Online Resources and Tools For TL

Multimedia for Education
Online Resources and Tools for TL

1. Introduction
The recent birth of the myriad of English learning websites around the globe makes
the development of proper evaluation criteria necessary. As proposed in Elsevier (2010), it
exists a set of criteria so teachers and learners can construct a multidimensional tool to
evaluate the quality of such learning websites.
The design foundations of this evaluation tool are: web usability, learning materials,
functionality of assisted language learning, technology integration, and learner preferences.
The process to obtain these featuresto be given as a guideline to create an evaluation
toolis the product of quantitative and qualitative research methods.
This evaluation tool takes its statements from the fifty-eight criteria proposed by the
research paper Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning
websites with university students and professors to be applied and to obtain reliable results
on any English learning website.
Based on these aspects, an evaluation tool was designed containing the following
criteria:
General aspects
Technical aspects
Language skills focused
Aspect
This tool goes from general evaluation to more specific topics enabling an analysis
that is both simple and deep. Thus, it is expected that this tool can be used for the analysis
of other websites besides the ones presented in this paper.
2. The tool in blank
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

Website:
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
General aspects
1. It is easy to access the website.

2. The website has a good reliability .
3. The website provides enough information related to the language.
4. The website seems to have an attractive layout.
5. The website has a good organization of the information.
Technical aspects
1. The website allows interaction with other users.
2. The website is easy to use by students.
3. The website has a good speed to charge the materials.
1. The website contains activities of listening for gist.
2. The website contains activities of listening for specific information.
3. The website contains activities of reading for gist.
4. The website contains activities of reading for scanning.
5. The website contains activities of reading for skimming.
6. The website contains activities of writing informal documents.
7. The website contains activities of writing formal documents.
8. The website contains activities of speaking practice
Aspect
1. The website has a good design and it is attractive for users
2. The website includes resources appropriate for the age and gender of
users
3. The website is well organized and the information is clear
4. The website has the type, size and font color appropriate for an easy and
comfortable reading. The background color has a good contrast and the
arrangement of images regarding the text is excellent.
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.
No

3. Evaluation of 5 websites
Website: https://home.babbel.com/dashboard
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
No
General aspects
Technical aspects

Aspect
users
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/subjects/english.shtml
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
No
General aspects
Technical aspects

Aspect
users
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
X
X
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

Website: https://www.ego4u.com/
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
No
General aspects
Technical aspects

Aspect
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
X
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

users
X
X
Website: http://www.shertonenglish.com
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
No
General aspects
Technical aspects

Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

8. The website contains activities of speaking practice.
Aspect
1. The website has a good design and it is attractive for users.
users.
3. The website is well organized and the information is clear.
X
X
Website: http://www.engvid.com/
CHECK LIST
Statement
Yes
No
General aspects
Technical aspects

Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

Aspect
users
X
X
4. Conclusions
As it is noticeable through the elicited results of the five samples of the designed tool,
most websites meet the general aspects of the selected criteria. Nonetheless, we could also
notice that concerning the practice opportunities for the development of the four skills,
differences showed up in that some websites work with some of the latter but none actually
integrates the four of them. We do realize that it is not that simple to design a website that
grants users (learners) the opportunity to work with all these four areas since this represents
a rather time-consuming and hard task. Moreover, with regard to the technical and
(aesthetic) aspect, the five websites show similar results consistently. Even so concerning
the areas that deal with the training of the four skills. In addition, the lack of interaction
between users seems to be a normal features of present-day websites. It could possibly be
so due to the focus of the websites that rely more on the educational aspect rather than
creating a community of learners. But then a diambiguation of analysis and evaluation had to
be made so as to clarify the purpose of each of the fore-mentioned.
As stated by Tomlinson (2003), there is an essential difference between material
analysis and material evaluation. Besides the characteristics specified by the same author,
that is, the criteria to take into consideration, it is important to always bear in mind what an
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

evaluation consists in. This leads us to the material production and evaluation issue. Edge
and Wharton (1998, in Tomlinson, 2003) state that, regarding teachers, the reflective
practice leads to a deeper understanding of the area investigated. That is why teachers are
the first ones to get involved in the task of designing and evaluating materials, since it is they
who directly work with them (i.e. use them) as tools of instruction and thus have a privileged
position for feedback. By this we mean that teachers can observe how effectiveor not
they are, and if it is necessary to dispatch them, modify them, adapt them, etc. This does not
mean that the analysts or evaluators task is unnecessary or redundant, because, as
specialists in their field and respective tasks, they are the most suitable to carry out the
evaluation and design of the latter. In contrast with the advantages that teachers have over
those who only have the knowledge to perform such tasks, is that they can tell whenever
something is not working as expected because they know their students, they can tell when
an exercise is too easy, not appealing enough, not valid, and so forth.
Nonetheless, we do think that the ideal situation would be that in which both teachers
and specialists work together to perform such tasks the best way possible. If we keep in
consideration that analysts and evaluators have the expertise and knowledge to design and
evaluate materials. They can rely on principles and theories that support their decisions. On
the other hand, teachers have experience dealing with more practical issues such as
rapport, students background and schemata, skills, etc. Let us say that there is more of an
emotional bonding between the two and therefore can choose wisely based on what they
have observed during their practice. If we combine both we can have prime results.
To summarize, we consider that teachers should get more involved in materials
design and evaluation. What they can contribute is priceless and also needed by the
specialistsno matter their knowledge or the degree of expertise. As stated above the
combination of both peoples skills can lead to better results when designing and evaluating.
For no reason should teachers let themselves out of this important task in language
teaching.
5.
References
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.

Liu, G., Liu, Z. & Hwang, G. Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English
learning websites with university students and professors in Computers &
Education, Volume 56, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 65-79. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131510002472
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing Materials for Language Teaching. US: A&C Black.
Juan C. Sols R.
Angely J. May P.
Javier Cauich C.
Joaqun E. Cruz K.
Luis Ruiz F.
10

Online Resources and Tools For TL

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Online Resources and Tools For TL

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Multimedia for Education