Innovation in English Language Teaching

Innovation in English Language Teaching

‘This volumc brings to the fore divcrsc, fundamcntal issucs abou t thc processes and politics of cu r r i cu lum change and improvemen t , new technologies , and concepts of language use, communicat ion, and ins t ruct ion vital to guiding the organization and practiccs of teaching English internationally.’ Alister Cumming, Ontario lnstitritqfbr Studies in Education, Ilniversiq, $Toronto

Teaching English Language Worldwide

A sclcction o f readers’ commmts o n the series:

‘This thrcc-part series offkrs a map to ELT research and practice . . . it represents the best that EI.T, as an Anglo-Saxon institution, has dcvclopctl over thc last thirty years for the teaching of English around the \vorld . . . Readers will f n d in this scrics the Who’s Who guide t o this dynamic antl expanding community.’ Claire Kramsch, Unitwsiy !/‘Cul!/brnia, Berkele)., CulIfbrnia

‘Experienced knglish language instructors sccking to tlecpen their kno\vlctlgc ant1 abilities will find this series forms a coherent basis to d lop their understanding of current trcntls, sociocultural diversity, and topical interests in teaching English as a second or foreign language around the \vorld. All thrcc \olumcs pro\ idc ample flexibility for discussion, interpretation, antl adaptation in local scttings.’ ,41ister Ctirnrning, Ontario Institute for St t id ies in Educarion, Universiy ?ffToronto

‘This scrics pro\ ides a collection of essential readings \vhich will not onl! pro\ itlc the TEFI./TESOL student anti tcachcr \\ ith access to the most up-to-tlatc thinking and approaches to the subject but m i l l give any person interested in the suhjcct an over\ ic\z of the phenomenon of thc usc antl usage of English in the modern nurlt l . Perhaps morc importantly, this series \vi11 be crucial to thosc studcnts \z ho do not h a w available to them articles that providc both a \vide spectrum of information antl the neccssary analytical tools to investigate the language turthcr.’Josepb,l. E’olej; Soiitbeu. iu Jlinirters of tducat ion Orpnisution, Regionul Lungiiule Centre, Singapore

‘The strong rcprcscntation o f the seminal Anglo- Australian tlc\clopmcnt o f the European functional tradition in the study of languagc antl language education makes this a rclrcshingl! bracing scrics, \z hich should hc \vitlcl! used in tcachcr education tor English languagc teaching.’ Liicin Reid, /nyt i r r i te fEducu t ion , IJniversiy of/ .ondon

‘In a principled antl accessible manner, thcsc thrcc 1 olumcs living together major bvritings o n essential topics in the stud? o f English languagc tcaching. They provide broatl coverage of current thinking and debate o n major issucs, providing an in\ aluable resource for the contcmporarq postgraduate student.’ Guy Cook, llnii crsit?, of Reading

Teaching English Language Worldwide

Companion volumes

The companion volumes in this series are:

Analysing English Language i n a Global Context, edited by Anne Burns and Caroline Coffin

English Language Teaching in its Social Contextedited by Christopher N. Candlin and Neil Mercer

These three readers are part of a scheme of study jointly developed by Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and the open University, United I<ingdom. At the Open University, the three readers are part of a single course, Teaching English to Speakers o f Other Languages Worldwide, which forms part of the Open University M A in Education (Applied Linguistics) and Advanced Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. At Macquarie University, the three readers' are each attached to single study units, which form part of the Postgraduate Diploma and Master of Applied Linguistics programmes.

The Open University M A in Education is now established as the most popular postgraduate degree for U I< education professionals, with over 3,500 students registering each year. From 2001 i t will also be available worldwide. The MA in Education is designed particularly for those with experience in teaching, educational administration or allied fields. The MA is a modular degree and students are free to select, from a range of options, the programme that best fits in with their interests and professional goals. The M A in Education programme provides great flexibility. Students study at their own pace and in their own time. They receive specially prepared study materials, and are supported by a personal tutor. (Successful completion of the MA in Education (Applied Linguistics) entitles students to apply for entry to the Open University Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.) programme.)

The Professional Development in Education prospectus contains further information and application forms. To find out more about the Open University and request your copy please write to the Course Reservations and Sales Centre, The Open University, PO Box 724, Walton Hall, Mi l ton I<eynes M1<7 bZW, or e-mail [email protected], or telephone +44 (0 ) 01908 653231 or visit the website www.open.ac.ul<. For more information on the M A in Education (Applied Linguistics), visit www.open.ac.uk/applied-linguistics.

Macquarie University introduced distance versions of its influential on-campus degrees in 1994 and now has students in over th i r ty countries. Both the Postgraduate Diploma and the Master's are offered in three versions: Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics (TESOL) and Applied Linguistics (Literacy). Credits are freely transferable between the Diploma and the Master's and between the three versions, and students may change between distance and on-campus modes or mix modes i f desired. Students study at their own pace, with specially developed materials and with support and feedback provided directly from lecturers in the Linguistics Department through e-mail, web, fax, phone and post. A specialised library service is provided through the Resources Centre of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR). External doctoral programmes are also available.

Information about the Macquarie programmes and application forms are available on www.ling.mq.edu.au or by writ ing to the Linguistics Postgraduate Office, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia tel.: +61 2 9850 9243; fax +61 2 9850 9352; e-mail: [email protected]).

Innovat ion i n Engl ish Language Teaching

Innovation i n English Language Teaching provides both theoretical perspectives and practical tools for analysing, developing and evaluating English language teaching curricula. It presents English language teaching in a variety of specific institutional, geographic and cultural contexts.

This Reader focuses particularly on curriculum change in context. The articles - which include both classic and specially commissioned pieces - have been selected and edited to highlight the debates, discussions and current issues f rom different parts of the English- spealcing and English-using world.

Academics and teachers from around the world examine the role and influence not just of language teachers and students, but of parents, teacher-trainers, the local community, the press, politicians, and all who have an interest in what goes on in the language classroom. Issues are illustrated and discussed in different contexts, including: teaching migrants in English speaking countries; teaching large classes in developing countries; teaching English for academic purposes; using information technology in the classroom.

Articles by: Michael P. Breen; I<imberley Brown; Christopher N. Candlin; David R. Carless; Ronald Carter; Guy Cook; Susan Feez; Kevin Germaine; /<athieen Graves; David R. Hall; Ann Hewings; Mart in Hewings; Adrian Holliday; Gary M. Jones; Clarice Lamb; Joan Lesikin; Defeng Li; Numa Markee; Michael McCarthy; David Nunan; Pauline Rea-Dickins; Zakia Sarwar; Wil l iam Savage; Simon Sergeant; Graeme Storer

David R. Hall is Head of the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Ann Hewings is a lecturer in the Centre for Language and Communications at the Open University, U I<.

Innovation in English Language Teaching A Readev

Edited by

David R. Hall and Ann Hewings

2

Theopen MACQUARI E University U N I V E R S I T Y - S Y D N E Y

London and New York in association with Macquarie University

and The Open University

F O V my parents, Ron and Anne Hall

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group

0 2001 Compilation, original and editorial material Macquarie University and The Open University; individual articles 0 their authors

Typeset in Perpetua and Bell Gothic by I<eystroke, Jacaranda Lodge, Wolverhampton Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Innovation in English language teaching : a reader I edited by David Hall and Ann Hewings.

p. cm. - (Teaching English language worldwide) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language-Study and teaching- Foreign speakers. I. Hall, David, 1947-

11. Hewings, Ann. 111. Series.

PE1128.A2 I54 2000 428'.007 -dc21 00-059194

ISBN 0-415-24123-5 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-24124-3 (pbk)

Contents

List o f illustrations Acknowledgements

D a v i d R. H a l l a n d A n n H e w i n g s I N T R O D U C T I O N

P A R T ONE D i r e c t i o n s i n c u r r i c u l u m change

M i c h a e l P . B r e e n a n d C h r i s t o p h e r N . C a n d l i n 1 T H E E S S E N T I A L S O F A C O M M U N I C A T I V E C U R R I C U L U M

I N L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G

D a v i d N u n a n a n d C l a r i c e L a m b 2 M A N A G I N G T H E L E A R N I N G P R O C E S S

M i c h a e l L e w i s 3 L E X l S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S

M i c h a e l M c C a r t h y a n d R o n a l d C a r t e r 4 D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S

G u y C o o k 5 T H E U S E S O F C O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E C O R P O R A

A R E P L Y T O R O N A L D C A R T E R

X

x i i

1

9

27

46

55

64

A n n H e w i n g s a n d M a r t i n H e w i n g s 6 A P P R O A C H E S T O T H E S T U D Y O F D I S C I P L I N A R Y V A R I A T I O N

I N A C A D E M I C W R I T I N G : I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R S Y L L A B U S

D E S I G N 7 1

V i i i C O N T E N T S

PART TWO P o l i t i c a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t

R o n a l d C a r t e r 7 P O L I T I C S A N D I < N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E :

T H E L I N C P R O J E C T

G a r y M . J o n e s 8 B I L I N G U A L E D U C A T I O N A N D S Y L L A B U S D E S I G N :

T O W A R D S A W O R I < A B L E B L U E P R I N T

I < i r n b e r l e y B r o w n 9 W O R L D E N G L I S H E S I N T E S O L P R O G R A M S : A N I N F U S I O N

M O D E L O F C U R R I C U L A R I N N O V A T I O N

N u r n a M a r k e e 1 0 T H E D I F F U S I O N O F I N N O V A T I O N I N L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G

Z a k i a S a r w a r 11 A D A P T I N G I N D I V I D U A L I Z A T I O N T E C H N I Q U E S F O R

L A R G E C L A S S E S

W i l l i a m S a v a g e a n d G r a e r n e S t o v e r 1 2 A N E M E R G E N T L A N G U A G E P R O G R A M F R A M E W O R K :

A C T I V E L Y I N V O L V I N G L E A R N E R S I N N E E D S A N A L Y S I S

D e f e n g L 1 3 T E A C H E R S

T H E C O M M

P E R C E I V E D D I F F I C U L T I E S I N I N T R O D U C I N G

I N I C A T I V E A P P R O A C H I N S O U T H I < O R E A

PART T H R E E P l a n n i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g c u r r i c u l u m c h a n g e

A d r i a n H o l l i d a y 1 4 A C H I E V I N G C U L T U R A L C O N T I N U I T Y I N C U R R I C U L U M

I N N O V A T I O N

I < a t h l e e n G r a v e s 1 5 A F R A M E W O R I < O F C O U R S E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S E S

D a v i d N u n a n 1 6 A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E E D U C A T I O N

87

99

108

118

127

137

149

169

178

197

C O N T E N T S i x

S u s a n F e e z 1 7 C U R R I C U L U M E V O L U T I O N I N T H E A U S T R A L I A N

A D U L T M I G R A N T E N G L I S H P R O G R A M

D a v i d R . H a l l 1 8 M A T E R I A L S P R O D U C T I O N : T H E O R Y A N D P R A C T I C E

S i m o n S e r g e a n t 1 9 C A L L I N N O V A T I O N I N T H E E L T C U R R I C U L U M

PART FOUR E v a l u a t i n g c u r r i c u l u m change

P a u l i n e R e a - D i c k i n s a n d I < e v i n G e r m a i n e 2 0 P U R P O S E S F O R E V A L U A T I O N

208

229

240

253

D a v i d R . C a r l e s s 2 1 A C A S E S T U D Y O F C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N

H O N G IKONG 263

J o a n L e s i k i n

F O R U N C O V E R I N G G E N D E R B I A S I N E S L T E X T B O O I < S 275 2 2 D E T E R M I N I N G S O C I A L P R O M I N E N C E : A M E T H O D O L O G Y

Index 284

I l lus t ra t ions

F igu res

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 8.1 10.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 12.1 12.2 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 15.1 16.1 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 18.1 18.2 19.1

The curriculum Three phases or perspectives on the curriculum process Three alternative ways of grouping learners Planning grid for general English course BICS and CALP An S-shaped diffusion curve Individualization in large classes Worlcsheet 1: radio news Worksheet 2: self-created cloze The initial language program framework The revised language program framework Cultural continuity Professionally constructed image of ‘the learner’ Professionally constructed image of ‘the stakeholder’ ‘Us’ - ‘them’ configuration The completed syllabus grid Reflective practice model of professional education/development Certificates in Spolcen and Written English: curriculum structure Outcomes fov Certificate I in Spolcen and Written English Competency 13: Can write a short recount Methodology t o support learners working towards CSW E outcomes Worksheet 1: student A only Worksheet 2: student B only Perceived program use

Tab les

2.1 2.2 2.3

Learner roles in a learner-centered curriculum Learner-centeredness in the experiential content domain Learner-centeredness in the learning process domain

10 37 41 44 101 122 131 132 133 139 147 170 171 172 175 187 198 217 218 219 223 234 235 244

28 30 30

I L L U S T R A T I O N S x i

2.4 2.5

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 6.1 6.2 8.1

8.2 9.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13.1 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 21.1 22.1 22.2

22.3

22.4

Changing views on the nature of language and learning Curriculum decision-making in high-structure and low-structure contexts I<ey curriculum questions, procedures, and areas Approaches to needs analysis Types of information required in a learner-centered system Communication and learning-how-to-learn goals A classification system for the grammatical subject Average distribution of GSs in different disciplines and sub-disciplines Compulsory and examinable subjects in Brunei primary and secondary schools An alternative distribution of subjects in the Bruneian education system Journals publishing articles on World Englishes topics Interacting Language use Writ ing and reading M etacogn itive Reported difficulties in implementing CLT Framework components The action research cycle: an ESL example The action research cycle: a foreign language example Questions for establishing the reliability and validity of a study The inservice programme in outline How has your teaching changed? Excerpt from a lesson transcript Participant roles of nouns and pronouns Grammar in Use: frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as theme and rheme in ‘unmarked’ clauses Grammar in Use: frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as theme and last stressed element in ‘unmarked’ clauses Grammar in Use: frequency of participant roles of gender-specific nouns and pronouns in ‘unmarked’ clauses

31

34 36 39 40 43 78 79

100 106 114 142 143 143 144 153 179 199 200 201 203 205 268 278

279

279

280

Ac I< n ow I e d g e m e n t s

The editors and publishers would like to thank thc following for permission to use copyright material:

Kimberley Brown and Blackwcll Pulilishers Ltd for ‘World Englishes inTESOL programs: an infusion model of curricular innovation’ in World Englishes, Vol. 12: 1 , 1993.

Michael P. Brccn and Christopher N. Cantllin for ‘The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching’ in Applied Linguistics, 1980. Reprintctl by permission of Oxford University l’ress.

David Carless for ‘A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong’. Reprinted from System,Vol. 26, 1998, with pcrmission from Elsevier Science.

Ronald Carter antl Michael McCarthp for matcrial from Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching ( Longman Group UK Limited 1990.) Rcprintcd by pcrmission o f I’earson Education Limited.

Ronald Carter and Taylor & Francis Iiooks Ltd f‘or ‘Politics and knowledge about language’ in fnvestigating English Discourse, 1997.

Guy Cook for ‘The uses ofrcality: a reply to Ronald Cartcr’ in ELT,/ourna/,Vol. 52 , No. 1 , 1998. Reprintctl by permission o f EI.Tlourna1 and Oxford University Prcss.

Kevin Germaine and Pauline Rca-Dickins for ‘Purposes for cvaluation’ . Rcproducetl by permission of Oxford Univcrsity Press from Erulriution by Pauline Kca-Dickins and Kevin Germainc (Oxford University I’ress 1992 .)

Kathleen Graves and Cambridge Univcrsity 13 . for ‘A framework of course development processes’ in K . Graves (cd.) Ecichers us Course Developers, 1996.

David Hall antl SEAMEO Regional Language Centre for ‘Material production: theory and practice’ in A.C. Hidalgo, D. Hall antl G.M. Jacohs (e&) Getting Started: Materialr Writers on Materials Writing, 1995.

Adrian Holliday for ‘Achieving cultural continuity in curriculum innovation’ in C. Kennedy (cd.) Innovation and Best Practice (l’carson Education Limited 1999). Reprinted by permission of Pcarson Education Limited.

Gary M. Jones and Multilingual Matters for ‘Bilingual education and syllabus design: towards a workable lilucprint’ in journal of’Multilingual and Multiculttiral Devclopment,Vol. 17: 2 4 , 1996.

a methodology for uncovering gcndcr bias in ESL textbooks’ in Colle‘qe ESL,Vol. 8, No. 1, 1998.

Joan Lesikin antl College ESL for ‘Dctermining social prominen

A C I< N 0 W L E D G E M E N T S x i i i

Michael Lewis and LanguageTeaching Publications (LTP) for ‘Lcxis in the syllabus’ in The Lexical Approach:The State of E1.T and a Way Forward, 1993.

Dcfeng Li and TESOL for ‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea’ in TESOL Quarterly,Vol. 32 , No. 4, 1998.

Numa Markee and Cambridge University Press for ‘The diffusion model of innovation in language teaching’ in Annual Review $Applied /.inguistics, 1 3, 1993.

David Nunan for ‘Action research in language education’ in J. Edge and K. Richards (eds) Teachers Develop Teacher Research Papers on Classroom Research and Teacher Derdopment, 1993. Reprinted by permission of Macmillan Press Ltd. Includes table: ‘Types of information required in a lcarner-ccntered system’ from G. Krindley Needsilnalysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Mi‘qrant Program, 1984, reproduced hy permission of NSW Adult Migrant Education Scrvice. Includes material from table: ‘Three altcrnative ways of grouping learners’ from E S L Curriculum Guidelines, South Australian Education Department, 1 990, reproduced by permission of The Department of Education, Training and Employment (SA). Includes material from table: ‘Three alternative ways of grouping learners’ from K . Willing, Learning Sv l e s In Adult Migrant Education, 1998, reproduced by permission of N CE LTR .

David Nunan, Clarice Lamb, and Cambridge University Prrss for material from The Se!fl

Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process, 1996. William Savage and Graeme Storer for ‘An emergent language program framework: actively

involving learners in needs analysis’ reprinted from $stem, Vol. 20, No. 2 , 1992 with permission from Elsevier Science.

Simon Sergeant for ‘CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum’ in C. Kennedy, 1’. Lloylc and C. Goh (cds) Exploring Change in English Language Teaching, 1999. Kcprinted 11: pcrmission of Macmillan Press Ltd.

Zakia Shanvar and English Teaching Forum for ‘Adapting intlividualisation techniques for ’ in English Teaching Forum, April 1 99 1 .

While the publishers and editors have made every effort to contact authors and copyright holders of lvorks reprinted in Innovation in English / ,anpage Euching, this has not been possil,lc in every case. They would \celcomc correspondence from individuals or companics thcy have bccn unable to trace.

Wc \vould likc to thank thc authors who contributed thcir chapters, as kvell as colleagues within and outsidcThe Open University and Macquaric University \Tho gave advice on the contents. Special thanks are due to the following people for thcir assistance in the production of this book:

Helen Boyce (course manager) Freda Barnfield, Pam Burns and Libby 13rill (course secretaries) Liz Freeman (Copublishing) Nanette Ileynolds, Frances Wilson and the staff of the Rc-source Centrc of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Critical readers

Professor Vijay K . Rhatia (L)ept of English, City University, I long Kong) Gcoff Thompson (Applied English Language Studies Unit, 12iverpool University, UK) Professor Leo van Lier (Educational Linguistics, University of Montcrey, USA)

x i v A C I< N 0 W L E D G E M E N T S

External assessor

Professor Ronald Carter (Dept of English Studies, Nottingham Unil ersity, UK)

Developmental testers

Ilona C7iraky (Italy) Eladyr Maria Norhcrto da Sil\a (Brad) Chitrita Mukcrjee (Australia) Doricn GonLales (UK) Patricia Williams (Denmark)

We ha\-e reproduced all original papers and chapters as faithfully as we have been alde to, givcn the inevitable restrictions of space and the nccd to produce a cohcrcnt and readablc collection for rcaders worldwide. Whrre wc have had to shorten original material substantially, these chapters arc markcd as adapted. Ellipses within square brackets indicate where text has bcen omitted from thc original. Individual refcrcncing styles have been retained as in the original texts.

Introduction

David R . H a l l and Ann Hewings

H E N M A C Q U A R I E U N I V E R S l T Y I N S Y D N E Y , Australia, and The Open University in the UK decided to collaborate on the tlevelopment of new

curriculum materials for study at Masters level, the partnership brought together the considerable experience and expertise of the two universities in open antl distance learning, applicd linguistics and language cducation.The collection of essays in this book antl the two companion volumes is a result of that collaboration. While the edited collections have been designed as one part of an overall study programme, they stand alone as extensive yct focused collections of essays which address key contemporary issues in English language teaching antl applicd linguistics.

A major concern in editing these three volumes has been thc desire to prrscnt English language teaching (ELI‘) in a variety of specific institutional, geographical and cultural contexts. Hence, as far as possible across the three volumes, lve have attemptcd to highlight debate, discussion and illustration of current issues from diffcrcnt parts of the English- speaking and English-using world, including those where English i s not learnt as a first language. In doing this we recognise that English language teaching comprises a global community of teachers antl lcarncrs in a range of social contexts.

The chapters in this volume address issues relating to curriculum change in context, and all three terms in this noun phrase are important. The cssays deal with the tliffcrc-nt ways in which actual classroom practices change, whether at an individual or a system 1 Rccognising that languagc teaching docs not take place in a ncutral or value-free environment, they look at the choices that have to be made ivithin institutional or cultural constraints when designing curricula and evaluating their success. They examinc the role and influence of all the stakeholders ~ h o might have an intcrcst in what goes on in the language classroom: not just language teachers and students, but parents, teacher-trainers, the local community, the press, politicians, antl so on.

The titles of all four parts of the volume contain the word ‘curriculum’.Thc different usages in the literaturc of words such as ‘curriculum’, ‘syllabus’ and ‘programmc’ (or ‘program’) arc cvidence that prrcise definitions of these terms are hard to pin down. In some cases the words are differentiated Tvhilc in others they are used almost interchangcahly, and you will notice diffcrcnt meanings attached to thc tcrminology by different authors in this volume. Here, wc intend the tcrm ‘language curriculum’ in its widest sense, covering all the issues rclating to the planning, implemcntation and evaluation of a scrics o f languagc- learning events conceived as a coherent whole n i t h a specified purpose.

The first part, ‘Directions in curriculum change’, raises somc issues underlying

2 D A V I D R . H A L L A N D A N N H E W I N G S

curriculum design by examining the theoretical underpinnings of a number of reccnt approaches. This docs not attempt, of course, to cover all the different ways of specifying a curriculum, antl is not meant to be a historical survey (but see the Feez article in part 3 for a contextualiscd account of the tlevelopmcnt of language teaching practices).’l’hc assumption underlying our choice of essays for part 1 is the view which few people in language curriculum design ~ o u l d now argue Lvith that content and classroom practice must be considered togethcr: a curriculum is not simply a list of items to be taught.Thc first chapter liy Breen and Candlin, covering work done at Lancastcr Univu-sity on communicative language teaching (CIS) , \vas extremely influential in bringing this \-iew into language teaching, although the focus on the process of learning rather than just the product is consistent with a much older tradition in gencral education.

CLT is not a nionolithic packaged set o f procedures, tlespitc frequent talk in the literature of the ‘communicative method’. All of the authors of essays in part 1 ~ . o u l d no doubt place themselves in the communicative tradition. Where CUT has heen introduced or encouraged or atlvocatctl in specific contexts around the xvorld it has often been in thc form of a package, introduced t o p - h v n as a grcat antl rc+ietl ncw idea rather than arising from and de\+ictl within the classroom antl the needs and problcms of particular teachers antl learners. As the name of CLT has hccn invoked as a justification for a process of change taking place in speci tic geographical, cultural and temporal contexts, some of its underlying principles and practices have lieen contested or reinterpreted, as \vi11 be seen in later chapters in this volume. Its influence is such, howwer, that anyone putting forward an alternative paradigm has to detinc it in relation to CLI’.

The essays by Nunan antl Lamb and by I.c\vis both place themselves in the communicativc tradition by cmphasising the ccntralitv o f the learner and the learning pro The first explores task-based learning. Although the \vord ‘task’ is overused in many published textbooks to the extent that it is often little more than a synonjm for ‘exercise’, and although it i s certainly possible to tlcvisc, context- and c.omnlunic.ation-frcc ‘tasks’ in

this sense, the proponents of‘ a task-based syllabus have something more specific in mind. Thcy take tasks to be the interactive lcarning procedures through which learners both in and out o f the classroom learn to understand each other antl to make thcmselves understood, so gaining conlitlencc antl cxpcricncc in using the target language.l’hc links to Lewis’s proposal to replace thc traditional Prescnt~Practisc~Protlucc teaching procedurc with Ohserve-Ilypothcsisc~Expcriment arc clear. l ‘hc observing, hypothesising and experimenting are all being undertaken by the learner in actually using the target language. The emphasis is on the learner, antl the teacher’s role changes from ‘presenter’ to something more like ‘collaborator’ or ‘facilitator’.

I h c n (1 984: 5 3) claims for CLT that its ‘grcatcr concern lvith capacity for communication rather than repertoire of communication, with the acti\ ity of learning a language itself, and with a focus upon means rather than prctlctcrminctl objectives, all indicate priority of process ovcr content’. We cmphasisc that this docs not say ‘process to the exclusion o f content’, although some have seen CLT as a methodology that rejects the teaching of formal aspects o f the language altogcthcr.Thcrc are parallels here with argumcnts that have been used about \vholc-w ord teaching of rcading as opposed to phonics-hased methods, antl about process writing as opposed to the teaching of scntcnce-grammar, spelling and punctuation.Thc differing roles assigned to process, product, content and form still constitute a major sitc of struggle hvithin language curriculum tievclopment.

This struggle untlerlics much of’ the argument between the Cook essay and that by McCarthy and Carter. McCarthy antl Carter argue that the curriculum must take account of variation and of context, and this means that learners’ interaction with texts must take

I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

account of the ‘dynamism inherent in linguistic contexts’. The understanding of the dynamism of language and contextual variation is reinforced in McCarthy and Carter’s own work on language corpora, large collections of actual texts stored on computer and accessible for quantifiable linguistic analysis. To an extent, then, thcy may he seen as advocating teaching programmes based o n quantitative data, an argument that dates hack many ycars (see, for example, West’s General Servicc List of English Words, liascd on kvord counts, and first published in 1936). Cook argues that language teaching should not br a slave to language description, that thc processes of learning antl traching are not coincident with the records of language behaviour evidenced through corpora. The argumcnt comcs back, as many times before in the history of language pedagogy, to the role played liy formal language description in helping teachers to teach and learners to learn.

N o linguist \voulcl dispute the ubiquity and importance of language variation over time, space, context, purpose, etc. The essay by Hewings and Hc\vings, which ends part 1 antl provides a link with the first chapter of part 2 , dcals with the variation in language use betwccn academic disciplines. Particularly when applied to the teaching of English for Specific Purposes, this is an area which is attracting growing attention, \vith increasing Ic\-cls of research being undertaken around thc world (see, lor example, the essays in Candlin and FIvlantl, 19YY).The capacity of computers to store large and spccialised corpora of languagt, as it is actually used is, whatcvcr we may think of the Cook argumcnt, beginning to rcvolutionisc the way we see language. Where corpora are sufficiently spccialised, they underline differences in lexical patterns, word meanings, grammatical pattcrns and tcxtual cohesion in a way that ivas possible only in a limited and largely intuition-based way beforc the corpus databases ivere created. This development has already hatl an influence on tieltls such as lexicography, forensic linguistics, English for academic purposes and curriculum antl syllabus design. The approaches takcn by Hewings and Hclvings and by McCarthy and Carter are illustrative of these last two. Further dcvelopmcnts in thcsc areas may scrve to inform and/or challcnge both learners and teachers in the futurc.

The incorporation of variation into language curricula is not, at present, a midesprcatl practice, and the essay h y Cartcr which opens part 2 gives some indication of why it is not. In fact, all of the essays in part 2 deal in one way or another with the political and institutional constraints in curriculum development. Language, as an intimate component of individual and national identity, is a particularly emotional issur, and cui-riculum developers tamper with ‘the hvay things have always been donc around herc’ at their o\vn risk. Cartcr \vas brantlcd in some sections of the press as a revolutionary traitor to the nation for his emphasis on knowletlge about language and how it functions. Even at a local bel, teachers working b y thcmsclves in individual classrooms and taking ivhat seem like innocent decisions ahout the day’s activities can easily tind themselves the subject of parents’ or the school principal’s ire.

All but one of thc seven chapters in part 2 deal \vith attcmpts to change curricula in spccific contcxts.The cxccption is the cssay by Markce, which prcsents a framchvork for thc introduction of innovations. As might hc expected from an examination of Markee’s categorics and criteria, none of the projects reported could be judged uncquivocallq. as a failure or a success. He dcals with issues such as: At \vhat point can an innovation be judgctl as satisfactor?? What is the critical mass which determines whether an innovation has been adopted by the population for which it was intcndrd? Each of the other essays in this section could lie examined in thc light of Markee’s criteria and follo\vetl up to see what has happened in the period since the first publication of the essay. Have the innovations discusscd by Carter, Jones, Brown, Sarwar, Savage and Storer, and Li actually hatl any lasting effect? Iiave, for example, Carter’s ideas set ou t in the IJNC project influenced British tcachers’ views on language? Has the mix of Malay and English in thc Brunei school system actually liccn

4 D A V I D R . H A L L A N D A N N H E W I N G S

modified following the publication o f Jones’s essay? Has Kimberley Brown managed to persuade American libraries to stock more world-English titles? Has Zakia Sarwar convinced her colleagues to introduce similar methods in their classes, or transferred what she was doing to the mainstream, official curriculum? Have the needs analysis procedures of Savagc and Storer been extended to other contexts? And have Defeng Li’s Korean teachers adapted, adopted or rejectcd a communicative approach? These would be interesting questions to follow up, and sometimes they can lie pursued through publications in journals (see, for example, Storer and Savage, 1999, for furthrr extensions of their own work) and incrcasingly through internet discussion lists.

Part 3 examines both the planning and the implementation of curriculum change. Many curriculum dcvelopment tcxtbooks treat these two aspects separately, but it is clear that the processes involved are circular rather than linear, and that both need to involve or at least take into consideration all of the stakeholders. This part, then, continucs the theme of curriculum development in its social and institutional context.

All the essays in this part examine the ways in which change is brought about.They also raise the question of whether change is always desirable, particularly in cases where successful models from one context arc imported into new contexts. This is currently a much-disputed point in language teaching in rclation to the recent insistence in some circles on learner autonomy as a necessary condition for successful language learning.Thc chapters Iiy Sarwar and Savagc antl Storer in part 2 hoth deal with the introduction o f autonomous approaches. In the first essay in part 3, however, Holliday presents a rather differcnt and provocative view of learner~centrcdness. For Holliday, ‘learner-centredncss’ has become a short-hand way of referring not to individuals but to thc skills antl compctencics we can equip thcm with and thc evaluative mechanisms that can lie used to test how effective wc as teachers have bcxn.This teachcr-centred interprctation of learner-centredness is a highly contentious position, with those advocating learner-ccntredncss strongly disputing this understanding oftheir approach (see, for cxamplc, Savagc, 1997). Clcarly, thcrc arr complex antl sometimes contradictory arguments involved here, with both sides claiming to hold the moral high ground.Thc relationships lxtwccn different stakeholtlers ~ between donors and recipients, policy-makers antl practitioners, native and non-native speakers, teachers and learners, insiders antl outsiders, cxpcrts antl novicrs arc dclicatc antl involve many more issues than how to tcach language, as \vc see again antl again in these essays. While Holliday assumes a top-clown model (Lvhich he attacks), the chapters by Graves and l iy Nunan 110th look at ways in which innovation can be instigatctl by the teachcr or by teachers and others working togethcr. Feez givcs cxamplrs of this collalxxative approach when she describes in some detail the \vays in irhich curriculum change has taken place within a large systcm. Although systcmic innovation necessarily in\ olvcs some form of imposition, it will be seen that through consultation and Lrorkshops, teachers at all levcls have been involvctl in thc various reformulations o f the curriculum. Hall tlc ribes four tliffercnt curriculum- development projects antl examines thrm in thc light of their capacity for helping the learners to learn. Hall’s introduction of the irnportancc of defining what you are trying to do in tlcvcloping curricular innovations leads on to the final chapter in this part, in which Sergeant analyses the various uses made of computcrs in the language classroom and the motivations attachetl to those uses. He makes a va1ual)le distinction between ‘change’ brought about by computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which he sees as a superficial addition to the curriculum, antl ‘innovation’ using CALL, which is embedded in the curriculum and encourages new ways of teaching and lrarning. This separation of superficial versus embeddcd, change versus innovation is applicablc to all areas of the curriculum, not just CALL.

I N T R O D U C T I O N 5

Part 4 focuscs on evaluating curriculum change, placing this as an integral component of the planning and implementation cycle. While evaluation is an essential element underpinning all the essays in the volumc, this section looks in some detail at different kinds of evaluative processes. Rea-Dickins and Germainc, in answer to the question of why we might need to evaluate at all, provide an overview of the different purposes for which evaluation is conducted. The kind of evaluation exemplified in the Carlcss essay is one of a growing number of research projects using qualitative methods. His case-study approach, involving what is sometimes called a ‘thick’ description, turns a microscope on onc specific cvent in one specific context. As a rcsearch methodology, it may not yet havc the academic cachet of quantitative and controllcd research methods, and may not he able to uphold claims to generalisability in the same way as quantitative methods do, but it can rcveal much more about why ideas that seem fine in theory work rather differently, if at all, in real life. In the longer term, as more and more small-scale context-cmtieddcd research projects are reported, it may tie that these stories will constitute the most \-aluablc resource for the teacher and curriculum dewloper.

The final chapter, by Lcsikin, provides a framework for evaluating and analysing language-teaching materials. Using the tools of systemic-functional grammatical analysis shc uncovers systematic gender bias in a published textbook. Lesikin’s procedures are \-cry much in thc tradition of critical discourse analysis, and it is clear that they could be uspd in contexts other than that outlined here.

The essays in this collection are designed as a source of thought-provoking ideas for all students of language teaching, language teachers, teacher-trainers, curriculum d e d o p e r s and educational administrators. They exemplify a range of work b y academics with wide experience in different parts of the world and b y teachers who are still very close to the chalk-face. They make the link between theory and the actual circumstances in which language learning takes place or fails to take place. This volumc is not a handbook, and has no predetermined answers to the problem of finding appropriate ways of putting together language curricula s o that lcarners can learn. Instcad, it provides a series of conccptual frameworks within which such a quest can be undertaken.

References

Breen, M. P. 1984. ‘Proccss syllabuses for the language classroom’, in C. Brumfit (ed.) General English Syllabus Design: Crirriculum and Syllabus Design-for the General English Classroom, ELT Documents I 18. Oxford: British Council and Pcrgamon Press.

Candlin, C. N. and Hyland, K . (eds) 1999. Writing: Em, Procecses, and Practices. Harlow: 1,ongman.

Savage, W. 1997. ‘Language and development’, In B. Kenny and W. Savagc (cds) Language and Development. Harlow: Longman, 283-325.

Storer, G. and Savage, W. 1999. ‘Extending an emergent frarnc\vork to other contexts’, System, 27. 3: 421-5.

P A R T O N E

Directions in curriculum change

C h a p t e r 1

Michael P. Breen and Christopher N. Candlin

T H E E S S E N T I A L S OF A C O M M U N I C A T I V E

C U R R I C U L U M I N L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G

Introduction

T A T I M E W H E N T H E R E I S A R E C O G N I S E D N E E D inlanguagcteaching A to give adequate attention to language use as well as language form, various ‘notional- functional’ or so-called ‘communicative approaches’ to language teaching are lxing advocatcd. In this context, the present paper is offered as a sct of proposals in an effort to dcfine the nature of communicative language tcaching.

Any teaching curriculum is designed in answer to three interrelated questions: What is to be Icarned? How is the learning to be undertaken antl achieved? To what cxtent is the former appropriate and the latter effective? A communicative curriculum will place language teaching within the framework of this relationship between some specified purposcs, the methodology which will be the means towards the achievcment of those purposcs, antl thc evaluation procedurcs \vhich will assess the appropriatencss o f the initial purpo and the ell’cctiveness of the methodology.

This chapter presents the potential charactcristics of communicative languagc teaching in terms of such a curriculum framework. I t also proposes a set of principles on \vhich particular curriculum designs can be based for implemcntation in particular situations and circumstances. Figure 1 . 1 summarises the main areas with w.hich this chapter \vi11 dcal. In discussing the purposes of language teaching, we will consider ( 1 ) communication as a general purpow, (2 ) thc underlying demands on the learner that such a purposc may imply, and (3 ) thc initial contributions which learners may bring to the curriculum. In discussing the potential methodology of a communicative curriculum, \ye \vi11 consider (4) thc proccss of teaching and learning, ( 5 ) thc roles of teacher and learncrs, antl (6) thc role of content within the teaching antl karning. Finally (7) we \rill discuss the placc of evaluation of learner progress and cvaluation of the curriculum itself from a communicativc point of view. ’

Inevitably, any statement almut the components of the curriculum runs thc risk of pi-csenting in linear form a framettsork which is, in fact, char-actcrised hy intcrtlependcnce and overlap among the components. In taking purposes, methodology, antl evaluation in turn, therefore, wc ask readcrs to bcar in mind the actual interdependence between them.

What follows is a consitleration of those minimal requirements on communicative language learning and teaching which, in our view, must now he taken into account in curriculum design and implcmcntation.

10 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R

THE CURRICULUM

\ / 1 Communication

I \ 7 Of learner Of curriculum

Figtire I . 1 Thc c.urriculum

The classroom process

Teacher / learnei

\ 6 Role of content

' roles

1 What is the purpose of the curriculum?

The communicative curriculum tlcfincs languagc lcarning as lcarning how to communicate as a membcr of a particular socio-cultural group.Thc social convcntions governing languagc form and hehaviour within the group arc, therefore, central to the process o f languagc learning. In any communicative evcnt, intlivitlual participants bring with them prior knowledge o f meaning and prior knowledge of how such meaning can be realiscd through the conventions of language form antl Iichaviour. Since communication is primarily intcr- personal, these conventions arc subject to variation \vhilc they are being uscd. In cxploring shared knowledge, participants \ f i l l he modifying that knowlctlgr. They typically exploit a tcnsion between the conventions that are cstahlishcd and the opportunity to modify these conventions for their particular communicative purposes. Communicating is not merely a mattcr of folloning conventions hut also of negotiating through and ahout thc convcntions thcmselvcs. It is a convention-creating as well as a convention-follo\ving activity.

In communication, speakers and hcarcrs (and writers antl readers) are most often engaged in the work of sharing meanings \vhich arc 110th dcpendcnt on the conventions of interpersonal hehaviour antl created b y such Iiehaviour. Similarly, thc itleas or concepts which are communicated about contain differcnt potential meanings, and such potential meanings are expressed through antl tlerivctl from the formal system of text during the process of communication .To understand the conventions which underlie communication, therefore, we not only have to understand a system of ideas or concepts and a system of interpersonal bchaviour, we have to understand how thcse itlcas and this interpersonal bchaviour can be realiscd in languagc ~ in connectcd texts. Mastering this unity ofideational, interpersonal and textual knowledge allows us to participate in a crcative mcaning-making process and to express or interprct the potential meanings within spoken or written text (Hallitlay, 1973).

There is an additional characteristic of this unificd system o f knowletlgc. The social or interpersonal nature of communication guarantees that it is permeated l i y personal and socio-cultural attitudes, values and emotions.These different ufects will determine what we choose to communicate about and how we communicate. The convcntions governing ideas or concepts, interpersonal hehaviour, and their realisation in texts all scrve and create attitudes, judgements and feelings. Just as communication cannot be affectively neutral,

A C O M M U N I C A T I V E C U R R I C U L U M 11

learning to communicate implies that the learner will come to terms with the ne\v learning to the extent that his own affects will be engaged. A t that point, thc learner’s affccts become further involved in a process of negotiation with those affects which are embodied within the communicative performance of the target community. So, affective involvement is both the driving-force for learning, and also the motivation behind much everyday communication and the inspiration for the recreation of the conventions which govern such communication.

Communication in everyday life synthcsises ideational, interpersonal, and textual knowledge - and thc affects which are part of such knowledge. I3ut it is also related to and intcgrated with other forms of human lxhaviour. In learning how to communicate in a new language, the learner is not confronted by a task which is easily separable from his other psychological and social experiences. The sharing and negotiating of potential meanings in a new language implies the use and refinement of perceptions, concepts and affects. Furthermore, learning the conventions governing communication within a new social group involves the refincrnent and use of the social roles and the social identity cxpectcd b y that group of its members. Thus, learning to communicate is a socialisation process. [. . .] Therefore, it makes sense for the teacher to see the overall purpose of language teaching as the development of the learner’s communicative knowlcdge in the context of personal and social de\ 7c ~1 o p ment.

2 What underlies the ultimate demands on the learner?

A language teaching curriculum, from a communicative point of view, will specify its purposes in terms of a particular target repertoire (Gumperz, 1964). Different curricula will hopefully select their own particular repertoires from a pool of communicative pcrformance on the basis of a sociolinguistic analysis of thc target situation. This does not imply that any one curriculum will 11c necessarily entirely distinctive in the target reprrtoire to which it is devotcd. A t the surface there will be inevitable overlap among different repertoires. However, underlying any selected target repertoire there will be an implicit target competcnce. It is this target competence which we may define as the capacity for actual use of the language in thc target situation. So, in specifying the purposes of the curriculum, a rcquiremcnt for thc communicative approach would be to make an initial distinction between the target repertoire ultimately demanded of the learner and the target competence which will undcrlie and generate such a repertoire.

How can tve characterisc this target competence? We have already proposed that learning to communicate involves acquiring a knowledge of the conventions which govern communicative pcrformance. In addition, we have proposed that such communicative knowledge can lie seen as a unified system ofideational, interpersonal, and textual knowledge, which incorporates a range of affccts.

We have also suggested that communication and learning how to communicate involve the participants in the sharing and negotiating of meanings and conventions. Such sharing and negotiating implies the existence of particular communicative abilities as an esscntial part of competence. Therefore, we may identify within competence both the knowledge systems and the abilities which call upon and act upon that knowledge. These abilities can be distinguished within competence more precisely. In order to sharc meaning, the individual participant needs to be able to interpret the meanings of others and to express his own meanings. However, such interpretation and expression will most often take place in the context of interpersonal and personal negotiation. The ability to negotiate operates between participants in communication and within the mind of the individual participant

1 2 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N . C A N D L I N

- the latter negotiation is perhaps more conscious during new learning. More obviously, participants in communication negotiatc hvith one another. Rut, in endeavouring to interpret and express with a new language, thc learner will himself negotiate lictwecn the communicative competence he already possesses and that which underlies the new learning.’

Wc suggest, thcreforc, that the communicative ahilitics of interpretation, expression, antl ncgotiation arc the essential or ‘primary’ ahilitics within any target competence, I t is also likely that these three ahilitics continually interrclatc with one another during communicative performance and that they are complex in naturc.l’hey will involve psychological processes for the handling of rich and variablc (lata ~~ thc attcmtion and memory processes, for cxample - antl they may contain within them a rangc of sccontlary abilities such as ‘coding’, ‘code substituting’ and ‘style-shifting’ (Ret-nstcin, 1971, I Iymes, 1971, LAov, 1970).

The use of these communicative abilitics i s manifested in communicative performance through a set of skills. Speaking, listening, reading antl lvriting skills can lie sccn to scrve and depend upon the untlerlying abilities o f interpretation, expression antl negotiation. In this \vay \ve arc suggesting that the skills i-cprcscnt or realise underlying communicative abilities. The sk i l l s arc the meeting point lict\vccn underlying communicative competence and ot)serval)le communicati1.e pcrformancc; they arc the means through which knodedgc and ahilitics are translated into pcrfoi-mancc, and vice vcrsa.

In sclecting any target repertoire, thcrefoi-c, a communicative curriculum also

distinguishes antl specifics the target compctcncc on \vhich the performance of such a rcpertoire depends and through which it is achic\.ctl. This specification would indicate the ideational, interpersonal and tcxtual conventions ~ and the affective aspccts of such conventions ~ as a related antl underlying tcm of knoLvlcdgc which i s shared and developed within the target community. The specification ~ v o u l d also indicate the demands upon the lcarncr’s communicative aliilitics of intcrprctation, cxprcssion, and negotiation similarly underlying communicative performance in the target community and the range of skills which manifest these abilities. Such a specification \zould account for what thc learner nerds to know, antl how thc lcarncr needs to bc alilc to use such knowledge. Thc ultimatc demands on the learner in terms of some specific target repertoire will, in our vie\v, derive from antl depend upon this underlying competence of communicative kno\vledgc antl communicative abilities.

3 What are the learner’s initial contributions?

[ . . . ] A communicativc specification o f purposes supports the principle that the roots of our ohjecti\-cs can already be discovered in our learners ~ however liencath the surface of the actual targct repcrtoii-c these roots may lie. We need to try to rccognisc what the learner knoivs and can do in communicative performance with the first language and not assumc that thc Icarncr’s ignorance of the target rcpcrtoii-c implies that the learner is a naive communicator or someone who evaluates communication in only a superficial \lay.

This principle, which scems to rcquirc us to credit thc kat-ner with a highly relevant initial competcncc, of communicative kno\vletlgc antl aliilitics, has often been overlooked or only partially applied in language teaching. In the past, it has seemed easier to somchon. separate the learner from the knonletlgc to I x lcarnctl to ‘oljcctily ’ thc targct language as something completely unfamiliar to the learner. This olijrctification o f the language in relation to the learner has perhaps been encouraged hy a narrow definition of what the object of learning actually is, antl by an incomplete view of what the learner has to offer. Wc have tended to see the target only in terms of ‘linguistic competence’ or tcxtual knowledge, and we have limited such knowledge to the level of syntax without reference

A C O M M U N I C A T I V E C U R R I C U L U M 1 3

to structure above the sentence. Thus, ideational and interpersonal knowledge, which continuallv interact with textual knowledge and from which textual knowledge evolves, have tended to be overlooked or neutralised. We have often seen the learner primarily in terms of the first language, and we have often assigned to it ‘interference’ value alone ~

again taking a narrow textual knowledge as our criterion. More recently, due to tlevclopmcnts within sociolinguistics, we haw recognised the significance of ‘ sociolinguistic competence’ and also of the ‘functional’ aspect of language. However, a partial antl knowledge-based view of learner competence seems to remain with us and the lcarncr’s communicative abilities underlying the initial repertoire still need to bc more thoroughly exploited. Rather than just allowing the use of the first language in the classroom, we should perhaps be more conccrned with activating that which underlies thc initial repertoire of the learner, and to evoke and engage what we mav describe as the lcarncr’s ongoing or process compctencc.j Once we define the object of learning as communication, then \ve arc enahled to perceive the learncr in a new light. His initial textual knowlcdge is placed in its proper perspective - it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Language teaching need no longer be primarily conccrned with ‘linguistic competence’ . We can begin mith the assumption that text is the surface realisation of communicative knowledge antl abilities antl that text is used and created and learned ~ on the basis of thcm.7’he communicative curriculum seeks to facilitate ~ even guarantee ~ the involvement of the learner’s communicative knowledge and abilities from the outset rather than overlook them for the sake of some apparent ‘fluency’ \vith text. I. . . ] Ho er, lcarners not only contribute prior kno\vledge antl abilities, they also have expectations about the le ing o f a language. What the curriculum seeks to achicve in terms of any specified purp must be balanced b y what the learner personally expects of the curriculum. Perhaps the current interest in teaching language for ‘special purposes’ may eventually reveal the challenge to curriculum designers: that all learners regard themselves as learning a language for some special purpose.

We can identify several types of learner expectations and these may, of course, influencc one another. We can ask: What is the learner’s own vicw of the nature of language? What is the learner’s view of learning a languagr? (Thc answers to these questions ma)- lie in the learner’s previous formal education, and how he reacted to that experience.) We can also distinguish between, first, ho\v the learner defines his o\.cn language learning ncrds; secondly, what is likely to interest the learner both within the target reprrtoire antl thc learning process; and, third, \\,hat the learner’s moti\rations are for learning the target rcpertoire. Al l these initial expectations arc disti ti need to be discovered in somc \vay so that areas ofpotential match antl mismatch be learncr expectations antl the selected target repertoire antl its underlying competence can be best anticipated.

Two important problems nrctl to be identified hcrr in accounting for learncr expectations. Thesc expectations are inwitably various antl ~ more significant1)- - thc)- are subject to change over time. So, the curriculum will need to accommotlatc and allow for a heterogeneity of lcarner expectations. I t will also ncetl to allow for changes in different learncrs’ perceptions of their needs, in ivhat interests different learncrs, and in the motivations of differrnt learners. In this way, curriculum purposes should account for initial cxpectations of lcarners and anticipate changes in expectations during the learning teaching process. Such an account and such anticipation may appear to be an impracticable dream when confronted with the variety and fluctuation in the real expectations of learners. That we should try to account for and anticipate these is a further motivation for a communicative curriculum, and more particularly ~ for a communicatjvr methodology (scc sections 4ff). However, there is a second important aspect o f learner cxpectations: expectations can tie educated. For this to happen, learners need to be enabled to express their own expectations;


to explore them and the sourccs from which they derive. They also need to be enabled to interpret the expectations which the specific purposes of the curriculum make upon them as learners. They need to interpret ~ at the start of the learning- teaching process and throughout this process ~ ~ what the target repertoire and its underlying competence demands of them. Howcver vague a learner’s initial interpretation may be, he is not going to learn anything unless he has an idea of what he is trying to achievc. Therefore, a process of negotiation between the learner’s contributions ~ including expectations ~~ and the target repertoirc, and the means b? which thesc two are brought together, is likely to bc characteristic of a communicative methodology. Curriculum purposes inform and guide methodology, and an account of learner cxpcctations within purposes can enable methodology to involve these subjective contributions of the learner and, thereby, call upon thc genuine intersubjective rcsponsibility of that learner.

4 How are the curriculum purposes to be achieved?

4. I Methodology as a communicative process

Language learning within a communicative curriculum is most appropriately seen as communicative interaction involving all the participants in the learning and including the various material resourccs on which the learning is cxercised.Therefore, language learning may be seen as a process which grows out of the interaction lietween learners, teachers, texts and activities.

This communicative interaction is likely to engage the abilities within the learner’s developing competence in an arena of cooperative negotiation, joint interpretation, and the sharing of rxprcssion. The communicative classroom can serve as a forum characterised liy the activation of these abilities upon the learners’ new and developing knowledge. This activation will depend on the provision of a rangc of differcnt text-types in different media ~ spoken, written, visual and audio-visual ~ which the participants can make use of to develop their competencc through a variety of activities and tasks. The presence of a range of text-types acknowledgcs that the use of communicative abilities is not restricted to any one medium of communication.The earlier distinction we saw between underlying abilities and the set of skills which serve and depend on such abilities enables us to perceive that the learner may exploit any selected skill o r combination of skills to develop and refine his interpretation, expression and negotiation. Thr learner need not be restricted to thc particular skills performance laid down by the target repertoire. Because communicative abilities permeate each of the skills, they can be scen to underlie speaking, hearing, reading and writing and to be independent of any prcscribcd selcction or combination of these skills. Similarly, just as no single communicative ability can really develop independently of thc other abilities, so the developmcnt of any single skill may well drpend on the appropriate development of the other skills. In other words, a refinement of intcrprctation will contribute to the refinement of expression, and vice-versa; just as a refinement of the skill of reading, for example, will contribute to the refinement of the skill of speaking and vice- versa.

Classroom procedures and activities can involve participants in 130th communicating and metacommunicating. We have rcferrcd to the characteristics of communicating in section 1 of this paper. By metacommunicating we imply the learner’s activity in analysing, monitoring and evaluating those knowledge systems implicit within the various text-types confronting him during learning. Such metacommunication occurs within the communicative performance of thc classroom as a sociolinguistic activity in its own right.


Through this ongoing communication and metacommunication, learners not only become participants in the procedures and activities, they may also become critically sensitised to the potential and richness of the unified system of knowledge, affects and abilities upon which their communication depends. [ . . . ] In particular, the involvement of all the participants in a process of communicating through texts and activities, and metacommunicating about texts, is likely to exploit the productive rclationship hetwcen using the language and learning the language.

4.2 Methodology as a diflerentiated process

The emphasis given in the previous section to the interactive nature of the communicative curriculum suggests, in turn, the need for a communicative curriculum to be differentiated. A communicative curriculum begins with the principle that we should differentiate within purposes between the target repertoire and the communicative knowledge and abilitics which underlie it. A second principle is that the learner’s process competence needs to be differentiated from the target competence, and that different learners may exploit different process competenccs as the means towards some particular target. These kinds of distinctions involve differentiation at the curriculum level bctwecn purposes and the methodology adopted to achieve such purposes.

Within mcthodology, differentiation is a principle which can be applied to the participants in the learning, the activities they attempt, the text-types with which they choose to work, and the ways they use their abilities. It is worth considering differentiation within these areas in more detail:

(a) Learners’ contributions

Individual learners bring individual contributions to the language learning process in terms of their initial competence, their various expectations about language learning, and their changing needs, interests and motivations prior to and throughout the language learning process. Wc can recognisc that, even in the achievement of some common target conipc- tcnre, diffcrent lcarners through their changing process competcnce may well adopt different mcans in attempting to achieve such competence.

(b) Routes

The emphasis within a communicative curriculum on the communicative process of language learning, with the consequent emphasis on cooperative learner activities, offers a natural means for differentiation, Different learners need the opportunity of following different routcs to the accomplishment of some individual or common group objective . Such variation in choice of route typically involves selection among alternative skills or combinations of skills, and hence the choice of alternative media. The variation may be motivated by the need to work at a different pace from other learners, or by the desire to pursue alternative content. This sclection among routcs can itself be open to joint interpretation, the sharing of expression and cooperative negotiation.

(c) Media

In order to allow for differences in personal interest and ease of access, or to permit the search for alternative perspectives on the content, learners should be offered the possibility of working with one or more of a range of media. We mean by this that learners would be


expected to act upon text-types in the appropriatr medium: written texts would be read, spoken ones listened to, visual ones seen. Just as communication is governed I>y conventions, so we can see that the different media represent and obey conventions specific to themselves. Learning dialogue by reatling, for cxample, may neutralise the authentic conventions of spoken discourse, and bve may tie asking thc learner to hccomc involved in using and applying knowledge in a distorted \vay.

Whatever the route chosen or the media antl tcxt-types selected for communicative learning, different learners will have differentiated ways of making use of the abilities xvithin their communicative compctence, antl \vi11 therefore adopt different learning strategies. Such heterogeneity is often secn as problematic for the teacher, but a communicative methodology would take advantage of this differentiation among learning strategies, rather than insisting that all learners exploit the samc kinds of strategy.

Thcse four illustrations of the principle of tliffercntiation within a communicative methodology imply morc than merely offering to individual lcarncrs opportunities For differential communication and learning, or acknowledging differences between pcrformancc repertoires antl the developing compctcnces underlying them. Differentiation demands and authcnticates communication in the classroom. The various perspectives offered by alternative media, the accomplishment o f shared objectives through a variety of routcs, and the opportunities for exploiting different learning strategics, all facilitate the conditions for authentic communication among the participants in the learning. Differentiation also enahlcs the lcarner to authenticate his own learning and thcreby become involved in genuine communication as a means to\vartls it. Further, if ~ v e confront learners kvith texts and text-types lvhich are also authentic, this obliges us to allow for different interpretations antl differences in holv learners will themselves negotiate with texts.

