

the efficiency. 2 days would be better.

Non-TR speakers should be included more

by either doing the FGs in English, or

having a FG with only Non-TR speakers.

Summary / Translation was not enough.

We could change our Focus Groups after

every session to exchange ideas with even

more participants.

Covering different topics at the same time

The participants could be informed of the

discussion topics beforehand. The hosting

institution could send out the discussion

questions as well as a selection of articles

to the participants before the event so that

they come more prepared.

Post-Evaluation should be done within or

right after the event. Otherwise valuable

feedback might be forgotten or lost.


Part 2: Detailed Feedback Regarding Content

STATEMENTS RESPONSES

AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE

1. The purpose of the event was

clearly explained to the participants. 86,6% 13,3% -

2. The theme (Learner Engagement) of

the event referred to a significant need

in ELT.

100% - -

3. The Program was prepared in order

to make efficient and valuable use of

time.

93,3% 6,6% -

4. The total duration of the event was

sufficient to discuss the topic at

length.

80% 20% -

5. The Opening Session, incl. the

Speeches and Music Recital, went

well considering their number,

duration and content.

80% 20% -

6. The number of participants and

diversity of profiles in the Focus

Group Discussions were sufficient in

terms of obtaining the different

perspectives on the theme.

86,6% 13,3% -

7. The moderators in the Focus

Groups facilitated the discussions

successfully.

86,6% 13,3% -

8. The timing of the Focus Groups was

appropriate. 86,6% 6,6% 6,6%

9. The presentations and Q&As during

the Panel Discussion enabled us to

share valuable input with each other

regarding the outcomes of the Event.

86,6% 13,3% -

10. The Panel Discussion moderator

led the session successfully. 93,3% 6,6% -

11. The timing of the Panel Session

was appropriate. 80% 20% -

12. In general, the event has achieved

its goals. 86,6% 13,3% -

13. I'd recommend the future MOCA

events to my colleagues / friends. 100% - -

Comments:

* Panel Discussion presentations were sometimes repetitive.

* Inclusion of Non-TR Speakers could have been better.

* Pre-Event tasks or sharing articles with the participants could increase efficiency.

* Phone service in the Multi-Purpose Hall was not good.


Part 3: Detailed Feedback Regarding Organization

STATEMENTS RESPONSES

AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE

1. The blog (mocaturkey.wordpress.com)

and the social media accounts (Facebook &

Instagram) were informative.

73,3% 20% 6,6%

2. Directions given in order to reach the

Event Venues were clear and sufficient. 93,3% 6,6% -

3. Physical conditions of the event rooms

(temperature, noise, seating plan etc) and

the technological setup (audio-visual

devices etc) were appropriate.

93,3% 6,6% -

4. The refreshments offered during the

breaks (food & beverage) were sufficient. 100% - -

5. Provision of lunch within the institution

was useful in terms of the general running

of the program and bonding of the

participants.

100% - -

6. The hosting team members were friendly

and helpful. 100% - -

Part 4: Reflection on the Event

1. What are some outputs (individually, institutionally, professional etc.) that

you have obtained from this event?


* Education must be open to changes and we

should always question the system

* I have found out about how the other schools

engage their students in the lessons differently

from that of mine.

* I have learned extra information about what

demotivates the students and how to keep one

active throughout the lesson

* It helped me question the efficiency of my

lessons.

* I’ve become aware of the common and different

student problems related to engagement in

various universities

* Prep students demand more General English in

the 1st semestre and more ESP in the 2nd

semestre.

* Students are interested in the skills relevant to

their future careers (e.g.: technical students are

more interested in ESP reading than speaking.)

* I learned how I can engage my students in my

lesson effectively.

* Personal contacts, professional networking and

being able to monitor the teaching and learning

processes from the student perspective.

* Students can shape a teacher’s creativity and

even curriculum via their needs and expectations.

* I have realized that the factors that diminish

engagement are mostly individual or classroom-

specific reasons rather than institutional policies.

* Having been informed about the procedures and

practices in other institutions was its biggest

professional contribution.

* All that we’ve learned will be reflected in our

decision-making processes, and eventually

benefit the students to a great extent.

http://mocaturkey.wordpress.com/


2. What are some outputs of the event that you think can be implemented in your institution?


* Integration of technology into the classroom

activities

* Student-Only Student Clubs can be applicable

and beneficial

* Eliminating the factors that demotivate the

students

* Decisions on Speaking

* Drama lessons could be useful for teaching

skills in Prep Classes

* Demand for ESP materials starting from A1 or

A1+

* Portfolio system for writing lessons

* Engagement is an issue that should exist not

only in the classroom but also in the social

environment. Bearing this in mind, institutions

should invest efforts in preparing programmes.

* Better integration and inclusion of student

feedback into learning and teaching processes

* Defining the objectives in advance and

providing the students with options to choose

from may be our biggest gain.

* Project-Based Learning could be given more

importance.

* I believe we have come to a common agreement

and achieved a mutual perspective rather than a

specific, applicable outcome.

* Integration of department courses into Prep

Class Curriculum

* The ILC Unit that one of the participants

mentioned in the Panel Discussion Session.

3. What do you think should be the theme of the MOCA - 2019 Event

to be hosted by Sabancı University next year?


* Learner’s Autonomy

* The teacher’s influence (and its extent) upon a

student’s success vs his/her own motivation

* The same theme (Learner Engagement) can be

covered with different aspects

* How to improve the efficiency of skills lessons

* 21st Century Individuals

* Quality of K12 English Education

* Skill-based vs. Grammar-based Learning

* Autonomous Learning

* Critical Thinking Skills

* Learner Autonomy

* Effective Time Management

* Methodological Approaches

* Curriculum Design (and Learners’ Needs)

REPORT ON MOCA 2018 - WordPress.com · REPORT ON MOCA – 2018 TED University English Language...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT ON MOCA 2018 - WordPress.com · REPORT ON MOCA – 2018 TED University English Language...