4.3 Methodology exploits the communicative potential of the learning-teaching context

We are easily tcmptcd to cxcuse the classroom as an artificial or synthetic language learning context ~ as distinct lrom somc natural or authentic environment, The communicative curriculum sceks to exploit the classroom in terms of \vhat it can realistically offer as a resource for learning. This would not necessarily mean changing or disguising the classroom in the hope that it will momentarily servc as sonic kind of ‘communicativc situation’ resembling situations in the outside \vorltl. The classroom itself is a unique social environmcnt with its own human activities and its own conventions governing thesc acti\itics. I t is an environment where a particular social-p hological and cultural reality is constructcd. This uniqueness antl this rcality implies a communicativc potential to be exploited, rather than constraints lvhich haw to be overcome or compensated for. Experimcntation Lvithin the prior constraints of any communicativc situation is, as w c have seen, typical of the nature of communication itself, and thc prior constraints of classroom communication need he n o exception.

We can make a distinction betwren the different contributions offered to learning by, on the one hand, the ‘formal’ language learning contexts ofthc classroom and, on the other, the ‘informal’ learning which takes place at any time, anywhere. The classroom can be charactcrised by the kinds of learning which are best generated in a group context, while ‘informal’ lcarning undrrtaken beyond the classroom is often an individual commitment,


espccially in the contcxt of foreign language learning. Thus the ‘formal’ context is one where the interpersonal relationships of the classroom group have their own potential contribution to make to the overall task. Within the communicativc curriculum, thc classroom i and the proccdurcs and activities it allows ~ can serve as the focal point of the learningteaching process. In adopting a methodology characterised by learning and teaching as a communicative and differentiated process, the classroom no longer needs to bc seen as a pale representation of somc outside communicative reality. It can become the meeting-place for realistically motivated communication-as-learning, communication about learning, and metacommunication. It can he a forum where knowledge may be jointly offered and sought, rcflectcd upon, and acted upon. The classroom can also crucially serve as the source o f feedback on, and refinement of, the individual learner’s own process competcnce. And it can serve as a springboard for the learner’s ‘pcrsonal curriculum’ lvhich may be undertaken and developed ‘informally’ outsidc the classroom. As a coparticipant in the classroom group, the learner’s own progress can lie both monitored and potentially sustained by himself on the basis of others’ feedback and by others within some shared undertaking.

To cnsurc that the special and differing contributions offered by both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ contexts of learning can be fully exploited, a communicative mcthodology has to try to relate the two.The classroom can deal with and explore phenomena which are significant in the cxpericnced ‘outsitlc world’ of the lcarner, and it can hccomc an observatory of communication as everyday human behaviour. As well as looking outwards, the classroom has a rcflcxivc role as a laboratory where observations can ticcome thc mcans for the discovery of new knowledgc and the tlevclopmcnt of abilities.

A communicative methodology \vi11 therefore exploit the classroom as a resource lvith its own communicative potential. The classroom is only one resource in languagc teaching, but it is also the meeting-place o f all other resources ~ learners, teachers, and texts. Each of these has sufficiently hctcrogcncous characteristics to makc classroom -based negotiation a necessary undertaking. 1. . .] The authenticity of the classroom lies in its dual rolc o f ohscrvatory and laboratory during a communicative learning-teaching process.

5 What are the roles of the teacher and the learners within a communicative methodology?

5 . 1 The teacher

Within a communicative methotlology thc teacher has two main roles. The tirst I-ole is to facilitate the communicative process between all participants in the classroom, and l ic tuwn these participants and the various activities and texts. The second role is to act as an interdependent participant within the learning-teaching groups. This latter role is closely related to the objective of thc first role and it arises from it. Thcsc roles imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher: first, as an organiser ofresources and as a resource himself. Second, as a guide within the classroom procedures and activities. In this role the teacher endeavours to make clear to the Icarnei-s what they need to do in order to achirvc somc specific activity or task, if they indicate that such guidance is necessary. This guidance rolc is ongoing and largely unpredictable, so the tcacher needs to share it with other learners. Related to this, the teacher ~ and other learners can offcr and seck feedback at appropriate moments in learning-teaching activities. In guiding and monitoring the teacher needs to be a ‘seer of potential’ with the aim of facilitating and shaping individual anti group knowledge and exploitation of abilities during learning. In this way the teacher will he concentrating on the process compctcnces of the learners.


A third rolc for the teacher is that of researcher and lcarner - with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abilities, actual and observed experience of the nature of learning, and organisational capahilitics. As a participant-observer, thc teacher has the opportunity to ‘stcp back’ and monitor the communicative pro tcaching.

As an interdrpcndent participant in thc process, the teacher needs to actively share the responsibility for learning and teaching with the 1carncrs.This sharing can provide the basis for joint negotiation which itself releases thc teacher to become a co-participant. Perceiving thc learners as having important contributions to make in terms of initial comprtence and a rangc of various and changing expcctations can enable thc teacher to continually seek potential antl exploit it. A requirement on the teacher must he that he distinguish between learning and thc performancc of Irhat is being learned. The tcachcr must assume that the performance within any target rcpertoire is separablc from thc means to the achievement of that rcpertoirc. Also, he must assume that learners are capablc of arriving at a particular objective through tlivcrsc routes. The teacher nccds to recognise learning as an interpersonal undertaking over which no single person can have full control, and that there will be differences between ongoing learning processes.The teacher has to accept that different learners learn different things in different bvays at different times, and he needs to bc patiently awarc that somc learners, for cxamplc, \vi11 enter periods when it swms that little or no progress is being made and that, sometimes, learning is typified by silent refkction.

5.2 The learner

Regardless ofthe curriculum in lvhich they \vork and rcgartllcss of whether or not they are being taught, all learners o fa language arc confronted by the task of discovcring how t o learn the language. All lcarncrs \vi11 start with differing cxpcctations about the actual learning, but each individual learner will be required to adapt and continually readapt in the process of relating himself to what is being learned. The knowledge will be redefined as the learner uncovcrs it, and, in constructing and reconstructing his own curriculum, the learner may discover that earlier strategies in the use of his abilities need to be replaced h y other strategies. Thus, all learners ~ in thcir own w y s have to adopt the role of negotiation bet>vecn thcmselvcs, thcir learning process, and the gradually revealed object of learning.

A communicative methodology is charactcrised b y making this ncgotiative role - this learning how to learn ~ a public as well as a private undertaking. Within the context of the classroom group, this role is shared and, thereby, made interpersonal. If we recognise that any knowledge which we ourselws h a w mastered is always shared knowledge and that we always seck confirmation that \vc ‘know’ something b y communicating with other people, \re have to conclude that knowledge of anything and thc learning of anything is an interpersonal matter. Also, if we recognisc that real knowledge is always set in a context and this context is both psychological and social ~ what is known will always be contcxtualised with other knowlcdge in our minds antl will always carry with it elements of the social context in which it was experienced ~ then we also have to conclude that a significant part of our learning is, in fact, socially constructed. These justifications for a genuinely interpersonal methodology are quite independent of the nature of what is to bc learned. If the object of learning is itself communication, then the motivation to enable the learner to adopt an interpersonal means to that learning is doubly justified. Quite simply, in order to learn to communicate within a selected target repertoire, the learner must be encouraged to communicate ~ to communicate about the learning process, and to communicate about the


changing object of learning on the basis of accepting that ‘learning ho\v to learn’ is a problem shared, and solved, h); othcr learners.

Within a cornmunicativc methodology, the rolc of learner as negotiator ~~ between the self, the learning proccss, and the object oflcarning ~ emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator mithin the group and within the classroom procedures antl activities which the group undcrtakes.l’hc implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way. The learner can achieve interdependence b y recognising responsibility for his own learning and by sharing that responsibility with other learners and the teacher. This commitment can be initiated anti supportcd by a milieu in which the learncr’s own contributions - interprctations, exprcs- sions, and cfforts to negotiate ~ are recognisrd as valid and valuable. Such a context \vould he typified by the acceptancc of ongoing success andfuilure as necessary prcrcquisites to\vards some ultimate achievement, where it is assumed that lcarners inevitably bring with thcm ‘mixed abilities’ antl that such a ‘mixture’ is, in fact, positively useful to the group as a whole. Commitment to communication on the learner’s part need not he regarded as something unattainable or threatening ~ even for the ‘beginning’ learner ~ because he is expected to rely on and develop that which is familiar: his own proccss competence and experience o f communication.

As an intcrdcpendent participant in a cooperative milieu where the lcarner’s contributions arc valued and used, the individual learner is potentially reLvardct1 by having his own subjectivc expectations antl decisions informed and guided by others. In a context where different contributions and differential learning are positively encouraged, the learner is allowed to dcpend on othcr learners and on the tcacher kvhen the need ariscs, and also enablctl to be independent at appropriate moments of the learning. He can feel free to exploit independent strategies in order to learn, to maintain and dcvclop personal affective motivations for learning, and to decide on different routes and mcans which liecome available during learning. The paradox here, of course, is that genuine independence arises only to the extent that it is intcrdcpendently granted anti interdependently a Learning seen as totally a personal and subjective matter is seeing learning in a vacuum; indeed w-c may wonder whether such learning is ever possible.

Lcarners also have an important monitoring role in addition to the degrec of monitoring which they may apply subjectivcly to their own learning. The learner can be a provider of feedback to others concerning his own interpretation of the specific purposcs of‘ the curriculum, and the appropriateness of methodology to his own learning experiences and achievemcnts. In expression antl negotiation, the learner adopts the dual role of being, first, a potential teacher for other learners and, second, an informant to the teacher concerning his own learning progress. In this latter role, the learner can offer the teacher and other learners a source for new directions in the learning-teaching process of thc group. Essentiall?, a communicative methodology would allow both the teacher and thc learner to bc interdependent participants in a communicative proccss of learning and teaching.

6 What is the role of content within a communicative methodology?

Language teaching curricula have often been traditionally defined by their content. Such content has itself been dcrivetl from a target repertoire in tcrms of somr sclccted invcntories of items analysed prior to thc commenccment of the teaching-learning proccss and often acting as predeterminants of it. Similarly, sets of formal items takcn from an analytic grammar of the language, or sets of ‘functions’ taken from some list of semantic categories,

20 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N . C A N D L I N

have been linked to themes antl topics tlccmctl in advance to lie appropriate to the expectations of the particular learners.

Communicative curricula, on the other hand, do no t look exclusively to a selectcd target repertoire as a specifier of curriculum content, for a number of reasons. First, the emphasis o n the process of Iiringing ccrtain basic abilitics to bear on the dynamic conventions of communication prccludcs any specification of content in terms of a static invcntory o f language items grammatical or ‘functional’ ~ to be learned in some prescribed way. Sccond, the central concern for the development and refincmcnt of underlying compctcncc as a basis for a sclcctcd target repertoire requires a distinction bctwccn that target and an)’ content which could be used as a potential means towards it. Third, the importance of the curriculum as a means tor the activation and refincmcnt of the process competcnccs of different learners IiresupIioses differentiation, ongoing change, antl only short-term prcdictability in \\.hat may lie appropriatc contcnt.

The communicative curriculum \vould place contcnt within methodology and provide it with the role of servant to the Icarning-tcaching process. Thus, content would not necessarily be prescrihcd by purposes but selected and organisctl within the communicative and differentiated prucess by learners and teachers as participants in that process.Therefore, the learner would usc the content 01’ the curriculum as the ‘carrier’ of his process competence and as the provider of opportunities lor communicativc cxpcricnces through \vhich personal routes may lie sclcctcd antl explored as a means to the ultimate target competence.

mith the process of learning-teaching rather than with the product ~ the communicative curriculum will adopt critcria for the selection and organisation 01’ content which will be suliject to, and defined by, communicative learning and teaching. ’l’hc content o f any curriculum can lie selected and organised on the basis of some adolited criteria, and th criteria will influence five basic aspects of thc content: its focus, its scqucncc, its subdivision (or hrcakdo\vn), its continuity, and its direction (or routing). What arc the critcria for the selection and organisation of content within the communicative curriculum?

From this concern with mcans rather than ends

(a) Focus

Content within communicative mcthotlology is likely to focus upon knowledge ~ both cognitive and affective ~ \vhich is personally significant to the Icarncr. Such knowledge n-ould 1)c placcd in an interpersonal context hvhich can motivate personal and joint negotiation through the provision of authcntic and ~irolilcm-posing tcxts. If content is to bc sensitive to thc process of learning antl to the interpersonal concerns of the group, it needs to reflect and support the integration of language hvith other forms of human experience and hehaviour.

(/I, Scy1rence

I f \vc accept that the communicative process requires that \vc deal with dynamic and creativc convcntions, \vc cannot assume that any stcii-by-stcp or cumulativc sequcnce of content \vi11 ncccssarily be appropriatc. In learning, the various antl changing routes of the lcarncrs crucially affect any orticring of content, so that scqucncing derives from the state f r h e learners rather than from the implicit ‘logic’ of the content itsclf. I t may be naive to assume that what may he ‘simple’ for any one learner is likely to be ‘simplc’ for all learners. Sequencing in communicative content is therefore likely to be a cyclic process where learners are continuall? developing related lrameworks or aggregations of knowledge and ability use,


rather than accumulating separalde blocks of ‘static’ knowledge or a sequence of ordcrctl skills.Thus, content hccomcs something \vhich lcarncrs move into antl out from, antl to which they return in a process o f finer analysis and rcfincd synthesis. Curriculum dcsigntm cannot, thcrcforc, predict \z ith any certainty thr ‘levels’ of contcnt on which learner5 \vi11 tlecitlc to cvolve their own sequencing in learning. [ . . . ]

(c) Suhtlrvision

Traditionally content has been subdividetl into scrialisrd categories of structurrs or ‘functions’. A communicative view of content precludes this fragmentation and argucs for subdivision in terms of whole frameworks hvhercin there is interaction Iictwern all the various componcnts of the knowlcdge system ~ ideational, interpersonal antl textual ~ and all the abilitics involved in using such kno\vlcdge. Content would he subdivided or broken down in terms of activities and tasks to he undertaken, whcrcin both knowledge and abilities would lir engaged in the learners’ communication and mctacommunication. ‘l‘he various activities antl tasks would be related l iy sharing a holistic ‘core’ of knowledge and abilities. So, we \vould not be concerned with ‘units’ of contcnt, hut with ‘units’ of activity \vhich gencratc communication and metacommunication.

((1) Con t in u I

Thc need to providc continuity for the learner has, in the past, bccn liased upon contcnt. Within a communicative methodology, continuity can he identified within at least four areas. First, continuity can reside in the activities and the tasks within cach activity; antl from one activity to another and from one task to another. Second, continuity potentially resides within communicativc acts during the learning and teaching: either at the ‘macro’ level in terms of the \\.hole lesson and its ‘micro’ sequenccs of negotiation, or lvithin the structure of discourse in terms of thc ‘macro’ communicati\-c act with its ohvn coherent scqucncv o f uttcrances.Thirt1, continuity is provided through the ideational system. At thc ‘macro’ level the learner may have access to continuity of theme, VI hilc at the ‘micro’ level the learner can have access to conceptual or notional continuity Ideational continuity is rcalised through a rcfincment of tcxtual kno\vlcdgc ~ the rcfincment of a concept, for example, can imply a rcfinernent of its linguistic cxprcssion, and vice-versa. Fourth, antl finally, continuity can reside bvithin a skills repertoirc or a cycle of skill-use during an activity. I;or examplc, thcre could he a progression from reading to notr-taking to speaking for the achic\cment of a particular activity. A communicativc mcthotlology would exploit cach of these areas of continuity as clusters of potential continuitics, rather than cxploit any one alone. All can l x inherent in a single activity.‘I‘hcsr kinds of continuity offcr two important advantagcs.‘I‘hcy can servc the full proccss competcnccs of Iearncrs kno~vl t~lgc systems antl abilities ~ antl they can allo\v for differentiation. Learners need to bc cnaliletl to scck and achic\-c their own continuity and, thcrcfore, the criteria for their onm progress. In thc process of accomplishing some immediate activity, lcarners will impose their o\vn personal and interpersonal order and continuity upon that acti\ it?, the communication lzhich the activity generates, the interpersonal, ideational and textual data which they act upon, antl on thc skills they nccd to use in thc activity’s achievemcnt. As a result, the progrcssivc refinemcnt of the learner’s om n pro compctcnce can provide an overall lcurning continuity. Once the tcacher can acccpt that cach of thew areas provides potential continuity for different

to he a problem if different learners pursue scvcral routcs or progress at different rates.


(e) Direction

Traditionally, learners have been expected to follow the direction implicit in some prescribed content. Typically an emphasis o n content led the learner from the beginning, through the middle, to the end. From \\.hat has been indicated so far, a communicative methodology would not cxxploit contrnt as somc’ lire-drtcrminctl route with specific entry and exit points. In a communicative methodology, content ceases to become some external control over learning-teaching proerdurw. Choosing directions becomes a part of the curriculum itself, and involvcs negotiation bct\vccn lcarncrs and learners, learners and teachers, and learners and text. Who or what directs content becomes a justification for communication about the selection and organisation of content with methodology, and about the various routes to he adoptctll>y thc learners through any agreed content. Content can be predicted within methodology only to the extent that it serves the communicative learning process of thc participants in the group. It might \vcll be that the teacher, in negotiation with learners, will ~ i roposc the adoption of aspects of the target rcpcrtoirc as appropriate content. Ilo\vcvcr, the teacher \vould recognisc that thc ccntral objective of developing underlying communicative knowledge antl atiilities can lic achi range of alternative content, not nccesrarib. including aspects of the target repertoire. Such *carrier’ content can t ic as tli\crsc as the different routes learners may take towards a common target: perhaps contcnt can bc more various antl morc varialile. Also, the teacher \voultl remain frer to build upon the contriliutions of learners their initial competences and expectations and exploit thc inevitably different \vays in which learners may attain the ultimate target. [ . . . ]

7 How is the curriculum process to be evaluated?

Thc communicativc curriculum insists that c,valuation is a highly significant part of communicativc intcraction itscll. Wc judge ‘grammaticalit?’ , ‘appropriatcncss’ , ‘intelligibility’ , and ‘cohcrrncc’ in communicative performance o n the basis of shared, negotiated, antl changing convcntions. Evaluation ivithin the curriculum can exploit this ‘judging’ clement of everyclay communicative hchaviour in the asscssmcnt of learners’ communication antl mctacommunication.‘I‘hc highlj evaluative aspect of communication can be atloptcd as thc evaluation proccdurc of thc curriculum. If so, the csscntially intcrsuhjectivc nature of evaluation can be seen as a strong point rather than, possilily, a Lveakncss.

Evaluation of oncsclf, cvaluation of others, and evaluation of self‘ b y others is intersuhjcctivc. In this xvay, evaluation need not be regarded as external to the purposcs of the curriculum or external to the actual process of learning and teaching. In rccognising that relative su or failure in the sharing of meaning, or in the achievement of somc particular task, is most often an intcrsubjccti\-c matter, the communicative curriculum ~ v o u l d rely on shared and negotiated evaluation. Criteria for eventual succcss ~ in some particular task ~ could lie initially ncg ctl, achirvemcnt of the task could be rclatctl to thcsc agreed criteria, antl degrees o f su 1 or failure could he themselves further negotiated o n thc tiasis of the original criteria. Evaluatiyr criteria, therefore, \vould be rstahlishcd antl applied in a thrcc-stage process: ( i ) What might ‘success’ mean? (ii) Is the learner’s perhrmancc of the task succcssful! (iii) If so, hom succcssful is it? Each stage \vould lit, a matter for communication. Instcad of the teacher hcing obliged to teach toxvards somc cxtcrnally imposed criteria ~ manifested most often by some external examination or stantlartlisetl test ~ he can exploit the interpretation of these external or standardiscd criteria as part of the joint negotiation within the classroom. The group’s

How might lve evaluate lcarncr progrc

A C O M M U N I C A T I V E C U R R I C U L U M 23

discovery of the critcria inherent in such cnd-of-course or summativc assessment \loultl lie one means for the establishment of the group’s own negotiatcd criteria and, crucially, for the sharing of responsibilities during the learning-teaching process.

In a communicative curriculum we are dealing with an intcrdcpcntlencc of the curriculum components of purposes, methodology, antl evaluation. I t follolvs that any evaluation within the curriculum also involves an evaluation of the curriculum itself. Any joint negotiation among the various participants within the curriculum may obviously deal with the initial purposes and ongoing methodology which have been adopted. Indeed, communicative evaluation may wcll lcad to adaptation of initial purposes, of methodology, antl of the agreed criteria of c\-aluation themselves. Evaluation within and of the curriculum can lie a pokverful and guiding force. Judgements are a crucial part of kno\vlcdgc, Icarning, and any educational process. 1 3 ~ applying judgements to the curriculum itself, evaluation by the uscrs ofthat curriculum can be brought into the classroom in an immediate and practical sense. Once within the classroom, evaluation can be made to scrvc as a basis for new

. of teaching and learning. nicative use of evaluation will lcad towards an emphasis on firmurive

or ongoing evaluation, rather than summativc or cntl-of-course e\duation Ivhich may be based on some prcscribetl criteria. That is, it can shape antl guide learning and guide decisions within t h r curriculum process. Any shared antl negotiatcd cvaluation within the classroom will generate potentially formative feedback for and Iwtween learners antl between lcarncrs and the teacher. Formative evaluation may not only indicate the relative successes and failures of both learner and curriculum, it can also indicate new and different directions in which both can mo\e and dcvclop. [ . . .]

This placing of evaluation within the communicative process as a formative activity in itself docs not necessarily invalitlatc thc place of summativc cvaluation. Summativc evaluation becomes valuable if it can reveal the learners’ relative achi ment o l a particular target repcrtoirc. I Iowever, we have already proposed that any target repertoire needs to be seen as the tip of an iceberg. Therefore, an essential requircmcnt on any summativc evaluation \rould be that it can adcquately account for the learner’s progress in the refinement of a particular underlying competence ~ the communicative knowledge antl aliilities which provide the capociy for the use of a target repertoire. Summativc evaluation, in other words, needs to be sensitive to differential competences which may undcrlie some common target. As such, summative evaluation within a communicative curriculum ncctls to focus on the assessment of the learner’s developing communicative knowlcdgc and aliilities as well as on his actual pcrformance \\ ithin the target rcpertoire. [ . . . I

Therefore, the essential characteristics of evaluation within a communicative curriculum Lvould be that such evaluation is itself incorporated within the communicatily process of teaching and learning, that it serves the dual role of evaluating lcarncr progress and the ongoing curriculum, and that it is likely to hc formative in the achievement ofthis dual role.

8 Achieving communicative language teaching

We cmphasised at the outset of this paper that any curriculum framework for language teaching and learning nccrssarily in\ olvcs designers, materials writers, teachers and learnci-s in a process of relating the three components of purpose’, mcthodology and evaluation. Even so, we need to ackno\vlcdgc that any curriculum ~~ including a communicati\c curriculum ~ cannot strictly be designed as a whole from the start. We can only deduce and propose thc principles on which a varicty of communicative curricula may bc based. Any curriculum is a personal and social arcna. A communicative curriculum in particular, with its emphasis


on the learning and teaching o f communication, highlights a communicative process whereby the intcrrclating curriculum components arc themselves open to negotiation and change.

no more than any other - can ncvcr bc one uniquelp itlcntifialde language teaching curriculum. In a real sense thcrc can lie no such thing as an ideal antl uniquclp applicablc language teaching curriculum since any realisation of the curriculum must rctlcct a realistic analysis of the actual situation within which the language teaching will take place. ' lh cope cvith this requirement of appropriateness to situation, thc communicative curriculum has to be proposcd as a flcxihlc and practical set of hasic principles 1% hich underlie a \vholc range o f potential communicative curricula. It i s this set of principles which \vc have tried t o present in this paper, in the knowledge that such proposals need to Iic translated into action in thc classroom in ortlcr to test their obvn valitlity.This is, after all, the only means by which curriculum theory and practice can develop. Even though thc curriculum dcsigncr may h a w takcn account of the actual language teaching situation, hc has t o rccognise that from tlcsign to implementation is itsclf a communicative p roc . J. M . Stephens (1 967) idcntificd this process when he said:

From this it follows that the communicative curriculum

The curricular rcforms emanating from the conference room \vi11 be cffcctive only insofar as they become incorporated into the concerns that the teacher is led to express. Any statcmcnts or decisions coming from thc curriculum committee will not lie transportctl intact into the li o f pupils. Such statements must work through a complex chain o f interactions. 'l'he original statements of the committee will act as stimuli for one set of pcoplc such as sulijcct-matter super\-isors.Thcse pcoplc, in turn, \vi11 react to the stimuli, possililp mcrclp mirroring \vhat they rcceive, more likely, incorporating much of themselves into thc reaction. Their reactions will then act as stimuli for a second sct ofp~oplc \z ho cvill also rcact in their mz-n way. After a number of such intermctliary transactions somconc, thc tcachcr, will apply some stimuli to the pupil himself.

(pp. 12-1 3)

While Stephens, in talking about stimuli, docs not cmphasisc transactions as a t\vo-\vay process, he clcarlp implies that the translation from principlcs through design to implementation is most oftcn a proc ' ofi-cintcrprctation of the curriculum, and a process of negotiation lietcvccn the curriculum antl its users. I f adopted lcithin the design and implementation procedure, the conditions or minimal rcquircmcnts on any communicative curriculum must take account o f those situational constraints which arc unchangeable. However, such minimal requirements should also serve as the gcncral criteria against which any situational constraints \vi11 lie tcstctl in order to assess lvhcthcr or not the constraint is genuincly immutal)lc or lvhcthcr it may I>c ovt~rconit~.

If a curriculum Inscd upon the principles \vhich \vc havc examined here is not implementalilc \Tithin a particular situation, then it tnay lie that a gcnuincly communicative curriculum is simply not ialdc. It may Iic the c a w that curriculum dc-signers antl teachers in such a situation nccd to consider lvhcthcr thc achicv,mcnt of language learning as

communicution is appropi-iate. through timc and according to situation - to lie open

and suhjcct t o ongoing developments in theory, research, antl practical classroom experience. Communicative curricula arc essentially the means of capturing variability. Variability \vi11 exist in selected purposes, methods, and evaluation procedures, hut

Communicative curricula ncctl


variability must also be seen as i n h r r r n t in human communication and in the ways it is variously achieved 11y different learners antl teachers. Thc classroom ~ its social-

is potentially a communicative cnvironmcnt whcrc the effort to pull together such variability is undcrtakcn.Thc learning-teaching process in the classroom is the meeting-point o f all curriculum components anti it is t h r place \z here their coherence is continually tested. The learning-teaching process in the classroom is also thc catalyst for thc dcvclopmcnt and rcfincmcnt of thosc minimal rcquircmcnts which will underlie future curricula.

hological reality, its proccdurcs and activities

Notes ‘Curriculum’ can he distinguished from ‘ayllabus’ in that a syllabus is typically a specification of the content of’ the teaching anti learning antl the organisation antl sequencing of the content. Content and its organisation is subsumed n ithin a curriculum as part of methotlolog! (Section 6 of this paper). A syllabus is thcrcforc only part of thc overall curriculum M ithin which it operates. For interesting discussions of curriculum theory antl ticsign scc, inter ulio, I a v t o n , 1973; Stenhouse, 1975; Colby et ul . , 1975. This ncgotiativc interaction u itliin the learner hctwccn prior kno\vlctigc and the ncn- learning has Iwcn a conccrn \vi hology for many years. See, [or rxamplc, Piagct (1 95 3) , Bruner ( 1 97 3), and Nc ’l‘his ‘process competcncc’ is changing antl de\ eloping communicatil c kno\vletigc and abilities as learner moves from initial compctcncc ton.ards the target competence. It is partly I- alcd through a series of ‘Interlanguagcs’ (Sclinkcr, 1972, Taronc, 1977, Corder, 1978).

References

Bernstein, B., 1971. Clciss, Codes unci Control, Volume 1 : Theoretical Stutlies tori-urds u Sociolo<qj o/

Bruncr, J . S. , 1973. B y o n d the Infirmution Given. London: Gcorgc Allen 8r Unwin. Rruner, J. S., Olvcr, R. antl Grccnticld, P., 1966. Sttidies in Cognitire Growth. NcwYork: John

Wile) & Sons. Corder, S. 1’. , 1978. ‘Error anal! , intcrlanguagc and second language acquisition’ in Kinsclla,

V. (ctl.) Lunguugc Eochiiig und I~ingtii.sticx: Sun.5vt. Cam1)ritigc University Prcss. Golby, M., Grccnwald, J. and West, R . (etls.) 1975. Curriculum Design. I ondon: Croom I Iclrn

in association Tvith the Open University Prcss. Gumpcrz, J. J . , 1964. ‘Linguistic and social interaction in tux) communities’ in Gumpcrr, J. J .

and Hymes, 1). ( c d s . ) .Imericcin ’4nfhropologist 66 (6 ii): 1964. IIalliday, M . A. K., 1973. ‘The functional basis of language’ in Bcrnstcin, 13. (cd.) Cluss, CoJc,

ant1 Control, Volumr. 2: ,4ppIieci Studies iowurds u Sociology ~fI.ancqriacqe. I .ondon: Routletlgc and Kegan Paul.

I Iymcs, I)., 1971. ‘On coniniunicativc competence’ in l’ridc, J. and Holmes, J. (ctls.) Sociohngiii.stic~. Harmontls\vorth: Penguin Books, 1 972.

Labov, W., 1970. ‘The study of language in its social context’. Srridium ( h e r u l e 23, 1970. Lawton, D., 197 3 . Social Change, Etlucutionul Theory anti Curriculum Pluming. London: Uniwrsit?

Neisser, U., 1976. Cognition untl Reuli5r. San Fran Piagct, J . , 195 3. The Origins of’lntelligence in the Child. I ondon: Routledge antl Kcgan Paul. Srlinkcr, L., 1 972. ‘Interlanguage’ . IRA[ 1 0: 3, 1 972. Stenhouse, L.,

I a n p i p . I ondon: Routledge anti Kcgan Paul.

o f London Prcss. o: W. H. Freeman & Co.

1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Re.senrrh c7nd Development . I.ontlon: Heinemann.

26 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N . C A N D L I N

Stephens, J. M. , 1967. The Process ?f Schooling: A P.y.chological Examination. New York: Holt,

Tarone, E. , 1977. ‘Conscious communication stratcgics in inter-language: a progress rcport’ . Rinehart &Winston.

Paper prescntcd at the 1 1 t h T t S O L Convention, Miami, F1. 1977.

C h a p t e r 2

David Nunan and Clarice Lamb

M A N A G I N G T H E L E A R N I N G PROCESS

“I dunno,” Jimmy said, “I forget what I was taught. I onl) remember what I’ie learnt.” (Patrick W hitc)

You are g l e n the experiences 4ou need to understand thc norld. (Paulo Coelho)

Introduction

H E D E C I S I O N S T H A T T E A C H E R S A R E R E Q U I R E D tomakc duringthc T instructional proccss are all driven by the nature of the program, the goals o f instruction, and the necds of the individual learners. I t is therefore critical for us to considcr thcsc issues before turning to thc management of the learning proccss in the classroom.

[. ‘ . I In this chapter we cover the following issucs and concepts:

Setting the conreit and cle_f;ning term.s key terms defined arc “learnci--ccntci-c-dnC‘ss,” “cxperiential learning,” “humanism,” “learning-centeredness,” “communicative language tcaching,” “high-structure and low-structure teaching” Curr icu lum processes the scope of curriculum development and the importancc of curriculum development for the managcmcnt of learning Needs analysis definition and examples of needs analysis Setting goals and objectives from learner needs to learning goals, illustration of goals antl objectives, how clcarly stated goals and objectives provide a sound basis for managing thc lcarning process

Setting the context and defining terms

I. . . I

Learner-centeredness

The concept of learner-crnteredness has been invoked with increasing frequency in rcccnt years. What docs thc tcrm mean? Likc many widely used terms, it probably means rather different things to different people (Nunan antl Brindley 1986). For us, lcarner-centcrcd classrooms are those in which learners are actively involved in their o\vn learning processcs.

28 D A V I D N U N A N A N D C L A R I C E L A M B

The extent t o mhich it 15 possil~lc or tlcsiratilc tor learners t o lie in\ol\cd in their omn lcarning nil1 olniouslq \a r ) trom context to context (and, intlccd, from Icarncr to learner). If learners are t o lcarn anJthing at all, ho\zc\cr, ultimatel! thcy ha\e to do the learning for themsel\ es Thus it 15 a truism to sa! that the> \hould I,c in\ ol\ et1 in their OM n learning. In an ideal learning-centcrcd contcxt, not on14 \ \ i l l deciwms about M hat to lcarn antl hov to learn be made n i th reference to the lcarnci s, Init the learner5 themsel\cs will be in iohed in the decision-making pi-oc tach clcmcnt in the curriculum proce5s will inbolkc the learner, as la l i l c 2 1 .;ho\zs

Tuhlc 2. l Learner roles in a learner-ccntcrctl curriculum

Curriculum ctagc Role qflecirnei

Planning

Implementation

Asscs\mcnt antl c\aluation

I earners arc consultcd o n \\.hat thcy Lvaiit to learn antl ho\v thcy want to go ahout learning.

this process. Lcarncrs arc in\olvctl in setting, monitoring, antl modifying the goals and objccti\ cs of the programs being dcsignctl for thcm.

I cai-ncrs' language skills tl

Icarncrs actively using ant1 reflecting on the language insitlc and outsitlc the classroom. They are also involved in modifying antl crcating their o\vn Icarning tasks and language data.

Lcarncrs monitor ant1 a. The! arc also activclv involvrtl in the evaluation

antl modification o f tcaching and Icarning during thc course and aftcr it has hccn completed.

of ncctls analysis facilitates

Thc philosophy of Icarner-ccntcreclncss has strong links \vith experiential Icarning, humanistic psychology and task-liasrtl language tcaching. Thcsc links arc evident in the following quotes:

[A Icarnci--centered] curriculum \vi11 contain similar clcmcnts to thosc contained in traditional curriculum tlcvclopment, that is, planning (including needs analysis, goal and objective setting), implementation (including methodology antl materials dcvclopment) antl evaluation (see for cxamplc Hunkins 1980). However, the key differrncc lietween learner-ccntrctl antl traditional curriculum tlcvclopment is that, in the formcr, the curriculum is a collaborativc cf'fort between tcachcrs and learncrs, since learners arc closcly involved in the decision-making process regarding the content of the curriculum antl how it is taught. This change in oricntation has major practical implications for the entire curriculum pro ', since a negotiated curriculum cannot be introduced antl managed in the same \ray as one which is prescribed hy the teacher o r tcaching institutions. In particular, it places the liurden for all aspects of curriculum de\ elopmcnt on thc teacher.

(Nunan 1988: 2)

M A N A G I N G T H E L E A R N I N G P R O C E S S 2 9

The proponents of humanistic education have broadened our concept of lcarning by emphasizing that meaningful learning has to he self-initiated. Even if the stimulus comcs from outsidc, the sense of discovery, ho\vever, and the motivation which that \,rings has to come from inside drivrn hy the basic human dcsirc for self-realization, well-bcing and growth. . . . [I]. terms of personal and interpersonal compctcncc the

urity, cooperation and competition, self-dircct~dness and other-directedness; antl meaningful and meaningless activities. We ha\,e also tried to make clear that “teachers \vho claim it is not their job to takc these phenomena into account may miss out on some ofthc most essential ingredients in the management of successful learning” (Undcrhill 1989, 12. 252) .

(Lcgutkc andThomas 1991 : 269)

-oriented classroom revolves around issues of risk and

Wt. can scc from these extracts that learnei--centeredncss is stronglj rooted in traditions dcri\cd from general education Our \ iem is that language pc(lagog> nerd\ to drav on its general educational roots for sustenancc, 1% hich it has not not al\z a) s done. In fact, some language programs seem to ha\ e suffcrcd an “educational 11) pass ”

Learning-centeredness

Tahlc 2 1 , M hich scts out the role of the learner in relation to curriculum planning, implementation and elaluation, represents the ideal As tcac hers and course dcsigncrs, me h a c heen in relatncly fc\z situations in \\ hich leal ncrs trom an cad! stage in the learning process h a c been able to make criticall? infoi-mcd decision\ about \z hat to lcai n and ho\\ to lcarn In our experience, learners nccd to be s\ sternaticall) taught the skills ncetletl to implement a learner (cntcrcd approach to petlagog) In other words, language programs should ha\e t\\ in goals language content goals antl learning piocc\s goals \uch a program \\e \zould charactcri7c as being “learning centered ” UJ tcmaticall) educating learners about \\hat it means to lie a learner, Icarncrs reach a point \\here the) are ahlc to inakc informed ticcision, aliout 1% hat thri nant to lcarn and ho\z thc! mant to lcarn It is at thi, point that a truly learner-ccmtcrcd curriculum can lie implemented Lcai ning ccntc i c h e s s I \ thus designed t o lead to learner-centerednrss

The pre\ ious discussion undci lines the fact that learner ccntci cdncss is not an all-or- nothing process Rather it is a continuum trom rclati\cl) lcss to relatnel! more learner centered Nunan ( 1 99511) has captured this continuum in the tollow ing tables, which shobz that learner ccntcrctlness can be implementcd at a numlicr o f different lc\cls The tables also illustrate some ot the practical steps that can he taken in implementing a lcai nci oriented approach to in\truction

Table 2 . 2 relates to the experiential contcnt domain It demonstrates that , all other things licing equal, a classroom in \z hich learners are made am arc of thc pedagogical goals and content of instruction is morc lcarncr-centered than one in \z hich goals antl content arc left implicit We \\auld argue that all learners should, in thc hrst instancc, IIC alerted to goalr and content In collecting data for this book me nere surprised at hom tntrequcntl)

this step happened Ho\ze\er, wc \zould go furthcr, and arguc that it is just a first step along a path that, gi\en the appropriate context and types of lcarncrs, could takc the lcarnei 5

through a gradual learning process in mhich the) made selections trom a range of altcrnatii es, modihed and adapted goals and content, created their 0x2 n goals and selected their own cxpericntial content area, antl finall! mo\ cd be> ond the classroom itself (kor practical descriptions antl illustrations of thew processes, see Nunan 19951) ) Ho\z far one

3 0 D A V I D N U N A N A N D C L A R I C E L A M B

chooscs to movc along the continuurn depends o n onc’s learners and the context and environment of the instructional process.

Table 2 .3 shoxvs how the continuum can apply t o the learning process domain. Once again, we see that learner-ccntcrcdnws is no t an all-or-nothing process, bu t can lic implemented in a series of gradual steps.

Tuble 2.2 Learner-ccntcredncss in the experiential content domain

Level Leurner act ion Glo,r

1 Abvarcncss 1.carnc.n arc matlc aware of the pdagogical goals antl content of the course.

2 In\ olvcmcnt Lcarncrs arc involved in sclccting thcir o\vn goals and ol>jcctivcs from a range of altcrnati\-cs on offcr.

Lcarncrs arc in\ olvctl in modifying and adapting the qoals and content of the learning program.

3 Inter\ cntion

4 Crcation Lcarncrs crcatc thcir o\vn goals ancl ohjcctivcs.

5 Transccntlcncc I.carncrs go I x y o n d thc classroom and make links t)ct\\ccn the contcnt of the classroom antl thc \vorld bcvond thc classroom,

Tuble 2.3 Lcarncr~ccntcrcdncss in the lcarninc process domain

I.cve1 Lecirner action Gl0s.s

1 A\varcncss L,carncrs itlcntify stratcg! implications 01’ pcdagogical tasks antl idcntil) thcir o\vn prctcrrctl learning s t j Ics/stratcgics.

2 Involvcnicnt Lcarncrs makc choices among a range o f options.

3 Intervention Lcarncrs niodif) /adapt tasks

4 Crcation Lcarncrs crcatc thcir own tasks

5 Transccndcncc Lcarncrs \>cconie teachers antl rescarchcrs

Communicative language teaching

Communicat iw language teaching cmcrgcd from a numlicr of disparatc sources. During thc 1970s and 1980s applied linguists antl languagc educators began to re-evaluate pedagogical practice in the light of changrtl views on the nature o f language and learning, and the role of teachers and lcarners in thc light o f these changing vicws. The contrast lietween what for want o fhe t tc r t e rms we have called “traditionalism,” and communicative language teaching (CLT), is shown in Tablc 2.4 in relation to a numlicr of key variables within the curriculum. The table prcscnts contrasts in relation t o theories of language and learning, and in relation t o objectives, syllabus, classroom activities and the roles of learners, teachers antl materials. The vicws illustrated represent points on a cont inuum, rather than


cxclusive categories, and most teachcrs \vi11 m o w back and forth along the continuum in response to the nerds of the students and thc overall contcxt in which they arc teaching. The t ru th is that language is, a t one and the same t ime, hoth a system of rule-govcrnetl structurcs and a system for the expression of meaning. Learning is a mat te r o f habit formation as \vel1 as a proccss of activation through the deployment of' communicative tasks. The challenge for the teacher, the textbook wri ter and the curriculum developer is to shobv how the rule-governed structures enable the language user t o make meanings.

Table 2.3 Changing vic\vs on thc nature of language antl learning: Traditionalism and CLT

Teac h I ng Traditionalism Commun ica ti re lung uagc

Theory of language Language is a svstcm of rule- govcrnctl structures hierarchically arrangctl. function ~ interaction.

Habit formation; skills arc leal-nctl Acti\ itics inwlving real more effectively if oral precedes communication; carrying out \vrittcn; analogy not anal! meaningful tasks antl using

language that is meaningful t o the Icarncr promote learning.

Language is a s! stem for the expression of meaning: primar)

Thcor! of learning

Ohjectii e\

Svllahus

Acti] itics

Rolc ol lcarncr

Rolc of tcac hcr

Rolc of materials

Control of' thc structures of sound, Olijcctiws \vi11 reflect thc nccds form and order, master) oicr

mhol\ ot the language; goal natil c spcakcr master!.

Gradctl syllabus of phonology, morphology, antl syntax. Contrastiw analysis.

Dialogues and drills; repetition and memorization; pattern pi-acticc.

Organisms that can he tlircctctl bq skilled training tcchniqucs to produce correct responses.

Central antl active; tcachcr- dominatctl method. I'ro\ itlcs mo(lcl; controls tlircction antl pacc.

Primarily tcachcr oricntctl. Tapes and visuals; language lab oftcn used.

of the learner; they \z i l l include lunctional skills as \vel1 as linguistics objectives.

Will includc some or all of the follo\ving: structures, functions, notions, thcmcs antl tayks. Ordering \vi11 Iic guided by lcar tier ne et l s .

Engage learners in communication; in\ol\ c

proccsscs such as information sharing, negotiation of meaning and interaction.

Learner as ncgotiator, interactor, gi\ ing as nell as taking.

Facilitator of the communication process, ncctl\ analyst, counselor, process manager.

Primary role of promoting communicative language use; task based, authcntic matcrials


We do not Ilclievc that many classrooms can he defined exclusively in te rms of a particular methodology. Whether a classroom is characterized as “traditional” o r “communicativc” is therefore determined by the relative emphasis and degrcc to which the views listed in the table underpin \\.hat happens in the classroom rather than on the cxclusiw adherencc to one set of views to thc exclusion of an); other. Thc difference lies, not in the rigid adherence to onc particular ap[iroach rather than another, but in the basic orientation. Somc teachers operatc out of a traditional paradigm, making occasional forays into CL2T, and for others it is the other \.ray around. In the ESI. and EFIJ classrooms vvc have worked in and studied in rcccnt !cars, the Ix-cvailing t r c d has hcrn to\vard CLT, although by no means exclusively so.

High- and low-structure teaching

The insight that communication \vas an intcgratetl process rather than a set of discrete learning outcomes created a dilcmma for language cducation. It meant that the destination (functioning in another language) and thc routc (attcmpting to learn thc target language) moved much closer togethcr, antl, in some instances (for examplr, in role plays and simulations), became indistinguisha1,lc.. The challenge for curriculum devclopcrs, syllahus designers, materials writers and classroom teachers revolved around decisions associated wi th thc movements 1,ctween points on the continua set out in the tables in the preceding section. Questions such as the follo\ving therefore appeared Ivith increasing frequency in teacher-training kvorkshops: Ho\v do I integrate “traditional” excrcises, such as drills, controlled conversations antl the like, Lvith communicative tasks such as discussions, tlebatcs, role plays, etc.? Ho\v do I manage decision making and the learning pro classroom sessions devoted to communicative tasks Lvhich, by definition, require mc to hand over substantial amounts of tlccision-making p v c r antl control t o the Icarners? How can I equip learners thcmselvcs \vith the skills thcy \vi11 nccd to makc tlccisions \viscly and to embrace po\vcr cffccti\-ely?

For some individuals the solution la? in wjccting the changing vie\vs along with their inconvenient pedagogical implications. Others lvcnt t o the oppositc extreme, eschewing “traditional” solutions to their materials clcvelopmcnt antl language-teaching challenges. In most contcxts, h o u cr, a more Iialanccd \ icw prcvailctl.

For some time after thc rise of CL‘I; thc status of grammar in the curriculum \vas rather uncertain. Somc linguists maintained that it \vas not ne grammar, that the abilit? to LISC a second language (“knowing how”) \vould develop automatically if the learner \vcrc required to focus on meaning in the proccss of using the language to communicatc. In rcccnt ?cars, this vicw has come under serious challenge, and it now seems t o 1~ widely accepted that there is value in classroom tasks kvhich require lcarncrs t o focus on form. It is also accepted that grammar is an essential resource in using languagc communicatively.

(Nunan 1989: 13)

In educational terms, a useful \.ray of viewing this emerging dilemma in language cducation is in terms of high- antl low-structure tcaching. Iligh-structure tasks arc those in which teachers have all the p v c r and control. Low-structure tasks are those in which power and control are devolved to the students. We have borrowd the terms “high-structure” and “low- structure” from Biggs and Telfcr (1 987). They suggest that the successful management of thc, learning process depcntls on teachers knowing kvhere t o locate themselves on the high-


to Ion-structure continuum in relation to a given task. In a high-structure task, students are placed in reactive roles and accorded relatively little choice. In a low-structure context, students haw many options antl maximum autonomy. EIomww-, ~ v c do not equate high- structure with non-communicative and Ion-structure with communicativc tasks. In ccrtain communicative tasks, learners have relatively little freedom of maneuver. Howcvcr, ~ v c do believe an association exists bctwecn lolv-structure antl CLT and that the incorporation of communicativc tasks Lvith Ion-structure implications into the classroom increases tht- complexity of the decision-making process for the teacher.

We \vould argue that the kinds of managerial issues that arise and the sorts of decisions that teachers arc required to make will be largely driven b y the degrcc of structure implied. This concept is illustrated inTablc 2 .5 , which provides exemplary questions relating to high- and loM--structure contexts as these apply to key elemcnts at the levels of curriculum planning, implemcntation, and evaluation.This schema will be referred to constantly in the pages that follow, as it is one of the key organizational framcworks underpinning the work as a whole. It allows us to deal coherently with the following key managerial questions antl to demonstrate that the answers \.rill vary according to the tlcgrec of structuring called for by the instructional goals guiding the intcraction at that particular time.

What aspects of tcachcr talk (direct instruction, feedback, instructions, antl questioning strategies) facilitate or impair cffcctive learning?

What issues nccd to bc taken into consideration in lesson planning and preparation? How can the tcacher most effectively cxploit resources in the classroom? What stratcgics cxist for setting u p diffcrcnt modes of classroom interaction, from

What arc the implications of affective attitudes (e.g., motivation, attitude and aptitude)

What tools, tcchniques, and strategies cxist for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation

(All of these questions can be explored through thc investigative procedures suggested

teacher-fronted through small group, pair and individual Lvork?

for the effective managcmcnt of learning?

of classroom interaction and acquisition?

in Nunan 1990, 1992).

The curriculum in outline

Implicit in the foregoing discussion i s thc fact that classroom dccision-making antl the effective management of thc learning process cannot be made without rcfcrcncc to the larger context within which instruction takcs place. The context and cnvironmcnt of the learning pro including the curriculum plans that should tlri\ e the pedagogical action, arc criticall! important hcrc. In other \vortls, classroom dccisions cannot be made \vithout rcfcrcncc to structures operating outsidc of the classroom, at the level of the curriculum.

the naturc of teaching and learning.’l’hesc changing viclvs are reflected in the objectives and content of language programs, as well as acti\ities, materials, and tcachcr/lcarner roles. The influence of these diffcrcnt viovs was made clear in the Table 2.4, which contrasted traditionalism n i th CLT.

As hve can sec from Table 2 .5 , communicative language teaching has had a major influence on languagc curriculum dcvclopment. First, curriculum tlcvclopmcnt has hccomc much morc complcx. Whereas txvcnty or thirty years ago, thc point of tlcparturc for curriculum development trntlrd to be restricted to the identification of the Icarncr’s currrnt lcvcl of proficiency, \z ith thc dcvelopmcnt of communicativc language tcaching and thc insight that curricula should reflect learners’ communicative ncetls antl learning prcfcrcnccs,

Language curriculum development has been greatly influenced by changing vi

Table 2. J Curriculum decision-making in high-structure and lo\\ -structure contexts

Curricular elements High-structure contexts Lowstructiire contexts

.It the planning ctage Course dc5ign

Nectls analysis

Collegial

Resources

At the implementation rtagc Talk/interaction

What docs the institution tell nic to teach? What arc the managerial decisions entailed in thc teacher’s manual?

Ho\v do I tlesign/adapt my o\vn content/ goalsltasks?

Ho\v can I identify the learning prcfci-cnccs of m y students? articulating thcir o\vn needs?

Ho\\ can I i n \o l \ c my learners in identifying and

H o ~ v can I coopcratc \\-ith collcagucs in Course planning? Ho\\ can 1 get the most out of staff meetings? Holy can staff meetings contributc to cffccti\ c planning?

What opportunitics exist h i - team teaching?

HOM do I manage ujc o f act text? Hmv do I niotlifq/adapt the text? Ho\v do I crcatc my olvn resources? Holy do I design split information tasks that \vi11 be cffcctirc in mv context?

What arc cffectiw strategies for direct instruction?

Hoiv do I give feedback on high-structure tasks?

What questioning strategies facilitate learner contributions to low-structure tasks? How do I give feedback in lo\\--structurc tasks? What types of teacher questions maximize student output?

Learner language

Learner attitude

Group configuration

H ~ M do I correct learner errors? Hon- can I provide language models in small group role plays in xvhich the principal focus is on the exchange o f meanings?

Hoxv do I deal \r-ith group conflicts? Hmv do I deal with student resistance to learner initiated tasks?

Hoxv do I organize controlled practice? Ho\v do I managc teacher-fronted instruction effectively ?

Ho\v do I set up small group learning? What strategies exist for setting communicatix-e tasks in Lvhich students Lvork independently?

A r the eraluation stage

Learner assessment What techniques \vi11 help me to asscss the achic\cment of my learners?

How can I help my learners de\-clop effective tcchniqucs for sclf-assessmcnt?

Sclf-cvaluation of the learning process

Formal e\ aluation Ho\\ can learnen be in\olxcd in proxidlng input to the e\ aluation procc$s?


much more information about and by learncrs came to be incorporated into the curriculum process. Thc other major modification occurred with the emergence of the communicative task as a central building block within the curriculum. Instead of being designed to teach a particular lexical, phonological or morphosyntactic point, tasks were designed to reflect learners’ communicative necds. I ,anguage focus cxerciscs \vere developed as a second-order activity.

In summary, we can say that curriculum dcvclopmcnt represents a delicate juggling act involving the incorporation of information about the learner, about the language, and about the learning process. Language content questions include what are we tcaching, why are we teaching it, antl when ~ ’ e arc teaching it. Learning process qucstions, which are methodological in character, include how are \vc arranging the learning environment. Among other things, when we focus on the lcarner, we must ask how well the learner has done and how well the curriculum has done in serving the necds of the learner.

Wc can relate thcsc key qucstions to each other in terms of the central curricular elements of syllabus design, which has to do Lvith thc selection, sequencing and grading of content; methodology, which is concerned with task selection and sequencing; and assessment and evaluation, which are concerned with determining how well students have done, as well as evaluating how well the instructional process has met curricular goals.These relationships are set out schematically inTahlc 2.6.

Table 2. h Kc! curriculum questions, prowdurcs, and arcas

Question., ProceJirrcs , lrcus

Contcnt What? Why? When?

I’roccsscs

EIO\V?

When?

Sclccting Justifying Grading

tnacting Sequencing

Outconics Ho\v \vcll? Asscssing

How cffccti\c? E\ aluating

1

1 Methotlolog!

Asscssmcnt

k\ aluation

One vicw of “curriculum” has it that curriculum processes have to do with thc dc\-clopment of tactical plans for action. In this vicw, “curriculum” is taken to refcr to statements about what should happen in the teaching and lcarning situation. According to this vie\v, the curriculum specialist’s task ends when the ink is dry on the various documents that have been produced to guide teaching and learning. Wc believe that this vicw is simplistic and nai‘vc, that while “curriculum” includes the planning process, it also includes the processes of implementation antl evaluation .These three phasc-s are captured in Figure 2.1 .

The final point we wish to makc is that the language curriculum should concern itself, not only bvith language content goals, but also with learning pro goals. Learners should be focused o n the processes through which lcarning takes place as well as on thc target language they arc learning. It is our contention that learners cvho haw developed skills in identifying their own preferred learning skills and strategies \vi11 be more effective language learners.


Phase I:

Phase 11:

Phase 111:

Planning (initial nccds analysis, goals antl (hjcctives, contcmt, antl process)

Implcmrntation (ongoing ncrtls analysis, monitoring, action I-cscarch)

E\ aluation (assessmcnt, self-asscssmrnt, program cvaluation)

h p r c 2. I Thrcc phascc or pcrspccti\cs on the curriculum process

Curriculum goals I anguage content For example, to tle\rlop the abilit! to olitain goods and scr\ ices in the target language

Lcarning process

Task

For cxamplc, to d e l elop skills in learning hov to lcarn

Aim To familiarize you \z i th some ofthc key tasks conccrncd n i t h cui-riculum dcwlopment and to provide an opportunity for you to relatc thcsc to your on-n tcaching situation.

Procctlurc

1 . The following list contains somc of the tasks that need to be carried out in the course of dcsigning and implcmcnting a curriculum. Study the activitics and decide kvhich o f them, in relation to a context Ivith which you arc familiar, should be carried out by a teacher, a curriculum specialist, a counsclor, a director of studics, ctc. Write these down in thc spaces provided. Sclcct those areas for xvhich thc teacher has primary responsibility. What arc somc of the decisions that need to be made? Exprcss these as questions.

2.

Data

Intel-\ iem students ~~

Conduct needs anal!iis ~

Assign studcnts to class g r o u p ~

Carry out diagnostic test ~

Arress studcnts’ current le\el of English Ihagnosc indn idual learning difhcultics

~

-~

Identify indn itlual lcarning \t!lei Sclcct and grade linguistic contcnt (grammar, 1 ocabular!, functions, notion\)

~~

Select cxpcriential content (topics, thcmcs, situations, settings, etc.) _ _

Sct out course goals

Select, adapt or develop lcarning tasks and material\ Monitor student progrcss ~

Write performance objecti\cs __ ~


A s e s s learning outcomes ~ ~ ~ _________ ~ ~ ___________

ELaluatc language program(s) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In some teaching contexts, teachers will lie rcsponsiblc for all these tasks. In others, they will have little control. Some of the questions r a i d by teachers in rclation to interviews, needs analysis, and assigning students to groups include the follo\ying:

~ Student intervicu,s Should these he carried out I d o r c , during, or after the course has begun? Should the learners he forced to respond in the target language? HOW do I get information from lo\v-proticiency learners \vhen I don’t spcak their language? A‘eeds ana@s What techniqucs exist for doing nccds analysis? How can the resulting information be used for writing course goals and ohjcctivrs? What if my learners have conflicting needs? dssigning students t o groups What criteria, other than proficiency level, can be used to assign students to groups? Is it possible to have diffcrent configurations at different times during thc- teaching day?

~

~

Needs analysis

In the course of designing a teaching program from scratch or modifying an existing one, it is generally tlesirahlc to collect and interpret (lata about the learners and the institutional context in which they learn.l’his information may Ile collected formally or informally before the course and once the course has begun. A variety of different t y c s of information can be collectctl. Such information might include biographical information about the learners, data on the types of communicative tasks that learners might want or nccd to carry out in the target language, information on the ways in tvhich the learners prcfcr to learn, and so on. A \vide range of information can hc collected through nccds analysis procedures of various kinds, as will be seen in the sample instruments provided in this section. In the initial planning stages, the extent to which Icarners’ subjcctive nccds can be canvassed dcpends on the range and extent of lcarncrs’ previous cxpcricnccs. (It \vould l ~ c unrealistic, for example, to ask learners lvhcthcr they like to learn through rolc play and simulations ifthcy have never expericnccd such activities.)

In attempting to obtain information from learners, as well as allout learners, additional limitations and constraints will apply \vith young Icarncrs, or with lowproficiency learners if the teacher docs not speak the learners’ first language and docs not have the benefit of bilingual assistants or other first language resources.

Rrintllcy (1 989) suggests that there arc basically thrcc different approaches to nccds analysis. He calls thrse the language proficiency orientation, the psychological/humanistic orientation and the specific purposc orientation. The thrcc approaches arc differentiated according to their educational rationale, the type of information collected, the method of data collection and the l~ur~ioses for \vhich the data arc collcctetl.The salient characteristics of thc three approaches are set out inTable 2.7.

In learner-oriented contexts, the types of information requircd and the purposes to which thc information \vi11 b e put will vary somewhat from programs tlevelopctl without reference to the learners themselves, and those for which any preliminary analysis will be largely restricted to thc needs of the institution or thc educational system that the curriculum is intended to serve. Within a second, rather than foreign, language context, Rrindlcy suggests types of information and purposes that are important (scc*Ial~le 2.8).


Table 2.7 Approaches to needs analysis

Lungnage proficicnc). orientation P.y chological /humanistic orientation Spec$c purpose orientation

Educational rationale

Learners Icarn morc txffectivcly

if gi-oupcd according to

proficiency.

7jy of information

Language proficitmcy/languagc

tlifficul tics

Method ?f collection Standardized forms/tcsts

Obscr\ ation

Purpose

S o lcarncrs can be placed in

groups of homogeneous

language proficiency

So tcaclicrs can plan language

content relevant to lcarncrs’

proficirncy I c ~ c l

Lcarners learn more effectively ifini-ol\cci in the learning

procchs.

Attitude$, moti\ ation, lrarning

Ttratcgy pretcrcnccu

Stantlartlizetl forms

Observation, inter\ icws and

survcys

So Icarncrs’ individual

characteristics as learncrs can bc @\,en due consideration

So Icarncrs can bc hclpd to

1,ccomr sclf-dirccting b y bring

involved in decision making

about their learning

Learners Icarn morc cffecti\ el\ i f content is relevant to their specific arcas of nrrd/intcrcst.

Information o n nativc speakcr use of language in learners’ target

communication situation

I anguagc analysis

Surveys of learners’ pattcrns o f language use

So that lcarncrs \vi11 be prescntctl

ivith language data rclcyant to

thrir communication goals

So motivation will I)c cnhanccd

I)? relativeness of language content

Source: After Rrindlry 1989: 67 69. Used b y pc.rmission

A major purpose for- conducting needs analyses is to categorize and group lcarners. This grouping process facilitates the specification of content and learning procedures that arc consonant with some aspect of the learner data that has been gathered. Figure 2 . 2 excmplifics some ways in which data can be used for grouping purposes.

Setting goals and objectives

In the contcnt domain, needs analysis provides a basis for setting goals and objectives. Goal and objective setting arc important tasks in most educational contexts, because they pro\ ide a rationale for selecting and integrating pedagogical tasks, as well providing a point of reference for thc decision-making process. Goals arc broad statements that provide gcncral signposts for course development. Thc following sample goals have hcen extracted from a variety of second and foreign language programs. They are expressed in the 1)roadest possible terms.

To dcvelop sufficient oral and written skills to obtain promotion from unskilled \vorker to site superyisor To establish and maintain social relationships through exchanging information, itleas, opinions, attitudcs, feelings, and plans


Tuhle 2.8 T! pes of information required in a Icarncr-centered yystcm

Lcarncrs’ lift, goals

Language goals, communi( ativc net\\ orks

antl social rolcs

Olljcctivc nccds, patterns of language usc,

personal rcsourccs (including t ime)

Imguagc. proticicncy antl language clifficultics

Sul>jcctivc ncctls including learning stratcg!

prcl‘crcnccs, atlccti\ c nccds, learning a d \ it!

prcfci-cncrs, p a c ~ o f learning, attitudc t o \ v x ( l

correction

Information about I rarncrs ’ attainnicnt o f objccti\ cs

Inloi-mation almut tlcvclopnicntal p r o u ~ s s c s

in second language learning, including

learners’ communicative strategic.;

So that tcachcrs have a Iiasis on \vhich to tlctcrminc

o r prcdict Icai-ncrs’ language goals, communicative

nct\\.orks antl social roles

So lcai-iicrs ilia) Ilc placrd in a g roup basctl on

(‘oninion social roles, antl tcachcrs m a y makc

pi-c>lirninary tlccisions alwut coui-cc content

app rop r i a te t o learners’ social ro les

S o Icai-ncrs can 1)c grouped according t o theii

t ie td \ and /or intcrc-sts

So Icarnci-s can Iw grouped accoi-ding to thcir language proficicne\

So that tcachcrs ma! adapt learning activities t o Icarning Ytratcgr prclci-cnccs, indi\ itlual needs

So that t h r tcachcr can moni to r Iicrformancc and inotlitj progr,im accordingl!

S o that t c x h c i - s can gear Ianguagc content antl

tiiatci-ids to learners’ stage o f tlcvclopmcnt

Sourre: Adapted from Rrintllcy 1984. Used liy pc~riiiission.

~ To tlevclop communicati\ kills in ortlcr t o acquirc, rccnrd and use intwmation from a variety of aural sourccs ‘lh tlcwlop acatlcmic Iistcning skills in order- t o cxtract key information from university lccturcs To dcvclop Iiasic communicativc skills in ortlcr to olitain basic goods and services as a tourist

~

Morc limited goals, couched in functional terms, can Ilc found in tcaching matcrials of various sorts. The follo\ving h a w been taken from an intcrmcdiate~lcvcl textbook.

In this book you will: Make comparisons Ask for and give advicc Express obligation Talk ahout past cxpc,ricnccs Exprcss opinions aliout cntcrtainmcnt.

(Nunan 1995a)

These goal statements arc very general in nature and can encompass numcrous subsidiary . Most curriculum tlocumcnts Iiasctl on a goal and olijcctivcs approach contain a


[ Languagc proticicnc,y protilc

1

2 3 4 5

Students \\ ith oral skills, but \I ith re\\ or no literacy skills in 1-1 Students \vho belong in a nc\v arrivals program Studrnts \\ ho rcquirc gcncral support in the mainstrcam

Stutlcnts with spccific affrcti\ e , language antl communication ncctla

Students \vho arc approximating nativclikc proficirnc! (Atlaptctl lrom S.A. ESI Guitlrlincs)

11 I earning strategy protile

1 "Concrete" learners 'l'hcsc learners tend to like gamcs, picturcs, films, vitlro, using cassettes,

talking in pairs antl practicing English outside class. ". tna~trcii/"learner.s 'l'hcsc Icarnrrs like to study grammar, stucly English hooks, and rratl

ne\\ spapus ; they also likr to study alonc, find their own mistakes, anti \vork on problems set b y the tcachcr.

speakers, talking to fricnds in English and Lvatching t

ot'class in shops, trains, ctc., learning nc\v \vortls hy hcaring them and learning I>) con\ crsations.

2

3 "Cornrnunicarivc" learners Th tudcnts like to l ea rn b! bvatching, listening to native sion in hgl ish , using tnglish out

4 " ; I ~ i t h o r i ~ - o r ~ ~ n t e d " /eurner.s 'I'h learners prclcr the trachcr to explain

likr to h a \ c their o\vn tcxtbo 1 ) ~ rratling, and lcarn ne\? \vortls

crything in a notebook, to study grammar, learn

(Atlaptctl from Willing 1988)

111 Ilcarning purpose

1 Ne\\- arrivals 2 English in th r \vorkplacc

3 English for further study 4 5

English lbr professional cmplo! nicnt

English for access to \ ocational tl-aining and cmploymcnt

Figtire 2.2 Three altcrnati\ e wavs o f grouping learners

limited number of goals (perhaps five or six) that p r o d c a basis for the development o f objectives. Formal pcrformancc objectives specify kvhat learncrs should l ie able to do as a result of instruction. Formal objcctivcs should contain a perfbrmancc (which sets out what learncrs arc to do), conditions (specifying the conditions and circumstances under which the learners should perform) antl standards (setting out how \vel1 they should pcrloi-m). The three objcctivcs that follow illustrate the thrcc components o f performance, conditions, and standards.

~ Working in pairs, learnci s \T ill pro\icle cnough information for their pai-tnrr to drau their famil! trcc The) \z i l l pro1 it lc cnough information for a thrcc gcncration famil! trcc to lie d r a ~ n . Students m i l l extract and record estimated minimum antl maximum tcmperatui e4

from a tapcd radio neather forcca5t Thc) must accuratclj record tour of the ~ I X

regions Cwercd by the forecast. While matching a I idcotaped conxerqation bctneen t\zo natixc speaker5,5tutlcnts v ill

~

~


identify the various topics discussed and points at which they are changed. All topics and change points arc to l x x idcntificd.

The use of an objectives approach has k e n criticized in general education on the grounds that precise statements of what thr learner should lie able to do at the end of a course is somehow undemocratic and neetllr~ssly restricting on both the student and the teacher. Others argue that such precise specification greatly facilitates other steps in the design process. I t forces the designcr to he realistic about what learners can achieve and helps guide the selection of appropriate materials and classroom activitics. It i s also an essential prerequisite for devising appropriate forms of learner assessment.

Some years ago, an interesting set of specifications was developed in Australia. Called the Australian Language Levels (ALL) guidclines, these specifications were intended to be general enough to help materials writers and teachers nm-king in a range of second and foreign languages. The ALL guidclines take as their point of departure a number of broad goals that are refined into specific goals, as shown in l ib lc 2.9.

You can get some idea from this furthcr example of thc breadth of the goal-setting exercise. You can also see how numerous subsidiary objectivcs could be formulated from each of the goal statements. Interestingly, the designers of the ALL guidelines chose to move directly from goals to the specification of task or activity types without elaborating detailed sets of objectives. We also have employed this procedure in some of our work. Although we do not feel it necessary to dcvrlop formal three-part objectives for everything we wish to teach our learners, we do believc that a sample set ofohiectivcs can greatly assist in managing the learning process. They can be particularly useful in the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the learning process.

The latest manifestations of the goals and objective approach to curriculum devrlop- mcnt have appcareti in competency statements that attempt to specify what learners should be able to do a t different levels. The following arc extracts of core competencies designed for an adult immigrant program. Once again, you can see they arc formulated in terms of what the learners should be able to do as a result of instruction.

Englishfor Stti(+

1 . 2.

Can understand the context of further cducation/training in Australia Can utilise a range of learning strategies relevant to further cducationltraining context\

3. Can Understand an oral prcscntation relevant to further education/training contexts Can negotiate complex/problematic spoken cxchangcs rclated to further educational/ training contexts Can participate in group discussions relevant to further cducational/training contexts Can deliver short oral presentations relevant to further educational /training contcxts

4.

5.

6 .

[ . . . I

Vocational English

1 . Can understand the context of work in Australia


Table 2 9 Communi( ation and learning ho\\ -to learn coals

Broad goal Spectf;c gods

Communication By participating in acti) itics organized around use o f the targct language, learners will acquire communication skills in the targct language, in order that they may widen their nct\vorku of interpersonal relations, havc direct access to inlorniation and use their language skills for study, vocational anti lrisurc-based purposes

1.enmin~~hon-to- learn Leamcrs \vi11 be able to take a grobving responsibility for the management of their own

To be able to use the targrt language to: ~ establish and maintain relationships and discuss

topics of intcrcst (e.g., through exchange of information, ideas, opinions, attitudes, fcclings, experiences, plans)

participate in social interaction rclated to solving a problem, making arrangements, making decisions with others, and transacting

to obtain goods, srrviccs, and public information

~

~ obtain information by scarching for spccihc dctails in a spoken or written trxt and thcn process and use the information obtained

~ obtain information by listening to or reading a spoken or Lvrittcn tcxt as a wholc, and thcn

give information in spoken or written form (c.g., givr a talk, write an essay or a set 01‘ instructions) listen to, read or vie\\, and respond personally to a stimulus (c.g., a story, play film, song, poem, picture, play)

and use the information obtaincd

To develop: ~ cognitive processing skills (to enahlc them to

understand values, attitudes and feelings to

learning so that they learn how to Irarn, anti hou to lcarn a language crcativcly)

Iirocc’ss information, and to think and respond

Icarning-ho\\ -to-lcarn skills

sustain communication in thc target languagr) ~ communication stratcgirs (to enablc them to

Source: Atlaptcd from Scarino ct al. 1988.

2. Can utilise a rangc of learning strategies relevant to employment contexts

3. 4.

5. 6 .

Can understand an oral presentation relevant to workplace contexts Can negotiate complex /problematic spoken exchanges relevant to employment contexts Can participate in group discussions/mcetings Can participate in casual conversations

1. ’ .I

English for community access

1 . Can understand the context of wclfarc/community services in Australia


2 . Can utiliw a I-angc of learning strategies relevant to the local community context

3. 4.

Can understand an oral report relevant to the local community context Can negotiate com~)lcx/l~rol~lcmatic spoken exchanges for personal business and community purposcs Can participatc in casual con\w-sation 5.

[ . ’ . I (NSW Adult Migrant kducation Scri ice Ilraft Competencies)

Anothcr useful tool is the curriculum-planning qritl. Planning grids such as Figure 2.3 can be used to rclatr goal and olijcctivc statements kvith other curricular elements (such as grammar, functions, or topics). In Figure 2 .3 the task or pcrformancc elements from a set of olijectives are cross-refercncctl ivith scttings.Thc gritl \vas dcvclopcd for a gcnci-al English speaking course.

Key to settings 1 At work 3 Using public transport 5 On holiday 7 At the market 9 At a dinner party 2 At home 4 In barkoffee shop 6 In a store 8 At school 10 In a government office

h p r c 2 3 Planning gritl tor gcncral Lnglish coui v

Task

Aim To appl> the planning gritl dc\crilictl in this wction to >our own tcaching situation.

Develop a planning grid, similar to thc one in 1;igurc 2 . 3 , to a course o f your choosing.


In th15 section \\e haie tried to illustrate a range of \Ea)\ in \\ hich goals and olijcctiics can be exprcssctl Dcspite tht-ir tlitlercncc\, all of these goal5 antl oblccti\es share somcthlng in common; the! all describe what learners should lit. able t o do as a result 0 1 instruction We l>cIie\e that all language programs should take as their point ot t l rpar turc goals antl objectii CY, ho\z e i (’1- couchcd, that ha\ e been dcrii et1 from an anal

Summary and conclusions

The hasic themc of this chaptcr is that a firm h i s for d‘frctivc classroom decision making and managemrnt must hr laid c w l l bcfore the teacher sets foot in the classroom. It is difficult, if no t impossible, t o sa); whcther many managerial decisions are eithcr good or had Lvithout refercncc to the ncctls of t h r learners or thc goals and objectives ofthr curriculum.

ions that teachcrs are required to make during the insti-uc nature of the program, the goals of instruction antl t h

individual learners, i ~ - c inclutlc a detailed description and discussion of t procedures in the chaptcr. I . . . ]

References

Riggs, 1. and R.Tr1ft.r 1987. The Process o f l earn ing . 2nd ctln. Sydney: Prenticc-1 Iall. Brindle!; G. 1984. A7eeds .hub,.sis und 0bjcctic.c Setting in [he :tdiilt Illigrunt Llocution frogrum.

Rrintlley, G. 1989. Ac.se.s.sing .4chie~eincnt in u Leurner-Centred Curriculum. Sydney: NCELTR. Flunkins, F. 1980. Crirriculoin Deielopment: frogrum Improrcmcnt. Columl>us, Ohio: Charlcs

I q u t k e , M. and H. l’honias 1991. Process und Experience in t h e h n g u u g e Classroom. London:

Nunan, 1). 1988. The Lcurner Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge. Univcr-sity P r e s . Nunan, D. 1989. Designing 7b.sk.s f i r the Communicative Clussroom. Cainbritlgc: Cambi-itlgr

University Press. Nunan, 11. 1990. “Action rcscarch in thc language clas.;room.” In J . Richards and I). Nunan

(ctfs.), Second Lung t iup Teucher Educarion. Ne\vYork: Cani\)ritlgc Univcrsit) Prcss. Nunan, 1). 1992. Reseilrch .l)fcthoJs in I a n g t i q e Leurnlng. NcivYork: Cambridge Univcrsity Press. Nunan, D. 1995a. ;ITL:lS: ~.ctrrn1n,4~C‘entcreti Communication. Boston: Hcinlc 8( Heinlc.

Svdncy : NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.

Mrrrill l’ublishing Co.

I nngman ,

Nunan, I). 199511. Closing the gap I)eti\ccn lcarning antl in\truction. TE5OL Qiur tcrb , Spring 1995.

Nunan, D. antl G. Brindle!. 1986. “The leal-ncr-ccntretl curr icdum in theory antl pi-acticr,”

Scarino, A , , D. Vale, 1’. McKay antl J. Clark. 1988. .4tistruliun Lmgiiuge L c i d s Guiclelincs.

Untlcrhill, A . 1989. “Pro in humanistic education.” Lnglish Lungiiugc Teuching ]ournul, 43,

Whitc, P, 1961. The Tree ?[,bfun. London: Penguin. Willing, K . 1988. Learning Sr,iiles in .Itloll ,1Iigrunt Etlncution. .4tIclaitle: National Curriculum

paper prcscntctl at the AnnualTESOI. Convrntion, Anahrim, April 1986.

Canberra: Curriculum Devclopmcnt Centre.

250 256.

Rrsourcc Ccntrc.

C h a p t e r 3

Michael Lewis

L E X I S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S

Y L L A B U S I N T H I S C H A P T E R is interpreted in what Nunan calls the ‘narrolv’ S sense ~ thc content of the teaching programme. Willis, in The Lexical S y l l ~ h , observes that an approach involves both syllabus specitication and methodology, and that syllabus and mcthotlology arc not discrete options: indeed, syllabus may be specified in terms of goals, performancc ohjcctiws, or other critcria such as l’rabhu’s procedural syllabus. Here, I am concerned with the contribution lcxis may make to the specification of content. Historically, syllabuses wcre structural; the Communicative Approach introduced functions, antl certain re-ordcrings. The question naturally arises as to kzhat similar changes are called for by the Lexical Approach. The search for a strictly lcxical syllabus is likelv to be frustrating for theorist, tcacher and studcnt. Witldo\vson has olxcrved that a strictly lrxical syllabus would begin Ivith one word texts each complete in itself, proceed to two word tcxts, and so on to ever more complex tcxts but where, at all timcs, any grammatical complexity was obligatory as thc language uscr’s meaning became incrcasingly complex, and demanded additional grammaticalisation. Even if such a syllalius were I)ossihlc to devise, it is difficult to imagine it being pedagogically acccptablc.

Similarly, thc attempt b y Cobuiltl to ticfine a Icxical syllalx~s around the most frequent words ofthc languagc has not, despite its fascinating theoretical base, met with widespread acceptancc. Some of the reasons I perceive for this arc discu. ti 11rlow. I cmphasisc that my own conccrn is to look at thc contribution ivhich lcxical items of different kinds can make in determining content.

Educational syllabus

Language teaching is part of a \vidcr M hole, the education of individuals. Every learning cxyeriencc should contributc to thc dcwlopment of maturc individuals. Although cclucational experiences w i l l differ in the \vay they contributc for every participating in&\ itlual, effective educational experience should increase curiosity, wonder and awe, confidence and self-worth. In addition it should increase the individual’s ability to concentrate, appreciate, argue a case, tolerate, take responsibility antl co-operate.

lop particular intellectual skills, the most important of lvhich arc inwlvcd in:

There is in all education a hidtlcn agenda which secks to t lc

1 Itlcntifying problem\. 2 Collecting information, data antl cvidence.

L E X I S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S 4 7

3 4 5 Evaluating evidence and argument. 6 7 8 Communicating results effectively.

Classifying data, bv recognising similarity antl difference. Ranking, making hierarchies, separating more from less important.

Estimating, so that the plausiliility of an answw may bc ci-aluatctl. Taking decisions ~ hasetl on complete or partial data.

It will he noted that much traditional language teaching is in direct conflict with some o f these otijectivcs.The I’-P-P (prcscnt, practise, produce) paradigm, repetition, and controlled pattern practice arc elements of this kind. A task-hascd methodology, and an O-H-E (obscrl e , hypothesisc, experiment) paradigm arc in sympathy with the \vitler educational syllabus.This is important, for nothing which happens in the classroom should conflict \vith the educational ideals \vhich the ahove summary expresses.

The single most distinctive feature of the Lexical Approach is that it proposes a fundamentally differcnt attitude to the treatment of text. Firstly, it is suspicious of dccontcxtualiscd languagc, recognising the importance of co-text, antl thcreforc preferring extended text or discourse. Secondly, it proposes a range of aivarencss-raising actilitics directing students’ attention to the chunks of which text is compowd. Texts play a rolc in introducing interesting content, b u t also act as a major linguistic resource from \vhich students can extract lexical itcms for study, expansion, and recording in appropriate formats. A basic classroom strategy will he helping students to avoid becoming preoccupied hv grammar or vocabulary, concentrating instead on different kinds of lcxical item.

Syllahuscs are normally thought of as listing, and perhaps sequencing, course content. In tact, thrcc factors arc important: inclusions, exclusions and sequencing,

Inclusions, exclusions and sequencing

As all teachers kno\v, courses are invariably too short. Although a case can lie macle for including any language which is ne\v for the student, a principal role for the syllabus is to providc- principled ways of including only maximally useful itcms. What is maximally useful is no t intrinsic to the languagc, but relatcs to particular courses, antl ei.en particulai- studcnts. A primarv distinction is lwt\vccn long courscs ~ perhaps over sevcral years in school and short intensive coui-scs intended to hale a high surrender valuv. Too many coursvs are constructed on the implicit assumption that thcy arc intermcdiatc stages on the way to full language comprtcncc. Only rarely is this the ca most students \vi11 remain intermediate and this should influence the language selected for inclusion.

Within the I .cxical Approach:

~ All lo\\ lexel tourws \ \ i l l gi\c students a large \ocal)ular), eicn if the! are initiall) unable to grammaticalise it Pragmaticallj useful lcxlc al item\, partitularl) in\titutionalited uttcrancct, Iorm a significant component of all coursc5 A halance v 111 he maintaincd bet\\ n (relati\ el! rai e ) I\ ord5 cari j mg considcralilc incaning, and (rclati\el\ v idc antl frrqucnt) pattern5 1% ith Ion mcaning content

Three principal reasons may he itlcntifietl for excluding material: it is not identified, not valued, or not prioritised. In the days of structural syllabuses, mastery of structure was rcgarticd as synonymous with language learning; the consequent emphasis of structure within syllabuses \vas wholly to lie expected. When the influence of pragmatics \vas felt

48 M I C H A E L L E W I S

in language teaching, functions became a familiar term to teachers. As a result CZbtildyou l i k e . . .? was re-identified as Ofleering; its re-identitication allowctl it to bc re-valued, and replaced, much carlier in courses. Within the Lexical Approach diffcrcnt kinds of lexical item may lie identified, or in relation to traditional language teaching, re-identified. Examples are trcating would as a single \vord lexical item, rather than part o f ‘the conditional’ (see hclow), or the recognition of fully institutionalised utterances which may be introduced and treated as unanalyscd wlmles contributing to, rather than tlcrived from grammatical competence.

The tension of syllabus v language and learning

Most language syllabuscs still list discrete items; this listing naturally, but misleadingly, suggests that languagc: may be learned in a similar kvay, by ‘accumulating entities’. Nunan (1988: 34), i n his comprehensive survey 5jllubu.s Design, remarks that ‘there arc general arguments against grammatical grading of content, whethcr this grading be based on traditional critcria or on more reccnt critcria stemming from SLA research’. And he quotes Widtlowson as observing, as early as 1979:

Inventories of functions antl notions do not necessarily reflect the way languages arc learncd any more than the inventories of grammatical points and lexical items. This comment reflects WitldoLvson’s claim that ‘Dividing language into discrete units of whatever type misrepresents thc naturc. of language as communication’.

The tension bctwecn language as communication antl the supposcd neccssity for tliscrctc item listing for language sTllahuses is reflected in Willis’ comment (1 990: viii):

An approach \vhich itcrniscs language seems to imply that items can be learned discretely, and that the language can he built up by an accretion of thew items. communicative methotlologj i s holistic in that it relics on the ability of learners to abstract from the language to which thcy arc exposed, in order to rccrcate a picture of the target languagc.7’hc lexical syllabus attempts to rcconcile thrse contradictions. It docs itemisc language. It itcmi language minutely, resting on a large body of research into natural language. O n the basis of this research it makes realistic and economical statements about lvhat is to be Icarned. But the methodology associated with the lexical syllabus does not depend on itcmisation.

Wilkins distinguishes lict\vecn synthetic antl analytical syllahuscs, the former being ‘a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of language has hccm built up’, \vhile in the latter, Nunan ( 1 988: 28) suggests:

Learners arc prcscntrtl ivith chunks of language which may include structures of varyin J dc recs oftlifficulty. A starting point for syllabus design is not the grammatical system ot the language, liut the communicative purpose for ichich the language is used.

b .g

Prahhu ( 1 987: 1 ), tlcscrihing his \\ell documented Bangalore Project, tlcscrilio its origins:

A strongly-felt pedagogic intuition that the development of compctcncc in a second language requires not systcmatisation of language inputs or maximisation of planned practice, liut rather thc creation of conditions in which learners engage in an effort to cope with communication.

L E X I S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S 49

Pratihu, Widdowson, Nunan, Willis and indced many others would concur with Nunan’s judgement that:

Evidence from second language acquisition research suggests that learning docs not occur in a simple additive fashion.

(1988: 30)

Syllabuses tend to isolate, divide and sub-dividc. The tacit assumption is that macro-skills are a synthetic assembly of micro-skills; that larger units of discourse are assembled from words and structurcx. Thesc assumptions arc almost certainly untrue but this raises pedagogical difficulties. Thc implications are that we should adopt a morc holistic view of language, and a task-based approach to learning, but, as Willis ( 1 990: 1 29) observes:

A shortcoming oftask-tiascd approaches is that they make it difficult to specify syllabus content, and as teachers \IT cannot he sure what has lm-n learned in the course of a given language activity or a given unit.

‘I’here is a fundamental conflict between the teacher’s natural desire to give clearly focuscd and effective lessons, and the non-linear nature of language and learning. Although therc is substantial theoretical support for task-based goal-orientated syllabus specification, most teachers continue to demand much more specific linguistic objectives for cach lesson. While endorsing and encouraging a mcthodology based on tasks and skills, rathcr than spccifically linguistic criteria, we can identify explicitly linguistic changw which arc consistent with the Lexical Approach.

Content specifying lists

One of the most intlucntial attempts to specify contcnt \vas the Threshold Level, which attempted to dc-vclop in detail the \vork summarised in A’otional Syllabuses. Somewhat surprisingly, whilst claiming a primary focus on meaning, Wilkins (1 976: 2 1 ) had a rathcr cavalicr attitude to vocabulary:

Rut it is tlicreforc with the general aspects of mcaning and use that thc categorics presented here are concerned, though they arc not less significant for being gencral in character.lhis also explains why no attempt is made in this framework to account for a lexical contcnt of 1earning.This is probably hettcr approached in terms of subject- matter and situation. At the same time, lcxical aspects cannot bc entirely excluded since grammatical and lexical tleviccs often interact significantly.

To a certain, though limited, cxtcnt the scmantico-grammatical categories themsclvcs have applications for the lexical content . . . The lexical content of Icarning, therefore, can be largely derived from an analysis of the typical topics which occur in the language use of a given group.

( 1 976: 76)

Wilkins’s vicw is, thus, that ho\vrver important vocabulary may be, it has no defining role to play within syllahus design.

In contrast, Willis (1 990: v), dacloping Sinclair’s ideas, regards vocatiulary, and quite specifically words, as the key to syllabus specification:

50 M I C H A E L L E W I S

Sinclair advanced a number of arguments in favour of the lcxical syllabus, liut the underlying argument \vas to do with utility and with the po\vcr of thc most frcqucnt lvords of English. . . . We tlccitlctl that \vord frequency \vould determine the content of our course

Instead of specifying an inventory of grammatical structures or a set of functions, each stagc of thc course \vould bc h i l t round a lexical syllabus.This lvould specify \vords, then meanings antl thc common phrases in which thcy were used.

( 1 990: 15)

It \vi11 bc notcd that, despite the retercncc to ‘phrases in which they occur’ Sinclair and Willis largely equate the lexical syllalius with a word-based syllabus. Inherent in this intcrpretation are three problems which manifcst themselves in thc coursc tlescrilied in Willis’s The Lexical Syllabus:

1 . The most frequent ‘\vurds’ are lrcquently items previously regarded as structural and, ironically, \vords of low semantic contcnt.Thcsc largely delexicalised words are highly frequent precisely becausc they often have scvcral meanings, antl their pattern profiles are cxtremcly complex. Mastcry of wortls like t o , with, have is considerably more difficult than mastcring a voca1)ulary itrm with highcr meaning content: accident, soot, slump. The word-based syllabus introduced words with Imth their highly frequcnt and much rarer meanings together. A preoccupation with the word as a unit meant infrequent meanings of high]! frequent lvords \vcre givcn preferc:nce over highly frequent meanings of rather lcss frcqucnt words within thc corpus. Some of these rarer meanings of high frequency words appear as of relatively low utility, and a relatively high confusion-factor for elcmcntary studcnts. Multi-word lcxical itcms arc untlcr-valucd antl under-cxploitcd.

2.

3.

The Lexical Approach I propose avoids these dangers. It is specifically not a lexical syllabus, and explicitly recognises word patterns for (relatively) delexical words, collocational power for (relatively) semantically powerful words, and longer multi-\vord items, particularly institutionaliscd sentences, as requiring tlifferrnt, and parallel, pedagogical treatment.

The old structural syllabuses specifically restricted vocabulary to the level necessary to exemplify structural patterns. Ironically, Willis ( 1990: 74) in his word-based approach explicitly espouses the samc principle: We .set out to achieve the best coverage we could with as little extraneous lexis as possible (i.e. extraneous to the most frequent 700, 1,500 and 2,500 ‘words’ which they selected as the basis for Parts 1 , 2 , 3 of their course). In contrast to their urge to restrict vocahulary at low levels, I advocate encouraging the learning of a comparatively large repertoire of high-meaning content nouns, adjectives and vcrbs. Although the \vords learned will inevitably he in corpus terms comparatively low-frequency, by definition they carry meaning. Rut words carry more meaning than grammar, and if it is communicative power which is thc primary objective, increased vocabulary will play a larger contribution than additional mastery of even the most highly frequent patterns of high frcquency words.There is an additional, pedagogical advantage. Willis observes that ‘profiles hccome lcss complex as one moves down the frequency scale’.This means that from a naive, student point of vicw the words are easier to learn, and any L2 L1 equivalence, which students almost incvitably make, is more likely to be accurate. ‘Learnability’ and communicative power arc at least as important in selecting words for inclusion as frequency.

L E X I S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S 5 1

Lexis contributes as a syllabus component in the folloicing lvays:

1 . Certain words deserve lexical rather than grammatical treatment are typically high frequency, de-lexicalised items. Those items \vhich enter into the

widest range of patterns, and are thus usefully if not maximally generative, arc words which themselves carry least meaning. De-lcxicalised verbs ~ huve, ge t , pu t , take , make, do ~

represent an important subcategory. Function words, often thought of as prepositions ~

of, wi th , j ; ) r , by, are anothcr. The modal auxiliaries, including would, are a third. Most importantly, would should be dealt with early in a course from a lexical point of view. I!I/ould was trcatcd in structural courses as ‘the conditional’; functions moved it to an earlier, but comparatively marginal, non-generative position. It dcscrvcs high priority as a one- word lcxical item. Interestingly, it is one ofthe items which mcrits fullest discussion in The Lexical . ~ l l a h u s .

2. A preoccupation with grammar and structure has obscured the importance ofthe base form of the verb in English. Willis comments on courses which ‘spend an inordinate amount of timc on the verb phrase’, that is, on the structure of the verb, and so-called tense formation. In fact, the simple present is about eight times as common as the present continuous in naturally occurring English and is, with thc marginal inconvenicncc of the third person -s, identical \vith thc base form. The Lexical Approach advocates the nred for a large rcpcrtoire of verbs in their lmsr or lexical form with increased attention to the highly frcquent present simplc.

3 . Communicative power is most rapidly increased by expanding studcnts’ vocalmlarics, meaning their repertoire of lcxical items, but particularly simple high-contrnt words. Thcrc is no need for over-elaborate contextualisation in the early stagcs of learning: simplc identification of signification, although in no sense mastery of the word, is an appropriate and valuable basis for increased communicative power.

4. Collocations As soon as the inadequacy o f the grammar/vocabulary dichotomy is rccognised, it heconics natural for collocation to assume an important syllabus generating role. This applirs particularly to relatively high content nouns. When these arc introduced, i t should he natural to introduce with them verbs and adjectives which form pow.l-erfu1 or relatively fixed collocations. The statistical evidence of corpus lexicography hcrc clearly reveals the nccessity of acknowledging both literal and metaphorical meaning. Often it is the lattr-r which is more frequent.

5. Institutionalised utterances Traditional grammar exercises usually include a sample sentence which providcs the model for students to produce ‘similar’ sentences. Modern research into both grammar and learning suggests that students could usefully be offered a group of sentences for comprehension and reflection. These would not exemplify ‘the grammar’, hut be pragmatically identifiablc institutionaliscd utterances which students could both use immediately to increase communicative power, and as a resource the analysis of which would provide a basis for the gradual perception of pattern.

6. Sentence heads These are very similar to institutionalised utterances. Scntcnce heads can frcqucntly he identified and provide both an immediate increase in communicative power, and a resource

Increased attention to the base form of lexical verbs

De-contextualised teaching of semantically dense items

5 2 M I C H A E L L E W I S

to aid acquisition. These scntcncc heads frequently lie somc\vhcrc Iwtwccn grammar and function on a conventional syllabus. ‘Grammar’ in grammar practices frequently tried to cover all elements o f the paradigm, consciously introducing first, second and third person subjects, singulars antl plurals; in functional practice a single sentence head C f b u l d p i like t o . . . requires students to complete thc scntcncc in different \.rays. Introspection or statistical data, ho\ve\ cr, 110th r e \ d that some combinations of, for example, a particular modal antl a particular person are much morc frequent than others; compare C o u l d ~ o u . . . and Coiild she . . .; contrast 1 might . . . and Might 1 . . .? Doyon thinkyou might . . .? and D o j o t i think 1 might . . .? Paradigms cxcmplify the possible sentences of English; \vcll- chosen groups of scntcncc heads exemplify the frequent or probable patterns of English. Functions arc all too often ungcneralisablc, \zhilc scntcncc head groups arc gcncralisablc.

I t is noticeable that the institutionalisctl uttcranccs antl scntcncc heads of spoken English arc vclry different from those of the \\ rittcn language. McCarthy is only one of many to suggcst that ‘vocabulary \vork in spoken language requires separate and additional procedures from vocaliulary teaching using written texts’.

7. Supra-sentential linking Traditionally this has liccn practised only o n a grammatical level, concerning tags, interested responses etc. In fact, supra-sentcntial lexical linking is an important cohesive device in spontaneous conversation, suggesting lexically, rather than structurally, based cxcrciscs would be morc natural and morc pragmatically c4l’cctivc. McCarthy (1 99 1 : 7 1 ) quotcs data in which:

People did not typically agree or disagree with phrases such as ‘ I agree’ or ‘I disagree’ (beloved of English course book writers); rather, there seems to lie a preference for simply using some sort of lexical relation between turns.

This suggestion is borne out in Willis’s work, antl hc goes further, suggesting that much spontaneous conversation is based on joint production, in which participants contribute matching, complementary or contradictory lexical items in the devclopmcnt o f a single unit of meaning.

Supra-sentential linking of this kind is central to spoken discourse, but quite different, and equally important features apply to the crration of cohrrent and cohcsivc written text. A central requirement of the Lexical Approach is that language material should be text and tliscoursc, rather than scntcncc hascd. Again Willis agrees, constantly reasserting that ‘only by drawing attention to occurrences in text’ can learners begin to h i l d up an adcquatc picture of language in use.

8. This is a particular cxamplc of supra-sentential linking. Observations of rea l data show that in spontaneous speech the ability to usc altcrnativc language items as value-synonyms, although they have different signification, is a key fcaturr of fluency. Thcsc value-synonyms may be both individual words (daffbdils/flower5) or fully grammaticalisctl utterances realising the same pragmatic function (That has my fu l l support. /ilbsolut+, I’dgo dong with that) .

9. ‘Synopsising’ words Traditional grammar taught so-called reported speech. As discussed elsewhere, this category is wholly untypical of naturally occurring data. Most often, thc speaker reports a whole event, rather than manipulating the words that were spoken. The ‘reporter’ summarises or synopsises the whole nt lexically and so rcquircs an adcquatc repertoire of synopsising verbs.

Synonyms within the existential paradigm

L E X I S I N T H E S Y L L A B U S 53

10. Metaphorical patterning Metaphor is often perceived as an essentially literary device. Modern philosophical and linguistic research rcveals that far from k i n g rcstrictcd to literary language, it is intrinsic to thc nature of language itself. Lakoff and Johnson ( 1 980: 7ff), in a seminal 1vol-k belonging

ntiallv to the field of philosophy, have demonstratctl convincingly that there arc many concepts which cannot be discussed except in metaphorical language. ‘l’hcy give many examples but here a single example must suffice: TIME IS MONEY.

Thcy point out that this i s an English proverb, but more than that, it is impossible to talk about time without basing the conceptualisation on the metaphor ‘I‘IMI. IS MONEY .They developed the idea as fol1on.s (in slightly abbreviated form):

Time is moncy i s a metaphorical concept. It i s metaphorical since \vc are using our everyday experiences of money, limited resources and the valuable commodities to conccptualise timc.This isn’t a necessary way for human beings to conceptualise time; it is tied to our culture. Thcre are cultures where time is none of these things.

Wc are adopting thc practice of using the most specific mctaphorical conccpts, in this casc time i s money, to charactcrise the entire sjstcm.

This is an example o f the \Yay in lvhich metaphorical entailments can catcgorise a cohcrent system of metaphorical concepts and a con-csponding coherent system of metaphorical expressions for those concepts.

They point out that in English many of the lvords used to descrilie time can also he used to describe moncy: spend, invest, hudger, profitah!,y. Here are somc o f their examples:

How do y o u spendyour time these duys.; 1 haven’t enough time to sppnre-fir thut. Is it worthjrour while? You don’t usegour time proptuhb. You ore wasting my time. This p d p t will smej ’ou hours.

Clearly, there i s a pattern here which it is \vorth\z-hilc to draw to thc attention ofstudents. Many ofthe \vords which arc uscd to talk about moncj can also be uscd to talk about timcy. This i s not fully gencralisahle, but it still constitutes a powerfully generati\ e pattern s~ stem. The importance of I.akoff and Johnson’s \vork i s difficult to over-emphasisc. It is essential reading for anyone inttwstetl in how language works.

When the Berlin n d l \vas breached, at first a trickle of peoplc camc through. Latcr, as the gap was widened, pcop1e.Jloodcd through. There \vas a constant streum of people anxious to visit friends, or rcstorc family contacts. Oncc the initial excitement wort off, thc,porr. o f people dried up.

The above passage rcprcsents my own observations of the language used hy the K.B. C. Nexvs to rcport the destruction of thc Berlin wall. An important metaphor is involvctl: cro\vtls of people movc like VI atcr. It i s almost impossil)lc to descrilir those events without resorting to ‘water-\vords’. Rut notice, as Lakoff and Johnson constantly emphasise, metaphor highlights only at the expcnse of supprcssing. Peoplc in movement may movc like water, but they are not water, water docs not rc-cstablish family contacts.l’hcrc is a useful linguistic pattern, but not an identification.

Editors on the Cobuild project were initially surprised at the prcpondcrancc of

5 4 M I C H A E L L E W I S

metaphorical usage ~ torrents arc morc likely to be of abuse or French than water. Lexicographic difficulties arise ~ if metaphorical use is morc frequent than thc litcral, and therefore supposedly core, use should it be placed first in the dictionary?Their editors have observed, for example, the importance of plant-based metaphor in discussing abstractions such as government policy: The problem has its roots . . ,;Since the beginning oftheyear, we have seen a jower ing . . . .

For language tcaching, thc importancc lics in rccognising:

a b

That metaphor is a part of everyday language. That such metaphorical usage is patterned, often in accessible, gencralisable ways.

Functions and skills

The development of communicative poivcr will be aided by incorporating a well-balanced range of lexically derived activities in the classroom. These must reflect the different kinds of lexical item. The change, however, is a mattcr o f emphasis not revolution. Grammar retains a place, but a reduced onc; lcxis plays an incrcascd role. Language content can, however, never be wholly scparatcd from othcr elements of syllabus specification. Most functional syllabuses concentrate on micro- rather than macro-functions and ‘nice’ rather than ‘nasty’ events. For many students such functions as cxprcrsing irritation, expressing dishelie_f; distancing the speaker.from the content ~ f w h a t is said, expressing condolence, telling and responding to jokes may be at least as important as accepting and reJising invitations politely. In a similar way, a lexical approach suggests that thc skills syllabus needs to be broadened. Two skills central to the Lexical Approach arc developing the students’ ability to use the dictionary as a learning resource, rather than reference work, and, most importantly of all, helping students to identify lexical phrases in tcxt.This rcturns us to the single most powerful methodological implication, namcly a tliffcrcnt attitude to, and use of, texts.

Bibliography Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. MetaphorslVe Lire By. Univ. of Chicago Press 1980 McCarthy, M. Discourse Analy~is~fbr Language Teachers. CUP 1991 Nunan, D. Syllabus Design. OUP 1988 Prabhu, N. S. Second Language Pedagogy. OUP 1987 Widdowson, H . Proper Words in Proper Places. ELT‘ News No. 8. British CouncilVienna July

Wilkins, D. Notional S,vllahuses. OUP 1976 Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus. Collins Cobuild 1990

1989

C h a p t e r 4

Michael McCarthy and Ronald Carter

D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S *

1 Introduction

HE A D E Q U A T E DESCRIPTION OF LANGUAGE is vital as a precursor of T languagc tcaching syllabuses. At the macro- and micro-level, from issues of genre down to individual grammatical and lexical choices, our findings (McCarthy and Carter 1994) have implications for how we look at the syllabus and, consequently, its content and the kinds of activities that it generates in the class. This chaptcr concentrates on those implications in discussing the design of the discourse syllabus.

2 The notion of ‘discourse competence’

Ever since Chomsky (1 965) made the distinction between competence and performance, that is what a person knows about his or her language as opposed to what can be observed from manifestations of actual use, linguists have debated just what ‘competence’ might mean. Chomsky was concerned with the fact that native-speakers have an underlying knowledge of what constitutes a well-formed scntcncc in their own language, and hc sct about trying to account for such knowlrdgc. But it was not long before thc notion of competence was expanded to embrace what a speaker needs to know about how a language is used in particular situutions for effective and appropriate communication, in other words communicative competence (see Hymes 1971).

The notion of communicative compctcncc has had a very powcrful influence on language teaching, both in terms of methodology and the goals set by syllabus planners which learners are supposcd to achieve. Thus the term communicative syllabus is a familiar one to most language teachers. Typically, a communicative syllabus will set out a variety of communicative abilities that thc learner should be able to dcmonstrate at the end of a prescribed course or period of learning. One such English Language syllabus, a pioneer in its day, recommended that learners should be able to (among other things) makc and receive telephone calls, handle friendly and social correspondence, makc short notes to record salient information, ask questions and makc comments for gleaning further information, and so on.This was the Malaysian (1 976) Communicational Syllabus for Forms 4 and 5 of secondary school (see British Council 1983; 1986). The syllabus was a classic

* Thi\ text ha\ heen atlaptcti

5 6 M I C H A E L M c C A R T H Y A N D R O N A L D C A R T E R

communicative one, \vith no rcal emphasis on rorrcctncss in grammar and vocabulary, and every cmphasis on the ability to communicate antl achi goals, a balance ofprioritics for which it came into much criticism in its o\vn country (See Mohidccn 1991). It was criticism ofthis swing ofthc pcmclulum an.ay fi-om linguistic. (i.c. grammatical and lexical) competence to a prcoccupation bvith communicativc. compctcncc alone, not just in Malaysia, hvhich led applied linguists t o question whrthcr compctcncc could ever lie seen as a monolithic concept. Might it make morc sense to think of the lcarnrr developing a set of competences, each one csscntial to using language cffcctivcly, but each one separable in terms of what could bc dcscribed and prescribed tor the syllalius and lcarning programmc?Thus grammatical and lexical kno\vlctlgc as one of thc scvcral compctences came to the fore again as an issue in language teaching. Applied linguists argued that communicativc ability was a hollow notion without kno\vlctlgc of thc grammatical system that cnablctl actual realizations of communicative acts (but also vice w r s a ; scc Canalc antl S\vain 1980). Equally, there \vas a return of interest in the prol)lcm of i-ocahulary building, lvithout Lvhich little rcal communication hias possible (McCarthy 1984; s ~ c also Carter antl McCarthy 1988: ch. 3 for a survey of these arguments). Linguistic compctencc, it mas argued, was a ne though not sufficient, condition for communicative ability. From such pressures h \\.hat most \vould agrcc i s a healthier balancc hctm n the tlcvclopment of competence in

tem antl compctcncc in its use, as exemplified in so-called eclectic .an and Walter 1984 Cambridge English Course is a good example), and in

what Yaltlcn ( 1 98 3) calls the proportional syllalius, \vherc the proportions of system- oriented knowledge and communication-oi-icntctl skills arc increasingly altcrcd in favour of the latter as the learner progresses from beginner level. The lcxical syllabus (Sinclair and Rcnouf 1988;Willis 1990), based on a faithlul description of how words arc used, represents anothcr move in the direction of integrating knowlcdgc o f the system antl knou ledge o f use.

Rut othcr questions remain for thc guagc tcachcr. If the description of language is incomplete without a description of the 1 of discoursc, and if discourse-level constraints operate simultaneously with Icxico-grammatical ones, then is thcrc something akin t o a discourse competence that can he tlescrihetl antl articulatcd as a sct of‘ goals for the syllabus t o aspire to? Rcccnt tlcliatcs in syllabus design have tended to assume that there is. Those linguists antl applied linguists who have moved a m y from the idea of competence as a monolithic concept have already addcd to thc basic notion ol’communicativc competence subdivisions such as socio-linguistic competence and strategic competence. As Canalc (1 98 3) uses these terms, they ma); I><, hricfly glossed as follo\vs:

Socio-linguistic competence an entity consisting o f two suh-components: socio-cultural rules of use and rulcs of discoursc. Socio-cultural rulcs arc conccrnctl with appro- priacy of use with regard to such features as topic, roles, attitude and register. Kules of discourse arc conccrnctl bvith features o f cohesion antl coherence.

Strategic competence vcrbal and non-vcrlnl communication stratcgics for solving problems in communication, whcthcr Icxico-grammatical problems or problems associated with sociolinguistic appropriateness.

Among the problems facing the language tcachcr who tries t o interpret these notional divisions and subdivisions arc not least that of whethcr ‘socio-cultural’ concerns can he scparatcd from ‘discourse’ and jvhcthcr such notions can cvcr lie vielied as items or entitics ‘ to be taught’, if ~ ’ e are faithful to the view that a svllabus i s indeed a list of things to he

D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S 5 7

taught and goals to lie achieved. The first problem, the separation of socio-cultural features from discourse ones, is cspccially problematic givcn, as ~ v c have argued clsewhcrc (McCarth? and Carter 1994), that such things as register antl mode are integral to the creation ot’tliscourse, not in some \vay ‘parallel’ or complementary to it. Wc haw also sought to demonstrate that isolated lists of spccch acts are insufficient to tlrscribe \\.hat sIieakcrs/ writers do and how they manage interaction over extended language cvcnts. In other Xvords, \vc see the chaining together of’functions or speech acts as inseparalile from the creating of largcr pattcrns and gcmres in discourse. By the same token, ~ v e see the realization of rcgistcrs, attitudinal features and topics as inseparable from cohcrcncc and its manifestations in surface cohesion. Even more to the point, grammar antl \ ocabulary kno\vledge should invol\e ho\\. these aspects of linguisticjbrrn create discourse; in other \vords, linguistic competence cannot be separated from discourse competence.

These views have a direct bearing on the second concern, xvhcther things can he itemized for teaching and given socio-cultural, strategic or discourse laliels antl thereti? allotted their rightful place in the syllabus inventory or check-list. How we analyse and classify language for our syllabus necessarily affects our methodology and Lvhat \ve do in thc classroom.

3 Analysis and classification

Some notable writers on syllabus design follow the view that the analysis of language into its various levels antl the classification of fcaturcs within those 1 is a feasihle hasis for syllabus specifications.Yalden’s (1 98 3) description of syllabus components sccms implicitly to accept this with a section cntitlcd ‘A further component: discourse structure’ ( 1 983: 78), and her syllahus chcck-list ( 1 98 3: 169-72) includes the following discourse components:

A 13 C 1)

Cohesion and rcfcrcncc (basrd large17 on Halliday antl Hasan 1976) Operations on text (for cxamplc extracting salient information, expanding a text) Rhetorical organization (textual functions such as generalization, classification, ctc) Overt transactional skills in spoken discourse (for example initiating, introducing topics, closing, turn-taking) .

Thcse categories certainly represcnt innovativc clcmcnts in syllabus specifications and are faithful to \vhat discourse analysts have described as above-sentence features. Wc should note, though, that categories A and C seem to be languagc fcaturcs, while I3 and D w ~ ~ ~ l d seem to fit bcttcr under the heading of‘ skills or stratcgics. This is no mere hair-splitting, antl is at the heart of thc process of analysis and classification that precedes specification antl itcmization. For instance, it could I)c argued that a feature such as lexical cohesion is an aspect of the language system antl can thus be taught as languagc knowledge, just like teaching the grammatical facts about tenses or dctcrmincrs. This would mean not only telling learners what the synonyms and hyponyms ofa particular word or set of words arc, but also demonstrating that synonymy and hyponymy in tise are often involved in the creation of well- formed text and interacti .pccch (see McCarthy 1984; 1988). Howcvcr, another vie\v might he that lexical cohesion is a language universal; as such, it liecomes more a matter of skill-training, practice and training in an intuitive skill in order to improve one’s proficiency in its use, without any need to ‘present it’ as knowlcdgc or fact.This is a crucial decision in the categorizing of syllabus components: Yaldcn ( 1 983), for example, has clearly flaggcd features such as turn-taking and closing as ‘skills’, suggesting a different emphasis from that attached to cohcsion antl reference, while ‘opcrations on a text’ are unambiguously things


we ‘do’ with language, rather than fcaturcs Lvhich ‘exist’ in the language system. But separating the ‘ivhat’ of thc language . tcm from the ‘how’ of language skills and strategic use can also bc misleading: thcrc is every reason to suppose that knowing ‘what’ can inform and support knowing ‘holv’.

Munby ( 1 978) has a simi , though much more tlctailctl, specification of discourse j iutures (cohcsion, initiating, d c oping thc tliscoursc, ctc) mixed in with textual operations (‘reading between the lines’, extracting salient points, skimming antl scanning the text, etc), lvhich, among man: other things, form a continuum from basic phonemic and graphemic discrimination through to macro-planning, all ler the heading of ‘language sk i l l s ’ . ‘Discourse lcvel units’ (Munhy 1978: 27) arc still , though, as separate from language micro-functions antl grammatical/lcxical rcalizat , and discourse is a level or layer of language rather than integral to its cntirc operation.

Although, as we shall see, kvays of implementing the notion of a discourse element in the syllabus vary considerably, thcrc docs seem to I)c witlcspread agreement that the idea of discourse cannot he ignored; syllabus tcmplatcs antl check-lists as offered by applied linguists such as Munly ( 1 978) antlYaldcn ( 1 983) have a discourse clement built in. But we must now consider how more integrative vic\vs of discourse influcncc the nature of the syllabus and the tcaching that evol\-cs from it.

One problem with thc vie\vs of comniunicativc competence as implied by the syllabus specifications that we have looked at so far is that thcy havc assumed that language use can hc analyscd and described as a sct o f components of various kinds. This assumption often crcatrs difficulties in that the separation of’componcnts can produce a false picture oftheir role in creating the overall message. A good example of this is the sort of list often found in syllabus specifications of speech acts or functions, such as promising, directing, enquiring, apologizing, etc. As Candlin (1 976) points out, an inventory of speech-acts o f this kind ‘cannot scrvc any more than sentences as thr direct endpoint of a communicative syllabus’. Any syllabus consisting solcly of such a list lvould fail in two directions simultaneously: it would fail to provide the learner with a clear vicw o f thc interrelated and structured nature of elements of the language system such as modality antl mood, and it would fail to show how apologies, enquiries, promises, and so on arc actually realized in interaction and as part of a .sequence o f utterances antl how such realizations depcndcd on higher-order constraints of genre. In other words, we \vould hc guilty of dealing bvith (some of> ‘the components of discourse, not with discourse itself’ (Widdowson 1979: 248). Widdowson and Candlin both come at the problem from the other direction: communicative compctcncc is not a list of learnt items, but a set of strategics or proccdurcs ‘for realizing the value of linguistic elements in contcxts of use’ (Widdowson 1979: 248), and, just as learners may be expected to pcrccive grammatical regularities in scntcn , so thcy should be given the opportunity to interpret pragmatic clues for the attachment of value to utterances in discourse, and become themselves analysts of discoursc (Candlin 1976).

One highly innovative approach to incorporating an integrative view of discourse into thc syllabus is provided hy Aston ( 1 988). One ofAston’s concerns is to redress the imbalance towards transactional language common in much language tcaching (which wr comment on in section 4) and to get to grips with the problem of creating the contexts for interactive discourse in thc classroom. Aston too moves away from simply adding discourse as an extra component in the syllabus and effectively builds his syllabus around central and fundamental fcaturcs of interactive discourse. For Aston (as we havc argued) interactive discourse is concerned not only with illocutionary uptake (the realization of speech acts), nor just with ‘cognitive convergence’ (achieving shared knowledge and pcrlocutionary effect), but also with affective convergence (an essentially humanistic notion), with the processes of creating

D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S 59

and hvith the global and local strategies negotiated in individual contexts for achieving them.

Aston recognizes the problems created by analysis and classification as thc precursor o f syllabus specifications: any analysis claiming to describe competence and to itemize it for a syllabus \vi11 fail to capture the fact that discourse is realized by the crcative exploitation of the resources that constitute competence (Aston 1988: 1 6 3 4 ) . In this sense, the learner can engage properly with discourse only ly Cioind it.This would seem to be a strong argument in favour of thc task-hascd approach as expounded by Prabhu (1 987). In the task-lnscd classroom, languagc is tised in the process of solving preordained tasks, \vith the purpose o f promoting and enhancing uptake antl Icarning, rather than presented and lcarnt in orticr to be used later in cxcr

Aston, however, sees many problcms arising from more extreme views of the task- based approach (the extremest form of which would be the completely negotiable syllabus, with nothing preordained and everything open to negotiation among lcarncrs and teachers, which Clarke ( 1 991) claims would be unworkable anyvay). Aston seeks to build a syllalius Xvherein the learning process is not just left to gct on with itsclfin unpredictable ways, hut in which teaching can operate as a guidance.lb this end, it is not sufticirnt just to specify a set of tasks for learners to undertakc. For one thing, many of the task-types advocated by task-based syllabus designers fall into the same trap as the information-gap activities of communicative approachcs, in that they cncouragc a transactional vimv of language at the expense of the interactional. Furthermore, simply specifying tasks ignores the fact that lcarncrs can be guided in the procedural knowledge (the ‘ho\.r, things are done’ in particular speech communities) as well as the declurutive kno\vledge of‘what is clone’, both of which arc essential to the creation of coherent discourse. Aston, therefore, favours a task-liasetl approach that does not shy axvay from specifying the discour. ,tratcgics that thc lcarner \vi11 need; these will l x specified in a strategic pre-syllabus, which hc sees as a ‘contcnt- lmd’ one (Aston 1988: 188). But c n with this pre-syllabus, tasks involving the learnel- in creating discourse as the main syllabus are not enough. For Aston, the main syllabus is two-stranded, and the second strand involves the learner in hecoming a discourse-analyst, or indeed a sort of anthropologist (1 988: 184), observing and cieconstrLrcting how discourse is created.

. or outside in the real world.

Aston’s final model therefore, looks like this:

contcxt-lmctl syllabus construction tlcconstruction

(Aston 1988: 188)

Aston’s viem- of the syllabus seems to recognize that discourse is a process rather than a product (which tends to be the view of those who see ‘discoursC-as-a-layer’ in language use), but, sensibly, he sees the value both of an analysis and classification of discourse strategies as a precursor to selecting tasks for the classroom antl of making the learner stand liack a little from language and become an observer of it, though as a tliscoursr-analyst rather than as the sentence-parser and rule-discoverer of some approaches to traditional grammar- based syllabuses.

Our s is also an intcgrativc vicw, whcrcin the ovcr-arching pcrspcctivc of languagc- as-discourse will affect e r w y part of thc syllabus, including any conventional ‘system’ (lexico-grammatical) components and functional/specch-act components, however they


arc t reated, whether as a series of layers of language, or as realizations within general specifications o f discourse strategies.

4 Analysis as the precursor of tasks

Aston’s programmc favoured a ‘ lire-syllalius’ oriented tolvards strategic issues in discourse. Specifying strategics i s something that can l ie done in different ways and at different levels. Some syllabuses (for example ICC 19x6) specify a gcncral set of strategies, but it is also possiblc t o conceive of a highly detailed set lvhich translate some of the more traditionally conccivrd ‘features’ of language use into the strategic domain, and this is Ivhat we would like hriefly t o consider in this wct ion. What \z.c propose are a sct of strategy-headings that can act as a sor t o f filter lictn n the learning group antl i t s need and the specification of tasks. Each heading is follon.ctl b y example qucstions that arc raised liy each onc and the sor t of practical issues that arc likely to l x encountered in the detailed specification of tliscourscfiattrrcs that might bc encountcrcd in the subscquent tasks. We say ‘likely’ because \ re cannot always guarantee what thc outcome o f a task will lie. It will he noted that the global sct o f strategy headings can subsume what has previously h e n seen as a scparate discourse ‘layer’ by some svllalius designers. Thc most gcncral heatlings are as follows.

1 Genre-related strategies

What are the mctlia and modes that the learners \I i l l encounter? What genres arc likclj to be most useful? What patterns of interaction arc most useful (c.g. narratix e , lirohlem-4olution),

2 Coherence-related strategies

What aspects of topic managcment, turn-taking, ctc, \vi11 hc involvctl? What types of cohesion (c.g. stronger emphasis o n across-turn lexical cohesion for intcractionally oriented tasks; tlil’fcrcnt types of ellipsis in tliffcrcnt media)?

3 Politeness strategies

What aspects of facc \vi11 need to Iic atltlrcssctl? What forms of address will I>c itnolvctl (c.g. pronoun systems, mood systcms)? Holv important will reciprocity be (c.g. very important in interactional tasks)?

4 Planning strategies

What sorts o f anticipator! strategies will he i d u l (c.g. cnuniei-ativc labelling, cataphoric uses o f articles)? Will special conditions for i-efcrcncc apply (c.g. anaphora across paragraph tiountlarics in written metli um) ? What scquences oftmsc, aspect and voicc arc likely to 1~ involvcd (c.g. con\rntions rclatcd to genre)? What degree of crccitiri~. antl risk-taking with language is fcasihlc antl appropriate?

5 Convergence strategies

Informational or cognit i~e con\crgcntc: \I hat aspects of categories such as theme, mood and modalit! \I i l l be in\ol\ctl?

D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S 6 1

Affective convergence: \\,hat adjacency-pair typcs arc likcly (c.g. solidarity routines, Ixoblcm- sharing, agrccmcnt~disagrcemcnt)? What transaction-boundary features are likely (pitch-sequcncing, markcrs)! What role will repetition play in creating convcrgrncc in diffcrcnt modes and genres? W h a t tlcgrcc of cultural convcrgcncc w i l l be required? How w i l l ‘knowing almut’ language anti culture a in solving convcrgcncc problems?

6 Repair strategies

What arc the risks ol communicational prolilems o r cultural misunderstandings? Is repair likcl! to lie largcly self repair, or m o r c global, ncgotiablc repairs?

Stratcgirs invarialily overlap. Iyor example, repair strategies may involve politeness, which in itself involves cultural awareness and the problem of convcrgcncc, antl so on . Rut given the practical exigencies of dividing the discourse process, n-c \vould arguc that thc stratcgic list I-epresents a manageable antl reasonably faithful framework for syllabus and task design. What one docs with a list o f strategies for a particular learner group dcpcnds on onc’s philosophy concerning methodology. The d i s c o u r s e - h a d approach (i.c. whcrc \ve slur[ with discourse as the overall driving force of our syllalius) lends itself best, \vc have implied, to a task-liasetl methodology, in that, in this way, language is not atomized antl treated as product, thus destroying the basic notion of discourse as engaging Ivith language as process antl meaning as ncgotiatcd and contextual. Ho\ve\er, in the real world, teachers often have to \vork within clear and restrictive constraints Lvhere they arc expected to \vork to explicitly statcd classroom input and to achicvc explicitly measuralilc o u t p u t , in o ther \\-or&, syllaliuses that say rihar is to lie learnt and in \vhat ordcr.

tratcgics and the sulise- qucnt spccification of the syllalius in terms of a set of specific performance goals, only that we start from a different premise: that all such goals can, and should he, expressed as discourse goals rathcr than as Iexico-grammatical or notional-functional oncs. Ibr example, \\e might cnvisagc a ‘learners should be able t o . . .’ lcaturc including something like the follo\ving:

We see n o contradiction het\vecn our proposed list of tliscour

Ask significant favours of othcrs in appropriate secluences in\ olving 1 signals of opening 2 explaining thc problrm 3 asking 4 minimizing 5 reinforcing 6 acccding 7 thanking.

The asking of a la, our is thus conceived o f as a genre rather than as a function or spccch-act, and inlolves not only sp h-act realizations at the micro-lc 1, hut also a strategic Icvcl involving politcncss strategies (l’acc), planning (opening), convergence (reinforciny), and so on . At the Icxico-grammatical interface, o n c could specify modalitv and (drlirnding on level) use of idioms. The point is that the conventional syllat,us~as~inventoi-y view can still be meaningfully adapted to a languagc~as~tliscourse approach \vithout just atitling discourse as a layer upon the o ther layers. t..qually, such an in\-cntory, in o u r opinion, tloex not

sarily preclutle additional use of well-choscn tasks in class that can subscribe t o Aston’s ( 1 988) conditions of construction and deconstruction, nor docs it necessarily ~ireclude somc

6 2 M I C H A E L M C C A R T H Y A N D R O N A L D C A R T E R

sort of proportional syllabus approach such asYalden (1983) advocates. For us, it is the analysis of‘ language needs through a discourse perspective which is most important as a precursor to tasks and activities, whether such tasks are additional to a more conventional communicatively oriented syllabus or whether the analysis is merely a pre-syllabus for the selection of open-ended tasks that will form a whole task-based syllabus in themselves.

If analysis from a discourse point of view is to the pre-syllabus for a task-based one, then we would strongly support Aston ( 1 988) in his view that an analysis based on interactional language is just as important as one based on transactional uses of language. Real data show that the two types of language use rarely occur discretely (see McCarthy and Carter 1994: 1 17-24; Iklton 1988; McCarthy 1991 : 1 36--7). For an interactional view of language to have an input into task dcsign, the understanding of how natural conversation works, how speakers/writers orient towards rcciprocity and convergence, how they do so using systcmatic resources such as lexical cohesion and how features such as topic management are realized arc all central. It is hcrc, we feel, that syllabus designers have most to learn from what discourse analysts can offer.

Designing tasks is no easy matter, and much useful literature exists which treats with more rigour than space allows us hcrc thc factors which can make or break tasks (see especially Nunan 1989). I t does seem worth underlining here, howcvcr, that tasks which promote only or mainly transactional uses of languagc (e.g. information-gap tasks) are unlikely to engage learners in a full range 01’ discour. trategies. Discourse strategies, we have argued, are concerned with human heings presenting a picture of themselves, not just conveying information to one anothcr.Thcrcforc, if‘gaps’ or ‘problems’ arc the core features of tasks which motivate their completion, thcn we need to build in much more than just information or ‘opinion’ gaps (see Aston 1988: 192 -9 for a critique of information- and opinion-gap approachcs). Gaps in rapport, prohlcms of sensitivity, convcrgrnce towards acquaintance or friendship, gaps in self-image, problc~ms of face, all of these will assume as much importance as gaps in placcs on a map, or gaps in agrccing on where to spend a

Saturday night, the stock-in-trade of many prcscnt classroom tasks. Tasks can fulfil some of these interactional criteria by dclibcrately ‘designing in’ unpredictable reactions, ‘diflicult’ participants, goals where conversational well-king is morc important than informational transaction, and so on.

An example of an attempt at building into a task interactional constraints demanding politeness and convergence strategies, taken from the International Certificate Conference’s teacher-training programme for teachers intending to use their discourse-strategy and task- based syllabus (ICC 1986), involl participants in a consensus activity to agrce on the arrangement of furniture for a school opcn-day. Much of the task is transactionally oriented, culminating in leaving instructions for the school caretaker to execute the furniture plan. However, the person who role-plays the caretaker is required to take offence at the tone of the instructions and the task therefore cannot be complctcd until oil has been poured on troubled waters and ‘affective’ convergence has been achieved, even though cognitive convergence is already prcscnt in the written instructions for the furniture plan.This is only one small example, but it shows how task dcsign can attempt to replicate a wider range of discourse conditions, and how the ‘pre-syllabus’ might fecd into thc constructional syllabus in a more controlled way, if the dcsirc is to follow a task-based approach.

5 Conclusion

We hope that the discussion in this chapter has pointed to the following conclusion: that awareness o f discourse and a willingness to take on board what a language-as~discourse view

D E S I G N I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S 63

implies can only makc us be t te r and m o r e efficient syllabus designers, task designers, dialogue-writers, materials adaptors and evaluators of everything \ve do and handle in thc classroom. Above all, the approach we have advocated enablcs us to be more faithful to what language is and what people use it for. Thc m o m c n t one star ts to think of language as discourse, the entire landscape changes, usually, for ever.

Bibliography Aston, G. 1988 Learning Comiy . Bologna: Editrice CLUER Rclton, A . 1988 ‘Lexical naturalness in native and non-native discourse’. English Langnugc

British Council 1983; 1986 English Teaching Prof;rIe on .h‘ala,vsia. London: British Council Canale, M. 1983 ‘From communicative competence to Communicative language pedagogy’. In

Richards, J. C., Schmidt, R. (eds) Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 2-27

Canale, M., S\vain, M. 1980 ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to . language teaching and testing’. Applied Linguistics 1 : 1 47

Candlin, C. N. 1976 ‘Communicative language teaching and the debt to pragmatics’. In Kameh, C. (ed) Georgetonm Universiy Round Table on LungLiuges ant/ Linguistic<. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 237-56

Research Journal (ns) 2: 79 105

Carter, R. A,, McCarthy, M. J. 1988 Ibcahulay and Language Teuching. London: Longman Chomsky, N. 1965 ,4spects ofthe Theoy ofSyntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Clarke, D. F. 1991 ‘The ncgotiatccl s&hus: what is it and how is it likely to work?’ Applied

Hallitlay, M. A. K . , Hassan, R. 1976 Cohesion in English. 1,ondon: Longman. Hvmes, D. 1971 ‘ O n communicative competence’. In Pride, J. Homes, J . (cds) SociolingLiistics.

1972. Harmontlsworth: Penguin, pp. 269-93 ICC (Intcrnational Certificate Conference) 1986 Foreign Languages in Adult and Continuing

Education: Spec!fications,fir Stage 3 I.evel of the International Certfj?cate Conference Language Certificate System. Bonn Frankfurt: Deutscher Volkshochschul~Vcrband c.v.

Linguistics 12 (1): 13 28

McCarthy, M. J. 1984 ‘A new look at vocabulary in EFI,’. Applied I.ingnistics 5 (1): 12-22 McCarthy, M. J. 1988 ‘Some vocabulary patterns in conversation’. In Carter, R. A , , McCarthy,

McCarthy, M . J. 1 99 1 Discourse .Ana!ysissisfor hngi iage Teuchcrs. Cambridge: Camhridgc Univcrsity

McCarthq, M., Carter, I<. 1994 Lunguage 0.5 Discourse: Perspcctirzsfor LungLmqe Teaching. London:

written English of Malay students at pre- Cardiff: University ofWales

M. J. Ibcnhulay and Language Eaching. London: Longman, pp. 181-200

Press

Longman.

Munhy, J. 1978 Communicutive Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Uniwrsity Press Nunan, 11. 1989 Designing Tasks f i r the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridgc

Prabhu, N. 1987 Second Language Ped~~qogy: a Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sinclair, J. Mcl i . , Kenouf, A . 1988 ‘A lexical syllabus for language learning’. In Carter, R. A, ,

McCarthy, M. J. Ibcahulay und Language Teaching. London: Longman, pp. 140-60 Swan, M., Walter, C. 1984 The Cambridge English Course. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press Widdowson, H. G. 1979 Explorutionv in Applied Linguistics 1 . Oxford: Oxford Univn-sity Prrss Willis, D. 1990 The Lexical Syllabus. London: Collins Yalden, J. 1983 The Communicative Syllabus: Evol[ltion, Design and Implementution. New York:

University Press

Pergamon

C h a p t e r 5

Guy Cook

T H E U S E S OF C O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E

C O R P O R A : A R E P L Y TO R O N A L D C A R T E R

Introduction

O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E C O R P O R A have inspired somc of the mos t C important insights in rcccnt linguistics. They have sho\vn us, for example, that actual language us(’ is less a matter of coml)ining alistract grammar rules v i t h individual lexical items, and more a matter o f collocation; that thcrc arc grammatically possible utterances

hich do not occur, and others lvhich occur ivith tlispro1,ortionatc f r c q w n c y ; that in .tcmatic descriptions o f occurrcnccs, grammar and lcxis cannot l ie as casily separated as

have I iccn traditionally, either in pedagogy or in linguistics. Ronald Carter is right to such insights ‘cxciting’, antl his o\vn \vork with Michael McCarthv on the CANCOIlE

corpus has added t o them. As his articlc (1 998) illustratcs vcry \vcll, the grammatical constructions \ve find in actual con\.crsations arc not a l \vay accountctl for in traditional grammars.

Clearly all thcsc findings arc important , and thcy do have implications for language teaching. The problcm is, howcvcr, that somc corpus linguists (c.g. Sinclair 1991, Stubbs 1996) ovcrrcach thcmsclvcs.Thcy talk as though thc cntirc study of languagc can I x replaced by the study of thc i r collcctions, antl as though all important insights \vi11 emerge only from automatic scarchcs of their data antl no\\ hci-c clsc. Clearly such solutions to thc study of complex human phenomena cxcrt a good deal cductivc p v c r . If the tratlitional concern of linguistics language in all its cultural and 11 ological complexity ~~ could be replaced hy a neat computer hank o f data, life \vould Iic much siinplcr.

as Carter realizes ~~ far f rom straightforward. He is not one o f t h c extremists, antl his paper is, for that rcason, a \vorth\vhilc and interesting eontriliution to language teaching. He proc (1s cautiously, providing some interesting ‘rcal’ data, antl pointing out significant diffcrcnccs Ixt\vccn actual antl texthook English. He d o c s not say one should replace the othcr. In his view., materials should l ie influenced by, hut not slaves to, corpus lintlings. (In this hc sccms to agree with the view of Summers antl Rundcll (1 995) that pedagogic matcrials should be ‘corpus based not corpus hound’ , and t o disagree lvith the CORUILL) slogan that they should lie ‘corpus driven’ (Stuldis 1997).) This is eminently rcasonalilc, though for that very rcason not particularly radical. My problem with \vhat Carter says is that he seems a little hcsitant ~ or perhaps unwilling ~~~ to say \\here he stands. Ilocs he reject the fundamentalist views ofthose linguists and languagc tcaching theorists for \z h o m corpus findings arc the only source of t ruth?

Yet thc leap from linguistics t o pcdagogv is

T H E U S E S O F C O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E C O R P O R A 6 5

My first aim in this rcplv is to pursue some of the shortcomings o f corpus-tlri\en approachcs which I think Carter avoids confronting. I shall also consider some of the more extreme applications of corpus findings to language teaching. My argument is that there is an important difference bet\\ een the hard antl soft linc approachcs, that the former, by appcaring to offer yet another easy ‘scientific’ solution, can do immense damage, and that \vc all, including Carter, \voultl do \cell to consider more precisely \vhether \z e think corpus tindings mcrcly add a new dimension to earlier approachcs, or replace them.

Uses and abuses of corpora

A number 01’ Ialse conclusions can lie reached about corpora. I t is often assumed, for example, that as a description of language brhaviour, thcy arc the only valid source of facts about language; the same as a description of language in the mind; provide a goal and a route for language 1carning.Thei-e is much in computerized corpus analysis to makc us reconsider received ideas about the learning, representation, and use of language. But whcrc pcdagogy is concerned, corpus statistics say nothing about immcasurablc but crucial factors such as students’ and teachers’ attitudes and expectations, the personal relationships lxt\\ their o\cn wishes, or the diversity of traditions from which thcy comc. Conscqucntly computer corpora ~ cchile impressive antl interesting records of crrtain aspects of language use can ncvcr bc mort- than a contribution to our understanding o f cffcctivc languagc teaching.

Corpus asfact

Evcn as a rccord of‘facts’ computer corpora are incomplete.They contain information aliout production but not about reception.Thcy say nothing about how many people have read or heard a text or utterance, or how many times.’Thus a memo hastily skimmed by one person antl consigned to the wastepaper Iiasket counts equally Icith a tabloid headline read b v millions, or with a text, such as a prayer or poem, which is not only often repeated but also deeply valued. Occurrencc, distrihution, and importancc, in other \vords, are not the same. This applics to whole tcxts, hut also to shorter units. Some phrases pass unnoticed preciscly because of thcir frequency, othcrs strikc and stay in the mind, though they may occur only once. And becausc tliffcrcnt intlividuals noticc tlil’ferent things, such saliency can n inclutletl in a corpus.The same is true ofa whole host of aspects of language use: metaphors, speech acts such as apologies or compliments, interactive cvcnts such as intcrruption or

is a truism to obscrvc that there is no straightfor\vartl correlation tictv use, the intentions thcy had in thcm, and the interpretations which other pcoplc put upon thcm. If this were not so, there would be no disputes ovcr the mcaning of what people say.

Is o f formality. They arc not ‘facts’ but matters ol‘

Corpus as record

Corpora are records of language lichaviour. The patterns which rmc’r-gc in that lichaviour do not ntxcssarily and directly tell us how people organizc antl classify language in thcir mvn minds? and for thcii- o\vn use, or how language is best systcmatized for teaching. Linguists’ analyses ol’thcse data are not ne arily users’ analyses, or thosc ivhich arr most useful to teachers and Icarncrs. Thcy arc just one kind o f fact. The ways in \vhic.h b nrainmarians antl pcdagogucs ha\ c organizctl thcir matcrial in grammars, syllaliuscs, antl dictionaries ~ are also facts about language. So are people’s emotional lielirfs that one type

of language use is better than another-. We should not promote some kinds of facts at the expense of othcrs.

Corpora are only partial authorities. The cumulative languagc experience of an individual, though lcss amenable to systematic ac 1, remains far larger anti richer. Even a three hundred million word corpus is cqui\ alent to only around thrcc thousand books, or perhaps the language experience o f a teenager. This is why our intuition (in cffwt o u r random antl incomplctc, access t o our total cxpcricmce of the language) can still tell us facts about the language which cannot 1)c evidenced by a corpus (Witltlowson 1990). For example, the canonical forms of sayings antl provcrI)s occur 1 cry rarely in corpora, though they are obviously well knoum by ~icoplc (Aston 1995). Such omissions, hobvevcr, arc not merely a quantitative issue; they cannot lie rcmcdicd simply by making corpora larger and larger. They arc inrvitalilc in an approach lvhich accepts only one o f the three sources o f fact about language: observation; and ignores or villainizes t\vo othcrs: introspection and elicitation. For there arc aspccts o f language which arc knolvn but not used. Corpus linguists are fond ofobscrving that thc commonest uses of words are not the same as their standard definitions. ‘ I bet’, for example, is more rarely used in the sense of‘wagcr’, and most often in the sense of ‘suppose’ (Sinclair 1987: xi i). Rut this unsurprising olxcrvation does not at all invalidate thc view that ‘\vagcr’ is a ccntral prototypical meaning for many speakers to Ivhich more colloquial uses arc attachcd. (And indeed, thr ‘wager’ meaning is still given as the first meaning o f ‘bet’ in the Coliuiltl dictionarv.)

Description and prescription

But let us assume for thc sake of argument that corpora arc accurate records of language behaviour, that they do catalogue antl I-cwal all the important ‘facts’ ahout the language.The question then arises as to lvhosc language hchaviour is accurately recorded ~~ antl the question takes on a particularly sinistcr signifcancc whcn the corpora in question start being used not as data for dcscriptiw linguistics, but as sources o f prcscription for TESOL. For thc answ-er to the question is (as Cartcr scctns painfullv awarc) that corpora arc primarily records o f native speakers’ languagc Iichaviour. ‘Kcal’ languagc in cffcct means native- speaker English, and the only language excludcd from this category (apart from the invrntetl cxamplcs o f linguists antl textbook writcrs) is that usetl to antl by language learners. To his crcdit, Carter confronts this issue, and intends to remedy it. But the proposed addition of ‘a wider variety of international Englishcs’ will not solve the problem. This will only add other standard Englishes as spoken by their o\vn native speakers.

And then a second question arises to which Cartcr explicitly refers, hut does not anskvcr. Why should the attested language usc o f a native-speaker community bc a model for learners of English as an international language? If a certain collocation occurs frequently among British or American English speakers, must it also lw used by the Japanese or the Mexicans? This is where lve encounter an easy slippage from description to prcscription, in cffcct making the former into the latter.Thc English which is used by one or more native- speaker communities, it is implied, ought to lie the English learned for international communication.

The ready-made lexical phrases \zhich corpora reveal to he so frequent in native speaker use are moreover ~ as Carter readily recognizes ~ very often culturally specific and loaded. In deploying such units, thc foreign speaker is very likely to produce corpus-attested but contextually inappropriate language. (This is why attempts to teach set phrases arc likely to he as tragicomically disastrous in lexical syllabuses as they \vere in functional ones.) In the terms of Hymes’s ( 1 972) four parameters of communicative competence, corpus-driven


language teaching always risks stressing what is actually done at the expense of what is appropriate in a particular context.

Pedagogical issues

In an extensively quoted, and in itself excellent, essay liy Pa\vlcv and Syder (1 983) on nativc- like sclcction and fluency, corpus-liascd language teaching finds a source o f inspiration, providing a potential link lietwccn the facts of language Iieliaviour antl a theory of how language is acquired and processed in the mind. Here is the claim that mature native spcikcrs (for this is whom the essay is explicitly about) have ‘hundrcds of thousands’ of institutionalized lexicalized or semi-lexicalizctl units in memory. Though many of these units can be analysed grammatically, the likelihood is, so the argumcnt goes, that they arc often produced and understood holistically. Nativc speakers acquire, represent, and process language in lexicalizcd chunks as \\ell as grammar rulcs and single \vords.

Yet it h y no means follows that foreign lcarners must do the same.Thcy may not \rant to study language in this way; they may live within culturally tli\ ersc pedagogic traditions not compatilile with this approach; they may not aspire to or nccd native-like English; thcy may not have as much time available as native-speaker children; above all, as adults with conscious learning strategies available to them, they can choose. And \vhy should th choosr to continue vicwing the language as grammar structures and slot-filling word may not lead to native-like English, but it may lead to communicative and expressive English. It may be learnt morc quickly. And it will avoid the tedious rote learning of mundane phrases, or the bc\z.ildering refusal to teach grammar, which arc the inevitable consequences of an overemphasis on ‘lexical chunks’.

Yet cvcn if appearing native-likc were accepted as the goal of languagc learning, it \voultl still not follo\v that frequency and tlcsirability arc the same. Thcre is a hidtlcn irony in the dogma that frequcnt native-likc collocations are the best model to imitate. It is that e\en \i.ithin the native-speaker community it is often the infrequcnt \vortl or expression which is most pon-cdd antl most communicatively effective, antl therefore most sought after. This is also \\ hy foreigners’ speech is often expressive and striking. tb th for native and non-native speakers there is an altcrnati\e goal to seeking the most usual, the most frequent or, in short, the most clichktl exprcssion. It is the goal of rich, varied, antl original language. Among native speakers it is unusual language kvhich is valued. Should non-native spcakers lie trcatcd tliffercntl y ?

This lcatls to the important point that not all types of language arc cquallp valued, either by native spcakers or foreign learners. Something is not a good model simply liecause it occurs frequcntly. A good dcal of actual language use is inarticulate, impoverished, and inexpressive. Inevitably, because onc cannot teach cvcrything, part of the job o f teachcrs and coursc designers is to sclcct the languagc use which they \4.ish their students to emulate. Many foreign language students have strong feelings about this too. They tlo not Lvant to learn just any English because it occurs in a corpus, and it is patronising to overrule them. In advocating selection and modelling of corpus data, in the use of literary rather than transcribed dialogues, and in his recognition that one of the topics in his authentic data (‘straggly hair’) may have a limited topic life in many classrooms, Carter seems to agree.

To be corpus driven, in short, deprives cvcryone (native antl non-native spcaker alike) of the opportunity for choice antl to make their own impact on the language. Corpora are inevitably records of what has happened rather than what is happcning.They prcscnt us with a,fuit accompli, a fixed product rather than an open process.

68 G U Y C o o l <

Means and ends

So corpora do not neccssarily provide a goal for languagc learners. Yet even if they did, it would not follow that the liest route t o this goal is t o present rcal language usc, and to try t o persuade them to emulate it straight allay. I lcre there is a certain oddity in the corpus argument. Of course expert-spcakcr use of the language, and the rulcs which generate it, is usually more complex than that of language learners. If it were not, there would lie nothing to learn. Hardly surprisingly, the description of English which emerges from corpus analysis (taking into account as it docs the lvay in \vhich linguistic items and structures vary across genres, social groups, and linguistic contexts) is dauntingly complcx antl particular. But this description cannot he prcscntctl t o students all at once. The issue still remains how to simplify and stagc the language prcscntctl t o Icarncrs, and t o simplify the rulcs used to cxplain it, in a Ivay tvhich w i l l enablc thcm to comc gradually closer t o native speaker usc (if that is their goal). Surely the point of grammars antl textbooks is that they select, idealizc, and simplify thc language to make it more acccssihlc? Intlectl, this s w m s to l x Cartcr’s view too.

For language tcachcrs the issue remains as t o \\.hat thc principles for selection, idealization, and siniplification should he. I Icrc thcrc is already a wcalth of long standing ideas (dating back at least to the work of Palmer ( 192 1 ) and West ( 1 926)) concerning the rclationship lietwccn the frequency with bvhich an item occurs and the point at which it should be taught itleas of lvhich many corpus linguists, in their haste t o atlvcrtise thcmselves as promulgating a totally ne\\’ approach to language, seem unaware. For cxamplc, an item may hc frequent but limited in rangc, or infrequent hut useful in a wide rangc of contexts. Or it may lie infrequent h i t very useful, or appropriate for some pedagogic reason. These are factors lieyond mere description. Unlike many corpus linguists, Carter does show himself awarc of such considerations in his conclusions. But that leaves m e wondcring whether his approach is such a break from tradition as he suggests.

The hard line

This Iirings m e from Cartcr’s views ~~ moclcratc, sc-nsil,lc, anti informed ~ t o the more extreme, bu t unfortunately associated, views o f language teaching based o n corpus linguistics. Herc is the belief that what is perceived as a linguistic revolution necessarily constitutes a pedagogic one. Very often \vritcrs arc carricd a v a y I)? a single insight into language, taking it illogically to be sufficient t o change I u n g u q c tcaching.Thus Willis ( 1 990) elevatcs frequcncy counts t o the guiding principle for his lexical syllalius. Lewis (1993) considers the high occurrence of lexical chunks as a cue to tlecrcc (in a diatrilie characterized liy bombastic asscrtion rathcr than rcxonetl argument) that language tc-aching has changed forevcr, t o be rcplacetl by ‘the \Yay lorward’ (p. 196), with an ominously authoritarian definite articlc: his o\vn lexical approach. ‘Abstract, absolute kno\vlctlge of a system has had its day’, antl people who think other ‘are wrong’ (p. 74); ‘\voolly mindedncss in this mattcr leads t o I d practice which has ncgatilc long tcrm cffccts’ (p. 167).

Such approachcs arc firmly in the tradition of using linguistics theory to dictate to language teaching practicc. Their gross over- g cncralization antl over-confidence arc potcntially damaging to good teaching practice. Thcy invoke corpus linguistics as an unassailable authority, side-step all serious cngagcmcnt in debate, anti cannot take on board the kind ofrcscrvations cxpresscd hy Carter. Such corpus-driven pedagogy is a vain attempt to resuscitate a patriarchal attitude to EI.T, invoking the latest linguistics theory to intimidate tcachcrs into Iiclicving that all prcvious practicc, all thcir owm antl thcir students’ intuitions,


all the culturally various pedagogic traditions in hvhich they \vork antl study, arc, as I x w i s \vould put it, ‘hvrong’.

Conclusion

1 have contrasted throughout this rcply what I scc as the soft and the hard line \ ie-\vs of the relevance o f corpus findings t o language teaching. In thc one, \IC have the wicc of moderation urging a limited application ~ ‘modclling’ as Carter calls it ~ ivhich b y \ii-tuc of its very reasonableness does not amount to anything very radical. In the other, \vc have thc stronger view: cvangclical, authoritarian, antl dismissive of tradition, assuming that a little of the latest linguistics theory is all that is needcd t o changc- the coursc of languagc- teaching. I believe that if Carter lvcrc t o follo\v his arguments through to their conclusion, he too \vould explicitly reject, as I do, the morc extreme versions h t h of corpus linguistics antl of corpus-driven language teaching, Rut it is b: no means clear whether he d o c s so.

Notes

1 This point has bcrn made hy corpus linguists thcmsclves (Francis 1979, Stul)lw 1996: 1 I ) , hut the point is not adequately taken on board, either in corpus construction or analysis. Stubbs (1996: 2 1 ) tells us that thr. ‘deep patterning’ rcvcalrd by corpuh anal! ‘bcyond human ol)servation antl memory’, This issue is clouded by snolhish and chauvinistic claims that a particdar national o r sociolcct is lx t t c r than anothcr. But this is not a necessary componcnt of the notion that crrtain usages ~ arc morc desirable models than others.

2

3

literary, xvrittcn, or simpl\ eloquent and elegant one^

References

Aston, G. 1995. ‘Corpora in language pdagogy: matching theory antl practice’ in G. Cook and B. Scitllhofcr (cd.;.). Principle cind Prcictic-e in Applied I.inguittic.>. Oxti)rd: Oxfo~-tl Uni\ c r h i t y

Press. Cat-trr, I<. 1998. ‘Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, antl culture’. ELY’journcil,

5 2 , 1 , 4 3 56. Francis, W. N. 1979. ‘Prol)lcms of asscmhling and computerising largc corpora’ in H.

Bergcnholtz anti I$. Schader (etls.). Empiri.sche Textn.imm.ychczft. Berlin: Scriptor. I Ivmex, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’ in J. B. l’ridc and J . Holmes (cds.).

sociolinguistic^. Harmonds\vorth: Penguin. Lchvis, M. 199 3. The Lexical A p p r o c ~ h . Hove: LanguageTeaching Publications. McCarthv, M. and Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Persprctivcs for 1-anguagc

Teaching. I .ondon: Longman. Palmer, H. E. 192 1 . 7’hc Principles c?f Language StucG.. London: Flarrap (Republished 1)) Oxford

Univcrsit) Press, 1964, edited b? K. Mackin). h v l c y , A. and F. Sydcr. 198 3. ‘T~vo puzzlcs for linguistic theory: nativclikc selection and

nati\rlike fluency’ in J. Richards anti J . Schmidt (ctis.). h n g u u g e cind Coinmunitation. London: Longman.

Sinclair, J . et ul . 1987. Collins Cohuilcl English l anguuge Dictionar).. London: Collins. Sinclair, J . M. 199 1 , C o r p u , Concordance, Colloccltjon. Oxford: Oxford University I’rms. Stulhs, M. 1996. Text cind C o r p s .$nci@s. Oxford: Rlack\vell. Stubbs, M. 1997. Review of Il.sinfl Corpora,/& /-anguci,qc Re.scarch..lppliecl Linguistics 18/2: 240 3 .

7 0 G U Y C O O K

Summers, D. and M. Rundell (etls.). 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. London:

West, M. P. 1926. Learning to Read a Foreign Language. NcwYork: Longmans, Grccn. Widdowson, H. G. 1990. ‘Discourses of enquiry and conditions of relevance’in J. E . Alatis

(etl). Linguistics, Language Teaching and I.angnup Acq~iisition. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Longman.

Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical .$llabns. London: Collins.

C h a p t e r 6

Ann Hewings and Martin Hewings

APPROACHES TO T H E S T U D Y OF

D I S C I P L I N A R Y V A R I A T I O N I N A C A D E M I C

W R I T I N G : I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR S Y L L A B U S

D E S I G N

1 Introduction

N R E C E N T Y E A R S , S Y L LA B U S E S for academic writing in higher education I have increasingly focused on teaching students about the features of differing written genres. S o , for instance, we find published material on laboratory and technical reports (for example Dudley-Evans, 1 985), expcrimental rcscarch reports and other research papers (for example Wcissberg and Buker, 1990), theses and dissertations (for example Anderson and Poole, 1994) and essays (for example Roberts, 1997). The gcncral motivation of this approach is thc need to offrr appropriate dcxcriptions and models of generic texts so that thc students’ ability to understand and produce them is improved. More specifically, students arc taught about thc textual features, both tcxt structural and sentence-level, that are characteristic of‘ each gcnrc.

While this represents a valuablc development from earlier approaches which treated ‘academic writing’ as an undifferentiated, homogeneous entity, it is important to recognisc that variation is found not only from genre to genre, but also within genres. Evidcncc is accumulating that single genres vary over time (Bazerman, 1988; Dudley-Evans and Henderson, 1990; Selager-Meyer, 19959, vary from one cultural context to another (Taylor and Chcn, 1991), and varv from discipline to discipline (Berkenkottcr and Huckin, 1995; Prior, 1998).

This essay is primarily concrrncd with the third of these and, in particular, thc methods that have been adopted for the study o f disciplinary variation and the implications of findings to date for syllabus design. Knowledge of disciplinary variation is liccoming especially important with the growing trend towards inter- and multi-disciplinary study in higher education so that students may be required to work within a number of disciplines which have different views on the naturc of academic writing. We begin by reporting threc arcas of applied linguistic investigation which have explored the question of disciplinary variation in rather different ways and with rather different implications for syllabus design. First, we present Swales’s approach to genre a n a h i s and discuss studies of disciplinary variation based on this approach, in particular those which have explored variation in thc academic rmcarch

7 2 A N N H E W I N G S A N D M A R T I N H E W I N G S

articlc. Second, we outline lvork \vhich has cxamincd metadiscourre in academic \vriting that is, the part o f a tcxt Lvhich helps thc rcadcr organisc, classify, c d u a t e and react to the propositional contcnt (Vandc Kopplc, 1985) and the \ lay this varies in texts taken from different disciplines. Third, i \ c repor t studies o f one clause-level feature of tex t , t h r ~qrammatical siihjcct, that have tlcmonstratcd its significance in reflccting how m.ritcrs reprcscnt data, previous research antl thcmsclvcs in the tcxt , and h o w this varies across disciplines. A discussion o f the implications of the findings o f such work for academic writing syllabuses concludes the essay.

Throughout, our attention is primarily o n gcm-es Ix-oduccd within an academic context, either clussroom genres those produced IIV students for purposes of asscssmcnt, such as essays, dissertations and thcscs, 1al)oratot-y and case study reports, and litcraturc reviews ~

or prof;ssional p r e s thc tcxts by which scientists antl scholars communicate \vith o ther scientists antl scholars, such as conference papcv-s, research articles, monographs, technical reports, working papers, and grant proposals.

2 Approaches to the study of disciplinary variation

2. I Genre

Within the context of English for Spccific I’urposcs, the teaching o f academic lvriting has Ixcn greatly influencctl by the apliroach t o gcnrc arising from work by John Skyales (for example 198 1 , 1984, 1990). ’ This approach considers a non-fictional gcnrc t o be:

a rccognizahlc communicati\ c cvcnt charactcrizctl by a sct of communicative purposc(s) idcntificd antl mutually understood by mcnil)crs of t h r professional or academic community in \vhich it regularly occurs. Most often it is highly structured and conventionalized with constraints on allo\vahlc contributions in t e rms o f their intent, positioning, form and functional valuc.

(Bhatia, 1993: 13)

The primary cr i tcr ion, thcn, b y \vhich tcxts arc consitlcrctl to lie o f tht. samc genre is communicative purpose. If tcxts have tliffcrcnt communicative purposes, they are likely t o be o f a tliffcrcnt genrc, antl it is this shared communicative p ~ i r p s e that produces the convcntionalisctl form of the gcni-e antl its chai-actcristic linguistic features. The analysis of a genre for pedagogical purposes involves the identification o f thcsc regularities in tcxt organisation and Icxico-grammatical features antl, in addition, an at tempt to explain how thcv relate t o the tlisrource cornmnniy (Hcrzbcrg, 1986; S\valcs, 1990; Bizzcll, 1992) Tvithin \vhich the genre is produced. Such analysis can thcn bc converted into syllabuses and materials that aim t o teach students aliout tcxt organisation antl relevant language forms.

S\valcs’s ( 1 9 8 1 , 1990) pionccring lvork itlcntifictl a set of ‘movcs’, and ‘steps’ within them, which were rccurrcntly found in the introductions t o research articles in o rder t o contcxtualise an author’s o\vn research. A move is a unit \\ hich is rclatrd both t o the purpose writers h a w antl t o the contcnt they n i sh to communicate, \vhilc a stcp is a component of a move which is a morc tlctailcd option availaldc to the kvritcr in setting ou t a move (Dudlcy- Evans and St John, 1998: 89). Swales proposed ( 1 990: 141) a three-movc model for articlc introductions (modifictl from four in his 198 1 lvork) :

D I S C I P L I N A R Y V A R I A T I O N I N A C A D E M I C W R I T I N G 7 3

Move 1

Move 2

Move 3

Establishing a territory Step 1 Claiming centrality

unt i /or Step 2 Making topic gencralisations clnti/or Step 3 IievicLving items of previous research Establishing a niche

or Step IB Indicating a gap or Step 1C Question-raising or Step ID Continuing a tradition Occupying the niche

Step 1A Outlining purposes or Step 1B Announcing prescnt resrarch

Step 2 Announcing principal findings Step 3

Step 1A Counter-claiming

Indicating research article structure.

Typically, academic discoursc communities are bound togcther by subject matter, antl professional academic writing is seen as adding to the body of kno\vlcdge Lvhich is at thc core of the discipline. In addition to disciplinary knowledge, the way subject matter is discussed the genrc conventions used is also of importancc. To hecome ‘good academic xvl-iters’, students need to become a\varc ofthesc conventions, that is, how the tcxtual forms and communicative functions arc related to the expectations of the academic community to which they belong.

Swalcs’s movc and step approach has been used not only to identify the characteristics o f particular genres, Iiut also to compare texts of the same genre but from different disciplines. For example, in the prcliminarics to an invcstigation of active and passive vcrb forms in t\vo astrophyics journal articles, laronc et a1. ( 1 998) notc that S\valc,s’s ( 1 990) overview of the organisation ofthc rcsearch article as having an ‘hourglass’ shapc is not applicable to articles in astrophysics. ‘ I Iourglass’ articles hegin with a broad overview of the ficltl, narrow the focus tlo\vn to a specific area of interest Lvhich is then expcrimentcd on in somc way, and conclude wi th a widening-out of the discussion to rclatc findings to t,roadcr issues relcnnt to the ficltl. Astrophysics papers, however, are consitlcretl hy‘l-arone et (11. to have an ‘inverted pyramid’ construction in which the focus of‘ the paper is gradually narro\\ccl down, beginning with general physics, through the particular phcnomcna to explain, thc specific physics of relevance, spccific equations, to a specific solution.Thc reason, thcv argue, is that hvhile thc hourglass is a satisfactory rcprcsentation of reports of cxperimcntal studies, astrophysics attends to suliject matter \vhich cannot lie cxpcrimentcd on, so that papers in the discipline prescnt logical arguments rather than expcrimcnts.

A number of studics have examined how scctions of rcscarch articles vary across tlisciplines.Thc typical sections of research articles arc an introduction, a mcthods section which explains the procedures undertaken (often experimental procedurcs in the casc o f scientific research articles), a report ofthc results ofthc procedurcs, antl finally a discussion of these results antl their significance. Brett’s (1 994) starting point is Swales’s ( 1 990: 175-6) proposal that tlisciplinary differences in research articles are likcly to lie in methods and results sections rather than introductions antl discussions. He examines results sections in research articles from sociology and observes certain communicative categories within them, such as his Substuntiation of Findings antl .Yon-vu/itlation of’ Findings, not prcviousl)


documented as appearing in rcsults or discussion sections (for example in Relanger, 1982; Dudley-Evans, 1989; Hopkins antl I>utllcy-Evans, 1988; Weissberg and Kukcr, 1990). He relates thcsc to the methods of quantitati ,ociological research in which ahstract concepts such as ‘ethnic identification’ or ‘satisfaction’ arc prcscnted as numcrical data. These data arc then manipulated using accepted statistical techniques, and the resulting statistics intcrprcted to produce deductions about human tiehaviour. Not only are the effccts on the dependent variahle of the most significant indcpcndcnt variables tliscussetl, but so are the effects of other variables. The second o f thcsc, I3rctt found, took up more space than the discussion of the most significant findings, kvhilc thc effects of secondary variables arc assessed as either supporting (Substantiation (rf Fintiings) or lcssening the validity o f ( AJon- validation o_f‘Fzntfings) the main findings. As in Taronc et al.’s work, then, Brctt suggests that thc suliject matter and the mcthotlologics deployctl intluencc the constitution of written text within the tlisciplinc.

Holmcs ( I 997) undertakes a comparative study of the organisation of the discussion sections of articles presenting original research from the disciplines of political science, sociology and history using a Sudcs-typc m o w analysis. He identifics a total of eight moves (Background information, Statement OJresult, (Iln)expectcd outcome, Rcfirence to previous research, Explanation of unsatisfactoy result, Gcnerali.sation, Recommendation, and Outlining parallel or subsequent derdopmcnts). In comparison with similar \vmk on articles in the natural or hard sciences (Pcng, 1987) Holmes (1997: 3 3 2 ) finds that discussion sections in the social sciences, as represented bv political scicnce and sociology, are less complex, employing a restricted repertoire of moves, j e t arc less predictable. On the other hand, social science introductions have ticcn found to display ‘qreatcr complexity than those in the hard sciences (Crookcs, 1986; Holmcs, 1995). O n the basis of such cvidencc, research articles in the social sciences \vould seem to display greater complexity and elaboration at the bcginning than at the end while the revers<’ is thc case in the hard sciences. A number of explanations for such differences might be put forward. Gi\cn the rclative lack ofconscnsus on goals and methods of research in the social scicnccs, there may tic greater need to establish more overtly and in greater detail the parameters of research in the field. Morc generally, Holmes (1 997: 3 32) proposes that the greater conventionalisation o f rcscarch articles in the hard sciences is a reflection of their higher tlcgrce of bureaucratisation, measured ‘by reference to quantitative data, collaborative authorship and external financial support’ (ibid.).This view is supported by the observation that discussion sections in history, the least burcaucratiscd discipline of the three studied, have less in common with those in the hard sciences and are the least prcdictablc.

Evidence of generic variation across disciplines is also found in ‘classroom genres’ in the writing of students in higher education. In a comparison of master’s-lcvel dissertations written in highway engineering and plant biology, Dudley-Evans ( 1993) notes particular diffcrences in the discussion sections. In plant biology, considerable spacc and attention is given over to comparison of present rcsults with previous findings reported in the literature. Thus, claims about present rcsults antl explanations of unexpected outcomes are supported with refcrcnce to previous work. In highway engineering, in contrast, emphasis is on stating present results antl making recommrndations based on thrsc results, with less attention to the relationship betwern present results antl previous research in the field. From his reading of thc dissertations, Dudley-Evans’ impression ( 1 993: 145) of highway engineering is

of a discipline in which there is not a huge amount of previous research to refer to and which sees its work in the context of practical suggestions that the practising engineer can put into operation in the tieltl.


Such studies, thcn, suggest that the nature of a particular discipline, as indicated in its subjcct matter, its methods of investigation, the amount of previous research in the ficld, the level of consensus on agrerd knowlcdgc, and the degree of bureaucratization in the discipline may he reflected in its generic convcntions.This has direct implications for syllabus design. I t reinforces the need to move away not only from academic writing as a homogeneous entity, but also from homogeneous genres. While information on, for example, the sections of the research article may be useful as a prcliminary, students also need to be made aware of the specifics of what to include, what to cmphasisc, antl what to cxclude within each scction for their own particular disciplinc.

2.2 Metadiscourse

A rather different approach to the in tigation of the relationship lictwcen disciplinary communities and their tcxts is found in studies of metadiscourse in academic writing. A distinction can be made bctlveen the propositional content of a text, its information or subject matter, and metadiscourse, that part of the text which helps the reatlcr organisc, classify, evaluate and react to the propositional content (Vantle Kopplc, 1985). The elemrnts of metadiscourse have heen divided (scc, for example, Hyland 1999a) into those which, in the terminology of systemic functional grammar, serve a textual function and those hvhich scrvc an interpersonal function. Halliday ( 1 973: 66) descrilxs the textual function as

an enabling function, that of creating text . . . It is this component that enables the speaker [or writer] to organise what he is saying in such a w’ay that it makes sense in the contcxt antl fulfils its functions as a messagr,

while the intcrpcrsonal function is said to include

all that may he understood by the expression of our olvn personalities and personal feelings on the one hand, and forms of interaction and social interplay with other participants in the communication situation on the other hand.

Mctadiscoursc, thcrefore, allows hvriters not only to show ho\v a text is organised and ho\v different parts of the text arc rclatetl, but also to express thcir attitude towards the subject matter of thc text and towards the intcndcd readership. Academic disciplines have conventional ways in which writers are allowed both to present thcir arguments and to reprcscnt themselvcs, and this is achicvcd mainly in thc metadiscoursc in text. I t is through the study of metadiscourse in the texts of a particular disciplinary community, therefore, that the characteristics of that community can bc explored. Studies of metadiscourse in academic text have looked at cultural antl gender variation (Crismorc et a] . , 1993; Mauranen, 1993) and the use of metadiscourse in particular academic genres (Hyland, 1999a; Hcwings, 1999). Howc\w, it is Hyland’s ( 1 99911) work on metadiscourse and disciplinary variation that is of main concern here and reported below.

In a study of fifty- six research articles takcn from eight disciplines (microbiology, physics, marketing, applied linguistics, philosophy, sociology, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering), Hyland considers variation in the writers’ stance. Stance is part of the interpersonal component of metadiscourse and defined as

the ways that writers project themselves into thcir texts to communicate their integrity, credibility, involvement, and a relationship to thcir subject matter and thcir readers.

(19991-3: 101)


It i y considered to hale f i ~ c main components:

hedges (c.g. po.ssib/e, might, perhaps, belicr.c), through which the Ivritcr Ivithholds full commitment to a proposition; emphutic.~ (c.g. it is ohriotis, chfinitclv, o/‘cotir.sc), through \vhich the writer cmphasises the force of a proposition; attituck markers, concerned \\ ith the \vr-itcr’s attitutlc to \\.hat is said and signalled bv such devices as uttitutle r~erhs (c.g. I ci<qrec, 11.c prejer) and sentence adverbs (c.g. tmjirttinateb;, hopefiil!ir); relational markers, conccrncd \vith the Ivriter’s attempt to invoke reader participation antl signalled hv such devices as first per.son pro not in^ (c.g. rve jn t l here, let its now t t ~ r i i to) antl imperatives (c.g. consiclcr, recall, note thot); person markers, conccrnctl with the use of first puson pronouns and possessive atljcctives (c.g. rve helierz, rry tina]l..se.s iniolr~ccl) to present propositional, affective and interpersonal information.

( 1 99911: 103 -4)

The main variation found in the use of features of stance is bet\vecn ‘hard’ disciplines in the sciences and ‘soft’ disciplines in the humanities/ social sciences rcsprctivcly. Overall, Hyland found some 30 per ccnt morc features o f stance in the soft discipline research articlcs, and he attributes this not only to disciplinary prcfercn in style, but also to differcnces in \-dues antl hclic+ about knowledge and kno\ving across disciplines. For example, Hpland found a greatcr use of hedges in general in the soft knowledge arcas. This, he suggests, is hccause in thew arcas prol)lcms are I c s s clearly defined antl thus explanations arc likrly to be less assured. Writers therefore, as he puts it, have to ‘Lvork harder to engage their audience and shape their arguments t o the shared perspectives o f the disciplinc’ ( 1 999b: 1 1 1 ).

Evidence that ‘hard’ disciplines have a morc cohesivc body of agreed knowledge than ‘soft’ disciplines is also provided in the oliservation that the hard-kno\vlcdge areas use twice as many attrihutive hedges, that is, tlcviccs such as ahout, partialb; approximat+, gencralb and so on, used to restrict the scope of the accompanying statemcnt. He gives as an example (1 99911: 1 10) the following extract from a research article in mechanical enginccring: ‘for metallurgical coal is usually met by imports from the Unitcd States while virtually all . . .’. l’his kind of ‘weaker hedging’ is used, according to Hyland, when the writer m-ishcs to indicate how far results diverge from a position which the disciplinary community conceives as reality. I t is used less in the softcr knowledge arcas Iiccausc there arc fewer instances of agreed reality.

Hyland concludes b y arguing that :

Rather than thinking of acadcmic tliscourse as impcrsonal . . . we nced to think of it as reflecting the different social practices of the disciplinary communities in constructing knowledge. Simply, some fields permit greater authorial presence than othe c s.

(1999b: 121)

These findings can be incorporated into syllabuses for teaching academic writing through the acknowledgement of variation in the extent antl type of metadiscourse in the texts of different disciplines. Students nced to be helped to explore patterns of occurrence and characteristics of the disciplinc to which these patterns are related.


2.3 The grammatical subject

A third approach to the stud! of tlisciplinar; \ariation has de\elopcd from the v o r k of MacDonald ( 1 992, 1994) on the p ~ ~ m m a t i c i l l ruhlect Thc subject, or grammatical suhlt.ct (G$), has all? a)\ been rccogniwd a4 a signhcant component o f English in both ti aditional and functional grammars. The t! pica1 English sentence pattern IS 5ul1~ect Oblcc t ,

lor example Vcrli

Su7anne playcd her I iolin Sirhlect T‘erh Object

and the subject is an obligatory clement in all sentences with the exccption of inipcrativcxs. MacDonaldk rationale for focusing on the GS \vas that it is

the constituent defining the topic of the scntcnce ~ that \vhich the sentence is ‘about’ antl which it presupposes as its point of departure.

(Quirk et i l l . , 1985: 79)

Thus the GS is important for determining \\,hat a \vriter is writing ohorit antl ho\v they represent data, previous research and themselves in their texts.

In her invcstigation into disciplinary differences in professional \vriting in the humanities and social sciences, MacDonald developed a mcthod of classifying GSs on the h i s of Ivhether the); contriliutc to the content of a text or hvhethcr they are more concerncd lvith consolidating knowledge construction in a discipline ~ that is, the huilding of knowledge o n foundations laid h y other rcscarchcrs. For some disciplines, the consolidation o f knowledge is of such importance that it is reflcctcd not only at text level hut also in scntcnce- level choices. Analysis of the GS is used to demonstrate the rhetorical practices of such disciplines. For example, acadcmic texts with sentences beginning ‘Work 1,: Jamcs . . .’ or ‘Experimental cvitlencc . . .’ are clearly liuiltling on a foundation constructctl for thc discipline h y those within it.The GSs can thus l i e said to have an epistemic focus, one which is concerned \vith methods of study and the validity of knowlctlge claims. bor other disciplines, the people, things antl events that constitute the phenomena or content that arc studied arc foregroundcd. For example, in literature studies, ‘Shakespeare’s plays’ might \vel1 l ic the content or subject that is being ivrittcn about, and where thcsc \?-or& occur as the GS thcrc is said to be a phenomenal focus. Within this Iiroad two-fold division, MacDonaltl rccognises a further disciplinary characteristic. Disciplines such as those in the humanities are more concerned with specific ~icople, placcs and events, whereas those in, for examplc, the social sciences rely more on gencralisations and abstractions. This is again reflected in the choice of G S , with a cline existing hetlveen those GSs Lvhich represent phcnomena at their most specific and individualistic through to those which are most abstract.

On this basis, MacDonald (1992) has developed a classification system for GSs, a modified version of tvhich is summarised inTable 6.1 .

Thc \ -due of this \vork for the study of disciplinary variation becomes apparent if \vc compare findings from psychology, history and literature (from Macl)onald, 1992) antl wildlife hchaviour, conservation biology and legislative history (Samraj , 1995). Macnonald’s (lata are hascd on an analysis offour journal-length articles in cach discipline, \vhile Samraj analysetl six student papers from thrcc different courses which formed part of a US Mastcr’s programmc in environmental studies. The figures inTablc 6.2 show the percentagc average distribution of cach of thc seven classcs of GSs in the texts.

78 A N N H E W I N G S A N D M A R T I N H E W I N G S

Table 6 . I A classification system [or thr grammatical subject

Summary of grammatical subject classification

Phenomenal

Phenomenal grammatical subjects are thosc which deal u ith the material that a researcher or writer studics or writcs about.

Class 1 (Particulars) contains nouns rcfcrring to spccitic people, placcs, or ohjrcts, usually named (e.g. the USA, Stalin, Europe, the storm).

Class 2 (Non-Spcxcific Groups) contains gcncralisctl or grouprd nouns (..e. large ureas o f t h e country,

gullies, downland soils, the tsetsepy poptilotion).

Class 3 (Attributes) contains the most abstract, least material nouns in the phenomenal category. They arc nouns cxprcssing properties, attributes, actions o r motivations of the people or things in 1 and 2 (e.g. agricultural practices, rainfall intensities, planning).

Epi,stemic Epistcmic grammatical subjects rcprcscnt thr concepts, catcgorics, abstractions or methodological tools the researcher uses to reason ahout the subject.

Class 4 (Research Matters) contains rctrrcnccs to the constitucnts of rcsrarch and the activities of researchers such as data collection and analysis, gcnrrating itlcas and comparing and contrasting tiitfcrcnt theories (c.g. the eyoations, the,Fnal hypothesis, i t has been argued t h a t ) .

Class 5 (Researchers antl Studies) contains rcfercnccs to published research and to writers in the field (e .g. Pinch and S tory , /YY2. I ) .

Class 6 (Audience) contains suhjccts like thr gcncraliscd w e (hut not thc actual we which refers to

authors) and one oryou.

Class 7 (Discoursal) contains suhjccts which refer to the text itsclf, cithrr in whole or in part, and rhctorical questions used to organisc the discourse (c.g. this cssoy, Figure 2 , Why are mobile homes

popular ui th pensionen?).

An examination of the tablc shows some very large variations in the types of GSs favoured by different disciplines antl the grouping of these into phenomcnal or cpistemic categories. Disciplines with more epistemic subjects (classcs 4-7) foreground research methods, inferences and findings rather than the phenomena that are being studied or written about (classes 1-3). Some disciplines are clearly more phenomenal in their focus and some more epistemic. Psychology, for example, has a total of 62 per cent epistenlic grammatical subjccts, whereas literature has 84 per ccnt phenomenal. At the levcl of individual classes, legislative history and literature usc more class 1 (particulars) than the other disciplines. This undcrlines thcir conccrn with specific pcople, places and objects. In contrast, psychology uses less than 1 per ccnt of class 1 GSs. Instead, it favours non-specific, more generalised referenccs to phenomena as found in class 2 . Most disciplines, except literature, but especially the two histories, have fairly high numbers of non-specific groups of people, places or things. Class 3 GSs are frequent in all disciplines except psychology. They arc nouns which express properties, attributes, actions or motivations of thc people or things in classes 1 and 2.

Hewings (1 999) has used MacDonald’s techniques to examine writing development among undergraduate students within the discipline of geography at a British university.


Tuble 6.2 Average distribution (Yo) of GSs in tliffcrcnt disciplines antl sub-disciplincs (data from MacDonald 1992 and Samraj 1995)

GS Psychology History Litcraturr Wildlife Conservation I egislati\ c class hchaviour' hiology history

1 0 1 6 30 1 7 35 2 27 44 10 3 0 28 30 3 I 1 26 44 29 44 28 4 49 15 7 18 9 I 5 1 2 6 5 18 8 2 6 1 3 4 ~

/

Comparing essays written by students in the first and final (third) years of their programme, she found a substantially higher proportion of phcnomenal to epistcmic GSs in first-ycx essays (76 per ccnt and 24 per ccnt respectively), while the proportion of epistcmic GSs was higher in final-year essays (56 per cent phenomenal and 44 per ccnt epistrmic). First- vear essays showcd a greatcr focus on the real-world phenomena that geography invcstigatrs, as in the following example in which GSs, all phenomenal, are underlined:

Bus and rail are the obvious components of a mass transit system. The 1x1s is t h c cheaper of the two options, but even with designated bus lanes it still adds to thc problem of congestion antl has a lower capacity. on the other hand is much more expensive but has a higher capacity and takes travcl away from the roads. There arc a number of examples of mass transit systems around the world, ~ ~ m c are highly successful others arr not.

These clearly foreground the phenomena that are bring studied and indicate a priority of content over rhctorical motivations. While third-year essays were also concerned with rcal-\vorltf phenomena, thcsc were oftcn displaccd from thc subject position b y cpistemic GSs, underlined in the following examplc:

ExDerimcnts by Morpan et al. (1982) on 'detachment of soil particlcs from a sandy soil by raindrop impact in storms of 50mm/hr and 61 mm/hr for 5 minutcs duration showed that the rate of erosion untlcr a cover of hrusscl sprouts dccrrasetl as the canopy cover increased from 0-1 5 25%, but erosion increased if the canopy cover increased any more antl at 50% cover the erosion rate equalled that of bare soil' (Morgan 1986). Similar experiments were done on potato crops with similar findings. These results add to thosc ofvis which show under certain circumstances plant covers are associated with high rather than low ratcs of erosion mainly due to their influence on the kinetic energy of intercepted raindrops. Othrr cxiieriments such as bv De Ploev et al. (1 976,) recorded an increase in soil erosion with an incrrasc in grass cover. . . . Morpan (1980) showed in his study on soils in Silsoc that sandy soils in Bedfordshire are ten times more erodible in summer than in n-intcr.

O n a gcneral lc\cl, then, the model is uscful for indicating certain disciplinary trends within writing. It provides a way of focusing o n a particular linguistic fcature and uses it to tease out aspects of the disciplinary culture which would otherwise be obscure. Bv this

80 A N N H E W I N G S A N D M A R T I N H E W I N G S

means, advice on writing can he tlircctctl morc specifically to those features which reflect the underlying culture of a particular disciplinary community. GSs in successful and less successful student writing could lie coniliared and stuclcnts encouraged to classify the GSs, initially using their own criteria antl later using the I)roatl phenomenal/cpistcmic classification given aliovc.

3 Implications for syllabus design

Thc starting point of this essay \vas that the recent trend to\r ards genre-based approaches to the teaching o f academic lvriting \\as a positive tlcvelopment when compared Ivith those which rrprcscntctl a homogeneous viclv of academic M riting, undifferentiated across genrcs. Indccd, in current thinking on tertiary academic literacy it is now taken almost as axiomatic that an understanding o f generic comcntions, particularly in terms of moves but also steps and their lcxicogrammatical rcalisations, is essential in achicving academic succcss. I h c a r c h is shobving both how genrcs differ antl how kno\vlctlgc of one gcnre may tic inadequate preparation for the production of another. For cxamplc, Hylantl’s ( 1 999a) work on the metadiscourse of textbooks leads him to concludc that

students need to tic steered a n y from using textbooks as models. Too close a familiarity with the lvays that textbooks address readers, organise material and prcsent facts may mean that learners arc poorly pi-clm-cd \vhcn assigned research articles by their subject lecturers or kSP tcachcrs or when asked to write argumentative prose.

(Hylantl, 1999a: 2 1-2)

Ho\\-c-ver, in the design of syllabuses for academic writing programmes, it is necessary to rccognisc the lesson ofthc research rcportcd in this essay: that helping students to develop a knowledge of gcnrcs is insufficient in a number of \vays. First, i t is important to guard against teaching gcnres as a set o f templates to lie copictl unsxvervingly. Razerman’s (1 988) investigation of the cxprrimental article in science leads him to offer thc following caution:

the largest lesson that this study holds is not that thcrc are simple gcnres that must be slavishly followed, that \vc must give students an appropriate s c t of cookie cutters for their anticipatctl careers, h u t rather that the student must understand and rethink the rhetorical choiccs embedded in each generic haliit to master thc genre.

(l3azcrman 1988: SO)

Second, it is ncccssary to dcvelop students’ sensitit i ty to the fact that gcnres vary, particularly across disciplines. This is incrcasingly important given the growing number of studcnts in multi- or inter-disciplinary academic programmes whcrc success is dependent both on being abvarc of disciplinary variation in communication practices and on developing sufficient flexihility to producr writing that reflccts the predilections of a particular disciplinary community. Such Ilcxibility is unlikely to he achieved simply by learning the prcfcrred conventions of a discipline, but must be untlcrpinnctl hy a deeper understanding of how this reflects such matters as thc dcgrcc of consensus within the disciplinc on the definition of prolilcms and appropriate methodologies to address thcse problems, the amount of prc-vious research that it is convrntional to ackno\vlcdge, and the cohesiveness of the hody of agreed kno\vlcdgc within the discipline.

Third, we need a reassessment of ‘common-core’ and ‘discipline-specific’ components of academic writing programmes (see also Rhatia, 1 999). Common-core teaching, focusing


on the ‘language and conventions related t o the general requirements of the academic community’ (Ihdlcy-Evans, 1 995), has the advantage of being addressctl to studcnts from across tlisciplines and is thercfore efficient both in t e rms of thc numhcr of students taught and, often, financially. €Io\z.ever, it has the disadvantage ofhc ing relatively insensitive to thc pi-c~t‘crrctl wavs o f writing in particular disciplines. Discipline-specific components providc this sensitivity but usually have the disadvantages of addressing smaller numbers of stutlcnts, needing specially focused research antl being less cost-efficient, and will often h a w the atltlitional complexity of requiring the input at some stage of a subjcct specialist. Perhaps o u r goal is that of common-core tcaching mediated through a disciplinary filtcr. Whilc helping students develop an awareness of the general significance of certain of thc characteristics of writing in particular genres text organisational patterns, metadiscoursal features, grammatical subjects, for example ~ at the same t ime we need to provide them with the strategies for examining how thcse operate and why this should be so ti? reflecting on the subject matter, working practices, valucs and idcologies of the discipline or disciplines within which they are working.

Note

1 Whilc the ESP approach to genre analysis has been particularly influential in pedagogical applications, other perspectives exist, antl Hyon ( 1 996) has itlentifed t\vo additional broad areas of scholarship rcsearching non-literary genres: North American Rhetoric studies and work within Australian systcmic functional linguistics (for cxxample Martin

Samraj had a further category, ‘miscellaneous’, which is not included here. Ilcnce the figures (lo not add up to 1 00Yo.

2000). 2

References

Anderson, J. and Poolc, M. (1994) T ~ C S I S and ignment Il’riting. 2nd edn. Brisbane,

Bazcrman, C. (1 988) Shaping I1~’rirten Knorvletlge: The Genre and ActiviLy $ [ h e Experimental ’4rticle

Bclanger, M. (1982) ‘ A preliminary analysis of the structure of thc discussion sections in tcn

Rcrkcnkotter, C. and Huckin,T. ( 1995) Genre Knowletige in Disciplinuy Communication. Hillsdale,

Bhatia,V. K. ( 1 993) Ana!y.sjng Genre: Longt~agc Use in fr&-sional Settings. London: 1.ongman. Bhatia, V. K . (1999) ‘Disciplinary variation in husiness English’. In M. Hewings antl C.

Nickerson (ctls) Business English: Research into Practice. Harlow: Longman, 1 2 9 4 3 . Kizzell, P. ( 1 992) Academic Discourse antl Critical Consciousness. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg

Press. Brett, P. ( 1 994) ‘A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles’. English,fbr Specific

Purposes 1 3 : 47 5 9. Crismore, A., Markkanrn, R. and Steffenscn, M. ( 1 993) ‘Mctadiscoursc in persuasive writing:

a study of tcxts written Iy American antl Finnish university students’. IWritten Communication 10: 39 71.

Queenslantl: Jacaranda Wiley.

in Science. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.

neuroscicnce journal articles’ (mimeo).

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crookes, G. (1 986) ‘Towards a valiciatcd analysis of scirntific text structure’. Applied Linguistics 7: 57-70.

Dudley-Evans,T. (1 985) Writing Laborator// Reports. Melbourne: Nclson. Dudlcy- Evans, T. (1 989) ‘Genre analysis: an invcstigation of the introduction antl discussion


rtations’ , In M. Coulthard (etl.) Talking about Ext. English Language of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, 128 45.

I)udlcy-Evans, T. ( 199 3) ‘Variation in communication pattcrns bctlveen discourse communities: the case o f Highway Engincct-ing and Plant Biology’. In G. Blue (ctl.) Language, Learning and Siiccess: Stiit+ing through English. Inndon: Macmillan, 141 -7.

Dudley-Evans. T. ( 1 995) ‘Common-core antl specific approaches to thc teaching of academic writing’. In D. Bclchcr and G. Rrainc (ctls) ilcatlcmic CVriting in il Sccontl Language: E.s.says on Research and Pctlagogj. Nor\\-ood, N]: Ahlex.

Dudley-EI ans, T. and Henderson, W. ( 1990) ‘The organization of article introductions: evidence of changc in economics lvriting’ . I n T Dudley-Evans antl W. L. Henderson (eds) The Lungiia‘qe qf’ Economics: The ,4no!p.s c$’ Lconomics Discourse. London: Modern English Publications/ British Council, 67--78.

Dutllcy-Evans, T. and St John, M. ( 1 998) Dei.elopments in English for Specific Purposes: .4 Mult i - rlisciplinay ‘4pprouch. Camhritlgc: Cambritlgc University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1 973) Explorations in t he Functions of’l.anguuge. London: Etlward Arnold. Herzherg, B. ( 1 9S6) ‘The politics of discourse communities’ . P a p presented at Conference

on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans, 1986. Cited in Bizzcll, 1992.

I Icwings, A. ( 1 999) ‘Disciplinary cngagemcnt in untlcrgraduatc writing: an investigation of clause-initial elements in geography cssavs’ . Unpu1)lished Ph.11. thcsis,The University of Birmingham, UK.

Holmcs, R. (1995) ‘Genre analysis antl thc social scienc an investigation of the introductions, background sections antl discussion sections of research articlcs in history, political science antl sociology’. Unpublishctl MA dissertation, Univcrsity of Surrey, UK.

Holmcx, R. ( 1 997) ‘Genre analysis antl thc social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in thrcc disciplines’ . Engli.sh,for Specific Prirposes 16: 321 37.

Hopkins, A. and Dudley-Evans, ’I.. ( I 988) ‘A genre-based investigation of thc discussion sections in articles and tlisscrtations’. English-fir Specjfific Purposes 7 : I I 3 22.

Hylantl, K . ( 1 999a) ‘Talking to students: metatliscoursc in introductory courscbooks’ . English for Spec!$c Purposes 18: 3-26.

Hvland, K . ( 1 99911) ‘Disciplinary discourses: writer stancc in rescarch articles’. In C. Candlin and K . Hylantl (eds) Il’riting: Exts, Procc.s.ses and Practices. I Iarlow: Addison- Wesley- Longman, 99-1 2 1.

Ifyon, S. ( 1 996) ‘Genrc in thrcc traditions: implications for ESL.’. TESOI. Quarter(v 30: 693 -722.

MacDonald, S. P. ( 1992) ‘A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making’. IVritten Communication 9: 533 -69.

MacDonald, S. P. (1 994) Pr~fe.ssiona1 Acarlemic Writing in the Numanitier. Carbondale: Southcrn Illinois University Press.

Martin, J. K. (2001 ) ‘Tcchnicality and ahtraction: language for the creation of specialised texts’. In A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds) Analysing English in a Global Contexr. London: Routlcdge.

Mauranen, A . ( 1 993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhctoric:/l Textlinguistic Stu+. Frankfurt-am- Main: Peter Lang.

Peng, J . ( 1987) ‘Organisational featurcs in chcmical cngineering research’. English Language Research Journal 1 : 79 1 1 6.

Prior, P. (1 998) M/riting/Disciplinaritl~ /I Sociohistoric h c o u n t of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Quirk, R . , Grecnbaum, S . , Leech, G. antl Svartvik, J. ( 1 985) A Comprehensive Grammar of’the

English Language. London: Longman.

D I S C I P L I N A R Y V A R I A T I O N I N A C A D E M I C W R I T I N G 83

Roberts, I). ( 1 997) The Student :s G t ~ i d e to I?.iiting Essuys. London: Kogan Page. Samraj, B. T. R. (1995) ‘The nature of academic Lvriting in an interdisciplinary field’,

Unpuldishetl Ph. D. thc Sclager-Meyer, F. ( 1 999) ‘Kcfercntial bchaviour in scientific writing: a diachronic study

(1810-1995)’. Englishfbr Speczpc Purposes 18: 279-705. S\vales, J . ( 1 981) :Ispects pf;4rticle Introductions. Birmingham:The University ofAston, Language

Studies Unit. Swales, J. ( 1 984) ‘Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles antl its

application to the teaching of academic writing’. In R. Williams, J. Swales antl J. Kirkman (ctls) Coinrnon Ground: Shilretl Interests in ESP and Communicution Sttidies. EIT Documents 1 17: 77-86.

, University of Michigan.

Swales, J. (1 990) Genre ,Anu!ysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tal-one, E. , Dwyer, S. , Gillettr, S. antl Ickc,V. ( 1 998) ‘On the usc of the passhe antl active voice

in Astrophvsics journal papers: with cxtcnsions to other languages antl other ficltls’ . Englishfbr Spec,i/;c Purposes 17: 1 1 3 32 .

Tavlor, G. antl Chcn, T. ( 1 991) ‘Linguistic, cultural antl subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific. texts’. Applied I inguistics 1 2 : 319 36.

Vande Kopple, W. J . ( 1 98 5) ‘Somc exploratory discourse on metadiscourse’ . College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93.

Weissbcrg, R. and Buker, S. (1 990) lVriting u p Research. Engle\vood Cliffs, NJ : 1’1-cnticc-Hall.

P A R T T W O

Political and institutional constraints in curriculum deve I op me nt

C h a p t e r 7

Ronald Carter

P O L I T I C S A N D I<NOWLEDGE A B O U T

L A N G U A G E : T H E L I N C PROJECT

1 Introduction

H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N P O L I T I C S and knoLvletlge about language T is both comprehrnsive and complex. In this chapter three main perspectives are offered: a brief overview of a national language education initiative in England and Wales with a particular focus on keywords in discourses about language, English and education; thc place of grnre theory in relation to such an initiative; some research and developmcnt questions for teaching school students about language.

1 . 1 Examining language

Here is part ofa General Secondary Education paper set for 15-1 6-year-old pupils in Britain in the 1940s. Questions of this kind about grammar constituted between 20 and 30 per ccnt of thc total examination paper:

Question 1

(a) thc clauscs and show their connection with each other:

Analyse into clauses the following passage. Give the grammatical description of

In that year (1 85 1 ) when the Great Exhibition spread its hospitable glass roof high over the elms of Hydc Park, antl all the world came to admire England’s wealth, progress and enlightenment, there might profitubb have been another ‘exhibition’ to show how our poor were housed and to tcach thr admiring visitors some of the dangers that beset the path of the vaunted nelv era.

(13) State the grammatical features of thc words italicized in (a).

Reference is made to such an examination exercise at the very beginning of this chapter bccause the views of language and of language teaching enshrined within it go right to the very centre of current debates in Britain about language tcaching in the context of the new National Curriculum for English in England and Walcs. The debate is characteriscd by different political positions antl, in particular, by strenuous efforts by the British government

88 R O N A L D C A R T E R

to persuade teachers to a return to thc 1940s antl to the kinds of practiccs o f language teaching illustrated by this cxamination paper.

What are the practi Tvhich arc illustrated by this examplc? Why do government ministers wish to see the reinstated? What do tcachcrs think of them? What is the viekv taken by linguists of such practic AnsLvcrs to such questions may begin to explain why the materials for teachers protlucctl by the Language in the National Curriculum (henceforth, LINC) project \vert not only rcfuscd puldication by the British government, but also hccamc the centre of contesting iic\vs almut languagc and education.

1.2 Views of language and language teaching

The different \ iews of language and language tcac hing in rcspcct of this reprcscntati\c examination paper held ti) go\ crnmcnt, English teachers antl 1): linguist5 mal be lx-oatll! wmmarisctl under three hcatlings ( 1 ) go\crnmcnt 1 IC\$ 5 , ( 2 ) teachers’ l i e n s , and (3) linguists’ \ I C W S

GOT ernment i l e i i 7

1 . The examination papcr illustrates a manifest conccrn with measurable knoMledge. A bocly of linguistic facts can hc taught, learned by pupils and thcn tested. Answers are either right or wrong, the liody of knowlctlgc taught is dcfinite and measurable, and teachers can even be assessed lw ho\v \vel1 they teach it. The learning \vhich cnsucs is tlisciplincd antl takes places nithin a clear framework. It contrasts vividly with what is felt to he the vaguc and undirected concern with creativity and personal cxprcssion which charactcrises ivork in many English lcssons at the prcscnt timc. Such practiccs w i l l help to guarantee corrcct grammar antl standard English. They will remove sloppiness in expression antl eradicate a climate in which errors are viewed only in relation to a process of language dcvelopment and thus not always immediately corrected.

2.

3 .

7iacherc’ rreris

Until recently, teachers’ views have bccn rcgularlv dominated by what are described as ‘romantic’ conceptions of hg l i sh as a subjcct (. Christie, 1989; Carter, 1988). Romanticism in English teaching involves a classroom emphasis on languagc use \vhich is person-centred, lvhich str . the capacity o f thc individual for originality and creativity, and a concern that strict rulcs and conventions may be inhibiting to pupils anti, in the

, restrict thcir capacitirs for using the language. There is a particular stress on the primacy of speech, even in writing where indivitluals arc cncouragctl by thc teacher to find their olvn personal voice. During the coui-sc of thc LINC project shifts in tcachcrs’ perception of’ formal language s tudy were recorded, but strong rc tance remains, on thc above grounds, to the tlccontcxtualised study of language, to aching practiccs and pedagogics which arc ncc .aril! transmissive and narrolvly kno\vletlgc-bascd, and which allow little or no scope for an emergence of the pupil’s owm ‘voice’.

P O L I T I C S A N D K N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E 8 9

Linguists have taken a prominent role in the shaping ofthe National Curriculum for English in England and Wales. Most take the follohving main viclvs of grammar-haset1 tcaching and testing of linguistic knowlcdgc:

1 They point out ho\v examination papers from the 1940s and 1950s are prc(~ccupietl with the written rather than the spoken language. They point out that the analysis is invariably decontcxtualisetl since the dcfinitions required of pupils arc formalistic. Examinations such as thosc above arc exercises in the naming of parts. They point out that such examinations arc concerned lvith scntcnccs rather than texts. In fact, the text here is genuinely incidental. The focus is on a bottom-up analysis of the smallest units of language with little or no interest in eliciting from pupils how such units might combine to form larger functional mcanings and effects.

2

3

Accordingly, thosc linguists lvho advised the government did not recommend a return to the 1940s antl to a tcaching of grammatical forms by m a n s of decontextualisctl drills. But they did not reject a formal study of language. Instead, they strongly advocated programmes of study for pupils in knowledge about languagc (KAL), based on a wider range of analysis than grammar, and [. . .] clearly rooted in theories of language variation, both spoken and written. The government \vas quick to rccognise that knowledgc about language, based on a variety of texts, includes discussion of language in context, and that discussion of context is often necessarily social. Such an orientation served only to rcinforcc for the goxrnment the desiraliilitv of dccontcxtualiscd drills and exercises.

2 LINC: An in-service teacher education project

LINC is designed to make the theories and descriptions of language in the nc\r National Curriculum accessible to teachers, antl to assist them with thc language components ol’the National Curriculum lor English. [ . . . ]

In basic outline the main projcct team \vas asked to produce study units for tcachcrs which were to be used in in-service courses, in school-based follow-up and (ti and in sclf-stud! sessions. The resulting training package is therefore activity-lnscd antl open-entletl. I t contains many linguistically hascd tasks with accompanying commentarics so that teachers can work on the material in a range of‘ contexts.

2.1 The LINC ban

The LINC project assumed political prominence \\hen the government dccidctl that it did not wish to publish the materials produced by the project. Neither would it allow commercial publication in spite of interest on the part o f . ral international puhlishcrs in publishing the complete training package. Although the projcct \vas a l lowd to continue anti although the LINC training package could be made available in photocopied form for purposes of in-service training courses, such dccisions amounted to an effective ban on \videspread publication and dissemination of LINC materials.

[ . ’ . I l>cIiatcs surrounding thc LINC ban ccntrc on certain key\vortls. They are tht. satnc

keywords which recur repeatedly at times o f social and cultural change when questions of language and the nature of English as a subject are always central.

9 0 R O N A L D C A R T E R

I t is no semantic accidcnt that words such as standard, correct, and proper are among the kcy\vortls. Debates ahout the state and status of the English language are rarely debates about language alone. The tcrms 01’ thc deliatc are also tcrms for defining social bchaviour.The term English is synonymous with Englishncss, that is, with an understanding of who the proper English are. A vimv o f one English with a single set of rules accords with a monolingual, monocultural version of society intent on preserving an existing order in which everyone knows their place. A view which rccognises Englishcs as well as English and which stresses variable rules accords with a multilingual, culturally divcrse wrsion of society. Both positions include politically extrcmr versions. Thcsc range from a view that standard English is correct English and must tic uniformly enfbrccd in all contexts ofuse (with dialects extirpatcd) and that children not drilled in thr rules of stantlard grammar are both deviant and discmpo\vercd (strong right-wing position) to a view that standard English is a badge of upper-class power, antl that to require children to learn it is a form of social enslavement (strong leftning position I) to a view that standard English must be taught to working-class children so that they can \vrcst linguistic power from those more privileged than themselves (strong left-wing position 11). I t is striking how political positions converge in certain respects and how the pedagogical positions arc oftcn identical.

2.2 L l N C a n d g r a m m a r

[ . ’ . I In the LlNC training materials therc is no advocacy ofa return to the dccontextualised

drills and exerciscs of the 1950s. Instead therc is systematic exploration of grammatical differences lietwecn spccch antl writing, Iietwwn standard and non-standard forms of the language, and between diffcrcnt varieties of English. In spite of tieing described in certain national newyapcrs as a dialect project, 97 per ccnt of the examples is a LlNC materials are of pupils speaking, reading and lvriting in stantlard English. They also dcmonstrate that one of the most effective 1%-ays of learning standard English is for pupils to compare and analysc diffcrences between their o\vn dialects and thc tlialcct of standard English, discussing explicitly how and when differcnt forms are appropriate. [ . . .]

Here is an example of LINC’s approach to grammar taken from some local training materials. The example is liascd on a text in the form of a postcard delivered through the letterbox of customers of a water company.

The following tcxt communicatcs information; in this case the information concerns the interruption to water supply. Whenever instructions arc given, a ‘modality’ enters the relationship between the writcr and reader of a text. ‘Modality’ takes a number of diffcrcnt forms in English liut the presence of modal verbs is particularly significant. Hcrc are some of the main modal vcrlx in English:

can; could; will; izould; must; should; shall; may

What i s the function of modal verbs in thc tcxt that follows?

Water Company and the customcrs to whom it has distrilmted this notice? What other verb forms work, in particular, to establish a relationship between the

Commentary

This tcxt is in a curiously mixed mode. The Water Company has to inform its customcrs that repairs are unavoidable. I t has to give its customers instructions which

P O L I T I C S A N D K N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E 9 1

Notice of interruption to supply We are wrry to inform you that nccc55ar) mains repair5 in the area ma) cause an interruption to Jour 13 atrr supply hetuccn the hour5 olerleaf.

1 . Every effort will be matlc to keep inconvenience and thc duration of the shut-off to a minimum.

2. Do not draw more water than your minimum requircmcnts.

3. If the water docs go off, do not leave taps open or flooding may result when the supply is restored.

4. You may use water from thc hot tzater systrm but it must be boiled before drinking.

5. Even if the domestic hot \vater supply runs dry there will bc no risk of damage to the system, liut as a precaution kccp a lo\v fire where a back hoilrr is installed antl

turn or switch off other sources of heating thc water by gas, oil or electricity. Central heating systcms can continuc to be used at moderate tempcratures. The main \vi11 be flushed before the supply is restored b u t discolouration and or chlorine may persist for a short time. Allo\v your cold tap to run for a frw minutes to clear this watcr from your scrvicc pipe. Do not use your washing machine or other appliances during the discolouration.

We apologise again for any inconveniencc this may cause you and request your paticncc and co-operation. In case of any difficult! please contact the Nottingham District Office.

Please remember neighbours who may be older or disabled - they may need your help

they nerd to follow both in their own intcrcsts antl in the intcrcsts of other consumers. At the same time the company ncctls to reassure its customers that a more or I t x

normal service is still available, that, in spite of the interruption to supply, the company still providcs a good service and, above all, that there are no safety or hcalth risks involved for its customers so long as they comply with the guidelines and instructions issued with the notice. I t is important therefore that the company is clearly seen to lie in control.This ‘mixed mode’ is inscribed in the different modal verbs in the texts along the following gencral lines:

Mode qf rcassurance/possihi/it/c.: may cause an interruption; may persist for a short time; they may nccd your help; every effort will be madc; flooding may result; any inconvcnicncc this may cause you.

Mode ofcontrol: must be boiled before drinking; the main will be flushed; can continuc to be u s d .

Notice that some modal wrbs can signal possibility ant1 control, depending on the other words which su r round thcm as well as on the context in which thcy arc used. For cxample, ‘you may use water’ (primarily control); ‘they may nccd your help’ (primarily possibility).


‘Control’ 15 also established through an cxtensne u w of imperatne forms of the herb \.z hich unambiguouslj inform us u hat to do and M hat not to do. For example.

Do not lea\ c taps open Allow your cold tap to run

Do not uw )our 1% ashing machine Please remember neighbours

Ac tivi tv

Collcct examples of further texts in lvhich you would expect modal verbs t o be used quite extensively. For example,

horowopcs mcather forccayts problem pages

school notices recipes legal tcxts

What other examples can ~ o u find? Wh) arc modal Lcrbs concentratcd in some tcxts but not others?

It is one key fcature of the IJNC approach to grammar that teachcrs and pupils should, where possible, explore grammar in complete texts, in relation to social and cultural contexts and \vith reference both t o forms and functions. It is primarily concerned with how grammar works to construct meanings in the kinds of literary texts with which many English teachers arc familiar antl, as in the ahovr example, in the everyday texts we all encountcr in our daily lives.

2.3 Keywords

What was effcctivcly a ban on the puldication of I SNC training materials probably should have hcen expcctctl.The emphasis on language variation antl on language in context led to a too frequent rcfercnce to social theory antl an emphasis on sociolinguistic persprctives. For governments of a particular political persuasion the word social is directly equitable with the word socialrst.’l’hc training packagc itself was tlcsignctl, it was said, in too activity- based and open a manner.The govcrnmcnt cvcntually made it clear that it had preferred all along training matcrials \vbich cmphasiscd right and wrong uses of English, reinforcing such an emphasis with drills antl cxerciscs for teachers and pupils to follow, antl with a printed appcndix containing the correct answers to the exer .The emphasis should be on factual knowledge which is measurable and tlctcrminahlc, and which can be transmittctl from a position of authority rather than be discoverctl through activity-centred processes. A kcy- word here is thc wort1 drill. Finally, it \vas said that certain keyvords do not appear in a sufficiently unambiguous \Yay. In the training package words such as correct, standard and proper arc always rclativiscd to specific contexts and practices of teaching.

In respect of such key\vortls, linguists antl teachers tlo, in fact, need to find a w.ay of talking about language M h Iwttcr controls and engages \vith the cxisting public discourses, especially those of most ions of thc prcss antl mctlia. In this connection, English teachers have to apply thcir knowlctlge about language to a major problem of communication. The very \mcabulary currently available t o talk about language variation offers only apparently negative or oppositional tcrms which play neatly into the hands of those with the most simplistic notions of language and education. Thus, t o talk about non-standard English can be seen as a departure from standards; t o talk about the dangers of absolute rules of corrcctncss is sccn as an endorsement of incorrcct English or as a failure to correct pupils’

P O L I T I C S A N D I < N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E 9 3

\vork; to suggcst that proper English is relativc to contexts of use is itself improper. Space docs not allon- further exposure o f these antinomies (othcrs are traditional \-. trendy; national v. unpatriotic; basic \-. progrrssiyc; simple v. complex) but it is ea. thc generally moderate antl Iialanccd hg l i sh teacher is constructed as an ordcr, decency antl common sense. Rather than talk in terms o f standard and non-standard English, it \vould he prcferalile to talk in terms of d riptive language such as ‘gcncral’ and ‘special’ English.

3 LINC and genre theory

[ . . . ] One of the most significant recent developments is in the field of genre theory and in the teaching, in particular, of gcnres of lvriting. It is a controversial area of teaching antl learning and LINC in-service training courses and materials engage in places directly \vith key aspects of gcnrc theory, as developed in the United States, \vithin the context of European text linguistics and of work in Australia lvithin the context of linguistics. Here is a sample of the kind of analysis undcrtaken in project materials within thc frame\\ ork of genre theory (teachcrs haw already undcrtaken analysis and classification o f a range of different genres of writing):

The following piece of \vriting \vas produced by a 1O-year-old girl in a junior school in England.To which ‘genre’ of lvriting might it be assigncd?Which particular features of language use support your decision? Does the writing have itlentifiablc ‘stages’ o f gcncric structure?

Snakes arc rcptilcs.They belong to thc lizards family. Snakes ha\? no legs but for a long time ago they had c h v s to help thcm slither along. Snakes arc not slimy, they arc co\ered in scalcs.Thc scales are just bumps on the skin.‘l.hcir skin is hard and glossy. Snakes often sunbathe on rocks.This is because snakes are coltl-lilootled and they nccd the warm sun in orclcr to heat their body up. Most snakcs li\es in the country. Some snakcs live in trees, somc livc in water, b u t most livc on land in thick, long grass.

A snakc \vi11 usually eat frogs, lizards, mice and rvrn small crocodiles. (Jenny, aged 1 0)

Commentary (1% rittcn 1,) a group of teacher\)

The first stage o f the lvriting classifies the phenomenon; the second stage provides further descriptive information ahout the phenomenon (in this instance a snakc) .‘I‘hc gcnrc is that of an inJbrrnation report.

This report i s characterised by the following linguistic features: a timeless, simple present tense used to make generalisations antl to con\ general truths antl facts (lire, .srinhuthc, hure). The iterative will (a snakc ‘will’ usuall: t) also serves in this instance to convcy the sense of a general, repeated action. The \vriting is charactcrisetl ljy an absence of personal pronouns. In fact, nouns are more common than pronouns and many of the nouns are in a form (with an indciinite article ‘a’ or in the plural form ‘snakcs’) \vhich dcscribcs it as a gcncral rather than an intlividualiscd or unique phenomenon. Many of thc \-crlx used are ‘relational’ ; for example, I S , hurt, belong to , consist ofsupport a tlefining stylc o f pr

The vocabulary used i s neutral rather than cmoti\ e or attitudinal antl this


corresponds t o a report lvhich i s one o f impersonal classification rather than personal ohscrvation. Such impcrsonality is rcinforccd by the use of the passivc voice (‘they are covered in scales’).

3.1 Reactions to genre-hased teaching

1 . LINC tcams have lieen convinced b y the strcngth and depth of arguments for making the language structure of texts tnorr visililc on the grounds that genuine intervention by thc teacher and c o n s c y c n t tlevclopnient in pupils’ language use arc no t possiblc unless the relevant patterns of language arc identified. [. . .] LINC teams have acccptcd that a primary concern with personal shaping of expericnce has resulted in classrooms in \vhich thcrc i s an ovcr-concentration on narrative t o the exclusion of other gcnrcs. In a related way LINC has adopted a morc inclusivc 1 ic\v o f authorship, especially in the writing classroom. It a pts the view of Pam Gilbert (1 990: 70) that: ‘Authorship

2.

3.

i s but one of the ncncst of a long line of discursive devices which serve to entrench personalist, individualist, SIJ 11-oriented theories o f writing in schools.’ Although such a position obscures important developmental connections between spcech and M-riting, it establishes a basis lbr inore impersonal Lvriting motlcs, and thus a \vider rangc of generic types o f ivriting on lzhicli LINC has built. LINC’s introduction o f a morc gcnrc-liasctl approach t o lvriting has provoked some hostility on the Inr t of British tcachcrs. A major concern i s that such writing practices arc inherently conservative antl are designed t o produce unreflective operatives \vho will b c able to do n o morc than sustain a market economy for a conservative society. The concern of gcnrc thcorists for a \vitlcr rangc o f Mriting typcs which arc in turn closer- t o the rcquircnicnts 01’ thc \vorltl of \vork is intcrprctcd as a narrow vocationalism. What has hclpcd t o change this pcrccption is the notion of critical literacy, \vhich augments functional litci-acy to cnablc learners not only to comprehend antl produce society’s discourses, but also to criticisc antl rcdircct them, if necessary. As Michael Hallidav ( I 996: 357) has put it:

To be literate i s not only t o participate in the discourse of an information socicty;

it is also to resist i t . . . it i s rathrr pci-vcrsc t o think you can engage in discursive contest without engaging in the languagc- of the discourse.

Such mark underlines that gcnrc-Imcd teaching is both revolutionary antl reactionary. British tcachers havc bccoinc increasingly impressed by thc precise analytical work \vhich has cnablcd central, prototypical featurcs of particular genres to be identilied. It i s the samc explicitncss o f anal . which has helped both pupils and tcachcrs to develop a critical linguistic literacy. LING tcams have valuctl the overt , cxplicit and rctricval)le arguments advanced in particular I)? Martin (1989) antl KI-css (1989) bu t also 1w others. Taking such strong, clear argumentative lines cnablcs others t o ai-guc with or argue against in a systematic \lay.

P O L I T I C S A N D I < N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E 9 5

3.2 Problems and irsues

Work on the LINC prolcct has also enahlcd teacher5 to identit) what sccm to them to be some problems 111th currcnt mark in gcnre theor!, and which ma) suggest directions for tuturc research and dc\clopment Such I \ the rxtcnt of interest in Britain in genre-based work that solutions to somc of these problcm~ arc alread) being explored in a numlx,r of action-rewarch projects in UK schools and teacher-training collcgcs. 1 he main points of concern arc stated belo\r

1 .

2 .

3

4.

5.

Existing descriptions o f genre lvithin a systemic functional tradition may have tended t o neglect \voi-k in other traditions of description. There has lxcn a concentration on the rcalisations of schematic and generic structure in the lexico-grammar of texts. 1 hcrc is now a largc hody of \vork within the traditions o f text-linguistics antl Xvritten discoursc analysis on lexical patterning, cohesion, coherence antl textual macro- structure. LINC teams keep coming across texts which do not conform to any single generic structure. They are the, rcsult of mixed gcnrcs. Examples of mixed genrrs arc arguments which make use o f narratiw structures, narratives which have reporting or exposition structures embeddcd lvithin them, and reports Tvhich arc simultaneously impersonal and personal in form, that is, they arc reports \vhich also contain personal accounts of events antl specific, person-bascd rccommcntlations. LINC teams \vould thus want to emphasisc that gcnrcs are not autonomous systrms, and that accounts o f gcnrc and genre teaching may be limited in their considerable potential if they become too simplistic or narrowly monologic.

Work within the framclvork o f Australian and British genre theory on the genre of narrative tends to hc a little too simplistic overall. Recause spoken narratives unfold sequentially in time, they do not normally have the charactrristic cmhctltlings, shifts in point of view, and complexities o f narratorial presentation which charactcrise most written narrati] era1 area of continua lxt\vccn spoken and \vrittcn gcnrcs it is in11 , that literacy is not wholly construed as \vrittcn texts. Early examples lvithin Australian \vork of teachcrs modelling gcnrcs to a \vholc class ~ T T C pcrc.cived by I J N C to 11c possibly over-rigid antl tlctcrministic. A common \ icw is that thcrc has been a tendency among some genre theorists to swing thc pendulum too far in the opposite direction from romantic conceptions o f learning and teaching.

arch in domains of both first- antl sccontl-language teaching sholvs that ~ v e do learn cffcctivcly b y making things our o\vn, and by being personally involvcd in the

' o f constructing a text. It has also been demonstrated that process-lnscd approaches to writing, with an emphasis on o\z-ncrship of the text, lead to increased motivation to use language. In a parallel \Val;, there may lw among theorists in a

tcmic functional tradition a tendency to ovcrcmphasise factual, impersonal gcnrcs at the expense of the personal. Accordingly, British teachers and linguists have heen particularly imp-essrtl h y rcccnt mmk on modelling in relation to joint and individual construction which operates successfully to show writing to he both process- and Ix-oduct-based, antl that work on gcnrc can hr integrated with more holistic approaches to language learning and dcvclopmcnt. The identification o f genres for dcscription antl teaching tends to he internal to thc school .Thcrc is little attempt to identify the gcnrcs of Lvriting commonly required in

~.

[. ' .I


the workplace. For example a rcport gcnrc in a junior school is markedly different from a rcport genre in industrial or business work settings. Text-intrinsic accounts of

genre need t o take fullcr cognisance of the audiencc, purpose and context in which particular genres operate. Encouragement to pupils t o rcllcct on language has tendcd t o lie restrictcd to the patterns of IanguagcT in the gcnrc in focus. Instead, a gcncral classroom climatr needs t o he established in which talking and writing almut language leads to [ . . . ] language airureness ~ that is, gcncral scnsiti\ it\. t o different styles and purposes of language use. These include tliffcrcnces l x t m w n spoken antl wri t ten language, cxplorations of the languagc of literature, thc language o f jokes, advertising, pop fiction, and political rhetorics, and investigations of’ the continua I>ct\vccn different accents and dialects, including standard English. Such cxplorations arc a nc ary habit-forming prelude to looking m o r e closely antl analytically at the linguistic pat terns \vhich make up different genres. Analysis is not al\vays best fostcrcd by practising analysis of and reflection on language solely within the context of individual genres.

6 .

Several of these observations arc hardly ncw, and many of’thcrn have been advanced by genre theorists themselves. Teachers in Britain intcrestctl in lzriting development arc bcginning positively t o e m l r a c c xzork on gcnrc-theory and on gcnrc bvithin a functionalist pcrspcctivc in particular. Thcsc observations should I>c vicwwl in a correspondingly positive light.

I. . . I

4 Conclusions: the lessons of LINC

A project of the scale antl complexity o f LlNC cannot escape criticism. I t is important that the lessons of both succcss and failure arc i x ~ o t - d c d . 1:or cxamplc, for all their S U C C ~ S S C S

\vith tcachers, LINC materials ncctl t o he further adapted in three main ways. First, materials on reading should Iic t l lopctl t o cxcmplify in grcatcr detail what a mixed methods approach to r c d i n g entails. Morc examples antl case studies ~ - o u l d illustratc how readers use a rangc- o f different cucs and cluc-s, syntactic antl semantic, phonic and visual,

1 of learning t o read. Morc action rescarch \voultl illustrate when t o mix vhcn t o concentrate on a xinglc teaching ptwccdurc. Future LINC materials

) must also cnablc teachers I ictter t o analysc the linguistic tliffcrcnccs between real books and hooks from gr-adctl reatling schcmcs. Sccontl, supplements to existing units arc ncccletl on diffcrenccs bct\vccn spoken and Lvrittcn English, particularly in relation t o the teaching of punctuation, which depends crucially on the relationship Iiet\vccn grammatical structure and the rhythms and contours of spccch. More examples arc also nccdcd o f how standard English varies across spoken and wri t ten modcs hvhile still remaining standard English. Third, inorc cxxaniplcs arc nccdctl t o show how literary texts can stimulate enhanced kno\vlcdgc about language, especially the history of the language, antl how greater linguistic kno\vlcdgc underpins literary appreciation.

4.1 Negative conclusions

Even if the gcncral tlcvclopmcnts outlined ahovc take placc, they \vi11 take placc against a cultural background in lvhich both positive antl negative factors arc at work . The main negative factors arc, first, that some teachers will continue to pcmist with the worst cxccsscs of romanticism in their view of language learning and tcaching.l’hcy will continue t o make linguistic processes invisildc antl regard language only in so far as it provides a \vindo\v on

P O L I T I C S A N D K N O W L E D G E A B O U T L A N G U A G E 97

to content, the expression of the individual self, the kvorltl of ideas. They will continuc to refuse to see forms of language as a powerful resource for creating significant domains of meaning. Second, governments may want to intervene more directly in the shaping of the English curriculum. If so, and Lyhatevcr their political persuasion, governments may not want to endorse classroom language study which explores relationships between language and society, and which subjccts those relationships to interrogation. They are likely to continue to be especially disturbed by classroom KAL work which encourages childrcn to investigate such rclationships indcpcndently. Thcy may exert their powers to impose a language study which is ‘neutraliscd’ b y being more decontextualisctl, formalist rather than functionalist in orientation, and \vhich, above all, can be easily assessed and measured. The currently very overt demands by thc British government for grcatcr attention to phonics in the teaching of reading is but a signal of an increasing emphasis on the basics in so far as 1% hat is ‘basic’ often involvcs a dccontextualiscd language focus.

4.2 Positive conclusions

It is a positive factor that governments are drawing attention to language, recognising it as both medium and mcssagc, mounting arguments in relation to the ‘proper’ study of English, attacking the positions adopted by those with a profwsional interest in language.

n those who have thc power but not the knowlcdgc, and those who have the knowledge but not the power, the \-cry fact that governments arc forced to mount explicit arguments about language is healthy both lor proccsscs of public debate and for the cause which espouses the ccntrality of language to the school curriculum. Increasing attention to language on the part of teachers, coupled with high degrees of enthusiasm and conviction, will lead to pupils being progrcssi\-cly interested in language. Increasing knowledge about language among pupils will produce within a generation a society which is likely to be less prejudiced and ignorant and more informed and articulate about matters to do with language.

Finally, a morc positi\e view of applicd linguistics emerges from projects such as thc LINC project. I t is a view in which teacher and linguist work more collaborati\ely ton.ards common agendas. As a result, tcachcrs become more a\varc of the problems of linguistic description and, in turn, linguists begin to address problems identified by teachers, rathcr than only those problems itlentifietl b y linguists themselves. [ . . .] Incrcasingly, all concerned with language have come to appreciate how notoriously fascinating, complex and ultimately dangerous language and language study arc. In a project inspired by thc work of Michael Halliday, the final word must be left to Halliday (Halliday, 1982):

Although the battles will continue to be bet\\

. . . there is a real sense in kvhich linguistics is threatening; it’s uncomfortable, and it’s subversive. It’s uncomfortable because it strips us of thc fortifications that protect and surround some of our dccpcst prcju . As long as xve keep linguists at bay ~ v c can go on believing \\.hat ~ v e \\,ant to hcli >out language, both our own and ClSC~’S . . .

More than any other human phenomenon, language reflects and reveals the inequalities that arc cnshrinctl in the social process. When we study language sjrstcmatically . . . we see into the power structure that lies behind our ever);day social relationships, the hierarchical statuses that are accorded to different groups \vithin society . . .

98 R O N A L D C A R T E R

Bibliography

Carter, R. (1988) ‘Some Imvns for Kingman: language education and English teaching’, in Grun\vell, P. (etl.) .,Ipplied Linguistics in Socic :~ 3 , British Studies in Applied Linpi.stics (CIIT, London) pp. 5 1-66.

Christie, I;. (1 989) I unguugc Edricirtion (Oxford University Press, Oxford). Gilbert, P. ( 1990) ‘Authori7ing disadvantage: authorship and crcativity in the language

classroom’, in Christic, F. (cd.) Literuy fi)r a Chunging Cihrld (Australian Council for Educational Research, Halvthorn, Victoria), pp. 54-78.

Halliday, M. A. K . (1982) ‘Linguistics in teachcr cducation’, in Cartcr, R. (etl.) Linguistics and the Zucher (Routledge, London), pp. 10 16.

Halliday, M. A. K. ( 1 996) ‘Literacy and linguistics: a func.tional pcrspectivc’, in Hasan, R. and Williams, G. (eds) Literacj, in Sociecl, (Longman, Lnndon), pp. 339 75.

Krcss, G. ( 1 989) Liniqtiistic Procews in Sociocultural fructicc (Oxford University Prcss, Oxford). Martin, J. ( 1 989) Fuctuul IVriting (Oxford Univcrsity Press, Oxford).

C h a p t e r 8

Gary M. Jones

B I L I N G U A L E D U C A T I O N A N D S Y L L A B U S

D E S I G N : TOWARDS A WORI<ABLE

B L U E P R I N T

Introduction

R U N E I D A R U S S A L A M (henceforth Brunei) has a hilingual education system in B which two languages, Rahasa hlelayu and English, are used. As this paper will suggest, ho\\ ever, the two languages should not lie regarded as indcpcntlcnt variables or in any way as competing with one another, but as k i n g highly intcr-dcpcndent and complementary. In Brunei, the final school leaving examination (the GCE ‘0’ lewl) has determined the syllabuses of the individual school subjects, with the result that subject syllabuses have been planned in isolation and then joined to create the school curriculum. In a bilingual system, such subject-centred planning makes little pro1 ision for the tlevclopmcnt of t\vo languages as intcrlocking variables. Language development is considered in much the same way as any other ‘suliject’: in isolation rather than as complementing other sulijects antl playing a key rolc in the child’s owrall cognitivc as well as educational d lopmcnt. As I hope this paper \vi11 demonstrate, syllabus design should play a crucial role in a bilingual education system and careful consideration must lie given to the timing and introduction of the various school subjects and their allottcd language medium.

[. . . I

The current curriculum

The present school syllabus, as sho\vn inTable 8.1 , shifts in three stcps from a predominantly Malay-medium to a predominantly English-medium system. These stage shifts, how are abrupt rather than gradual.

At Primary 4, when the pupils arc eight ycars old, the first and most important of the transitional stcps is taken. A t this time, in addition to English Language as a subjcct, Mathcmatics, Science, History antl Geography are introduced antl taught through English. This is a most demanding and difficult change for pupils and tcachcrs alike. Ramirez et a l . (1 99 1 ) haw notcd that:

there is some evidence that suggests that when limited English-proficient students receive most of their instruction in their home language, thry should not lie aliruptly transferred into a program that uses only English.

(Ramirez et al . , 1991 : 40)

1 0 0 G A R Y M . J O N E S

Tcihle 8. I Compulsory and cxaminablc suhjccts in Rrunri priniarv antl sccontlarv schools

English Language

Englith Language Mathematic5 Mictor)

Science Gcograph:

English I.anguagc Mathematics Science Geography

English I anguagc Mathematics Scicncc/Art/T'echnical Subjccts (clcpcntling on stream)

I oii cr PrimoLy (age 5-8) Mala! I anguagc Mathematics General Studies Islamic Rcligious Kno\z.le.tlgc Physical Education Arts antl Handicraft Civics

llppcr Primor) (ugc 9 I I ) Malay Languagc Islamic Religious Kno\z.lctlge Physical Education Arts and Handicraft Civics

1 . o ~ cr Seconduy (uge 12 I J) Malay Languagr Islamic Kcligious Knowlcclgc Historv

Although some Malay continues to be usctl in the RI-uncian system, at Primary 4 thcrc is an abrupt change, antl this occurs at a time when the pupils have only a limited proficiency in English. Not only is the number of English-medium hours greatly increased, but the incrcasc is in some of' the most cognitivcly demanding subjects, subjccts which Cummins (1 984) would characterise as precisely those that require a well-tlcvclopcd L2 proficiency.

BICS and CALP

Cummins (1 984) has in fact distinguished bctween two sets of language skills: basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive acadcmic language proficiency (CALP). He argucs that children will be unable to cope with the school curriculum unlcss their cognitive academic language proficicncy (CAW) is sufficiently dcvclopcd. A child's language-cognitive abilitics nccd to be sufficiently ~ . c l l tlevclopcd to cope with the curricular processes of the classroom. This proficicncy could be tlevcloped in either of the tiilingual child's languages or in both simultaneously. In Cummins's ( 1 984: 143) opinion, CALP involvcs some universal undcrlying proficicncy which is shared across languages. Once acquired in one language it can tic transferred to any other language. Thus, proticicncy of this sort acquired in Malay could hc transferred to English-medium classes antl vice versa.

Cummins develops thc concept of RICS antl CALI' in the four quadrant model which is reproduccd as Figure 8.1 .

B I L I N G U A L E D U C A T I O N A N D S Y L L A B U S D E S I G N 1 0 1

Cogillti\ cl) undcmantling

H B

c I )

C‘ogniti\ cl\ tlcinantling

(RICS)

ConCcxt-cmbctltlctl Contcxt rctluc c d

(CAI P)

Flgtrre 8. I RICS ant1 CALI’ Sorrrcc: Curnmins. 198 1

In the Brunei context, subjects such as Mathematics and Science, which arc cognitively demanding and often context-retlucrd (based on abstract rather than concrete examples), would be placed in the fourth quadrant (D), whilc those such as Art and Physical Education, which arc cognitively undemanding and generally context-embeddetl, xvould be placed in the first quadrant (A). What should be of some conccrn to curriculum designers in Brunei is that Cummins ( 1 98 1 ) hclicvcs that it often takcs one or t\vo years for a child to acquire context-eml~edde~l second language fluency (the typ in Art or Physical Education classes), but from fivr to years to accluirr context-reduced fluency (working with more abstract subjects). If thi case, then after only three years o f English 1,anguagr as a subject at lower primary school, Bruncian children arc unlikely to haw thc rcquired English proticicncy to study the type of cognitivel! demanding, contcxt- reduced subjects that the); arc currcntl); introduced to in Primary 4. [. . .]

Cummins’s concept o f BlCS and CALP has been criticiscd for being too simplistic. Romaine ( 1 989) argues that language skills cannot be compartmentalisetl as neatly as Cummins suggests and that Cummins is guilty of equating semantic development with cognitive development. I t is ccrtainly the case that not all subjects can be simply and easily placed in their rrspcctivc quadrants. Science will allvays be cognitively demanding, but it could be taught in a context-cmbcdded as \vel1 as a contcxt-rcduccd style.’l’he same is true of most subjects: much dcixnds upon the style and skill of the teacher. Nevertheless, while it might he difficult to neatly place all school subjects into one of‘ the four quadrants, Cummins’s motlcl does provide insight into Lvhy pupils \vorking in a sccond language may struggle in some subjects hut do wrll in othcrs. Most important is that Cummins hcli context-reduccd, cogniti\rl!.-demantling communication capaliility develops intlependcntly and can be promoted by either or both languages. [ . . .] If kno\\lctlgc is transferable across languages, then thew is no nerd to begin the study of thcsc academically tlrmanding subjects at an early age through the medium of‘ English to prcparc for an English-medium examination that will he takcn eight years later.

language that might IK d

1. ’ . I

Threshold levels

The present assuniption in Brunei is that subjects which will be examined in English at ‘0’ level at age 16 should bc taught through the medium of English from as early an agc as possihle. Subjects that arc eventually examined in Malay are therefore taught through the medium of Malay throughout. [ . . . ]

This present division of Malay-medium/English-medium subjects, cspccially a t thc primary lc\-cl, is putting an unncccssary strain on pupils and the education system. Many

1 0 2 G A R Y M . J O N E S

pupils have an insufficient command of English to prolxrly follo\v their new subjects, cspecially Mathematics antl Science. The result is that many pupils arc failing to acquire either sufficient subject knowledge o r to imlx-ove thcir language skills. 1. . .]

The shift to cognitivcly and linguistically dcmantling tasks at Primary 4 is at present made on the assumption that pupils ha\ c sufficient mastcry of English t o actually study through the medium of English (as \\‘as originally cnvisagetl in 1951). This assumes that pupils have attained some miniinurn languagc aliility or threshold. [. . . ]

Although language thresholds \vert not discussed as such hack in the 1950s, rcccnt clarification of what they involve helps to licttci- clarify the situation in Brunei and relate language levels there to those attained elsc\vhci-e.

rilie the threshold level in terms of the type of functions that a young European learner should be ali lc to pcrfoi-m in the target language. These functions are incvitalily Euroccntric, rcflccting the nccds of Europcan stutlents.They include being alile to understand and use the target languagc as a medium of instruction antl as a language of social interaction in English classes antl among learners during breaks and at mealtimes; lwing able to report and discuss prolilcms relating to teaching, social conditions and accommodation and also how to follow admission procedures t o cntcr teaching institutions.

Van Ek and Trim ( 1 991 ) specify thc numlicr of tcaching hours that should be needed to attain the threshold level of proficiency: t \vo t o thrcc hours per Lvcck, 35 to 40 \vccks a w a r over two to three years. A minimum of 140 hours of teaching and a maximum of 360 hours. In Bruneian lower primary schools, prior to transfer to Primary 4 and the teaching of acadcmically demanding subjects through the medium of English, Hruneian pupils receive approximately 262 hours teaching in and on the English language (two and a half hours per week, 35 weeks a year over three years). It should also Iic rcmcmbcrcd that these Bruneian children arc very young (oltlcr Icarncrs may no t ncccssarily lie Iwttcr learners but they do understand the educational Iiroccss and a rc thcrcforc faster Icarncrs, as Singlcton, 1 989, has oliservetl), that they may not ha1.c a vc rv supportive learning c n \ ironmcnt outside school, especially for the tlcvclopnient o f Lnglish, antl that English is unrelated to any of their other languages. These arc condition5 \vhich must surely crcatc greater language studying difficulties than for their European peers.

I . . . ] In 195 1 , with selected pupils following intcnsivc personal tuition, minimum proficiency levels \z-crc presumahlv consitlercd attainable. Ho\\ er, the Same is not t rue today of large mixed ahilitj classcs ofchiltlrcn. Many pupils arc failing to attain a minimum proficiency in English liefore the introduction of cognitivcly and thcrcby linguistically dcmanding English-medium sulijccts. It is probably the case that they are only reaching such a level w h m they cntcr Lower Secondary school, at \vhich time thcv should really be functioning at an intermediary level hcyontl the sccond threshold. This level, in turn, may only be reached at the point these pupils rcach upper secondary, at which timc the pupils have to take their ‘0’ levels, which require an cvcn higher language Ic\cl.

As a result of problems ticginning at primary school, pupils continue to lag behind their required level or threshold of language proficiency antl the majority never really rcach the language standard which their age might assume. Sornc c.vidcncc for this has been gathcrcd b j Lewis Larking, who tested the reading comprehension ability of Bruncian pupils in Primary 5 and 6. He found that at Primary 6, 700/0 of pupils were helow their native- speaker equivalent grade level in English reading comprehension (2 8% were one year below grade Icvcl; 38% two or more years Iiclow antl 4% three or more years hclow gradc level). Interestingly, only 7% of thcsc same pupils \ \we hclow grade level in Malay reading comprchcnsion (Larking, 1994: 58). 1. . . ]

Van Ek andTrim ( I 991) d c


Subject order: some considerations

Given the mix of primar hool subjects and the various degrees of cognitive demands thcy make antl opportunities for language interaction they offer, perhaps the easiest and most urgent changes would be to the subjects that are taught through the mcdium of English at upper primary and to the nature of thc transition from predominantly Malay-medium to English-medium subjects.

Instead of teaching the cognitivcly demanding, ‘contrxt-rcduccd’ subjects in English and the cognitively undemanding, ‘contcxt-cmbeclded’ subjects in Malay, the easiest proposal would be to switch subjects. Thus Mathematics and Science would rcmain Malay- medium subjects (at lcast, until Lower Secondary) whilc Art and Physical Training would be taught as English-mcdium subjects at the primary Icvcl. Support for retaining thc tcaching of Mathcmatics and Science in the mother tongue (at lcast until secondary school) can also be seen in Ramirez et a l . (1 991) where it is noted that students Ivho were abruptly moved into almost exclusive instruction in English ‘. . . experienced a marked dccrcasc in growth in mathematics skills over timc’ (Ramircz et a ] . , 1991 : 33).

To avoid the sudden incrcasc in English-medium subjects at Primary 4, morc English- medium subjects could be introduced at lower primary level. [. . . ]

A r t and Physical Education arc not literacy but oracy and participatory activitics that should not endanger the acquisition of first language literacy. Thus these two subjects could be introduccd in English-medium at lower primary, together with English Language, lvithout harming thtx pupils’ ability to first become literate in Malay.

Age and language acquisition: some considerations

Harlev (1 986) antl Singleton ( 1 989) have shown that the question of age antl language acquisition is complcx and does not lend itself to an easy and universal anslvcr. Most of the research supporting the ‘younger is better’ position does so with reference to phonological advantages, while that supporting the ‘older is better’ stand is on the basis of syntax antl morphological measures of ability. Hamcrs antl Blanc ( 1 989) and others question the evidence for there being a sensitive period and a biologically tlctcrmincd optimal age for L2 acquisition. [ . . .]

The conclusion that younger learners arc at an advantage because they have more time to learn and are less likely to suffcr interfcrencc from their first language matches quite closely, though for different stated reasons, the conclusions that Genesee ( 1 987) has drawn concerning the various immersion programmes in Canatla:

Second language proficiency tends to increase the earlier immersion begins and the more second language exposure the learner has. Thus, early total immersion generally yiclds higher lcvcls of second language pruficicncy than carlp partial immcrsion, delayed immersion, or late immersion.

(Genesee, 1987: 191)

Singlcton (1 989) argues that many factors arc involved in language acquisition and that cxamples of age-related research have to be analpsed individually, noting the peculiaritics of each study. Singleton concludes that:

there is a fair amount of cvidcncc suggcstivr of a long-term adbantagc for learners whoa(, c,xpcrirnce of the target language begins in their childhood yrarr. . . . with

1 0 4 G A R Y M . J O N E S

regard to short- term attainment, the picture is more confused. Hobvcvcr, the Iialance o f evidence docs sccm to indicate an initial advantage for oldcr learners at least as far as grammatical dcvclopmcnt i s conccrncd.

(Singleton, 1989: 122)

Dcspite his extensive research o n the sulijcct, Singleton remains undecided about the benefits of one approach over th r other:

( 1 ) The a\ailablc e\ idcncc doc5 not consistcntl: \upport the hJpothcsis that youngcr second language learner? arc gloliall~ more cfhcicnt and ruccc5sful than oldcr learners. Nor 15 it possil i lc to conclude f r o m the (x\itlcnce that o ldcr second language learners arc glol)all! more cfhc lent and 5ucccssfuI than Joungcr learners

(Singleton, 1989: 138)

(2)

Although Singleton docs not favour cithcr an carl! o r la te start, he does suggest that Cuinmins’s RICS/CALI’ distinction rcconcilcs contradictions in the cviclcncc aliout age- related differences among second language learners, citing Cummins’s o\vn proposals:

the older learners, \vhosc‘ CALP i s Iwttcr tlcvelopcd, \voultl acquire cognitive/ academic I .2 skills more rapidly than youngcr learners; however, this \vould not necessarily he the case for those aspccts of L2 proficicncp unrclatccl to CAI,P (i.c. L2 BICS).

(Cummins, 1979. In Singleton, 1989: 1 1 3)

This lcntls support t o the type of sul3jcct division rccommcndctl earlier for Brunei, with the study of cognitivcly untlcmantling, con t~~x t - c rn l~c~ l~ l c ‘ t l suhjccts preceding cognitively demanding, context-rcduccd subjects.

The majority o f Bruncians u.ho voluntccrcd a reply to the question’ Are there anj. comments thatyou u d d like to make ahout Dri,ihuhusci!’ in a national attitude questionnaire that \\-as concluded rccrntly suggested that more English should h c introduced at an earlier age. It \voultl lie \cry cas! t o dismiss such suggestions as Iicing uninformed and subjective, b u t I think that this \vould bc \\rang and a misjudgcnicnt of‘ the rcspontlcnts.

tcms.’l‘hcrr can bc little doubt , ho\vevcr, that the Bruneians w h o arc most at case \vith the English language arc those who attcndcd English-medium mission schools at an earl! age. Some of thcsc pcoplc continued their education in the mission schools ivhilc others \vent on t o government schools. In either case, an advantage seems t o have Iiccn tlcrivctl from early cxposurc- to English. Of course, an ability with English \voultl also he tlcpcndent upon factors outs idr school, especially languages iisetl in the home, and it can I>c assumed that many parents \vho sent their children to English-medium mission schools \z oultl themselves very prohalily usc English at home. But this would no t havc been the case for all familics. The English language ab i l i t j of graduates from such schools is takcn as cvitlcncc Iiy Bt-uncians that early exposure to English results in ticttcr acquisition of the 1anguagc.This conclusion ma! bc subjective, hut in Brunei it is accepted as self-evident and is the most commonly cited reason given 1iy Rruncian parents \vho can afford it for sending their chiltlren to English-mctlium kindergartens.

Although research \voultl obviously h a w t o lie undertaken to provc the point, my own imprrssion fi-om oliscrvations in Brunei is that as \vcll as phonological atlvantagcs, early exposure t o English also appears to result in a greater cor$dencc among learners in actually

Rruncians havc hcen exposed t o a varicty 01’ school


using thc language. Such confidrncc results in fewer inhihitions antl a willingness to experiment with thc language. A t its simplest, the Bruneians who haw acquired English early at mission schools are gencrally more confident, and therefore more at case with the language antl thus likcly to use antl experiment with the language, than their peers who went to government schools.

The relevance of The German Model

A wcll established motlcl of bilingual education that has given consideration to the timing and sequencing of the school subjects in its system is that no\v referred to as ‘The German Model’ (Masch, 1993). Bilingual Gymnasium (‘grammar’) schools in Germany make a gradual transition from German to a second language, introducing the new language through a sequcncc of subjects that are chosen to complement each other as \vel1 as to aid both language and subject acquisition. [ . . .] In sequence, the subjects chosen as 1-ehicles for bilingualism in The German Model arc: (1) Art; (2 ) Geography; (3 ) Politics (Civics); (4) History.

Art is considered to provide a concrete situational base from which to develop language skills (as well as subject ability). Geography performs a refcrcntial, information giving function and provides a relatively simplc start to description. Geography is also recognised as pcrforming a second hut crucially important role in bilingual education in Germany. While some scicncc subjects are considered to bc language poor because of the spccialisetl content ofthcir subject-specific languagc (Masch cites Biology as an example), ‘Geography alone sufficiently covers virtually all the necessary elements from thc natural sciences through physical geography and geophysical phenomena, and from the application of mcthodological skills through its work with figures, statistics, graphs and sketches’ (Masch, 1993: 163).

Politics (Civics) antl History arc included in the lilingual education system in Germany as much for integration and a better understanding of the country’s European neighbours as for the language benefits of the subjects. Nevertheless, the study of politics does include a recognisablc languagc function:

[. . .]The aims ofthe course in politics suit thc bilingual section: an ability to rccognisc tliffcrcnt types of action antl a capacity to form an opinion.

(Masch, 1993: 1 6 3 4 )

Physical Education

Physical Education is not mentioned in Masch’s dcscription ofthe German Model. However, this subject docs lend itself particularly to communicatiw activities because it emphasises

n language and physical movement. A physical education lecturer at the Univcrsitv of Brunei Darussalam has noted the link lx twern his suhjcct and language acquisition in Brunei. He maintains that physical education creates a language rich cnvironmcnt :

[. . . ] The most noticeable change in students’ attitude or lxhaviour \vas a readily discernible increase in confidence . . . Emanating from this incrcase in contidrncr a noticeablc improvement in fluency together with greater self-assurance whilst making statements was evident in the studcnts’ performance.

(Austin, 1992: 25 -6)

106 G A R Y M . J O N E S

Revised syllabus

As an alternative to the present distribution o f suhjects and language media, and with due consideration to language acquisition antl age as ~ . c l l as RICS/CALP and the threshold levels, I would suggest that compulsory and examinable sulijects in Bruneian primary and secondary schools might be more appropriately distributed as shocvn inTalile 8.2.

Table 8.2 An altcrnatiLc distribution of subjects in the Kruncian education 9ystcm

English medium ,WO/UJ medium

I ower Pr i rnq English Language Malay Languagc Arts (antl I Iantlicraft) Mathematics

Physical Education General Studies

Civics Islamic Religious Kno\\ lctlgc

llpper Priniar) English Languagc Malay Languagc Arts (and Handicraft) Mathematics Physical Education Civics

Grography Scicncc

1 Iistory Islamic Rcligious Kno\vlctlge

Luiwr Seconclucv English Language Malay Language Mathematics f Iistory

Geography Islamic Rcligious Kno\vlctlgc Science

[Jppcr Scconday. English Language Malay Languagc Mathematics Science/Art/TcchnicaI Sulijccts (depending on stream)

Physical Training and Art Mould join English Language as English-medium subjccts in the lower primary curriculum. Geography, givcn the expcricncc of the German Model, would also seem an appropriate subject to introduce at thc primary level. Mowcvcr, rather than tax the pupils with too many English-medium subjects at once, the introduction of Geography might best lie postponed until upper primary. In this revisctl system, History would remain a Malay- medium subject throughout (there arc not the same integrative political considerations operating in Brunei that encourage the bilingual teaching of this subject in Europe) and the introduction of Scicncc and Mathematics \vould be dclaycd until secondary school. I . . .]

The system described above is open to a number of permutations. For instance, should three subjects bc introduced simultaneously from Primary 1 or would it be bcttcr to introduce them consccutivcly, one year at a time? Is there any advantage to lie gained in switching History from Malay to English-medium? Ideally, a number o f permutations might be triallcd until the most appropriate model for Brunei is arrived at. Of course, this would takr time and may not tic feasible because of the common national examinations that have


to be taken at the end of primary school. However, givcn the research that has been conducted into threshold levels and the timing of their acquisition, as well as considerations of contcxt-embedded /context-reduced, cognitivcly demanding/cognitively undcrnanding subjects, then this revised model for the introduction of subjects in the Brunei education syytem, in one form or another, would seem more appropriate than that currently employed.

While I bcliew that the above \vould he a better system than the present distribution of subjects, there arc a number of practical considerations which would impede the implementation of this proposal. As well as the problem of new examinations and syllabuscs, there would also be the huge task of supplying or retraining teachers for new media of instruction. Givcn that providing a sufficient number of properly qualificd teachers has always been a problem in Brunei, changing the language-medium of some subjects would, in the short term at least, further compound this problem. Malay-medium Art, Geography and Physical Education teachers may not be willing or able to teach in English; English- medium Mathematics, History and Science teachers may not be able to teach in Malay. Ncvcrthclcss, the introduction and redistribution of school subjects at thc primary level is an issue that should eventually be addressed.

References

Austin, S. ( 1 992) ‘Languagc development through education’. Paper presented at a seminar in thc University of Brunei Darussalam, December 1992.

Cummins, J. ( 1 979) ‘Cognitix e/academic language proficiency, linguistic inter-dependence, the optimum age question and some other matters’. Ilbrking Papers on BilingLiulism 19, 198 203.

___~ (1 98 1 ) ‘Thc role of primary language developmcnt in promoting educational succcss for language minority students’. In The California State Department of Education (ed.) Compendium on Bilingual-Bicultural Education. Los Angeles: California Statc Department of Education.

~ ( 1 984) Bilingualism and Special Education: lssues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Ckvedon: Multilingual Matters.

Genescc, F. (1 987) Learning Through E o Languages. Cambritlgc, MA: Ncwbury I Iouse. Hamcrs, J. F. and Blanc, H. A. (1989) Bilinguals and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge

Harley, B. ( 1 986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Larking, L. ( 1 994) ‘Reading comprehension ability of Primary 5 & 6 children in Malay and

English in Brunci Darussalam’. In M. L. Tickoo (ed.) Reatling and Research in Writing. Singaporc: Rcgional Language Centre.

University Press.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1 967) Biological Foundations $Language. New York: Wiley. Masch, N. ( 1 993) ‘The German Model of bilingual education: An administrator’s pcrspcctivc’.

In H. Ractcns Rcardsmorc (cd.) European Model.$ ?f Bilingual Education. Clcvcdon: Multilingual Matters.

Ramirez, J. D., Yuen and Ramey (1 991) Longitudinal Study of Immersion Earlj-exit and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs .for Language Minor iy Children. Mountain View, CA: SRA Technologies.

Romaine, S. (1 989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwcll. Singleton, D. (1 989) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Van Ek, J. A. and Trim, J. L. M. (1991) Threshold 1-eve/ 1990. Strasbourg: Council of Europe

Press.

C h a p t e r 9

Kimberley Brown

W O R L D E N G L I S H E S I N T E S O L

P R O G R A M S : A N I N F U S I O N M O D E L OF

C U R R I C U L A R I N N O V A T I O N

Introduction

T H A S B E E N S U G G E S T E D (c.g. Kachru, 1988)thatitistimeforaparadigmshit‘t I which takes into account the changing roles antl functions of English around thc world in linguistic research antl in languagc pcdagogj. In spite of clearly articulated arguments and nd-dcf inrd calls for applied and theoretical research in the languagc education community, Kachru’s perspective on the role and functions o f English as an international language remains a minority perspective. Even though t\vo gcncrations of scholars have been rcfining the elements of what has comc to Iic termed thc World Englishes paradigm (Kachru, 1992a), there is little evidence of its infusion intoTcaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOI.) preparatory programs (Vavrus, 1991 a).

This paper examines possiblr explanations for the lack o f incorporation of this paradigm in TESOL preparatory programs. In an attempt to find a \ v a j to incorporate thc World Englishes paradigm intoTESO1, programs, I kvil l draw upon Hamnctt et al.’s (1 984) three- pronged approach to what they term ‘thc intligenization of social science research’ (78). This paper will also explore impediments to curriculum design and teaching practice that may hamper the inclusion o f the World Englishes pcrspcctive into TESOL preparatory programs.

A paradigm refcrs to a particular thcorctic framcmvork or perspcctivc. The World Englishes paradigm (hereaftcr referred to as the WE paradigm) may lie charactcrizcd by three elements (Kachru, 1988: 1 ) :

a ticlicf that there is a ‘repertoire of modcls for English’ a belief that ‘the localized innovations [in English] have pragmatic Iiases’ a belief that ‘thc English languagc now bclongs to all those who use it’.

Paradigm shifting and diffusion of innovation

Within meta-theory research, i.e. theories about theories, I’atton ( 1 975) explores the relationship betwecn the context in which information is lcarnctl and the dcgrcc to which people remain attached to that information. I IC statcs: ‘. . . paradigms are deeply embedded

W O R L D E N G L I S H E S I N T E S O L P R O G R A M S 1 0 9

in the socialization of adherents and practitioners telling them \\hat is important, what is legitimate, what is reasonable’ ( 1 975: 9). By implication then, any process of shifting paradigms cannot be a simple proccss.Tollcfson (1 991 ) suggests that the intellcctual belief system an individual may adhere to is often not seen as a particular set of lenses; i.c. individuals may hold to particular ideologies without evcn recognizing that there is something subjective about these idcologies. Thus before any shift in ideologics can comc about, the first step must be to recognize and name the paradigm to which one has bccn intellcctuallp socialized. [ . . .]

It is possible to see the introduction of a new paradigm into the intellectual arena as similar to thc diffusion of an innovation into a particular setting. In thc social sciencc literature that explores attributes of innovations, Rogers (1 983) examines variahles affecting the rate a t kvhich innovations are adopted. One is of particular relevance to this discussion if the WE paradigm can be considercd an innovation. Rogers terms this variable ‘perceived attributes of [an] innovation’ ( 1 983: 233).

The five facets of this variablc are compatibility, relative advantage, complcxity, trialability, antl obscrvahility. Rogers suggests that compatibility ofthc new idea with current idcas (or paradigms) antl with client needs (in this case teacher and learner needs) affects whether thc new idea is adopted. An exploration of currcnt idcas in TESOL reveals two frameworks incompatible with an underlying framework in thc WE paradigm IvhichVavrus ( 1 99 1 a) terms the ‘Dynamic Paradigm’ .To avoid confusion, h o cr, the term ‘perspective’ will be used instead of paradigm.

Much of the underlying theory in the WE paradigm belongs to what Vavrus ( 1 99 1 a , 199 111) calls the ‘Dynamic’ perspective, a framemnrk in which non-native varieties of English arc sccn neither as fossil-ridden examplcs of interlanguagcs, nor as inferior cxamples of incorrect speech. She suggests that most language teaching fraine\vorks may lie characterired as belonging to one of t\vo perspectives. The Deviational perspective supports the notions that all errors arc due to fossilization or to learners being at various stages of interlanguage transfer.Thc Deficit perspective supports the notion that errors occur because learners arc deficient in their command of English. Neither the Deficit nor Ileviational perspectives arc compatible with the Dynamic pcrspcctive. The lack of compatibility tictwccn these thi-ec pcrspecti\es thus affccts the rate at which thcWE paradigm may tic adopted. Until cducators hccomc more aware of the reasons for adopting a WE paradigm or of thc conse‘quenccs of not adopting it, they may resist this innovation.

The remaining elements in Rogers’ pcrccivetl attributes of innovations arc rclatiw advantage, complexity, trialaliility, and ohscrvability. Relative advantage refers to a pcrcep- tion that the new idea is better than prcvious ones. Complexity is sclf-explanatory. Rogers suggests that i f an idea is n as being too complex, it \vi11 not lie atlopted.Trialaliility rcfcrs to ‘the tlegrec to which a nnovation may be experimented with on a limited liasis’ (1 983: 231). Research suggests that if individuals can work with a new idea on a trial basis, they may lie more likcly to adopt it. Finally, ohscruability refers to how visible an innovation is. If individuals arc quite familiar with an idca, they are more likcly

At the present time, the WE paradigm docs not clearly po compatibility, and ob \-ability. I do not bclicve the WE pcrspcctiv than other perspccti . But much of the early work in World Englishcs is not in a user- friendly format for c room teacher educators. This does affect the trialability factor.

( . . . ] Hamnctt et a / . (1984) discuss thrcc elements that have a direct connection to nce of the WE perspective in TESOL prcparatory programs. Thc first

is thcoretic indigenization ‘in Lvhich the social scientists of a nation are involved in constructing distinctive conceptual framc\vorks and mctatheories that reflect their om-n world vie\\ s,

theoretic indigenization would involve the crcation and refinement of thcory. A t thc present time, these parameters arc well developed (scc Kachru, 1992a).Therc does appear, however, to be a problem with access to antl availability ofinformation.This problem will be discussed more thoroughly in a later section of the paper. Another aspect of the theoretical dimension of the WE perspective is also presented by Lincoln, who looks at the politicization of the research process and suggests that at the present time ‘some groups and research models [are] favored over others, with some definitions of problems morc acceptable than others with avenues to funding and support clcarly discriminatory’ ( 1 990: 70).

The second is structural indigenization, defined ‘with rcfcrence to national institutional and organizational capabilities for social science knowledge [including capabilities for] educational and research institutions, a community of indigenous scholars, and locally produced social science literature’ (Hamnrtt et a l . , 1984: 78). Within the WE perspective, in Outer Circle countries, i.e., those countrirs once colonized by England or the USA and who use or have used English for intra-country purposes (Kachru, 1 988), structural indigenization would involve thc development of institutions which sponsor a particular type of research, the development o f scholars committed to working within the WE paradigm, and the development of locally produced WE literature and empirical or qualitative studies. In Inner Circle countries, i.e. the USA, UK, Australia, New Zcaland, or Canada (Kachru, 1988), the structural challenge is to support the development of young scholars from Outer Circle and also Expanding Circle countries (Kachru, 1988), i.c. those countries in which English has been taught as a foreign language, who will return home to promote structural changes in how English is taught, antl to support Inner Circle scholars developing collaborative frameworks with Outcr and Expanding Circle colleagues for their teaching. For cxample, the cooperative small group antl pair work in communicative language settings is a standard concept promoted in most TESOL Methods courses. In many Outer and Expanding Circle countries, large classes and a standardized Ministry of Education curriculum which prepares students for college-level entrance exams are common. Small group or pair work may be proscribed. Having successful teachers from these large classroom settings prepare lcssons on how to teach large classes, which could then he infused into current Methods cow. , would hclp Inner Circle teachers learn from Outer and Expanding Circle colleagues.

The third element in Hamnett et al.’s text involvx substantive indigenization, which is ‘concerned with the content focus o f the social sciences [such that] the main thrust of research and teaching in a country be toward its own society and people and their economic and political institutions’ (1 984: 78). Within the WE perspective, substantive indigenization would call for the development in Outer and Expanding Circle countries of’ their own research and teaching focus. The challenge in Inner Circle teacher preparatory programs would be to encourage Outer and Expanding Circle students to return home to conduct research on topics and with agendas that may not have been those suggested in basic research design courses. A further challenge would be to prcpare Inner Circle students planning on teaching overseas to understand and appreciate the integrity of the possible alternative planning frameworks they would be working under.

Shifting paradigms in TESOL programs is a difficult task. Individuals who have completed their own profcssional preparation under one paradigm may not see a reason to shift. It is necessary for those scholars who have called for the paradigm shift to see themselves as change agents and to actively engage in effective promotion efforts so that teacher educators and practitioners in the held can understand the perceived attributes of the WE perspective. This promotion process may involve contributing to the development of WE

W O R L D E N G L I S H E S I N T E S O L P R O G R A M S 111

theory and collaborating with colleagues in Outer and Expanding Circle countries to support the tlevelopmcnt of indigenous institutions, scholars, literature, and empirical or qualitatkc studies. Further, it may involve bringing to the attention of scholars in Inncr Circle countries details of the current research and teaching focus of English language cducation programs in Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries.

Many efforts on US campuses to ‘internationalize’ thc curriculum have drawn upon an injusion model in which supplementary units on particular topics are worked into cxisting curricula. [ . . .]

In addition to the overall difficulties with respect to any paradigm shift or curricular innovation, there arc at least five other possible impediments: amount of time necessary for truc diffusion of scholarship; student and instructor background schemata; text availability and level of difficulty; supporting material availability; and workshop and short-term courscwork availability for Methods instructors.

Time for diffusion of scholarship

There are currently two major centers in the USA \\here scholars are conducting extensive research in World Englishcs, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) and a t the East-West Center (connected to the University of Hawaii at Manoa) in Honolulu. By extension, Methodology courses taught in these centers are likely to incorporate the WE perspective. A second generation of scholars who have graduated from these institutions are teaching a third generation of teachers and scholars to incorporate such a perspective in institutions from upstate New York to Indiana to California. Other scholars who havc begun to publish extensively in this ficld havc come to places like UIUC antl the East-West Ccntcr for short periods of time antl have returned to teaching positions throughout the world. Even in Outer Circle countries, though, it has only been recently that master’s students in language education have been encouraged to conduct their research from hzithin the WE perspective. For example, Robert Raumgardner, an cxpcrt in thc ficld of Pakistani English, writes that in Pakistan, the first master’s degree paper to look at a WE issue was presented in 1985 (personal communication).

Research being conducted around the world may not make its way into mainstream journals for three to five years after its coniplction. Anthologics of matcrial publishcd by places like the Regional English Language Centre (supported through SEAMEO) arc not publicized in materials catalogues that most teachers in US T E S O L programs have ready access to. When multiple copies of texts arc requested from halfway around the world, many Inner Circle bookstores balk at filling orders because of currcncy exchange difficulties and policies which prohibit them from ordering materials from other countries.

Student and instructor background schemata

Many stutlcnts cntcring TESOL programs havc not had any prior cxpcricnccs identifying paradigms and ideologies. They may not have been trained in identifying their underlying assumptions ~ cultural and paradigmatic, pedagogical, or personal. They arc not critical readers in thc scnsc that they haw not bccn asked to read material in linguistics and language cducation in order to categorize the ideology of thc authors. One explanation for this is that much of the writing students cncountcr is heavily centered in what R. Paulston (1 976) calls the ‘equilibrium paradigm’, e.g., structural-functionalist and systems theories as contrasted with theories in the ‘conflict paradigm’, e.g. Freirian, Marxist, or nco-Marxist theories. The rhetoric in structural-functionalist and systems theories is less readily

112 K I M B E R L E Y B R O W N

identifiable. To ask students to consider making a paradigm shift when they cannot yet identify paradigms is problematic.

International students in TESOL programs may sometimes possess low self-esteem regarding thcir o\vn language proficiency and, as Ihxtcr (1 980) points out, may never have had the chance to reflect upon antl respond affirmatively to the question ‘Arc you a speaker of English?’ To identify thcir oxvn idcologics and move to a point of grcatcr acceptance of whatever their variety of English may bc comes at the expense of the amount of time necessary to absorb such a perspective.

Just as it may lie difficult for students to name the ideologies and planning frameworks they work under, it may also lie difficult for their teachers. Paradigm shifts cannot be made when people do not overtly idcntify paradigms which currently dominate the field. Both Tollefson ( 1 991) and f’hillipson ( 1 992) deal extensively with this issue in their texts.

Text availability and level of difficulty

Three of the most popular Methods texts, Cclcc-Murcia (1991), Brown (1987), antl Long and Richards ( 1 987), devote one chaptvr or less to the concept of World Englishes. In Celce-Murcia, there is no mcntion at all ofanything related toworld Englishes. In Brown (1 987), while there is rcfermce made to Kachru, and the institutionalized vcrsus performance varieties of English, the total number of words is less than 200. In Long and Richards ( 1 987), one chapter by Judd defines the term ‘English as an International and Intranational’ language. There is no chapter dealing specifically with the concept of institutionalized versus performance varieties of English, the role of native and non-native speakers of English, or any of the points highlightctl by Kachru ( 1 992a) as bcing central to WE theory.

Five other concepts Ivhich need to 1)c rc-examined within traditional Methods courses if a WE perspectives is infused into the curriculum arc the presentation of instrumental antl integrative functions of language without introducing the expressive (Pride, 1979) function of language; the presentation of interlanguage continuum inlormation and its relationship to sociolinguistic continuum information; terminology used to refer to the teaching we do; thc role ofnative spcakcrs in instruction in the Outer Circle (i.c. E X countries like India, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Ghana) antl the Expanding Circle (i.c. EFL countries like Japan, Germany, antl Brazil); antl approaches antl techniques for helping students from Outer Circle countries versus students from Expanding Circle countries improve the international intelligibility of their varieties of English.

Most introductory M<>thocls texthooks cover instrumental and integrative reasons for learning a language (Gardner and Lambert, 1972). Choosing to learn a language for the purpose of expressing one’s identity or choosing to \\.rite in Filipino English or Malaysian English to express certain \vays of being and knolving arc not cxamined in traditional Methods texts. [. . . ]

In units on second languagc acquisition, the interlanguage continuum concept which, as Vavrus ( I 991 a) noted, is part of the Deviational perspective is usually not presented in conjunction with information \vhich is part of the Dynamic perspective.

Terminology referring to the teaching of English still falls most consistently into the polar terms English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Until the time when more inclusive alternative terms are used, lie they ‘English as an Inter- national Language’ or, as Canadian colleagues have long practiced, ‘English as an Additional Language’ , attitudes toward Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle varieties of

W O R L D E N G L I S H E S I N T E S O L P R O G R A M S 113

English are not likely to change. Speakers of Outer Circle and Expanding Circle varieties of English in the program where I teach continuously remark on the lack of relevance of some material in stantlard Mcthods courses to their ncctls in their countries.

Kegarding materials xvhich focus exclusively on World Englishes, Giirlach states ‘the books published in 1982-84 make up a particularly impressive list: it is no cxaggcration to say that the following ten books more or less sufticc to teach a full academic course on thc topic [ofWorld Englishes]’ (1 991 : 1 l).Yct one ofthc Kachru texts, The Indianiyation ofEnglish (1 983), would not be ordered as a class text b y some US collcgc bookstores because the text is published outside the USA; and Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures was out of print until just recently, and a revised cdition with substantial changes has just been published (see Kachru, ed. , 1992b). Another Kachru text, The Alchemy $ English (1 986), is too difficult for most undergraduate Methods students, although with stud: questions and referral to Richards et d . ’ s 1985 Dictionaiy $Applied Linguistics, currently also out of print, students can manage. Platt et a/.’s The New Englishes (1 984) as m.cll as Pride’s 1982 New Englishes arc out of print. Gorlach’s 1991 volume Englishes: Studies in Varieties pf English, 1984-1 988 is published b y John Benjamin; one of its representativcs at the 1992 American Association of Applied Linguistics meeting in Seattle commented that this publishing tirm docs not exhibit at international TESOI, meetings as it is not Lvorth their financial while.Teacher educators attending a key meeting in their lield would thus not have access to this text to even peruse for potential course adoption. Finally, even chapters dealing with World Englishes in fine texts such as Rerns ( 1 990) have been termed ‘too difficult’ by some teacher educators for use with undergraduate students.

Supporting material availability

Often, instructors mill assign research papers or annotated bibliographies on World Englishes topic. Over the past three years, when such assignments have been made in our Mcthods classes, at least one or two students per quarter have decided to research topics such as the ‘Non-native English speaking teacher’. Resources such as ERIC list few references on WE. Difficulty in obtaining articles reflecting a WE perspective deters students from pursuing these topics. A cursory comparison of US library holdings via an on-line search through the Online Computer Library Ccnter (OCLC) and Research Library Information Network (RUN) of eight journals, six of which routinely publish articlcs reflecting the WE perspective antl t\vo of which sometimes publish articles in this arca (TESOI . Quarterk and journal $Applied Linguistics), r als significant diffcrcnccs in the number of journals availahlc throughout the USA. In addition to the TESOI. QuarterbJ antl the journal ofApplied Linguistics, the other journals include English Toduy, English I~/orldivicic, World Englishes, the RELC journal , the Indian Journal of Lingtiisrics, and the Indian Journal of

Applied Linguistics (sccTablc 9.1). As Table 9.1 illustrates, there is a very evident accessibility prohlcm. Journals which

consistently carry WE perspective articlcs are much lcss availahlc to teachers and students inTESOL programs than arc other journals.

This portion of the paper has examined structural impediments to infusing a WE pcrspcctivc in current TESOL programs. The next portion of thc paper documents \vhy it is critically important to \vork to infuse a WE perspective in the Methods sequence.

1 1 4 K I M B E R L E Y B R O W N

Table 9. I Journals publishing articlcs on World Englishcc topics

]ournu/ A'wnhcr ofstates .Ytirnhcr ofinytitutions

TESOL Qiar ter ly

Journal of'.4pplicd Linguistic5 English Today Ilbrld Englishrs English Ilbrldwidc REI C Journal lndian Jotirnal of Linpisrics Indian Journal ?f,lppliecl I inguistict

46 42 44 32 26 26 1 1 9

384 I 2 3 64 68 57 55 1 3 14

Student responses in coursework

The following excerpt is from aTESL certificate student paper; the student was exposed to less than four hours of information rclatctl to World Englishrs in ninety hours of Methods courses.

[Sample A ] The lack of TEFL-specific materials may lie a result ofa hclicf that most EFI. teachers should themselves be non-nativcs [i.c. non-native speakers o f English] with the result being that thc majority of tcaching matcrials are in the teachers' native languagcs, not English. But i fa person who has learned English from a non-native then teaches EFL to yet someonc else, the English of the last learner may lie far removed in quality from that of a native. . . .

cr, more EFI. teachers kvcre native speakers, then more TEFLspccific materials in English \voultl be tlemandcd and produced. Also, the matcrials might bc of better quality, giving thc quality of EFL tcaching more of a chance to improve . . .

TEFL materials oricntcd toward native English speakers will help thcm to give clear explanations of what they already know. A native speaker is better able to combine his or her inherent knoivlcdgc with the information provided in an EFL textbook to give a more comprehensive grammatical explanation. However, this is hest achieved if the textbook is written \vith the cxpcctation that the user will be a native.

Another lienefit from having a nativc speaker teach English is that students get more exposure to English, especially when interacting with the teacher outside the classroom. A teacher whose native languagc is also the students' native language is more likely to converse hvith them in that language when class is not in session, whereas practice with a native English-spcaking teacher outside of a stressful classroom, where performance will not be graded, can be most helpful.

The second sample was written by an individual who had complctcd ninety hours in a Methods course and thirty hours in a World Englishes class.

[Sample B] As a result of the reading and thought involved in doing this paper, I now believe that as part ofthc shift being made in ESLIEFL teaching to accommodate needs for English as an international language rather than a language used only to communicate with


native or very proficient speakers from countries whcrc English is learncd as a first languagc, \ve need to shift or perhaps, more properly, expand our views of reading. We nccd to extend learncrs’ knowledge of literacy antl reading rather than changc it, lvhich I believe lve often implicitly if not explicitly attempt to do through our methodology antl ethnocentric view as middle-class, gcncrally white educators for a post industrial countrj. . , .

As a result of this paper, I have also come to realize that in my own teaching o f reading, I have too heavily emphasized U.S. mainstream reading styles antl strategies lvhich may lie of littlc usc to students learning English as a world or international language, and who arc most likely to read knglish written by writcrs not using discourse or newspaper styles Ivhich are predominant in the U.S.

The comments made in the first papcr are geocentric, i.e., focused on Inner Circle countries’ English, antl rcflcct an attitude o f linguicism. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson in I’hillipson (1 922: 47) dcfinc linguicism as:

idcologier, structures, and practices n hich are used to Icgitimatc, effectuate, and reproduce an unequal c l i ~ i m n o f pomer and resources (both material and immaterial) liet\\ ccn groups \\ hich are tlcfincd on the basis of language.

The comments in thc second papci- are much less ethnocentric and reflect an attitudc of tolerance antl respect for multiple varieties o f English. Both individuals are leaving the same TESL certificate program. In the first case, I held an cxtensivc conference with the student to indicate \\.hat I found prohlrmatic in many ofthc statements and lines of argument of thc paper. 1 lielicw the confcrcnce was useful, but as the culture contact litcrature revcals, siinply having individuals with two different pcrspectives mcct to talk about ideas may not result in long-term attitude changc. [ . . . ]

[. . .] It is possible for a paradigm shift to occur. However, necessary resources to facilitate such shifts ncctl to find their way into Methods textbooks and Methods courses. Much work remains to be (lone at thc structural and substantive levels. An infusion model o f curricular revision is the most practical means to diffusc the innovation inherent in the World Englishes paradigm. The folloxving recommendations arc also key elements in promoting the diffusion of this perspective within Methods courses and ivithout.

Recommendations

Languagc education preparatory programs must name the paradigmatic frameworks lve work under. We must activcly comllat linguicisrn and gcocentrism, particularly institutional linguicism, charactcrixed b y structures which promote inequality. Wc must help promotc a diversity of perspcctives, not only a perspective which suggests that the native speaker of an Inncr Circle variety of English is the most appropriate professional language educator. Professional language education organizations and their respective journals must continue to provide a forum for oral and \vrittcn dialoguc, e.g. within TESOL: the TESOL Quarterh:, the TESOL journal, the TESOL international conference, and the TESOL summer institute. In like manner forums should be provided with IATEFL: International Association ofTcachrrs of English as a Foreign Languagc, and NAFSA: Association of Intcrnational Educators.

1 1 6 K I M B E R L E Y B R O W N

5

6

Professional language education organizations should work t o crcatc a resource bank of World Englishcs scholars antl materials. Professional language education organizations should promote mid-carccr professional cxchange to bring World English scholars as tcachers to Inner Circle teacher preparatory programs tor one or tlvo tcrms. I’rofcssional language education organizations should support activities which hclp lireak down structural Imrricrs t o promoting an infusion model of curricular reform. Puldishing houses and authors of kc? texts in English language education programs should liroadcn thcir rcpcrtoirc of citations.

7

8

References

Raxtcr; Jarncs ( 1 980) ‘Ho\v shoul(l I s p k English! American-I!, Japanese-ly, or internationally!’ ].ILTjournul, 2, 3 1-61 .

Rcrns, Margic ( 1 990) Conlexts of Competence: Sociill anti Culrurul Consitlerirtion.~ in Communicative L ang tiuge Euc h ing . N civ Yor k : Plcnum .

HroTvn, H. Douglas ( 1 987) Principlec clf’Lungticigc I.ccirning and Teciching. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenticc-Hall Kcgcnts.

Cclcc-Murcia, Marianne, cti. ( 1 991) Teuching English us u Second or Foreign lunguuge. NenYork: N c d u r y House.

Gai-dncr, Kichartl and Lambert, Wallacc ( 1 972) .il/itridcs antl .Ilotirotion in Second Lungtiage learning. Rmvley, MA: N c d i u r y HOLISC.

Gijrlach, Manfrctl ( 1 991 ) Encq/i.shes: StriJicr in I;lrJe~ie.s o/’ Englirh, 1 Y81 1988. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

Hamnctt, Michael, Porter, Douglas, Singh, Amai-jit and Kurnar, Krishna ( 1 984) Ethics, Politics, ant/ lnternotionul Socrcil Science Rcceurch: From Critiyue to Pruxis. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

Kachi-u, Braj R. ( 1 98 3) The Inditini/ution o/’En!ylish: Thc English I.ung~icyc in India. NC\V Dclhi: Oxtord Univcrsity I’rcss.

Kachru, Rraj B. ( 1 986) T h e ,4/chcn;i. ?f’ English: The Spread, Function.r, ant1 Models ?f Non-l\ative Englirher. Oxford: I’ergamon Press. (I<cprintcd 1990, Ut-lmia, 11.: Univcrsity of Illinois Press.)

Kacht-u, Braj 13. (1988) E R l C / C L L .Ycri..s Eullelin. Scptcmhcr. 12(1), I , 3 , 4, 8. Kachru, Rraj B. ( 1 992a) ‘World Englishcs: approaches, issucs and resources’ . Lungua<qe Teaching:

The lnternationa/ A hstracting ]ournu/,fbr Langnugc Tcuchers ant/ .Ipp/ied linguistics. Cambridge Universit? Press, January 1992: 1 14.

Kachru, Braj K . , ctl. ( 1 99213) The Other Tongrie: English .4crors Culture.s. 2 ~ x 1 edition. Urbana, I L : University of Illinois Prcss.

Lincoln, Yvonnc ( 1 990) ‘The making of a constructivist: a rcnicmbrancc oi‘ transforinations past’. In 7he Purudi‘qm Oiulog. Etlitctl b y Egon Guln. Neiv York: Sage I’ublications, 1111. 67-87.

Long, Michacl antl Richards, Jack, c d s . ( 1987) .Ilcthotlol0~7,v in TESOL: ,4 Book ?f’Reatlings. Nc\v York: Newbury I Iousc.

Patton, M. ( 1 975) .iltcrnutir~e Einlticition Rcsecirch Pcirc~c1rgm.s. Grand Forks, N D : University oi‘ North Dakota Prcss.

I’aulston, Rollantl ( 1976) Co?f l ic t in~~ Theories ofSociul ‘inti kdiicc7tional Change:,/l $pological Review. I’ittslm-gh, PA: University Ccntci- Ibr International Studies.

I’hillipson, Robert ( 1 992) Lingriistic Imperiulism. I .ondon: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Platt, John, Weber, Heidi and Lian, H . ( 1 984) The .\en, Englishes. London: Routledge.


Pride, John ( 1 979) ‘Communicatirc needs in the usc and learning of English’. In .YewVarieriec ?f English: I.s.sucs and i1pproachc.s. Etlitcd by Jack Richards. Singapore: SkAMEO Rcgional I.anguagc Centre, pp. 33 72.

Pride, John, ed. ( 1 982) New .knglishcs. l<o~rlc)i, MA: Nc\lbury House. Richards, Jack, Platt, John and Wehcr, Heidi ( 1 985) Longman Dict ionmy c fApp l i ed I inp ic t i c s .

Rogcrs, Eierctt ( 1 983) Diffusion oflnnovations. 3rd edn. NcwYork: The Free Prcss. Tollefson, Jamcs ( 1 991) Planning Lunguap, Plannin<q Inequality. New York: Longman Inc. Vavrus, Frances ( 1 991 a) ‘When paradigms clash: the rolc of institutionalized varicties in

language teacher education’. I b r l d Engli.she.s, 10(2), 181-1 96. Varrus, Frances (1 991 b) ‘Stantlards and models: an African perspective’. Papcr prescntctl at

World Englishes colloquium; annual confcrencr of Teachers of English to Speakcrs of Other Languages, NewYork.

Esscx, England: Longman Group Limited.

C h a p t e r 1 0

Numa Markee

T H E D I F F U S I O N OF I N N O V A T I O N I N

L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G

Introduction

H E LAST T W O DECADES I N APPLIED L I N G U I S T I C S -whichroughlv T coincide with thc evolution of the communicative approach in language teaching - have seen the tlevelopmcnt of a numhcr of languagc tcaching innovations, including the notional/ functional syllabus, the process syllabus, the Natural Approach, the procedural syllabus, and task-based languagc teaching. All of these proposals have contributed in important ways to an understanding of theorctical issues related to designing innovative language syllabuses. Rut it is onl? rather rcccntly that applied linguists have hrgun to investigate the problcms associated n i t h implcmcnting thcsc innovations.

Indeed, with the exception of such pionecrs as White (1 988), Henrichsen ( 1 989), and a number of other hvritcrs, not many language tcaching spccialists haw developed any familiarity with the voluminous literaturc that already exists in a number of disciplines on how and why innovations tliffuse.This is unfortunate Iwcausc, as Kenncdy (1 988) and Beretta (1 990) demonstrate, a ‘tliffusion~of~innovations’ perspective on syllabus design provides curriculum spccialists, materials dewlopcrs, and tcachcrs mith a coherent set of guiding principles for the development and implemcntation of language teaching innovations. Furthermore, it supplies evaluators with critcria for retrospcctive evaluations of the extent to which thesc innovations have actually been implemcnted. In other words, this perspective provides a unified framework for conceptualizing both the development and evaluation of innovations in language teaching. Thus, although the terminology used may at first sound cxotic and unfamiliar, a diffusion-of-innovations pcrspectivc on syllabus design, for example, addresses concerns that arc central to all language tcaching specialists.

c s a well-cstablished tradition of innovation rcsearch and practice (Fullan 1982, Miles 1964, Nicholls 1983, Kudduck 1991), as do such disciplines as sociology (Rogers 1983), urban planning (Lambright and Flynn 1980), and language planning (Cooper 1989).7’hus, a rcviekv of thc issues that define innovation in thc specific contcxt of language teaching nil1 draw on these academic specializations to dcvelop a multi-disciplinary framework, inspired particularly by Cooper’s work on innovation in language planning. The framework for this discussion consists of the following composite qucstion: “Who adopts what, where, when, why and how?” (Cooper 1989), with responses to each individual componcnt o f the question. In this w y , the basic issues

In contrast to applied linguistics, education alrcady po

T H E D I F F U S I O N O F I N N O V A T I O N 119

that are of intcrcst to practitioners may be defined. This framework should be sufficiently encompassing to account for practitioners who wish to engage in any innovation related to language education.

On defining innovation: “who” Teachers arc kcy playcrs in any attempt to promote innovations in syllabus design. At thc same time, other individuals will also be involved in the innovation process (Fullan 1982). The actual participants who become involved in deciding whcthcr an innovation will be adopted vary from context to context. Whatever the specific context of implcmcntation, however, participants tend to assumc certain social roles which define their rclationships with othcr participants. The urban planners, Lamhright and Flynn ( 1 980), have suggested that individuals relate to each othcr as adopters, implementers, clients, supplicrs, or entrepreneurs (also known as change agents).

Kcnncdy ( 1 988) suggests that, in thc context o fa materials project inTunisia, ministry of education officials, deans, heads of dcpartmcnt, and others play the role of adoptcrs; teachers are implementcrs; students are clients; curriculum and materials designers are suppliers; and the expatriate curriculum cxpcrt acts as the change agent. As Kennedy points out, in practice these roles arc not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is quite likely that the samc person will play different roles, somctimes simultaneously, somctimes at varying times during the course of a project. Thus, teachers may at times also be regarded as adopters; furthermore, in some cultures, they may take on the roles of change agents and suppliers. With the exception of thc change agent, any of these individuals may also adopt thc role o f resisters who oppose an innovation. Thus, a broad range of people playing out different social roles is always involved in the design and implementation of any innovation.

“Adopts” Adoption has been conceptualized in terms of individuals or institutions engaging in a decision-making process which may be divided into a number of different phases. Rogers (1 983), a rural sociologist who is onc of the leading authorities on the diffusion of innovations, suggests that there are five steps in this decision-making process.Thesc involvc potential adopters 1 ) gaining knowledge about an innovation, 2) bcing persuaded of its d u e , 3) making a preliminary decision to adopt the innovation, 4) implementing their decision to adopt, and 5) confirming their decision to continue using thc innovation. The educator Fullan (1 982) proposes a slightly different sequence of four steps which he calls initiation, implementation, continuation, and outcome.

From an evaluator’s perspective, adoption may also be conceptualized in terms of“leve1s of implementation,” a measurc which specifics thc depth to which any changes have occurred. Berctta (1 990), for examplc, in his evaluation of the procedural syllabus (Prahhu 1987), uses this notion to evaluate thc extent to which tcachers actually implemented thr task-based methodology associated with that syllabus. Lack of space precludes detailed discussion of Keretta’s rcsults, hut it is noteworthy that only 47 percent of the teachers involved in implementing the procedural syllabus reached what Beretta catcgorizied as an “adcquate” level of implementation; only 1 3 percent reachrtl what ma! I)r considered an “expert” levcl of implementation.This result shows how difficult it is to promotc innovation at a fundamental level. I t is salutary to remember that all innovation is a risky business and that close to three quarters of educational innovations arc likely to fail over time (Adams and Chcn 198 I ) , either because they arc never fully adopted or else do not survive the confirmation stage posited by Rogers ( 1 98 3).

1 2 0 N U M A M A R K E E

“What”

Innovation itself, as a concept, is central to the implementation and/or evaluation of ncw ideas and ne\v procedures. Synthesizing what she claims are basic characteristics of innovations, Nicholls states:

An innovation is an idea, object or practice perceived as ne\v by an individual or individuals, which is intended to bring about improvement in relation to desired objectives, which is fundamental in naturc and which is planned and deliberate (1983: 4).

However, in language teaching contexts, her definition is somewhat problematic. For the purposes of this paper, innovation \vi11 be defined as proposals for qualitative change in pedagogical materials, approaches, and values that arc perceived as new by individuals who comprise a formal (language) education system.

Nicholls’ idea of“ncwncss”bcing a subjcxctivc matter of users’ perceptions is important in languagc teaching contexts.This perspective correctly permits the inclusion of the Natural Approach as an innovation despite the fact that Krashen antl Terrell (1983) view this approach simply as a rcdi )very of the underlying principles of traditional “natural” or direct methods popular earlier in this century suitably reformulated and updatcd in light of current second language acquisition rcscarch findings. While Krashen and Terrell’s asscssmcnt of the absolute innovativeness of their proposals is accurate, there is no doubt that from a user’s perspective, the Natural Approach was regarded as an innovation by teachers in the early 1980s. It continues to be viewed in this light by new teachers who are introduced to it for the first time today.

r, in terms o f the ti\ c examples of language teaching innovations \vc have alrcady idcntiticd in the introduction (the notional /functional syllabus, the proccss syllabus, the Natural Approach, the proceclural syllabus, and task-based language teaching), the remaining components of Nicholls’ definition arc either too restrictive or clsc omit defining criteria that are important for languagc teaching situations. Therefore, the alternative definition given above is more appropriate to language teaching contexts.The need for this alternative definition is suggested by a critique of Nicholls with respect to the follokving four issues: 1 ) the systemic context of innovations; 2 ) the fundamental naturc of innovations; 3) thc cxtcnt to which innovations actually improve on the status quo; and 4) the cxxtcnt to which inno\-ations are necessarily dc~libc-rate antl planned for.

First, the systemic contcxt in hvhich an innolation is implemented scc‘ms to be an important dctermincr o f whether or not the innovation will IIC adopted. As Prabhu (1 987) points out, the fact that a procedural syllabus uas implcmcntcd in primary antl secondary schools in India placed some major constraints on the project since it was decided that thc procedural syllabus should not be used ivith students who hvcrc due to take various state matriculation exams. By omitting any specific mention of the systemic contcxt of innovations, Nicholls lays herself open to bcing interpreted as saying that individuals are frcc to innovate as they wish. Clearly, individuals do not enjoy such a degree of freedom. This observation suggests that the relationship lietween individuals antl systems must be considered in a dctinition of innovation.

Second, it is only through a modification of pedagogical values that innovation can be said to involve “funtlamental” change. At the less complex levels of using new materials and approaches, teachers can adopt ncw practices with littlc or no undcrstanding of why they arc using these new materials antl approaches ~ which hardly counts as a fundamental

T H E D I F F U S I O N O F I N N O V A T I O N 1 2 1

alteration in behavior. This limitation d o c s not mean that such surface changes arc not in any sense innovative nor that they cannot lead to deeper change later.

Furthermore, the “inno\.ativencss” of an innovation decreases o\ er t ime as it lieconics institutionalixtl antl more familiar t o u s c ~ s . Iior example, notional/functional syllabuses wcrc initially claimcd to be 1Lintlamrntally diff‘crcnt f rom structural syllabuses bccause languagc contcnt was organized in semantic rather than syntactic tcrms. Ho\\.c\ cr, it \vas soon recognized that, although notional /functional syllabuses arc indccd qualitatii ely different from structural syllabuses, all the criteria for organizing the contcnt o f instruction in both types of syllabus (i.e. , notions, functions, grammatical structures, wcabular!; r t c . ) are still linguistic (Long and Crookes 1992). Consequently, it is difficult to argue that the re-orientation implied by notional/functional syllahuscs is fundamental in any meaningful sense of this w-ord.‘l‘hus, it is liettcr t o dctinc innovations in t c rms o f qualitative change, a t e r m ivhich conveniently covers all three lei-cls of innovative Iiehavior (materials, approaches, and values).

‘I‘hird, although innovations arc certainly intentled to improve on the status quo, it is not the casc that thev al\vavs do constitutc an improvement o n previous practicc ( I d l a n 1982). For example, Urumfit ( 1 98 1 ; 1984a) has sharply criticized notional/functiorial syllaliuses as bcing in some instances an untlcsirahlc innovation. He argues that ivhcn thc syllabuscs arc uncritically implemented, they dcprivc learners of the generative potential of grammar (i .c. , the ability t o use sjntactic rules to crcatc nciv sentences), \vhicli Bruintit

indispensable resource for learning. This criticism suggests that improvcmcnt rily a defining characteristic of innovations in actual practice. Indccd, in some

cases, innovations should be rcsistctl rathcr than promoted because their adoption may lie more harmful than bcncticial.

Fourth, and finally, the notion of “delihcratc planning” is problematic for languagc teaching in t \ v o \Yay. I;irst, although the notional/functional syllabus is indeed a product ofcxtensive planning, the only aspect ol‘a project that can hc planned is \vhat is to be taught or tcstcd, no t lvhat is to he learned (Urumfit 198411). Second, it is doubtful that the articulation of the principles of thc procrdural syllabus, ivhich \vas achieved through a process of trial antl error (Prabhu 1987), can rcally count as an rxamplc of tlclibcr-ate planning. [ . . . ]

“Where”

The question of where an innovation is implemented is conceived in sociocultural t c rms (Cooper 1989). That is, the concrrn is lvith specifying thc sociocultural contcxt of an innovation rather than its geographical location. Practitioncrs who \z ish to introduce innovative syllabuses into an educational em must rccognizc the potential impact (lvhcthcr positivc or negative) of n r i o u s soci tural constraints on their acti\-itics. For example, Markee ( 1 986a; 1986b) identifies cultural, ideological, historical, political, economic, administrative, institutional, and sociolinguistic factors that affected the implementation o f an aitl-f‘undctl project in the Sudan. [ . . . ]

In addition, some at tempts have becm made t o address thc issuc of when thosc sociocultural constraints should lie considered in thc Cooke 1982, Munbv 1978; 1984). The relati\e imI anct’ of thesc constraints \vi11 \ a r v from one contcxt of implementation to another. [ . . . ] Expcrience suggests that these constraints cannot Iic accounted h r in a discrete, linear fashion; rather, they \vi11 impinge on all aspects of innovati I lal ius design, implcmcntation, and evaluation.


“When”

While some adopters will implement a given innovation relatively quickly, others will nred more time to carry out the same innovation.Thus, if one knows whcnA adopts an innovation and when B, C, or D adopt the same innmation, it is possible to specify the ratc at which an innovation diffuses among a group of potential adopters and also to distinguish bctw different catcgorics of adopters.

Diffusion may be expressed as the perccntagc of adopters who implement an innovation over a g iwn period of time (Kogers 1 98 3). Figure 10.1 shows a typically S-shaped diffusion curvc.Thc lazy slope of the toe of the curve sho\vs that adoption at first occurs very slowly; if a critical mass of approximatel: 2 5 percent of potential adopters accept the innovation, it may take off. At this point, the slope in the midsection of the curvc bccomcs stccpcr (i.c., the ratc of adoption accelerates) as people “jump on the band\vagon.” Finally, the curve plateaus as diffusion slo\vs down and cvcntually tapers off, either because every potential adopter has adopted or else I~ecausc the innovation stalls.

% of

adoption

Figure 10. I An S-shapctl diffusion curvc

With respect to diffusion ratc, fivc catcgorics of adopters haw been idcntified (Huberman 1973, Rogers 1983).These include innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards; as already noted in thc scction cntitlcd “Who,” people who never adopt a particular innovation are known as resisters. In terms ofthe S-shaped diffusion curve shown in Figure 10.1, innovators antl early adopters occupy the first 25 percent ofthe curve. Early antl late majority occupy the steepest portion of the curve. Laggards occupy the last part of the curve as it flattens out to form a plateau.

This information has at least two kinds of potential applications. First, it a l low program designers who introduce an innovative syllabus to focus on those teachers most receptive to the innovation. Since each category of adopter tends to be associated with personal characteristics bvhich are either conducive or not conducive to innovation, recognition of early adoptcrs would hc important to the innovation process. Second, such data allow evaluators to determine how successfully and how quickly an innovation has sprcad among a group of potential adopters.

“Why ”

The reasons 1% hy innovations are adopted or rcjectctl arc many and varied. The section entitled “Where” already addressed a number of the sociocultural constraints that come into play. In addition, there arc individual psychological factors with respect to the persons involved, and innovations themselves possess various attributes that influence adoption.


Rogers (1 98 3) notes that individuals with particular psychological profilrs tend to display specific adoption behaviors. For example, individuals who adopt early tend to travel widely and are usually \vcll-cducatcd antl upwardly mobile; they tend to seek out and be open to ne\v idcas, and they tend to have a high degree of exposure to mass met1ia.Their contacts with other people are often extensive, antl they are usually able to tolerate high levels of uncertainty. Laggards, on the other hand, tend to display diametrically opposite characteristics while the pcoplc in between exhibit intermediary traits.

attributes which tend to promote or inhibit their adoption. A number of writers (Bricknrll 1969, Henrichsen 1989, Kelly 1980, I.e\ ine 1980, Zaltman and Duncan 1977) havc proposed different sets of attributes of innovations. The attributes proposed by Rogers ( I 987) arc usctl here because they are derived from some 1,500 empirical and/or theoretical studics on innovations across disciplines antl also because they are the most well-knolvn. Thcse attributes include the following:

Finally, innovations themselves po

the relative advantage to potential adoptccs of adopting an innovation (i.c., the co or benefits); the compatibility o f the innovation \vith previous practice (i.c., how different or similar the innovation is to \\.hat the potential adoptcr already uses); thc complexity of the innovation (i.c., how difficult the inno\ation is t o understand or usr); the trialability of the innomtion (i.c., ho\v easy it is to try out in stages); antl the observability of thc innovation (i.e., hou visible the inno\-ation is).

“How”

In Henrichsen’s (1 989) account of the extent to kvhich audiolingualism diffused in Japanese schools in the aftermath of the Second World War, he notes that scveral difrercnt theories exist bvhich seck to account for how change occurs. These include equililirium thcory, evolutionary theory, conflict theory, rise and fall theory, and diffusion theory. Only the last of these is directly relevant to language teaching. Within a diffusion-of-innovations perspective, the cducator I lavelock ( 1971 ) distinguishes bct\reen three basic models of innovation. He laliels these three the Research, tlcrdopment and tlifjiusion (RD anti D) model, the problem-solving model, and thr social interaction model rcspcctivcly, from Lzhich hc synthcsizcs a hybrid linkuge model. Similarly, the social scientists Chin antl Benne ( 1 976) idcntifv thr r r familics of innovation strategies which they respecti\ ely call empirical-r~itionul, normutive-re- eciucutirz, antl power-coercive strategies of innovation. These models antl strategies “pair up” and haw lieen used, mostly unconsciously, by developers o f various language teaching innovations.

Empirical-rational innovation strategies assume that pcople are rational and \I i l l therefore be persuaded to adopt an innovation if it can he demonstrated that it is in their rational self-intcrcst to do so. Such stratcgics tend to be used by pcople who subscribe to an RD and D model of innovation. A good example of this combination is the initial development of notional/ functional syllahu. by scholars associated \vith the Council of Europe (Wilkins 1976).

This model is rational, systematic, and theory-based. I t depends vcry heavily on long- term planning and involvcs a division of labor among teams of highly trained specialists \\ ho 1vot-k on separate phases of an overall project. Thc planning process is basically linear (although fcxdback loops may be built into the framcwork) antl assumes that thc cnd product will be used by a passive, though rational, consumer. Planning hcgins with basic research,

1 2 4 N U M A M A R I < E E

which is then follon.cd liy phases of applied research, development and testing of prototypes, mass production and packaging o f the product, antl finally, mass dissemination to potcntial users. It is assumcd that the high development costs will bc offset by the long-term benefits of efficiency and the anticipated high quality of thc innovation (Havelock 1971 ).

A power-coercive innovation strategy ~ which involves the application of political, administrati\e, or economic p v c r to resolve a prolilem ~~ may also be used in conjunction with an R D and I ) model of innovation. This occurs when a ministry of education decides to develop and disseminate a new syllabus countrywide. A good example of this combination is the adoption of notional/functional syllaliuscs in primary and/or secondary schools by the Dutch and Malaysian ministries o f education.

Normative-re-educative strategies arc based on the assumption that uscrs’ decisions arc not exclusively based on rational criteria. Rather, sociocultural and personal value systems arc held to be equally important determinants of behavior. These stratcgics tcnd to bc uscd by intlividuals who lielie\ c in a problem-solving model o f innovation. As Havelock (1 971 ) remarks, this is the most faorctl model of innovation in ctlucation, at least hy writers in the United States antl Britain. A good example of this comhination in language teaching is the process syllabus.

The problem-solving model is based o n a qualitatively quite different approach to planning from the one uscd in the KD antl 1) model. More specifically, users employ action to articulate a problem and diagnose ho\v thcy nant to solve it. This diagnosis is follonul by a search and retrieval phase in \vhich uscrs try to gather whatever information is relevant to their necds and which will enable thcm to formulate and/or select an appropriate innovation. After identifying the innovation, a process of adaptation, trial, antl evaluation follows. During this timc, uscrs assess whether the solution they have devised really solves the problem that sct thc whole pro into motion in the first place. If the users judge that the innovation is deficient or unsatisfactory in any way, thc process liegins again until a satisfactory solution is found (Havelock 1971).

Social interaction models of innovation oftcn employ normative-re-educative strategies, certain elements of which underlie Kennedy’s ( 1 988) work in7unisia.This model emphasizes the importance of social relationships as a key variahle in adoption. Other factors that are stresscd arc noted as follo\vs: 1 ) the position of potcntial atlopters in their social network (i.c., how conncctcd or disconnected thcy arc from pccrs xvho might influence their decision); 2) the role of informal pcrsonal contacts as a functional mechanism for exchanging information ahout innovations; 3) the importance of group membership and referencr- group identification as predictors o f individual adoption; and 4) the typically S-shaped pattern-of-diffusion curve [ . . .]. l’hc major insight offered l iy this model in an educational context is the important role played b y communication in promoting or inhibiting the diffusion o f innovative curricula ( I Iavclock 1971 ).

Finally, there are hybrid, or “linkage” models. Henrichsen points out that:

while a [linkage perspective] allows for research and dcvclopmcnt of an innovation, it docs not assume that KL) and L) is all that is recpired for successful implementation of an innovation. Furthermore, a linkage model allows for the ‘dynamic’ of change to lie an outside force, making it appropriate for explaining directed contact change even across cultural boundaries.

(1 989: 68)


Conclusion

I t has been argued that the adoption of a diffusion-of-innovations perspective by practitioners is crucial to the development of language teaching theory and practice. Such a point o f \ ie\\ provides a unified framework for conceptualizing both the dcvclopmcnt and evaluation of innovations in languagc teaching. In ordrr to illustratc Ivhat issucs arc relevant to understanding a diffusion-of-inno\ ations pcrspcctivc on language teaching, innovation has been analyzed in t e rms of Cooper’s (1 989) question: “Il’ho udopts what, where, when, rvhj, and

how.?” This framchvork providcs an appropriate set of criteria for analysis:

1 2 3 4 a definition of diffusion; 5

a profile of participants’ socially defined roles and their adoption behaviors; a ctelinition of innovation in the context of language teaching; an account of the sociocultural factors which constrain innovations;

an overview of the prrsonal factors which constrain innovations, as \vel1 as the attributes of innovations which either promote or inhibit thcii- adoption; and a synopsis of various innovation models and stratcgics which ma); lie used to promote change in language education.

6

The most important characteristic of emerging “post communicative” approaches t o course design ~~ approaches which are explicitly based on a diffusion-of-inno\.ations pcrspcctivc is or will be their focus on t\ro issues: 1 ) the ex t rn t to \z hich teachers actually use new materials and approaches, antl 2 ) the dcgrce to which they actually reconstruct thrir pedagogical values. This shift of cmphasis from design to implcmcntation antl evaluation is both dcsirable and also long ovcrduc.

Bibliography Atlama, K. and D. Chcn. 198 1 . The process of’ educational ~nnovation: An internutionul pcr.spcctir.c.

Kcrctta, A . 1990. ‘Implrmcntation of the Bangalore projcct’. Applied Linguistics. 1 1 . 32 1-37. Brickcll, H. M. 1969. ‘Appraising thc cffccts of innovation in local schools’. In K. W.’Ijler (cd.)

Educutionul evaltiotion: XCM. roles, new means. Chicago, IL: National Society for thc Stud) of Education. 284-304.

London: Kogan Page in association with the UNESCO Press.

R r u m k , C. 198 1 . ‘Notional syllabuses revisited: A response’ . .4pplietl Linguistics. 2 . 90 92. ~- 1984a. Introduction. In C. Brumfit (ed.) Gcnerul English y,llabu.s design. Oxford:

Pcrganion. 1-4. [ELT Documents 118.1 ~ 19841). ‘Function and structure o f a state school syllalms for learners of second or fweign

languages with hetcrogcncous needs’. In C. Brumfit (cd .) General English yl lahus desi<qn. Oxford: Pcrgamon. 75-82. [ELT Documents 1 18.1

Chin, K . and K. D. Benne. 1976. ‘General strategies for effecting changes in human systems’. In W. G. Bcnnis, K . I>. Kcnnc, R. Chin and K . E . Corcy (cds.) The plunning of’changc, 3rd etl. Ne\vYork: Ilolt, Rinehart and Winston. 2 2 45.

Cooper, R. L. 1989. I ungna,cle plunning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fullan, M . 1982. The meaning oJed~c~7r1onal chonge. NenYork:Tcachcrs College Prcas. Havclock, R. G. 1971 . ‘Thc utilization of educational research and tlcvclopmrnt’. British

Henrichscn, L. E. ( 1 989). Dijfiision !finnovations In English language teaching: The ELEC effort in

Holliday,T. antl C. Cooke. 1982. ‘An ecological approach to ESP’. In A . Waters (etl.) /.ss.sues in

journal ?f Educational Echnologj,. 2.84 97.

Japan, 1956-f 968. New York: Grecnwood Press.


ESP. Oxford: Pcrgamon Press. I24 143. [ Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education 5.1

Huberman, A. M. 1973. llndersranding change in cducation:iin introtluction. Paris: OECD. Kelly, P. 1980. ‘From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of curriculum

tlrvelopmcnt’ . In M. Galton (etl.) Curriculum change: Thc lessons of a ticcade. Izicester: Leicester Univcrsity Press. 65--80.

Kennedy, C. 1988. ‘Evaluation of thc management of change in LLT projects’. Applied linguistic.^. 9(4). 329-42.

Krashen, S. and T.Terrell. 198 3. 7he ncirurcil approach. Nc\vYork: Pergamon. Lambright, W. H. and P. Flynn. 1980. ‘Thc rolc of local burcaucracy-centered coalitions in

technology transfcr to the city’. In J. A. Agi le\ \ (ed.) Innovation research and public p o l i y . Syracuse, NY: Syracusc University Press. 243---282. [Syracuse Geographical Series No. 5.1

l.evine, A . 1980. LIyhy innorrrtion fiiils. Alhany, NY: State Llnivcrsity of NclzYork Press. Long, M. I I . and G. Crookes. 1992. ‘Three approaches t o task-liasctl syllabus design’. TESOI.

Male?, A. 1984. ‘Constraints-bascd syllabuscs’. In J. A. S . Read (cd.) Trends in language .yllahns

Markee, N. 1986.3. The importancc of sociopolitical factors to communicative course design.

~ 198611 ‘Toward an appropriate technology model o f communicative course design’.

Milcs, M. B. 1964. ‘Educational innovation: The naturc of the problem'. In M. R. Milcs (cd.)

Munhy, J. 1978. Coinmunicutii,c ~i.llcihus tlcsign. Cambritlgc: Cambritlgc University Press.

QiiarterLv. 26.27-5 6 .

design. Singapore: SEAMEO-RF1.C. 90 1 1 I .

The ESP Journal. 5 . 3 16.

EnglishJor SpccJfic Purposes. 5 . 1 6 1 - 1 72.

Innovution in education. Ne\\ York: Teachers College Press. 1 4 8 .

1984. ‘Communicative ~vl la l ius design: I’rinciplcs antl prohlcms’ . In 1. A. S. Read (et!.) Trentls in language .;r//ahos design. Singapore: SLAMLO-RLLC. 5 5 67.

Nicholls, A . 1983. Manc7ging eJucationul innoimions. I onclon: Allcn & Un\vin. Pralihu, N. S. 1987. Second lanpu<qc pcdugoc70,‘1~. Ne\\ York: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss. Rogcrs, E. M. 1983. The diffusion of’innoimions, 3rd cd. 1.ondon: Macmillan/Frcc Prcss. Rogers, E. M. and F. Shoemaker. 197 1 . Communication !/ innoi.ution.s: ‘4 cro.ss-cultural approach,

Rudduck, J. 1991. Innowtion and chongc. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. S\valcs, J. 1980. ‘The educational cnvironmcnt antl its relevance to ESP programme design’. In

British Council (ctl.) ELT clocuments spccicil: Pro/ccts in mcitcrialr cle.sip. Lontion:The British Council. 61-70.

~ 1989. ‘Scrl-ice Englixh programme tlcsign antl opportunity cost’. In R. K. Johnson (cd.) The second langiiu<ge curriculum. Carnhritlge: Caml)ritlge University Press. 79 90.

White, R. 1988. The ELT curriculum: design, innormion and managcment. Oxford: Blackwell. Wilkins, D. A . 1976. Xotionul .ylluhuse.s. Oxford: Oxford University l’rcss. Zaltman, G. and R. Duncan. 1977. Stratcgie.ifir planned chun<qe. NclvYork: John Wilry antl Sons.

2nd ctl. NcwYork: F r w Press.

C h a p t e r 1 1

Zakia Sarwar

A D A P T I N G I N D I V I D U A L I Z A T I O N

T E C H N I Q U E S FOR L A R G E C L A S S E S

N H I S R E S E A R C H F I N D I N G S hascd on responses from nonnative teachers of I English from Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal, antl South Africa, Coleman ( 1 989) lists four prol)lcms faced by teachers of large classes ( 1 OOf ) . First, thcy feel self-conscious, nervous, antl uncomlortalde; it is indeed tiring t o lie the constant focus of 1 00+ pairs o f eyes for three to four periods a day. Secondly, large classes pose disciplinary antl class- tnanagement proldems, in ivhich the noise level must be kept down so as no t t o disturb others. Thirdly, it is difficult to evaluate the oral or \vrittcn \fork of so many learners; teachers of large classes seem to lie Iiuried under an endless pile of hoinc\vork. And lastly, teachers feel that liccausc intlivitlual attention cannot lie given, very little learning takcs

From 1983 to 1985, as a part of my studies for a master’s degree at Sydncy Unhcrsi ty (Sarwar 1983 85), I dcsigncd and cxccutcd a r rch project cntitlcd “li~aching English as a Forrign Language with Limited Resources. ne o f the aims o f the research \vas to experiment with communicative language techniques and activities that \I oultl be effective in large classes of loo+. Communicative techniques \voultl naturally include the Ixoad conccpt of individualization. Finding effective techniques for large class concern in o rder to cxaniinc the teachers’ popular belief that in large cl nominal and the interactive approach, relying on group/pair \vork, is no t possiblc.

place.

Thc conccpt of individualization

Before outlining my r arch and describing the tasks antl actilit ies that encouraged individualization in my rners , I want to clarifj my te rms of rcfcrcncc for thc conccpt of individualization. The uinbrclla title, indirriduulizution, covers “such sc~mingly tlivcrse topics as one-to-one teaching, home study, intlivitlualized instruction, sclf-a self-directed learning, and autonomy, I)ccausc thcy all focus on the learner as an individual” (Geddcs and Sturtritlgc 1982). It also encompasses a learner-centred approach to language and takes special no te of ethnolinguistic aspects of language lcarning, in which the autonomous rolc of the learner- is colourcd by their “second language self-image” and the teachcr/lcarner roles prevalent in thcir sociolinguistic sphere (Riley 1988). There are also certain underlying basic assumptions regarding learning whcn \vc talk of“individua1ization .” According to 1,ogan ( 1 980):

1 2 8 Z A K I A S A R W A R

People lcarn even the same material ~ in different ways (this implies accepting different learning styles). People can lcarn from a varicty of sour , cvcn i f the final goals arc thc same ~

implying that the instructional matcrials can vary. Direct teaching liy a tcachcr is not essential for lcarning; it is only one of many possible expericnccs ~ which mcans that a tcachcr can be a facilitator instead of a preacher. A variety of learning activities can take place simultaneously referring to integrative language-learning activities. Pcoplc may have a variety of goals or objectives lor learning a second language ~

implying that learners learn lor tliftcrcnt reasons.

Another pcrspcctive is addctl I>\ Altman ( 1 98O), who clcarl) talks of three liasic tenets that charactcri7c Individuali/ctl language teaching:

a syllabus that meets the nccds, aliilitics, and interests of cach lcarncr personalized goals, mcans, antl expectations for learners teaching methods tailored to thc n c d s of the learners

Logan’s assumptions and Altman’s tcncts \vcrc cxamincd for my research in gcneral, and lor the sclf-learning programme in particular, to dctcrmine how the conccpt of individualization could be exploited for lar-gc classes, \\.here learners needed (u) exposure to language learning, ( h ) activities for confidcncc building, and ( c ) a lcarner-centred approach to build rapport bctween the tcachcr and the learners. Obviously, a tailor-made syllabus antl teaching methodology for cach learner was out of the question for my large classes of 1 OO+. All the same, the learners \vcrc still considered to be the focal point of the learning programme, with realistic appraisal that they \nm~ld all Ihllow their own pace of learning and reach achicvcmcnt levels congrucnt with the goals they set for thcmsclvcs. I t was also accepted that if Logan’s five assumptions lvcrc applicable in small classes, they could very well be applied to large classes, so long as thc lcarning programme offered thc learners a variety of optional actil ities.

The four Rs of individualization

The \\.orking definition that emerged from these deliberations was the acceptance of Altman’s “Thrcc Rs of Individualization: Reeducation, Responsibility, and Relevance” (Williams and Williams 1979) ~ but mith thc addition of one more R , signifying Rapport, which can lie taken for granted in one-to-one instruction or in a small class. This rapport is difficult, though just as (if not more) essential, to achieve in a large class. In the context of my research, the meaning of thcse four lis of indivitlualization arc as follows.

Reeducation

This means reconstructing thc role of the teacher as facilitator and the lcarncr as the active agent in the process of learning. In the Pakistani context, this change nccds to be emphasized all the more, since the teacher and the taught are both used to the lecture pattern oftcaching in which thc student is a passive learner as the teacher “talks” without any interaction or Iireak for the whole teaching period.

A D A P T I N G I N D I V I D U A L I Z A T I O N T E C H N I Q U E S 1 2 9

Responsibility

This implies that learners take charge of thcir own learning, For the Pakistani learner this is a conceptual leap as they are used to rote learning and lack confidence in their own cognitive capabilities. It also implies the teacher’s responsibility to set up clcarly stated tasks that can be monitorcd by learners on their ovvn antl ensure the availability of self-learning materials for learners.

Relevance

A? most of the glossy and readil) a\ailalde material 15 tleiisctl for the nonnati\e lcarncr stud)ing EFL in the West, we need matcrials rclclant to our learners. Alw, r r l r \ anw means finding contexts of learning that arc mcaningful for our lcarncrs.

Rapport

A class of 100+ is a class-managcmcnt chalknge for any teacher. It is only through the proper rapport that an atmosphere conducive to learning can bc built up. Also, “humanizing” a lai-gc class is perhaps thc only way to motivate learning.

The research programme

I devised a 50-hour rclmcdial English course that focused on reading comprchcnsion and writing skills. I t was a voluntary, non-credit course, taught for two hours three times a week, and lasting approximatcly right and a half weeks. The learners ( 1 04 volunteers, who 1vei-e selected on a first-comc, first-scrved basis) agreed to stay after their regular classes for this course.Thcy were young fcmalc adults between 16 antl 20 years of age, the majority coming from a middle-class background. Thesr students \vere false beginners of English, having studied it For approximately n ycars. They had little or no exposure to English in their day-today lives except for studying it as a “subject”in the Faculty of Humanities.

Whilc discussing thc lcarncrs’ expectations for the programmc on thc first day, it \vas mutually agreed that since 50 hours of class work would not he sufficient for any tangiblc improvement, the learners ~vould supplement their bvork by following a self-monitored learning programme that included listening, reading, and writing skills. Learners ivere given a three-part qucstionnairc hcforr and at the end of the project to cvaluatc thcir progress. The questionnaire was devised to find out (1 ) thc Icarncrs’ background, (2 ) thcir attitude towards learning English, and (3) their proficiency level in English, through a reading- comprchcnsion check and paragraph writing.

performance as \vel1 as feedback from the project group ~ \vas very encouraging. For the purposes of this article, hom r, I shall only focus on the steps uscd for putting the concept of individualization into practice. Thc four Rs were taken as a rcfcrcncc point in a two-pronged thrust: ( u ) individualization in largc classcs, and ( b ) individualizing learning tasks (see Figure 1 1 . 1 ) .

The response

Individualization in the classroom

This section deals with the last R of individualization: rapport. I t focuscs on activities that “humanized” this largc class for me by helping me familiarize mysclf with the learners as persons. I t also helped to a great extent in class management.

1 3 0 Z A K I A S A R W A R

Voluntary learning

The 104 students mho enrolled tor the language project (LP) clitl so \oluntaril) Thc) mere told that the aim of the programme mas flucnc! rather than accurac!, antl that they \ ~ o u l d be taught skills rather than prescribed textbook4 The\ were under no pressure to p i n the course ~ especial$ as it \%a\ a non crdit"unollic ial"course, carricd out a? part of a research projcct. In the lollo\\ ing >cars I h a c used the concept of \oluntar) lcarnmg ti) consulting the student\ at thc l x y n n i n g ot each academic !car betorc setting u p the >car's teaching programme tor compulsor\ classes

Background questionnaire

Learners \vere given an hour-long questionnaire on their first day in class. Learning about their background, attitudes, and pcrcci\wl ncctls, as \vel1 as their proficiency level, helped me a great deal in undcrstanding m y learners. It also clariticd thcir course expectations. The responses gave m e information about the socioeconomic antl ethnolinguistic community o f the learnel-s, Lvhich proved uscf~i l in organizing their group activities and outside class projccts.

Grouping

On the \-cry t i n t clay, after introducing thc co~irsc, I askctl the learners to form groups of three or four \vith their friends. As a numlwr o f activities \\ere t o use up t ime outside the class, \\e figured that it \vouId I)c casicr for Irarncrs t o do their group tasks together in their free t ime in friendly groups. Forming thcir o\vn groups also ga\e the learners more responsilility in sharing the class-managcmcnt issues. Groups of four \\ere then given a numhcr to identify their group. The) \vcrc also askctl to sit togcthcr in class so they could sharc thcir g roup activitics. Instcad of moving ai-ountl, \ve had pcrmancnt groups xvith a

pcrmancnt scating arrangcmcnt.

Name tags

On thc second day Icarncrs ci-c rcclucstcd to make namc tags for thcmsclvcs by \vriting their name antl g roup number with a thick marker- on a card mcasuring 3" X 4".Thcy wcre to wear them as part of the class uniform throughout the duration of the coui-se.This put a name to a face, which is otherwise impossildc in a class of 104! I t also made it casicr for me to address everyone by their first names during activities antl discussions. The magic of the first namc also I)rought a more congenial atmosphere t o the classroom, as classmates liecame more familiar wi th each othci-.Thcrc \\as definitely a better rapport tict\vccn \ arious groups as well as with mc.

Proj le cards

Crcating profile cards pro\ctl t o I K a ici-4 intci-c sting 1% a! to get t o knoxz the learners lxttei F ~ r s t , the points that \I ere consitlerctl M or th kno\\ ing alwut an) o n c \T crc clicitcd in a brainstorming session and put on the I~lacklioartl 5ccontllj, thew points mere catcgorved antl put in an order acceptable to r)onc. I hen students wcrc askctl t o prepare their own prohlc cards, complete ith thcir photograph antl t h r tlctail\ listed on the ldackhoard. It \ \as announced that thrcc pri/cs \zoultl be gncn t o prohlc cards \\ ith good handwriting, correct spclling, and a neat, attract11 e prcseritation.


I learnt a lot ahout m! learncrs’ aspirations, strong points, and mcak points, and ha\ ing their photograph.; on the profile cards certainl) helped me tamiliari/c m! self \\ ith their fates The students cnjo!ed making thew cards, too Another ad\antage of ha\ing their names antl addrc5ses on their prolile card \\as that I \ \a\ able to reach mj learners b! mail after a sutltlcn closing of all educational institutions (a frequent happening hercl) antl send thcm guidance on hov to continue working on their n

Lending library

As the majority of the 1.1’ learners did not have access to English hooks, magazines, and nebvspapcrs, I gathered from my f‘riends and brought to the class used, simple stoi-y books, glossy magazines, and the magazine section of daily nc\vspapcrs.T\vo or threc o f these \vcrc tlistributed to each group, lvho Lvere to he ( u ) responsiblc for rotating antl exchanging them \\ ith different groups, and ( h ) returning thcm to me a t the end of the course. My purpose \vas siinply to provide materials for extensive rcading. I did not check to see if all the students used these, hut they \vcre film, fashion, antl sports magazines, generally liked by tccnage groups. I sa\v a brisk exchange before and after the class, so 1 presume a number of students did use these hooks antl magazines. The responsibility of keeping track of these magazines gave the learners a sensc of importance.

Individualizing learning tasks

I \vi11 discuss here selr-learning programmes (SLP) aimed at improving students’ language output as well as encouraging thcm to becomr independent learncrs. Training learners to monitor their o\vn learning is as important in a large class as in a small one ~ in fact, more important, bccause in a small class, work can he supervised 137 the teacher, but in a large class this is virtually impossiblc. Hence, thc best chance that a lcarncr in a large class has is to take responsibility for his o\vn learning. For the SLI’, all the three Rs of individualization mentioned by Altman \vcrc considered. Students \\ere given guidelines to ( u ) monitor their o\vn scoring, ( h ) do pcer correction, and (c) Lvork independently o n group projccts. As a

Readinglwriting Radio news cloze exercise

learning tasks Group projects:

Writing picture - Making reading storieslpeer cards correction - Tableaus/songs

Letters to: -Visitors -Teacher - Each other

questionnaire

Profile cards Voluntary in class learning

Grouping Responsibility class library with friends

1 3 2 Z A I < I A S A R W A R

Y estcrday f’rirnc Ministcr

teacher in SLP I devised matcrials/activities and prepared guidelines for the tasks. Except for an occasional consultation, I was not involvcd in the SLP after initiating it.

Most of the activities mentioncd are familiar to language teachcrs and arc used extensively in EFL classes in one form or another. Therefore, I have picked out only a few to show how they were adapted to become Icarncr-centrctl for SLP

Inauguratctl Karachi

conliwncc

Radio news

Students were g iwn a sample worksheet with instructions for listening to the local radio news and filling in a grid (see Figure 1 1.2).This was an activity that provided exposure to real-world listening for the learners. It also helped them improve their gcneral knowledge. Moreover, the learners could work at a time convenient to them and at thcir own pace, without peer and classroom pressurc.Thirtlly, it \vas a self-monitorcd learning task in which they were able to gauge thc-ir own progress. Bcginning to listen “1xttcr”also improved thcir self-confidence. They were able to follo\v and takc notes from speeches of native as well as nonnativc speakers at a later stage of thc language project.

Plcasc usc your radio cassette player and keep a srparatc casscttr for this cxcrrisc Try to do this cxrrcisc once a day.

,.lirn: This cxcrcisc \ \ i l l improve your listening skills. It \ \ i l l also improve your note-taking skills

Stq1 I Makr the folloiving grid in your E l P \ \o i -khook

Step 2 Listen to the radio ncns at a time con\cnicnt t o you . Tape only the headlines \vhilr listening to it. kill in the grid as y o u listen to the nc\vs. S r c cxamplc ahovc.

Step 3 Put your ivorkbook face t1on.n.

Play back the rccordctl nc\vs.

Fill in the portions yo11 mi.;sctl in the tirst listcning.

Plav back thc rccortlcd ncns again.

Chcck your rcsponscs and complete the grid as y o u play the rccordctl ncivs.

L o o k at a neivspapcr to check spcllings/comparc facts.

Figure I I . I Worksheet 1 : radio nc\vs

Self-created cloze

Students were given guidance to improve the “looy o f their Lvritten work b y being given ( 1 ) handouts to improve hanchvriting, (2 ) instructions to give special attention to indentation and \vriting format (e.g., margin, paragraph, ctc.). As an exercise for this they were asked

A D A P T I N G I N D I V I D U A L I Z A T I O N T E C H N I Q U E S 133

to copy a paragraph a day from their prescrihed textbooks, h y i n g out words, filling them in later, antl then checking with the textbook again (see Figurc 1 1 . 3 ) .

Please usc your prcscrihetl English tcxtlxiok tor the cxcrcisc

T r \ to \\rite a t least one paragraph cvcry day. Use the attached handout as a model tor your hantlxlriting.

The aim o l th i s cxcrcisc is to impro \c your

~ Handwriting ~ Punctuation ~ Reading comprchcnsion

~ Grammar ~ Proofrcaciing skills

Step I (Week\ 1 anti 2 )

u h

Eclcct a paragraph from )our Fnglish tcxtlmok Mark or undrrlinc c\ cr\ 7th \\ ortl.

c Copy the passage in your best handwriting, Icaving out the markc.. $5 ords instead.

Cloar. the I)ook. 'l'akr a I)rrak. d e Fill in the hlanks.

(Wccks 3 antl 4) I ea\ e out c\ cr) 6th \\ ortl in Ctcp 1 u

(Wcck 5 onuards) Lea\ c out r . ~ rr! 5th \\ ortl

Step 2

Check your \vork: Havc you put in J margin?

Havc you put in thr tlatr? Havc you indrntrd thc paragraph? L h c s thc writing look ncat and tidy?

Oprn your tcxtbook and chcck if you punctuatcd your work corrcctly. Chcck your I-csponscs in the hlanks.

ka\v a blank linc

Chcck thc numl)cr of blank.; ant l give yoursclf onc mark lor cach correct ans\vrr.

Figure 1 1 . 3 Worksheet 2: self-created clozc

Thc usual practice is to give an unseen passagc for clozc to teach/test comprehension or itcmizctl grammar. Rut in the pilot testing o f materials I discovered that my learners faced great difficulty if they wcrc unfamiliar with the text. Copying from familiar texts made the cxcrcisc easier for them. The feedback confirms that a number of' thcm improved in their scores with practice ofthis adapted version of clozc.Thcy also Iiccamc more confident when they attempted regular cloze cxcrciscs. Furthcr, comparing their writing with thc prcscribcd text, they got training in proofreading thcir own work, which highlighted thcir omissions and careless mistakes.

1 3 4 Z A I < I A S A R W A R

Group projects

A number of group projects \vcrc also initiated. ‘lo encourage participation, thcsc wcrc announced as competitions in which there \vould bc a prize for the best cntry in each of three categories: ( 1 ) picture storics (using the language o f instruction, description, and narration), (2 ) reading cards from ncivspapcrs antl magazines with comprehension questions on the back ofthc cards, antl (3 ) organizing tableaus and songs for thc final certificate award ceremony, which gavc learners a chancc t o usc language in real-life situations antl take up a position of responsibility, while organizing the jirogrammc.

Advantages of the individualized activities

The activities tlescribctl above take into consideration the underlying principles that Logan ( 1980) considers essential for individualization. Morcovcr, the four Ks ~~ signifying Reeducation, Responsibility, Relevance, antl Rapport arc also retlected in the tasks and activities described aliovc. Their application seems t o have mitigatcd some problems that occur liccausc of swelling numbers o f dcpcndcnt, unskilled l e a r n u s who lack exposure to rcal-\vorld English. Using the broad concept o f individualization manifested a number of advantages in thcsc activities.

Grouping /groiip proIcctt

gale learners a chancc t o make thcir o n n groups, \ \h ich brought in thc elements of both rcsponsibilitJ antl choice reduced the norkloatl antl made class management easier ga\c groups ot tricnds an opportunit! t o n o r k togcthcr on projects in a nonthreatening atmosphere made it possible lor the ncak students t o lcai-n ti-om thcir peer\

,\ume rugs/prof;lc curds

gale a name to a face, thus satisfying Icai-nrrs’ hasic nccd t o I,c i-ccognizctl as indivitluals gavc a huinanistic touch t o thc largc class brought a s m s c of I-esponsihilitv antl accountal)ility t o the learners developed a I-ajiport in the class, thus making learners m o w motivated and positive about thcir learning tasks

Rudio ncivssIc1u.s.s Iihmy

provided i-eal-\vorltl English to lcarncrs gavc them further rcsponsiliility, Lvhich later resulted in conlitlence in themselves as independent rcatlcrs/listcncrs built u p managerial skills, and made the class inore cohcsilc

Self-/corning tutks

gale learners a chancc to learn at thcir OM n p a w and achim c thcir OM n goals adlantagr in a large clays cnsurcd learning for at least those nho mere moti\ate(l to learn

a great

I. ‘ . I


Implications for teaching/learning in developing countries My rcscarch started with the basic assumption that cia in countries like Pakistan arc not likely to be reduced in size in the foreseeable future. Hence, solutions have to be realistic, within the limited constraints of the present teaching/lcarning situation.The acceptance of this reality can help a teacher to overcome the psychological barrier that the interactive approach/activitics cannot be used in large classes.This assumption led me to seek out new ways of managing the class and individualized activities.

ptancc of reality also led to setting up rcalistic, mcasurablc, short-term achievable goals, which had a reinforcing effect on the tcachcr and learners. What and how much can a teacher/learner achieve, given the Icarning conditions that prevail in large classes? A teacher obviously cannot meticulously correct a huntlred papers every day. In thc same m y , a lc-arncr cannot learn flahvless English with limited exposure to the languagc. Therefore, the initial targct was fluency rather than accuracy, providing learners with an occasion to “use” the languagc in real life.

[ . ’ .1 The broad concept of individualization and the whole structurc of the project dcmantletl

a drastic change in the tcachcr/lcarner roles. Again I started with thc assumption that direct tcaching or lecture is only one form of learning experience (Logan 1980), and that adult students are capable of taking their learning into their own hands.The transition from learner dependcncc to independence was not an easy process ~ especially in a system of education whcrc spoon-feeding and rote learning are common teaching/learning stratcgics. But the skill-based approach tlemantling cognitive interplay \vas a challcngc to a numhcr of students, I t moved them to\z.artls relying on their own judgements and conclusions, so that they bccamc- gradually indcpcndcnt. O n the othcr hand, as a teacher, relegating learning tasks and responsibilities to studcnts involved an clement of risk and ensuing frustrations. For a teacher used to complete control of the class, this \vas initially not an easy task, but thc students’ responses antl enthusiasm l en t a lot of support. In the last stages, their increased output and productivity liecame a rc\vard in itself.

I. ’ . I

Conclusion By incorporating individualization tcchniqucs my classroom rcscarch addressed three major ELT prohlcms: large classes, the dependent learner, and lack of exposure to real-\vorld English. Now what is needed most is its replication so as to e\aluate the variables involved. Ideally, this replication should be done in Pakistan as well as in countries whcrc similar teaching/learning conditions pre\ ail. In contemplating such research, the follolving suggestions should be kept in view.

The hasic materials and outline of the rcscarch done so far should be picked up, with adaptations and changes suitable for the age and 1 1 as well as thc socio~cthnolinguistic background of the learners. The rationale behind the hroad concept of individualization should he atloptcd as the basis of thc approach used in handling large classes, and the focus of the rcscarch should he on activities and techniques tha uld lie effective in large classes. Abovc all, more classroom-based resrarch in large cl involving practicing teachers should he encouraged by institutions, organizations, and drvelopers of syllabi and materials.

N o doubt the picture of a large class of loo+ appears sad to those who have never had this experience, y t it is a condition faced by more than half the world’s population of teachers antl learners. Hcncc it is of vital importance that action rcscarch involving large classes hc givcn high priority. 1. . . ]

136 Z A I < I A S A R W A R

Refercnces

Altman, I I . R. 1980. Forrign language tcaching: Focus on the learner. In Languuge teaching:

Coleman, H. 1989. The relationship bct\vccn largc class research antl largc class teaching.

Getltles, M. antl C. Sturtridgc, ctls. 1982. In~liritluuli/ation. Oxford: Modern English Pul). Hussain, A. M. and Z. Sarivar. 1989. ELT sccnc in Pakistan: rJrohlcms and prospects. SPEL7’

Kcwletter, 3, 3 , p. 10. Khamisani. 1983. English language tcaching. Paper prcscntcd at University Grants

Commission Conference onTcaching English as a Forrign/Sccontl Language, Islamabatl, Pakistan.

Logan, C. E. 1980. Individualized foreign language instruction: American patterns for accommodating learner differences in the classroom. In Languuge teaching: Meeting

individual neetlx, cd. H. R. Altman and C.V. James. NcivYork: Pcrgamon. Mumtaz, A. and Z. Sarwar. 1986. Syllalms tlcsign: Theory and practice. SPE1.7 Seminar Report,

Karachi, Pakistan. Riley, P. 1988. Ethnography autonomy. In Indii itluulimtion unci antonom)’ in language lcurning

(ELT Documents 1 3 1 ) , cd. A. Brooks and P. Grundy. Oxford: Motlcrn English Pub. and British Council.

Sarivar, Z. 1983 85. Teaching English as a loreign language ivith limited rcsourccs. Unl?ul)lishcd M. E d . research project, Sptln University, Australia.

-. 1989. The use of English in government ( ces. Paper prcwnted at the International Confcrcnce on “Varietics of English in South Asia,” U.G.C., Islamahad, Pakistan.

Williams, C. F. andT. L. Williams. 1979. Dealing with largc classes: A course in individualized instruction. English Eaching Forum, 17, 1, pp. 44 45.

Meeting indiridnal nee&, cd. I I . R. Altman and C.V. James. NcivYork: Pergamon.

Keynote paper prcscntcd at SPEUI‘ International Conference, Karachi, Pakistan.

C h a p t e r 12

William Savage and Graeme Stover

A N E M E R G E N T L A N G U A G E P R O G R A M

F R A M E W O RI<: A C T I V E L Y I N V O L V I N G

L E A R N E R S I N N E E D S A N A L Y S I S

Introduction

H A T D O O U R G R O U P O F L E A R N E R S need to do with English in their \vork environment? What can they already do? What are the content areas which

they need to talk and \vrite about? What materials and situations do they have at \vork \vhich can serve as vehicles for developing their ability to use language?

1 hese \vert‘ questions which faccd us in the development of a language program for the staff o f an aquaculture outreach project in thc northeast ofThailand, people who had specific purposes for learning English which did not seem to consist of the sorts of information generated by needs analysis as it has come to be debated in the ESP litcraturc. Wc wanted to actively involve the learncrs in the nccds analysis and program design, but \yere unsure about how hest to do so, despite our more than tcn ycars’ cxpericncc in ESP.

The approach which \vc developed evolved through a process o f meeting the learncrs and planning and participating with thcm in the language program. It \vas after the fact that we returned to the relevant literature to place our work in the context of the LSP field specifically antl language learning in general. What this paper tlescrilxs is o u r experience working togcthcr with the learners in an emcrgcnt program. As such, it describes a pi of action rcscarch which acldrcsscs the question: “what language program framcwork allows for learners to lie actively involved in tls analysis antl program design?” The paper i s

organizcd in thc same sequence as hvc c loped the program.

I .

I I1

Ill

IV

V

First, lve describe the Lvork situation of our learners. Then we discuss our initial framc\vork for developing the program and elaborate on its three phases. Next, xve review the language needs which were identified by the learners and ho\i they were realized. This i s followed by a look at some literature d a t i n g to nccds analysis and each of the four aspects of the program : working on tasks, reporting back, expanding, antl evaluating. Finally, we wil l discuss implications for other learning situations and further development.

1 3 8 W I L L I A M S A V A G E A N D G R A E M E S T O R E R

I The AIT aquaculture outreach project

Funded by the Overseas Development Agency of the United Kingdom, the Aquaculture Outreach Project ofthe Asian Institute ofTcchnology (AIT) is liasetl in Udornthani, a major city in the resource-poor northeast. Taking an interdisciplinary research approach to freshwater aquaculture for small-scale farmers, the project's main objective is to dctcrmine aquaculture strategies which are sustainalile, using inputs (feed, nutrients and matcrials) which arc readily available. Kecommcndations for fish-farming practices arc generated by a methodic flow of' information among the project, the participating farmers and on-station research at AIT.

A delicate aspect of the project concerns the manner in which farmers are recruited and participate in the project. Thus, Iiroject staff, k i n g from the northeast region themselves, are crucial to the project's efforts in that they are o f the same culture and speak the same first dialect as the farmcrs.Thc project staff in the Udornthani main office and two sub-offices in other northeastern provinces were the group of learners for whom a language program \vas requested.

Our initial contact with the project's manager, a native English spcakcr, highlighted several general reasons to learn English. I'hc funding agency is from an English-speaking country and the project often receives visitors from that agency and others, as \vel1 as English-spcaking rescarchcrs who often stay for weeks or months at a time. A aquaculturc research information is essential for many staff' members and all the data which are collected in the field are ultimately reported in English. Finally, it seems likely that the project will be extended to other countries in the region, itlcally drawing on the cxpertise of the Thai staff.

Thcsc reasons established the motivation tor a language program but did not give much information about lvhat needed to lie learned. To that end, a one-day visit to Udornthani \vas arranged during kvhich one o f the trio teachers met the learners to discuss with them their work-related nccds. The findings from the site visit \vcrc usctl to set u p a two-day planning workshop at the AIT campus in the northern outskirts of Bangkok. Seven representatives of the staff carried out work-rclatccl tasks alongside scvcn counterparts who had participated in language programs at the AIT campus. In this \Yay, information was built up from the site visit through thr planning \vorkshop to provide the content for the 2 - w ~ e k intensive workshop.

I1 The language program framework

One of the aims of the language program, as stated l iy the project manager, was to gct the participants to a point where they would bc aldc to continue to develop thcir English ability

That is, the conclusion ofthc program \vas not to I>(- view-cd as an end point, but as another starting point in itsclf. For this reason, ive have avoidctl usink" 7 course" in our terminology as, for us, it strongly suggests a discrete end point. We also feel that a coursc implies a set of content which is presented in hasi he same form each time it is regularly given. The content of the language program bed here is unique, not only to its particular situation but also to the group of learn 're lve to go through a similar proccss of developing another language program at the same location, hut for a different group of learners, the content would be quite different. Therefore, \vc will refer to the two-week phase as a workshop or simply as the two-\\ k intensive. We vimv thc program and its development as threr-phase: the one-day site visit, two-clay planning workshop and two- \vcck intensive workshop.

A N E M E R G E N T L A N G U A G E P R O G R A M F R A M E W O R K 1 3 9

site visit - - - - - > planning workshop - - - - - > intensive workshop / \ / / / \ I ,

I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I1 I 1

discussions to identify work-related needs

Participant: working on tasks

reporting back expanding

evaluating

I

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ Teacher:

observing assisting

understanding learning needs Figure 12.1 ‘I‘hc initial languagc program framcwork

In approaching the language program, the teachers began \vith the framework illustrated in Figure 12 .1 . The rolc of the participant in this initial framework was to work on tasks, rcport back, expand and e\ aluate. The role of the teacher was pcrccivcd as observing, assisting and understanding the learning needs as the participants were working. Identification of needs \\.odd not lie confined to one phase, but would occur throughout the program.

The one-da,v site visit (Udornthani)

During the site visit, one of the teachers met with the project staff. Through discussion, they were able to identify the following work-related needs:

1 EXPLAINING

(a) The work of the project (methodology antl recommendations) to visitors (11) Figures antl graphs

DESCRIBING experiment results and analyzing data

REPORTING from farmer (lata collection forms

2 3

4 SPEAKING and LISTENING

5 WRITING

(a) Monthly reports of work progrcss (b) Summaries of the monthly reports (c) Subproject reports

6 READING antl WRITING

(a) Scientific project reports (b) Office memos (c) Farmer report forms

This information was inadequate in that it merely prescribed a set ofcontcnt to be taught. (Should we now offer a course callrd “Writing Office Memos”?) I t did not tcll us what the learners could already do in English and what language learning concerns they thought needed to be addressed. This led us to the two-day planning workshop.


The two-day planning workshop (AZT campus)

Thc site visit information tlcf‘inctl the tasks filr the planning \vorkshop when scvcn represcntativcs of the Iirojcct stall‘ \vcrc pairctl \vith seven AII’ cainlius staff. The tasks concerned writing (monthly reports, suinmarirs of monthly reports antl translating reports from Thai t o English); tlescrihing antl presenting information ahout field w.ork, including photographs of a farmer’s fish ponds; pi-eparing captions for project extension media; and descrihing office I>roccdurcs. The i-cliortliack sa\v cach staff mcmlwr speaking t o the whole group about the task, Lvith the partners stepping in to help out \vhcn necessary. Because thc partners’ work also rclatcd t o aquaculture, there \vas a gi-cat deal of support and sharing of ideas. For some, it was their first occasion t o use English t o discuss their 1vol-k. During the

ion, thc tcachcrs \vcrc ahlc to olxcrvc the participants using English antl placed t o comment on thcii- needs; the participants themselves wcrc bet ter

ablc t o discuss their lcarning ncctls. M r Vorapong, for example, finishctl his reportback by announcing “Wc want t o wri te (thc farmer report forms) in English.”Whcn asked \z hy he did not do so, he began to talk about his limited vocabulary and his lack of’cxpcricncc in constructing sentences. ’l‘hat is, he I q a n clarifving his nccds for himself antl Ihr us.

On the second morning, the AIT campus staff spokc of lvork they hatl done while studying English, expanding on language learning conccrns cxIircsscd h y the project staff the previous afternoon. Oncc again, thv focus of the discussions moved from simply talking about work-related nectls to more specific learning concerns. Foi- example, Mr Pirat said: “I \\.ant t o use English c ryday, but I [am] shy. 110 you have this problcm?”Mr Supong, onc of the AIT partners, ans\vcrctl by talking aliout ho\v he hatl ovci-conic his shyness when he first hegan to learn English; he \vent on to explain about strategies he had tlcvrlopetl for learning vocabulary.This widening o f focus in the i-cportlmcks meant that the tcachcrs hegan t o rethink their initial program framcw.ork as the tcachcr and participant roles as originally perceived xz-crc no longer distinct. Thc final afternoon \vas devoted to a spoken evaluation of the tLvo-tfay planning \vorkshop, during n hich cach participant clatmi-atctl on areas thcv thought ncwlecl tlcvclopmcnt.

The two-week intensive workshop (Udornthani)

The tcac hci s met \z ith thc scicn I cpr hctorc thc intcnsi\ c u (11 kshop to diwuss thcir plans tor thc trio n e c k s and to t in the oi icntation On the Iii-st

morning, each ot thc ponsibilit) tor orienting the othcr sc\entccn staff mcmbcrs to the program and about M hat might lie cxpcctctl the! discussed the iinpoi-tance of tr! ing to use English, ot asking tor help \\ hen “stucY antl the use of the tirst language, the! talked about keeping a loghook, the! spokc ahout deleloping the technical tcrms tlictionar! (an idea \I hich hatl come up during the planning workshop), and the\ s h m e d photogi aphs takcn during the planning n o r k s h o p and explained 1% hat was happening in cach one, thcrcln inti oducing thc othcr statt incmlicrs to the itlea of orki king on tasks and reporting hack.

In the second task, though, the participants \zcic asked t o select an aica f iom the ofhcc’s meekl) suli-projcct sheet to talk allout and the) ncrc encouraged to form their OM n interest groups 1 his mol ement from tcachcr tlchnccl tasks to tasks idcntihed 11) the participants themsclx cs \%as integral t o thc progi-am approach B! thc sccontl \z eck, thc participants \ \ere lorming their ov n groups antl dchning ai cas of intci-est to nork on for the final poster session

The first task had hccn dccit lct l on I>\ t h r tcachci s and the groups had bccn prc lormetl

A N E M E R G E N T L A N G U A G E P R O G R A M F R A M E W O R I < 1 4 1

I11 Identified needs and their realization in the program

During thc planning M orkshop, the participants and teachers \T ci e able to clarif! and elaborate on the nerds that hatl been identified during the one-tla! site \isit 5ome need5 had been immaturcl: defined, tor cxample, the reading and mriting of farmer report forms While the teacher5 underitood that the report form5 hatl to be written in English, the participants made it clcar that

Participant 1 :

Participant 2 :

The quantitative data on the forms are no t translated into English but arc coded antl then entered into the data basc. The qualitative data on the forms can be in notr form, no t complete sentences.

After the two-week intensilc, the teacher5 decided to trace the needs through the program antl to scc hov the) had been rcali/etl and handled through acti\ities in the tno-meek intcn5i\ e

During the planning \corkshop, both teachers had kept tletailcd notes The sesiions hatl also been \idco-tapetl In the two-meek intensiTc, a tlail:, log n a s kept which dctailcd each (la) 's acti\ ities Thc notes, the \ideo record and the dail) log s e n et1 as data In re\ i e ~ ing the data, the teachers looked for learning needs directl! exprcsscd b:, the participants; antl learning needs ohscr\ ctl b> the teachers as the participants were using English The learning needs tell into four groups

(A)

(B) (C) (D)

interacting ~ includes such acts as explaining, describing and discussing, as \\-ell as the frequently mentioned listening and speaking; langtiage use ~ represents mcchanical language abilities; writing and reading ~ contains all references to materials to be \vritten and read; antl, rnetacognitive ~ refers to commcnts about managing thc learning process itself.

Ihc learning needs in each ot thcie groups and ho\\ the! \\ere rcali,xd in the t\\o-\\clrk intensire appear inTableq 1 2 1 4

IV Rethinking needs analysis

At the beginning of the paper, hvc asked se\eral questions kvhich \ve consider to be basic to the work done in ncctls analysis. Looking hack on our approach, it is apparent that \IT have dealt in practical tcrms with these questions, ones still being discu. d in the literaturc. In their approach to ESI' language ncccls analysis, Hutchinson antl Waters distinguish target needs from learning needs (1 987: 53 ~ 6 3 ) . In doing so, thry move beyond the cattlgorizing of linguistic features lvhich results from instruments such as Munby 's Communicative Needs Processor (1 978). But what they describe as learning needs can, in fact, lie stxcn as instructional logistics needs. For examplc, the learning needs rclatc to questions of thc purpose of the course, background of the learners, types of instructional resources, and location and time of the course. When Hutchinson antl Waters focus on targct needs, they view lcarncrs as being short of the mark, or lacking (1 987: p. 58), rather than as people who bring their own cxpcrience and expectations to a language program.

I t was this neglect Lzhich prompted us to develop an approach which \vould more actively involve lcarncrs in the needs analysis antl design of the language program. Jacobson (1 986: p. 173) approached ncctls analysis"in terms ofthc strategic competcncc that students


Table 12.1 Interacting

1 Explaining

(a) Extension matrrial dcvclopmcnt Interacting \vith visitors;

rqmrtback: tlcscription of radio station survey

for vxtcnsion, evaluation o f extension mctlia;

“muscov! duck” video

licportl>ack on 1st 8( 2nd tasks (I)) Concepts antl ohjcctivcs in

( e ) Project recommendations

projcct mctlia

(d) Connections b c t \ z ccn various

(e) Figures antl graphs staff duties

2 Describing (a) Physical features o1’pontl

systems

(1)) I’rocedurcs*

3. Discussing Lvork duties

4. Interacting on the telephone

5. Speaking antl li5tcning

Interacting \vith L isitors; student vitlcos; poster session:

“Horv to get farmc’rs to grokv fat tish” Reporthack: discussion about Khmer and Souay dialects;

vitlcos I istening posts

I’ostcr session

I’ostcr session: tish fry transfer, how to deal with I isitors

reportback: new criteria tor villagc~ sclcction

licporthac,k: recruitment antl follo\v-up in one suh-officc; \vcckly meetings; farmcr visit forms

I-ocus o f all reporting Imck; listening posts; student

vitlcos; \\ cckly meetings held in English; discussions of meek I evaluation to set up Lveck 2 ; defining antl

clarifying tasks

* Thesc procedures arose during the 2-1zcck intcnsivc; onc othcr, related to ofticc procedure, \vas not

atltlrcsscd t)ccause of a lack of time.

need in order to successfully carry out the work required in the [university physics] lab.” His task-based approach primarily involved direct observations in the lab environment in which the students were working, and interviews with the lab instructors. Including observations of what the learners actually had to do with language marked a major addition to what had typically becn put forward as methods for collecting information about language learning needs, for example, with questionnaires antl interviews (Mackay, 1978: p. 2 1 ) . But in the end, what ensued was the delivery o fa prescribed syllahus whose purpose was to fill in the gaps identified.

Widdowson’s discussion of needs analysis wends its w a j through the inadequacy of rcgister-liascd analyses to arrive at the desirability of considering “aspects of discourse” (1983: p. 85). In order to do this, he argues, we nccd to devise way5 to engage learners in “procedural work” which will convert items of knowledge about language into “actualized

A N E M E R G E N T L A N G U A G E P R O G R A M F R A M E W O R K 1 4 3

Table 12.2 Language usc

Idenr!f;cd needs How reo / i / cd clnring 2-week intensii e

I Vocabulary (a) Improper choice (c.g.

rccommcnd for collect) (I)) Inatlcquatc to coniplctc

forms (c) A\ oitling circumlocution (tl) Technical terms

A focus o f the tcchnical terms dictional-! Teacher input antl some student student corrcction Farmer visit \vorkshccts

Rcportback antl meekly mcetings: usc o f media and redia Recording \vords in logbooks; contcxtualizing \vords for dictionary; larmrr visit \\ orkshects

2 SIntax (a) Connwting ideas (b) I inking ivithin paragraphs (c) Consti-ucting sentences

3 'l'cnnc

4 Introducing a topic in \vriting

5 Writing clcai-1)

'1 cachcr input olconncctors

Writing memos, minutes of \\ cckl?- meeting antl video scripts

As abo\ c

Preparing for reporting back; \ ideo scripts

Preparing for \vcckly mcctings; recorders in mccting; minutes; video scripts; contcxtualizing vocabulary; cxplanations foi- dictionary and for setting up listening posts

6 Gi\ ing details Focus of "cxpantling"

Tohle 12.3 Writing antl reading

1dentlf;cd needs Hon reu/i /ed ciiiring 2-n cek intensive

1 Writing (a) Farmer \isit l'orms (I)) Intcrnal memos

(c) Mcmos to report unusual

(d) Monthly reports* ( c ) Monthly report summaries* (t) Report outlines (g) Abstracts o f books and articlcs

Farmer \ isit \\ orkshccts Manager reported an increase in thr number of internal memos \\ rittcn in English; teachers askctl to chcc k I > i d not arise

data

1)iscussctl ivith manager b u t not follo\vctl through

2 Reading (a) Incoming memos

(b) New sub-projcct tasks

Mrmo from sub-oftice in tnglish: discussed antl re\\ rittcn at Meekly mccting Informed second task Prcparation and rollo\v-up for \vcckly mccting

* Note that \\e had intcndcd to hold a tvriting \vorkshop in the second \vcck. This plan \vas abantlonctl as it was felt that there \vas just too much else going on. Writing was addressctl in othcr areas, c.g. memos antl mccting minutes, though this \vas only at the scntencc/paragral'll Icvcl.


Table 12.4 Mctacogniti\c

1 Acking others ahout \\ortl\ not understood

l-xainplc\ gi\cn allout ho\\ to ask lor help

Man) example\ ol \tuclcnt stutlrnt and \tutlcnt- teacher

request\ lor hrlp

2 Lrarncrs assisting each other Participanta used to jvorking as a team (a l’cature o f \vay the projcct is set up) Moat apparcnt in preparing lor reporting hack, mcctings antl postrr session

3 Overcoming shyncss to spcak This \z as commcntctl on by 6 of thc participants in their (conliticncc) Ivrittcn evaluations

4 U\ing L 1 to explain L2 Scrn in larnicr visit lorms and tcchnical terms dictionary

“Muscovy duck” video

* All spoken to in the orientation by the participants from the planning workshop

communicatile behavior” (1 983: p. 87). Kenny’s ( 1 985) re\iem of Witldowson’s Language Purpose antl Language IJ\e ( 1 98 3) ad(lcd thi5:

An analysis by the teacher ofthe learner’s conccptual requirements in the defined field wi l l point us in the direction of thc required tliscoursc . . . The selected discourse becomes in the lesson the ohjcct we respond to, dissect and discuss, and the communication we share. Ho\v is it conccptually organized? It is all right?What exactly is meant? Do wc agree? Might WT add to it? Should \c-e elaborate this point? Can someone explain this?

(1985: p. 177)

Inherent in these questions is negotiation and through such a process an understanding of learners’ language needs can bcgin, as lcarners arc cngaged in Widdowson’s “proccdural work.”At the same time, \ve arc forced to consider methodological issues as bcing at one with finding out Lvhat learners know and what they need to know. Does the methodology allow for previously unidentificd needs to be addrcsscd or is the content of the program set in stonc beforehand! Does the methodology allow for futurc needs to be handled by the learners “to achieve their o\vn aims after the course is over 11) applying the procedures they have used in learning to the continuation of learning through language usc” (Widdowson, 1983: p. 91)?

and mcthotlology is central to the approach presented in this paper; by engaging the lcarners in these conccrns of program design, the learning experience is readily accessible to the participants in terms of the content and their ability to participate. Nccds analyzctl concurrcmtly with the program and embedtled in the methodology must tie o f immcdiatc relevance. A methodology which fosters learner autonomy sustains momentum to continue learning; it becomes “a catalyst for learning” (Folev, 1991 : p. 69).The validity of any approach to identify antl addrcss the language needs

This concert of needs anal


of learners is ultimately cstahlishctl 11: “how effectively it achieves its declared purposc of defining the content of purpose-specific language programs” (Widdowson, 198 3: pp. 85 86). In the previous section, we gave cxamplcs of needs identified by the learners and how these \\-ere realized as content. Let us now turn to placing the program’s aspects into a hackground.

Working on tasks

We depart from the types of‘tasks discussed in /.angnage /.earning Tusks (Cantllin and Murph!, 1987) in one vital respect: the tasks are derived from and dcfincd I y actual work situations in Lvhich the learner needs to use English. As one of the AIT partners observed in thc planning workshop, the work content can scrvc as the language lcarning content. Work- rclatctl tasks arc suitahlc for dctcrmining lcarning needs hccausc thc use of tasks allo\vs tcachcrs to cstahiish “the rules [the learner] is using and the . tcms and categories he is working with” (Corder, 1981; in Im-sen-Freeman and I,ong, 1991 : p. 41).The advantage for the learner is that it allows him to focus on what he can do, to locate his starting point.

It is important that thc first task bc apIiropriatcly sct up so that, on reporting liack, language antl content arc generated to allokv the participants to procccd. In the case of the planning workshop, this \vas achieved by pairing the participants \ \ i th counterparts \\ ho could advise and assist them. In fact, they were helping each other. MrTanin, an AIT partncr, commented that although he had helped his partner with vocabulary, his partncr had also explained aquaculture concepts to him.

Reporting back

Reporting hack comes from the \vork donc at the Language Ccntcr o f AIT in the development of its prr-sessional master’s program,Talkbasc. A reporthack a focus on mcthod, a sharing of information and reciprocal curiosity allout what others arc doing or haw donc, and a first attempt at narrowing tlohvn a \vide and unmotivated topic to one which is both managcahlc and of personal interest to the students” (Hall and Kenny, 1988: l ip . 21 -22).‘livo rclatctl points need to be emphasizrd hrrc. First, mcthod is takcn to mcan thc lvay in lvhich the task \vas accomplished. In our approach, bccausc Icarners are dealing with work-based tasks, the mcthod for doing thc task during the language program antl for doing the task for work arc one and the same. Second, it follows that thc topic is already of interest as it is dcfined h y the learner antl involves the attainment o fa work goal. The “narrowing down”1ircoines a process of managing the topic within the learners’ current ability Ic\~cl.

Expanding

An increased abilit! to deal mith the content of the task at a more challenging leiel using languagc lust bc!ond the cui rent lelel of abilit) comcs allout through expanding what the learner has to sa) during a rcportliack Thc participants’ current knov lctlgc of language use

tl in the accomplishmcmt ot the task, upon 1% hich can be huilt a greater aliilit) to report hack Problems atldressetl in the tasks arc naturail! centered on the leal ncr \z ho Ilcncfits from guidance, not on11 lrom the tcachcrs hut also from other learners, thus expanding the scope of the learner’\ task. Or put another \\a!. “student5 [ h a c ] a plan tor further action u hich might iniollc exploration of further sources ot data, a rcdchnition oi

refinement of topic a r a or a search for mol e detailed information” (Hall antl Kenn), 1988


p 2 2 ) 1 his pointing tonartl an cxpandctl, elaborated goal is at the le\el of the content of the ta5k and reportliack antl language I \ dciclopcd to reach thc ncxt point Thus, our undcrstanding of expansion of language is that it occurs lxxausc of a need to discuss expandcd content and not as it has Iieen litnitetl in Wid(lo\z son’s formulation.

generuli/ution + clarification + elaboration + cxempl$cution (Widdon son, 1978: p. 1 33)

A language expansion sequence such as this seeins more communicatively useful when applied to the content which language is k i n g used to transmit and not simply to the language’s structural representation.

Evaluating

Evaluating is seen as “a rcgulai- and continuing process” (Rea, 1987: p. 165). l h e k e j characteristic of such cvaluation is that it is integral to lcarning antl teaching. In practice, this means that the language program participants (learners and teachers) arc explicitly aware that whatever is going on is ultimately open to evaluation; they question how a givcn task \vas accomplished and how it could tic improved. For example, such improvements might concern the need to develop a greater ability to talk aliout a certain task during a reportback session.Thcn the language nccdcd can be input to the learner, from the teacher or from other learners; the outcomc of that particular evaluation can lie acted upon immctliatclj. As Watcrs points out, the negotiation about what is required to act on a task provides an actual situation to discuss \vhat is to lie communicated and how it will be done. Participatory evaluation highlights the jobs to lie done in thc ESP classroom and the best means of carrying them out (Watcrs, 1987: pp. 7-8).

I.et us now return to thc language program framework in a rc-vised form which better reflects the itlcas we have forwarded and makcs cxplicit the manner in which the program’s aspects operate on each othcr (see Figurc 12 .2 ) .

V Concluding remarks

What we have tlcscribcd hcrc is the design o f an cmcrgcnt language program, throughout which the learners were invol\ed in defining the content antl how it \vould he addressed. Some will argue that the \vay in which \ye have proceeded here is singular to the situation and not transfcrralile. Certainly, \ve were helpcd liy thc fact that the aquaculture project staff \vere already a cohesive team before \ve began working \cith them and that they shared the same first language; antl, that the tlvo-week intensive took placc on-site.

However, we wish to make explicit certain situational constraints. First, the participants were at widely different levels of ability in English, from beginners to those who were reading (and writing) research papers in aquaculture. Second, we conducted the program with a limited amount of media technology two snappy cameras, four portable cassette playcrs antl one video camera. Third, work demands meant that some participants were called away during the two-wcek intensive.

We have de1il)cratcly not dealt in detail with the practical instructional features of the program because individual teachers \vould respond to the learners’ work-related content in thcir own way. An area which could hc developed is team teaching in an emergent program.


site visit - - - - > planning workshop - - - - > intensive workshop

- - - _ - > working on tasks

I I I I I I I I I I

I I reporting back

clarifying I I

and I

re-defining I I I

I I I I

I . - - - - - - expanding I I I I I I I

I I I I

- - - - - - - - evaluating

observing

assisting

understanding learning needs

In concluding, wc cite a particularly challenging passage from Clarkc’s discussion of the ncgotiatcd svllabus which sums up the targct \ye \vould likc to sce reached in language programs:

The syllabus as derivcd from and generated by specific groups oflcarncrs . . . \Till lie means - rathcr than ends - drivcn insofar as the ends cannot in fact he accuratel j prcdictctl. Thc v hole discussion about “design” becorncis somewhat solipsistic when it is realizcd that the Ncgotiatcd syllabus tlocs not in fact cxist bcforc thc learncrs mee t with the teacher in a particular cn\ ironmcnt in order to cstablish its parametcrs. Dcsign is therefore n o longer extcrnal to , or pr ior to, thc irnplemcntation of the syllabus and in fact becomes its most essential pedagogical component , Iicing itsclf par t o f the learning process.

(Clarkc, 1991 : 1’. 14)

References

Cantllin, C. N. and Murphv, D. F. ( 1 987) I-anguage Learning Tusks. London: Prcnticc-Hall. Clarke, I>. (1991) “The negotiated syllabus: what is it and hohv is it likrly to work?” iipplicd

Corder, S. (1 981) Error Anulysis und Intcrlanpqge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Folcy, J. (1 991 ) “A psycholinguistic framework for task-bascd approaches to language

Hall, I). and Kcnny, R. ( I 986) “An approach to a truly comrnunicativc methodology: the AIT

Ilutchinson, T. and Waters, A . (1 987) English,fbr Spectf;c Purposes: r l Lcurning-Centred .4pproach.

Jacollson, W. H. ( 2 986) “An assessment of the communication needs of non-native speakers of

Linpist ics 12, 13-28.

teaching.” Applied L i n p i s t m 12, 62-75.

pre-sessional course.’’ English f i r Specrf;c Purposes 7, 19- 3 2 .

Cambridge: Cambridgc University Prcss.

English in an undergraduate physics lab.” English f o r Xpecipc Purposes 5 , 173-87.


Kenny, B. ( 1 985) “RcvieLv: learning purposc and languagc use.’’ The E S P Journal 4, 171-9. 1.arscn-Freeman, D. ant1 Long, M . ( 1 99 1 ) An introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.

Mackay, R. ( 1 978) “Itlcntifying the nature of the learner’s necds.” In Mackay, R. and

Munby, J . ( 1 978) Cornrnunicatir~e S j / l u h ~ ~ Design. Camhridgc Univcrsity Prcss. Kea, P. ( 1 987) “Communicati\e curriculum \alidation: a task-based approach.” In Candlin,

C. N. and Murphy, D. F. (cds) Language Learning Tasks pp. 147 65. London: Prentice-Hall. Waters, A. (1 987) “Participatory coursc evaluation in ESP.” Englirh,fbr Spec!$c Purposer 7, 3-1 2. Widdowson, 11. (1 978) Teaching Langiiacqe us Communication. Oxford University Press. Widdow.son, H. (1 983) I.eurning Purpose ant/ Languuge Ure. Oxford University Press.

Ncw York: Longman.

Mountford, A. (cds) Englishhfbr Specijic Purposes. London: Longman.

C h a p t e r 1 3

Defeng Li

T E A C H E R S ’ P E R C E I V E D D I F F I C U L T I E S I N

I N T R O D U C I N G T H E C O M M U N I C A T I V E

A P P R O A C H I N S O U T H K O R E A

E C E N T L Y , E D U C A T I O N A L I N N O V A T I O N S I N L 2 education haw R received consitlcrable attention (Bailey, 1992; Freeman and Cazden, 1990; Kcmncd\; 1988; Markee, 1997; White, 1987).The literature on this topic includes studies of language curriculum d e d o p m c n t , language tcaching methodology, and the process o f innomtion that occurs in tcachcr tlcvchpmcnt contexts (Bailcy, 1992).

Attempts to introtlucc communicative languagc teaching (CLT) into EFL contcxts on EI;L countrics’ ohvn initiativcs and through international aid projects haw prompted man! innovations in 1,2 education. In general, such innovations havc had a low ratc of success (Urindley antl Hood, 1 990), and implcmenting CUI’ uw-lchziclc has often pro\.ed difficult (Anderson, 1993; Chick, 1996; Ellis, 1994,1996; Gonzalcx, 1985; Kirkpatrick, 1984; Sano, Takahashi, antl Yoneyama, 1984; Shamin, 1996; l’ing, 1987; Valdcs and Jhoncs, 199 1 ). Difficult as it is, many EFI, countrics arc still striving to introducc CI -1‘ in the hopc that it wil l improve English teaching there.

Why has CLT Ixcn so difficult to implcnicnt in EFI. classrooms? How appropriatc is CUI’ for EFI. contexts? I bclie\c teachcrs’ perceptions of the feasibility o r a CLT inno\ation in a particular contrxt are crucial in determining the ultimate su ’ or failure o f that innovation (Kc,Ily, 1980; Markcc, 1997). For this reason I undcrtook a c a w study of South Korean secondary school English teachers’ understanding of the uptake o f CUf in South Korea. As many EFL countries sharc somc of the characteristics of English tcaching in South Korea, for cxamplc, traditional tcaching methods antl large classes, this study has witlcspread implications.

CLT: one definition

CLT starts Lvith a throry of language as communication, and its goal is to develop learners’ communicative competcnce. Canalc and Swain’s (1 980) definition of communicativc competence is probahly the bcst kno\z n . The)- identified four dimensions: grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic compctcncc. This definition has untlergonc soinc modifications over thc years, perhaps bcst captured in Bachman’s ( 1 990) schcmatization of \vhat he calls lungtiage competence. The most significant differcnce l)ct\veen the two moticls

1 5 0 D E F E N G L I

is that Bachman takes a far broader vic.12 of thc role of strategies than Canalc antl S\vain do and separates strategic compctcnce completely from \vhat he calls language competencies (Bachman, 1990; North, 1997).

In CLT, meaning is paramount. Wilkins ( 1 972) classifies meaning into notional and functional categories and vicws learning an L2 as acquiring the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions. According to Larsen-l:recman (1 986), thc most obvious characteristic of CLT is that “almost everything that is (lone is done lvith a communicative intent” (p. 132) . Teachers select learning activities according to how well they engage the students in meaningful and authentic. language use rather than in the merely mcchanical practicc of language patterns.

Another dimension o f CLTF is “its learner-centered antl experience-based view of second language tcaching“ (Richards and Kodgcrs, 1986, p. 69). According to CUI theory, individual learners possess unique interests, styles, necds, and goals that should he reflected in the design o f instructional mcthods (Savignon, 1 99 1 ).

CLT is characterized by

1 2

a focus on communicative functions; a focus on meaningful tasks rather than on language per se (e.g., grammar or vocabulary

efforts to make tasks antl language rclcvant to a target group of learners through an analysis of genuine, realistic situations; the use of authentic, from-life materials; the use of group acti\-ities; and the attcmpt to create a secure, nonthreatening atmospherc.

study) ; 3

4 5 6

I stress that thc description abovc reflects just one definition of CLT, what Holliday (1 994) terms the weak version of C1.7. According to Holliday, the strong version is actually quite differcnt:The focus is not on language practicc but on Icarning ahout how language works in discourse.The Icsson input is language data in the form of text, and communicative relates more to the \lay in \vhich the student communicatcs \vith the text. Also, students collaborate for the purpose of helping each other solve language problems rather than for the purpose of communicating with each other. Because the aim is not to practice language forms, teachers do not need to monitor group and pair work closely, antl in fact activities do not have to be carried out in groups or pairs. As long as students are communicating with rich text and producing uscful hypotheses about the language, \vhat they arc doing is communicative, according to Holliday (pp. 171- 172).

CLT in EFL contexts

A number of reports in thc literature deal with CLT innovations in EFL contexts. Whcrcas somc accounts have emphasized the local needs antl the particular English tcaching conditions in the EFL countries and the importance antl success of traditional language teaching methods (Bhargava, 1986; Sampson, 1984, 1990), others have strongly advocated the adoption of CLT in EFL countries (Li, 1984; Prabhu, 1987). However, the majority of accounts have recognized the difficulties EFL countries lace in adopting CL,X

Burnaby and Sun (1 989) report that teachers in China found it difficult to use CLT.The constraints cited include the context of the wider curriculum, traditional teaching methods, class sizes and schedules, resources antl equipment, thc low status of tcachers who teach communicative rather than analytical skills, antl English teachers’ drficiencics in oral English

T H E C O M M U N I C A T I V E A P P R O A C H I N S O U T H I < O R E A 1 5 1

and sociolinguistic and strategic competence. Anderson’s ( 1 993) studv of CLT in China reported such obstacles as a lack of properly trained teachers, a lack of appropriate texts antl materials, studcnts’ not being accustomed to CLT, antl difficulties in evaluating students taught via CLT. Based on a study that assessed the attitudes of I Iong Kong educators tokvard using CLT in the local context, Chau and Chung (1 987) report that teachers usctl C I T only sparingly because it required too much preparation time.

Sano et al. (1 984) point out that the Japancsc students they studied generally (lid not feel a pressing need to use English, so that the goal of communicativc competence seemed too distant for them. A study conducted in Vietnam identified class size, grammar-liasetl examinations, and lack of exposurc to authentic language as constraints on using CI T (Ellis, 1994). Shamin (1 996) identifies learners’ resistance, among other problems, as a barricr to her attempt to introduce innovative CLT methodology in her Pakistan English classroom.

The grammar-hased English language syllahus makes the English tcaching situation complex antl the local usc of CL1’ challenging, according to Kirkpatrick’s (1 984) study of CLT in secondary schools in Singapore. Gonzalcz (1985), who studied CLT in Philippine rural areas, found that English instruction there was irrelevant to the population’s ncctls, as people there seldom uscd English.

In studies of CLT outside Asia, Valdcs and Jhones ( 1 99 1 ) report difficulties such as teachers’ lack of‘ proficicncy in English, their traditional attitudes tolvard languagc teaching, the lack of authentic materials in a non-English-spcaking environment, thc need to redesign the evaluation system, and the need to adapt textbooks to meet the needs of communicativc classes. Efforts to foster a communicative approach to the teaching of English in KwaZulu, South Africa, met with pervasive reluctance on the part of teachers and students to adopt the more egalitarian, decentralized ways of interacting associated with CLT (Chick, 1996).

Although these studies highlight many of the principal prohlems in instituting curricular innovations prompted by CLT, many of the studies takc the researcher’s pcrspcctive. ‘reachers’ perceptions of innovations related to CLT remain largely unexplored.

The study

Thc study reported hcrc used a case stud! approach to inLcstigatc Korean teachers’ pcrceptions of the implcmentation of CUI.

Background: CLT in South Korea

The South Korean government has pla English learning and tcaching high o n its agenda to ensure that South Korea will play ctive and important role in m-orld political antl economic activities. The South Korean Ministry of Education recently published a scrics of new policies regarding English learning and tcaching. First, carly in 1994 the goxrnmcnt decided that English teaching would liegin at a younger age (Grade 3 in elementary schools) starting in 1997 and began to train prospective elementary EFL. teachers.

In addition, rcalizing that “the grammatical syllabus does not help much to develop learners’ communicativc competence” (Development Committee, 1 992, 11. 66), the government decided to introduce CLT into English teaching at the secondar,

communicative competence in English through meaningful drills and communicative activities, such as games, with the aid of audio-visual equipment” (Dc lopment Committee, 1992, p. 180). Students are to learn by means of authentic materials, such as ncwspapers,

In the ne\v curricula, the goal of English teaching is “to develop

1 5 2 D E F E N G L I

magazines, English nchvs on the radio, antl English TV programs. Thc curricula reflect the belief that “CLT is characterized l ~ y learner-ccntrcdncss” (p. 1 S l ) , antl teachers arc cncouraged to organize materials based on students’ needs.

Accompanying the release of the nc\v curricula \vas the publication of a series of new textbooks. Over 10 sets of English textbooks arc now a\-ailahle to secondary school English teachers, who arc free to choosc any set provitlctl that the \vholc school adopts i t .The new textbooks incorporate a communicative perspective and more listening and speaking materials and activities relative to the older ones.

Will the shift in the government’s policy result in an improvement in students’ communicative competence? Is Korea prepared to implement CLT in English instruction? To ans\vcr these questions, 1 investigated Korean teachers’ perceptions o f the difficulties in using CLT.

Design

The analvsis consisted of a pilot study, a \vrittcn questionnaire, antl interviews. To develop an appropriatc survey instrument for this study, in summer 1 9 9 4 1 administered a pilot survey t o 21 South Korcan EFL teachers studying in a teacher education program a t a Canadian univcrsity. Thc final qucstionnairc includctl both open-ended questions and questions with tixcd altcrnativcs gcncratcd from the data collcctcd in the pilot study (see the Appendix).

In summer 1995, the questionnaire \vas administered t o 18 South Korean secondary school EFL teachers studying at thc same Canadian univcrsity.To ensure that the participants fully understood the questions, I distributed the questionnaires at the end of a class. The participants were urged to read the clucstionnairc, antl they asked questions for clarification. Al l 1 8 questionnaires distributed \vcrc handed hack. Following the survey, I conducted in-depth inter\,iews with 10 of thc participants t o explore further the teachers’ back-ground, their understanding of English teaching in South Korea, antl their tlillicultics in using CLT.

The interviews \vcrc scmistructurctl, contluctcd in a systematic antl consistent order bu t allowing m e as the intervic\z et- sullicicnt frccdom t o digress and probe far beyond the annvers to thc prrpared antl stantlartlizctl qucstions (Berg, 1989, p. 17) . T h e interviews xvcrc conducted in English. Although I was n ~ l l a\varc that the teachers’ imperfect English might limit thc information they provided, I made certain that they u ere ablc to cxprcss their itleas fully t i ) prcpariiig anti sending a numlx r of questions t o them ahratl of time.

1. . . I

Participants

Surv5r partrcipunts

The participants in the formal qucstionnairc survey \vcrc 18 South Korean. English teachers who \vert‘ studying in the Korcan l i~achcr Education Program (KTEP) at a Canadian university in the summer- o f 1995. [ . . . I

The 9 inale and 9 female participants ranged from 30 t o 50 years in age, \vith the majority in their 30s; thc avcragc age \vas 36.5,’fhcir experience in teaching English varied from 5 to 25 years, with an avcragc of over 1 1 ycars. A t the t ime o f the study, 8 participants were teaching in mitltllc schools, and 10 were teaching in high schools. Many had taught at both middle and high schools, as secondary school teachers in South Korea must transfcr schools

T H E C O M M U N I C A T I V E A P P R O A C H I N S O U T H K O R E A 1 5 3

every 5 years; high school teachers quite commonly transfcr to middle schools antl \ ice versa. Half of the participants were teaching in rural secondary schools and half in urban settings. A representative 10 ofthe 18 survey participants ww-e also given an in-depth intervicw.

Data analysis is not a simple description of the data collected but a proccss liy which the rescarchcr can bring interpretation to the data (Povmey and Watts, 1987).Thc themes antl coding categories in this study emerged from an examination of the data rathcr than k i n g determined beforehand and imposed on the data (I3ogdan antl Biklen, 1992). [ . . .]

Results

The South Korean tcachcrs \vcrc interested in the methods thcy used in teaching English. Fourteen of the 18 participants rcportrd that they were wry concerned, and the other 4 reported that they bvere fairly conccrncd. All reported that the grammar-translation mcthod, the audiolingual method, or a combination of the two characterized their teaching. However, 1 2 rcportcd having tried CI,T before attending thc tcacher education program in Canada and having encountered difficulties in such attempts.

The difficulties reported liy the Korean tcachcrs fall into four categories: those caused (a) by the teacher, (b) by the students, (c) liy the educational systcm, and (d) by CI,T itself. Among them, difficulties falling into the first category were mentioned most often, almost twice or three times as much as those in thc other three categories (seeTablc 13 .1) .

Tuhle 13.1 Krportrd difficulties in implcmcnting CLT

Source und (liff;c~ilt,i. .Yo. of’rnentionc”

Teacher Deficiency in spokcn English Deficiency in stratcgic anti sociolinguistic coinpctcncc Lack of training in C1.7’ F c ~ v opportunitica for rctraining in CLT Misconcrptions about CLT Littlc tinic lor developing materials for communicative classes

Students I OLV tinglish proficirncy Lack of motivation for de\ cloping communicativr coinpctcncc Resistance to class participation

Educational systcm

Grammar-based examinations Insufficirnt funding I.ack of support

CLT lnadcquatc account of LFL traching I ack of rffrctivc and cfticicnt assrssmcnt instruments

99 18 18 18 16 1 5 14

50 18 17 15

61 18 18 1 3 1 2

34 18 16

“ The number of timer the rcscarch subjects referred to a thcmc in either the qucstionnairc or the intervie\.\. as a constraint in using the CLT in their o n n contcxt. Thr maximum number of mentions possible for each ofthc themrs included Lvithin thc four major categories i s 18.

1 5 4 D E F E N G L I

Dificu1tie.s caused by the teucher

Deficiency in spoken English

All 18 participants considered that their own deficiency in spoken English constrained them in applying CLT in their classrooms. As rcportccl by thc Korean teachers, the South Korean governmcnt wanted CLT implemented I)ecausc o f disappointment about students’ oral proficiency in English.The governmcnt as \vel1 as the teachers hopcd that CLT would help students develop lxtter oral English. Although the tcachcrs gcncrally felt that they were highly proficient in English grammar, rcatling, and writing, they all reported that their abilities in English speaking and listening were not adequate to conduct the communicative classes necessarily involved in CLT. ’l’he following comment was typical.

1 . I am good at English grammar, reading, and lvriting. Rut my oral English is very poor. Since 1 can’t speak English \vcll, how can I teach it to my students?

(Dong-Soon, July 3 1 , 1995)

Surprisingly, even respondents who spoke English fluently and communicated well thought thcir English was “too poor to use communicative language teachings” (Jin-Kyu, July 17, 1995). Deficiency in spoken English apparently prevented some teachers from applying CIrr, but for others lack o f confidencc was more likely to have been the reason.

Deficiency in strategic and sociolinguistic compctcncc

All 1 8 participants reportctl that thcir low strategic and sociolinguistic competence in English would limit their use of CLT. As teachers’ sociolinguistic antl strategic competence must lie much greater in a communicative classroom than in a traditional grammar-focused classroom, the participants gcncrally felt incompetent to conduct a communicative class.

2. Studcnts askcd more qucstions in the class. I was happy when they asked me questions related to the English grammar. Rut those questions that are related to thc sociolinguistic aspccts of English arc really hard for me. . . . In Korea, when you can’t answer all of the students’ questions right a n y , you can’t be a teacher.

(Young-Chcol, July 26, 1995)

The fear of losing face hccausc of not Iwing ablc to answer students’ questions all the time discouraged teachers from using CLT.

3. I once tried communicative activities with my Grade 10 kids.The kids enjoyed it. In tact I cnjoyctl it too, cxccpt they asked so many questions related to the English culture.They kvere interesting questions. Some of them I could answer, and some of them I could not. That made me very much embarrassed. . . . If your kids find that you cannot always answer their questions very confidently, you arc going to lose thcir respect antl finally lose them. In our culture, teachers are supposed to know everything and be always correct.

(Jin-Kyu, July 17, 1995)


Because of their deficiency in sociolinguistic competence in English and fear of losing the respect of their students for being unable to give prompt ans\vers in class, teachers “chose to stick to the traditional grammar-centred, text-ccntred and teacher-ccntrctl mcthotls so that [they] always had a good idea about what was going to happen in every class and made adequate preparations for it” (Dong-Soon, July 3 1 , 1995).

I ack of training in CLT

All 18 participants named lack oftraining as one ofthc main obstacles they faced in applying CLT. As reported by the teachers, thcy had learned about CLT in different hvays ~ in university methods courses, English teaching confcrcnccs, antl English teaching journals ~

but thcy all agreed that they had not practiced it much.

4. Like many of us, I Icarncd CLT when I \vas studying at uni\-crsitv. But it \vas taught as a piece of knowlcdgc for us to remember, not to use. I did not practice using it while at university, though I did try it a f e ~ . timcs latcr when I became a teacher.

(f..om-Mi, July 25, 1995)

5. I learned the term CLT at a teachers’ conference. To be honcst, I did not quite understand hov it norks.

(Mwng Sook, Julv 30, 1995)

This lack of systcmatic training led to a sketchy antl usually fragmented understanding of CI,T and made it difficult for the teachers “to leave thc sccurity of the traditional methods antl take thc risk of trying new unfamiliar methods”(Tack-Soo, July 20, 1995).

Fc\v opportunitics for rctraining in CLT

Sixteen teachers reported that fe\v in-scrvicc opportunities for retraining in CL‘I’ lvere available. Most o f the respondents hac1 not had such opportunitics t)cfore the teacher education program thcy \vert attcnding at that time. Mi-Ju cxpressed her frustration whcn asked about her in-service education.

6. This i s the first time I participatc in an in-service teacher cducation program. It took me 18 years to gct such an opportunity.

(Mi-Ju, July 28, 1995)

Even after the publication of the government’s ncw communicatiw curricula, feiv in- service tcachcr education programs offered training in CLT. Without proper retraining, teachers will inevitably misunderstand some elements o f CLT.

Misconceptions about CLT

Fifteen respondcnts referred to teachers’ misconceptions about CLT as one of the principal obstacles. A typical misconception was that by concentrating on appropriateness antl fluency, CLT docs not teach form at all and thus totally neglects accuracy.

7. Before attending this tcachcr education program, I thought that communicati1 e language tcaching does not teach grammar antl only teaches speaking. I did not

1 5 6 D E F E N G L I

think that \\as a good ma> to teach our kids Engli5h. I think grammar should be part of it, at least for our kitis After all, thcy ha\e to pass a lot of exam4 antl there i \ a lot of grammar in them

(Myong-Sook, July 30, 1995)

Such misunderstantlings led thc teachers to Iiclic\ c that CLT contradicted thcir beliefs about language learning and did not allon them to prepare students for the harious exams that arc critical to their future careers. For that reason, the teachers refused to accept CLT.

Littlc time tor antl cxpcrtiw in material tlc\clopment

Fourteen tcachcrs reported that lack of time for and lack of cxpcrtisc in tlcveloping communicative materials had been constraints for them. All thc English textbooks availalile (before the publication o f the ncw series of textbooks accompanying the publication of the communicative curricula) had lieen developed under thc influence of‘ the grammar- translation and audiolingual mrthods, so teachers had hatl to write their own materials and design thcir oxvn activities if they wanted to use C1.T. [ . . . ] This prohlcm was particularly serious for female teachers liecause they also hatl to deal with housework.

8. I teach in a high school. I haic to hc at school from 8:00 in the morning to 6:3O in the afternoon. When I go homc, I hale to take care of my tmo kidr. Because m j husband teaches ana) from our home in Seoul, I hale to take my kids there at \Teekends to see him. I really do not ha le time for an> extra work.

(In-Ran, July 24, 1995)

Lack of expertise in designing communicati! c actii itics \vas also a concern among the

1. ’ . I tcachcrs.

L o n tng l i \h proficiency

All 18 respondents reported that one important difficulty preventing them from using CLT \vas their students’ low English proficiency. Korean students do not start to learn English until after thcy cntcr middle school (Gradc 7), antl thcy haw only four 1 -hour English classes each week, making progress slow.Thcy usually have a small English vocabulary and a limited command of English structures. Recause students did not have the necessary proficiency in English, the teachers found it hard to do any oral communicative activities with them.

9. Thc avcragc secondary school students have a very small English vocabulary. They know limited number of English structures. So thcy haw great difficulty to express themselves in English when they are assigned to do communicative activities. Gradually they lose interest in trying to speak English and liecome too discouraged to spcak English any morc.

(In-Ran, July 24, 1995)


As pointed out earlier, the Korean teachers believed that CLT necessarily involved speaking activities. Therefore, Lvhcn oral activities were not possible or appeared to he difficult, the teachers became frustrated with CLT and in most cases galc it up.

10. In such activities, I often see the kids struggling to express themselves in English, only to make each other more confuscd. . . . I do not know whether I am doing thc right thing with thc kids. To be safe, I prcfcr to use the method I am l‘amiliar \vith to help the kids icarn.

(Eom-Mi, July 25, 1995)

Little motivation for communicativc compctencc

Seventeen participants identified students’ lack of motivation to work on their communicative comprtence as a great limitation. Although an increasing number of pcoplc in South Korea have realized how important it is to be able to communicate in English rathcr than to know English grammar well, students in secondary schools still care much morc about grammar.

1 1 . My students know it is wry important to learn to use English for communication. But since their goal is to enter the university, they prefer to work on English grammar because thc National University Entrance Exam is grammar based.

(Joon-Suk, July 26, 1995)

Because grammar still plays a dccisive role in all English examinations in South Korca, “tcachcrs who teach communicativc competence arc not liked as well as thosc who tcach grammar” (Mi-Ju, 28/07/95), Students complained that “they [were] not learning anything if they [did] not learn nebv words and grammar in a class” (Na-Yun, July 26, 1995).

Rcsistancc to class participation

Fifteen respondents cited the students’ resistancc to class participation as a primary constraint in trying CLT. As students have already been in school for at least 6 years by the time they enter middle school, they haw become accustomed to the traditional classroom structure, in which thcy sit motionlcss, take notes while the teacher lectures, and speak only when they arc spoken to. After so many years of schooling in traditional settings, students rely on the teacher to give them information directly, making it very difficult to get thc students to participate in class activities.

The inconsistencies among teachcrs in their expcctations of studcnts also discouraged students from participating in class activities,

12 . Especially when English class is thc only place whcrc participation is encouraged, it can bring about confusion for the students as most tcachcrs of other subjects will probably ncvcr toleratc, not saying encourage class participation.


To play it safe, students usually chose to behave traditionally in English class. When students were not willing to participate in class activities, teachers saw little chance of fulfilling their goal of using CLT, rendering it pointless to adopt CLT in their class.

158 D E F E N G L I

D@culties caused ty the educational ystern

Largc classcs

All 18 respondents referred to large classes as one of the principal constraints on their attempts to use C1.T. In South Korea, a sccontlary school class usually contains 48-50 students.The teachers found it very difficult, i f not entirely impossible, to use CLT with so many students in one class hecause they Iielieved that oral English and close monitoring of class activities Lvere essential in CLT.

13 . With that number of students in one class, first of all, it is very difficult for class management if UT use the communicativc method. For example, when everyone starts to talk, the class can be very noisy.Tcachers and students in nearby classrooms will complain ahout the noise in the English class. Secondly, it is not possible for the tcachcr to give cach o f them [individualized] attention as required by the communicativc method. Thirdly, \vith so many students in one regular classroom, there is not even enough space for the students and the teacher to move around to carry out the communicativc activities. Especially when the desks and stools arc fixed to the floor, you cannot even move them.

(Jin-Kvu, July 17, 1995)

Grammar-basctl cxaminations

Grammar-based examinations were namctl Iiy all 18 rcspondents as another important constraint. Among the many English cxaminations in South Korea, the National University Entrance Examination (the English section) is thc most important one because other formal and informal English cxaminations are motlcled on it. Until 1994 it consisted mainly of grammar, rcading comprehension, and translation items. Now it has an additional part called “Listening Comprehension,” Iiut its grammar-hased nature has remained unchangcd. Teachers, under pressure to make their students do well on such tests, often devote valuable class time to teaching test-taking skills and drilling students on multiple-choice grammar items.

14. This exam [the National University Entrance Examination] has had tremendous influence on the English teaching in South Korea. As soon as students start middle school, they have a clear goal in mind - to pass the National University Entrance Examination.Teachcrs also have a clear goal in mind - to help students succeed in the Examination. Because it only tests students’ grammar knowledge and reading ability, both students and tcachcrs are interested in grammar and rcading in English classes.

(Young-Cheol, July 26, 1995)

Such an attitude leaves little room for CLT for 110th tcachcrs and students. As Savignon (1991) observes, many curricular innovations have been undone by a failure to make corresponcling changes in evaluation.


lnsufficicnt funding

Thirteen rcspondcnts mentioned insufficient funding as a constraint.To use CLT in tcaching English, certain equipment and facilities must be in place. Extra funding is nerdcd to obtain resource books and materials for communicative activities. When the funding is not there, using CLT is hard.

15. For example, we will need a photocopier to copy materials for students.That means we need extra money which is not always there. It’s ahvays more difficult than you plan and imagine.

(Eom-Mi, Julv 25 , 1995)

Lack of support

Lack of support \vas cited b y 1 2 respondents as a constraint. Although some of the teachers had learned aliout CLT in univcrsity mcthods courscs, “applying it was yet another thing” (Dong-Soon, July 31, 1995).

16. When I had qucstions about mhat I was doing, I talked with mj fcllov teachers, hoping to get help from them Often t h q could not help me Horn I n ished therc v a s a CLI expert for questions and support

(Joon fuk, Jul) 26, 1995)

Teachers also found lack of support from administration frustrating.

17. It’s difficult to get help from our administrators. Particularly before the new curriculums \vcre published the principal in my school didn’t carc about the method I used. He \vas only interested in the scores my students got in exams. kven now after the publication of the new curriculums, hc still carcs mostly about the students’ scores.

(In-Ran, July 24, 1995)

The respondents also intlicatctl that they scldom got support from fcllow instructors teaching other subjects in the samc schools.

18. Also, sometimes 1 needed cooperation from teachers of other subjects; but, for

(In-Ran, Ju ly 24, 1995) some reasons, they showed little intcrcst in what I was doing.

Teachers generally found this lack of professional, administrativc, antl collegial support discouraging. Often they lost interest in coping with the challenges of introducing CIAT in their classes.

1 9 This [lack of support] 1% as extremel) diScouraging It M as 40 hard when e\ cr) thing was on your shoultler. Finally I had to gixe up CI T antl return to the peaceful and easy traditional method of teaching English

(Dong-Soon, Jul) 31, 1995)

1 6 0 D E F E N G L I

CLT’s inadcquatc account of EFL teaching

All 18 participants reported that CLT has not given an adcquatc account of EFL tcaching dcspitc its initial growth in foreign languagc teaching in Europc.The teachers saw important differences bctwccn teaching EFL and teaching ESL. Thcy expressed frustration at the fact that the research community, cspccially many Western language education rcscarchers, has rarelv differentiated EFL from ESL.

20. In my opinion, EFL is very tlilfci-ent from ESL. But many people tend to confuse them and often ignorc the special clcmcnts of EFL. situations. I think that’s why w c EFL teachers usually find Western language teaching methods difficult to use.


The significant differences that thc teachers saw bctwccn EFL and ESL included the purposes of learning English, learning environments, teachers’ English proficiency, and the a\-ailability of authentic English materials.

[. . . I

2 1 . For cxamplc, in ESL situations, studcnts usually h a w a very supportive learning environment outside school. Thcy have many chances to hear and speak English outside class, which can reinforce VI hat they learn in class. Resides, they have the motivation to work on oral English txcausc they need it in their lives. In our situation, the classroom is the only place hvhcrc studcnts can hear and speak English.Thcy do not nccd to usc the language in their livcs but only in pretended situations.


Lack of effective and cllicicnt assessment instrunicnts

Used to traditional discrete-point tcsting o f grammatical knowledge, the teachers found it disconcerting that there \vcrc no prescrilied, ready-made assessment tools for communicative competence and that they would have to design their own. The Korean teachers believed that one ofthe liest \vays to test students’ communicative competence was to give the studcnts oral tests. In general, they each taught four classes of approximately 48 students. Finishing even one round of individual oral tests would take a long time, and there was nobody to supervise the other students while the teacher was conducting the tests.

22. When you teach four classes and each has nearly 50 students, you are dealing with 200 students. If I have to do oral examinations to assess their communicative competence, it would take me dozcns of days to finish just one round.

(Mi-ju, July 28, 1995)

Resides, the Korean teachers generally did not support these sulijectivc tests.


23. There is no way that my collcagucs and I would use the same criteria in the test. Even I myself probably cannot use the same criteria all thc time. I would probably use different criteria when I am tired after long time of testing.


The teachers also found it difficult to balance content and languagc when scoring oral exams.

24. About a year ago, for the final cxam, besides the writtcn tcst, I did an oral cxam for thc students in one of thc classes I taught. Giving them a score \vas so difficult compared with grading the written tests. My biggest problem was how much I should assign to the content of their talk and how much to the language they used. Even before I finished the test, I knew that I used different criteria. I did not like the results of the test because they were not reliable.

(Myong-Sook, July 30, 1995)

Implications of the study

Much of what the Korean teachers said about EFL teaching in their country and about their difficulties in using C1,T is common to many parts of the world. The following discussion, although it particularly addresses EFI, teaching in South Korca, thus extends to other EFL countries as well.

A conflict apparentlv exists between what CLT demands and what the EFL situation in many countries, such as South Korea, allows. This conflict must hc rrsolved before EFL teaching in these countries can hcnefit from CLT. To resolve the conflict, attention should be givcn to the following areas.

Educational values and attitudes

The fundamental approach to cducation in Korea needs to change before CUI‘ can hc successful there. The predominance of text-centered and grammar-centered practices in Korea does not provide a hasis for the student-centered, flucncy-focused, and problem- solving activities required by CLT. As Price (1 988) points out, reform of education is not simply reform of the school system but reform of the behavior and thinking of the widcr social tcaching-learning process that guides moral-political ideas and behavior. Far-reaching curriculum innovation involves funtlamental shifts in the values and beliefs of the individuals concerned (Brindlcy and Hood, 1990; Burns, 1996). If CLT is to be implemcntcd in a previously traditional classroom, teachus, students, parents, administrators and other stakeholders must shift their conceptions of what constitutes good English teaching (Enright and McCloskey, 1985; Markee, 1997; Penner, 1995).

However; such a fundamental change takes time. “Changes in the \vay pcople think usually lag behind changes in social structure” (Ting, 1987, p. 49). Therefore South Korea and other EFL countries with similar situations should adapt rather than adopt CLT into their English teaching. Rather than simply jumping onto the CLT bandwagon by mandating its use, the government and EFL teachers of South Korca and other EFL countries should carefully study their TEFL situations and decide how CLT can best scrvc their needs and interests.

1 6 2 D E F E N G L I

Reading

Because the main purpose of learning English for many people in South Korea and other EFL countries is to be ahle to read antl translate into their mothcr tongue scientific, medical, and technical documents written in English, Korcan teachers should continue their emphasis on developing students’ rcxding ahilitics. However, instead of spending much precious time on intensive reading and grammatical analysis, teachers might introduce some ideas from CLT, such as extensive reading and reading for meaning.

Oral skills

Recause the demand for people \vho can communicate orally in English has increased as the result of international tratlc and globalization, English classes should include listening and speaking activities. Teachers antl administrators must be ahvarc of the shift in societal needs and make conscious and persistent efforts to introduce morc CLT into English tcaching. With globalization, smaller classes, a better cconomy, and more compctcnt tcachcrs, a lietter undcrstanding antl acceptance o f the philosophical underpinnings of the CLT arc possible. South Korea and other EFL countries may thcn hc aldr to use morc CLT or, better still,

lop their o\vn “locally appropriate vcrsion of the communicative approach” (Tomlinson, 1990, 13. 36).

Grammar

Contrary to a common misconception, CLT docs not exclude the tcaching of grammar. Thc litcraturc abounds with arguments for including grammar instruction in L2 teaching. Howcvcr, tcachcrs must also hear in mind that the purposc of teaching grammar is to help students lcarn the language, antl teachers must be \vary of making grammar the end of their teaching. [ . . . ]

Students’ attitudes

In introducing CLT to students \vho have previously studied foreign language in a traditional fashion, teachers arc likely to encounter some initial reservations. Thus, teachers will need to consciously reorient students to “the basic function of the classroom, the role of the student and the nature of language” (Dcckcrt, 1987,p. 20).

Teachers’ attitudes

Teachers should have assistance antl cncouragcmcnt in trying out nc\v ideas and materials. Continuing support for teachers who may need further help \vith CLT along the hvay is also important. [ . . . ]

Preservice teacher education

The tleli\cry of EFL methods courses in preservice teacher education programs should change. CLT should not be lectured about but tlcmonstratcd. Novice teachers should have opportunities to get hands-on experience Lvith antl gain confidence in using CLT.

More importantly, considering the dynamic nature of EFL teaching, preservicc teacher education should focus on dcvcloping student tcachers’ autonomy and their decision-making


and problem-solving ahilitics as well as their ability to be reflectivc practitioners (Richards and Lockhart, 1994; Schon, 1983).

Local educational growth

Inasmuch as many teaching methodologies developed in the West are often difficult to introduce into EFL situations with diffcrcnt educational theories and realities, in thc long run EFL countries may be bet ter off developing methods in their oivn contexts. Rather than relying on expertise, methodology, and materials controlled and dispenscd by Western ESL countries, EFL countries should strivc t o establish their own research contingents and cncourage methods specialists and classroom teachers to d lop language teaching methods that takc into account the political, economic, social, antl cultural factors and, most important o f all, the EFL situations in their countrics (Daoutl, 1996; Phillipson, 1992). In this way, thcy will he able to d e teaching methods “appropriate to thcir lcarncrs, their colleagues and thcir societies” (Edgc, 1996, p. 18).

Conclusion

Curriculum innovation involvcs multiple and interrelated factors that may influence it at different stagcs and at different lcvcls (Shamin, 1996). “As a socially situated activity, its success is affected by ethical and tcmic constraints, the personal charactcristics of potential adopters, the attributes of innovations antl the stratcgics that are used to managc change in particular contexts”(Markre, 1997, p. 41 ). In an! at tempt t o improve education, teachers arc ccntral t o long-lasting changcs (Frymier, 1987; Fullan, 1993). How teachcrs as the end users o f an innovation perccivc its feasibility is a crucial factor in the ultimatc success or failurc o f that inno\ ation.

References

Anderson, J. (1993). “Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons.’’ System, 2 1, 471 --4HO.

Bachnian, L. F. (1 990). Ftrndamental considerations in language tcsling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, M. B. ( I 992). “Thc proccss of innovation in language teacher education: What, \vhy antl hobv teachers changc.” In J. Flo\vertle\v, M. Brock antl S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on

second lunguu‘qe teuchcr etlucation (pp. 25 3-282). Hong Kong: City Polytcchnic of Hong Kong.

Bcrg, B. L. (1 989). Q d i t a t i r z reseurch method.t,for the socid sciences. Boston: Allyn and Racon. Hhargava, R . (1 986, April). Communicative language teaching: 11 cote (If‘much ado about nothing.

Paper presented at thc 20th Annual Meeting of thc Intcrnational Association ofTeachcrs of English as a Foreign Language, Brighton, England.

Bogdan, K. antl Biklen, S. K . (1 992). Qualitative rctearch f i r educution:An introduction to theoiy crnd methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Brindlcy, G. and I Iood, S. ( 1 990). “Curriculum innovation in adult ESL.” In G. Brindlcy (bd.), Thc second langtruge curriculum in action (pp. 232-248). Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Burnah?, B. and Sun, Y. (1989). “Chinese teachcrs’ vicivs of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigm.” TESOL QrarterLc., 23, 21 9 238.

Burns, A. (1 996). “Collaborative research and curriculum changc in th r Australian Migrant English Program.” TESOL QrurterLi., 30, 59 1-598.

1 6 4 D E F E N G L I

Canale, M. and Swain, M. ( 1 980). “Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language learning antl testing.’’ Applied Linguistics, 1 , 1 4 7 .

Chau, L. antl Chung, C. ( 1 987). “Diploma in education graduates’ attitude toward communicative languagc teaching.” Chinese Universiy Education journal , 15(2), 45 5 1 .

Chick, J. K. ( 1 996). “Sat‘-talk; Collusion in apartheid etiucation.”In H. Coleman (Ed. ) , Society and the language classroom (pp. 2 1 ~ 39). Camlx-itlge: Cambridge University Press.

Daoud, M. (1 996). “English language development inTunisia.” TESOI Quarterly, 30, 598-605. Deckert, G. ( 1 987). “The communicative approach: Helping students adjust.” English Teaching

Forum, 25(3), 17-20. Development Committee of the Sixth Curriculum for High School English. ( 1 992). The report

on the revision ofthe English curriculum /or high school. Seoul, Korea: Author. Edge, J. (1 996). “Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values.’’ TESOI. Quarterly, 30,

9-30. Ellis, G. (1 994). “The appropriateness of the communicative approach in Vietnam: An

interview study in intcrcultural communication.” Unpublished master’s thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.

Ellis, G. (1 996). “HOW culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?” ELTjournal , 50, 2 13-2 18.

Enright, I). S. and McCloskcy, M. L. (1985). “Yes, talking! Organizing the classroom to promote second language acquisition.” TESOI Qiarterly, 1 9, 43 1 4 5 3.

Fotos, S. S. (1 994). “Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousncss~raising tasks.” TESOL Quarterk, 28, 323 35 1.

Freeman, D. antl Cazdcn, C. €3. ( 1 990). “Learning to talk like a profcssional: Somc pragmatics of foreign languagc teacher training.” Prugmcitics and Lungtiage Learning, 2 , 225-245.

Frymier, J. (1 987). “Bureaucracy and the neutering of teachers.” Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 9-1 4. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing rhc depths ?f etiucational y f o r m . London: Falmer

Press. Goetz, J. P. antl LcCompte, M. D. ( 1 984). Ethnography and qualitatire design in educational

research. NelvYork: Academic Press. Gonzalcz, A . (1985). “Communicative language teaching in the rural areas: How docs one

make the irrelevant relevant?” In R. K Llas (Ed. ) , Communicative l a n p a p teaching (pp. 84-1 05). Singapore: Singaporc University Prcss.

Harvey, P. (1985). A lesson to be learncd: Chinese approaches to language learning. ELT journa l , 39, 183 186.

Holliday, A. ( 1 994). Appropriate methodology and social conlest. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kclly, P. ( 1 980). “From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of curriculum development.” In M. Galton (Ed.), Curriculum change:The Ic.s.sons . f a decade (pp. 65-80). Leicester, England: Leicester Univcrsity Press.

Kennedy, C. ( 1 988). “Evaluation of thc management o f change in ELT projects.” Applied Linguistics, 9, 329-342.

Kirkpatrick,T. A. ( 1 984). “The role of communicative language teaching in sccondary schools: With special reference to teaching in Singapore.” In R. K . Das (Ed.), Communicative language teaching (pp. 171 ~ 191 ). Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. ( 1 986). Techniyries and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford Univcrsity Press.

Lee, C. (1 990). “Korean high school seniors’ oral antl literate comprehension and production skills in English.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Boston.

Li, X. J. (1 984). “In defense ofthe communicative appruach.”EL?‘/ournal, 38, 2-1 3. North, €3. (1 997). “Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence.” Language

Zaching, 30(2), 93-100.


Penncr, J. ( 1 995). “Changc antl conflict: Introduction of thc communicative approach in

Phillipson, R. (1 992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Powney, 1. and Watts, M. (1 987). Interviewing in educational re.search. 1.ondon: Routledge. Prabhu, N. S. ( 1 987). Second language pedagogj. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Price, R. F. (1988). “The politics of contemporary cducational rcform in China.” In E. B.

Gumbcrt (Ed.), Making the Juturc: Politics and educational rfform in the IJnited States, England, the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba (pp. 99-1 14). Atlanta: Georgia State University.

Richards, J. C. and Lockhart, C. ( 1 994). Rejlective teaching in second languugc classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, G. P. (1 984). “Exporting language teaching methods from Canada to China.” TESL Canadojournal, 1 ( l ) , 19-32.

Sampson, G. P. (1990). “Teaching English literacy using Chinese strategies.” TESL Talk, 20( l ) , 126-1 38.

Sano, M., Takahashi, M. and Yoneyama, A . ( 1 984). “Communicative language teaching and local needs.” ELTjournal, 38, 170-1 77.

Savignon, S. ( 1 99 1 ). “Communicativc language teaching: State of the art.” TESOL Quarter!,,, 25, 26 1-277.

Savignon, S. and Rcrns, M. (1984). Initiatives in commtinicarive language teaching: A hook readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schiin, D. A. ( 1 983). The rejlective practitioner: How. pr$ssionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Shamin, F. ( 1 996). “Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology.’’ In H. Coleman (Ed.) , Socict,~ and the language classroom (pp. 105 121). Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity Press.

South Korean Ministry of Education. ( 1 992a). The sixth curriculum.fbr high .schools. Seoul, Korea: Author.

South Korran Ministry of Education. (1 992b). The sixth curriculum,fir middle schoo1.s. Seoul, Korea: Author.

lilleman, H. H. ( 1 994). Training and professional expertise: Bridging the gap bctween ne\+ information and pre-existing bzliefs of teachcrs. Euching and ‘leacher Educution, 10, 601 615.

Ting,Y. K . (1 987). “Forcign language teaching in China: I’roblcms antl perspectives.” Canadian and International Education, 16, 48--61.

Tomlinson, B. (1 990). “Managing changc in Indonesian high schools.” ELT]ournal, 44, 2 5-37. Valdes, A. I. and Jhones, A. C. ( 1 991). “Introduction of communicative language tcaching in

White, R.V. (1987). “Managing innovation.”ELTlotirnal, 41, 21 1-218. Wilkins, D. A . ( 1 972). The linguistic and situational content ?f the common core in a mit/credit

China.” TESL Canada Journal, 12(2), 1- 17.

tourism in Cuba.” TESL CunudaJournal, 8(2), 57 63.

.y .~tcm. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

Appendix: questionnaire

Please complete the following question\ as appropriate. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

1 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Age sex

How many years have you lieen a tcachcr of English?

Are you teaching in a middle school or high school?

0 Middle School 0 High School

Which grade(s) are you tcaching?

Are you teaching in an urban or rural middlc/high school?

0 Urban Rural

Are you concerned about the methods you use in tcaching English?

DYES 0 N O

What methods are you using now?

Haw you tried Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)?

DYES 0 NO

Why did you or why didn’t you try CLT?

Hoiv did you like using CLT in your classroom?

The following are some difficulties that other EFL teachers had in adopting CLT. Did you comc across thcsc difficultics or do vou think thcv might lie difficulties for you in adopting CUI’ in South Korea?

Teachers’ deficiency in spoken English?

Teachcrs’ deficiency in strategic and sociolinguistic competence in English?

Tcachers’ having little time to hvri tc communicative materials?

Students’ low English proficiency?

Students’ passive style of learning?

Lack of authentic tcaching matcrials!

Grammar-hased examinations!

Large classes?

‘l’he differences hctwccn EFL and ESL?

UYES O N 0

P A R T T H R E E

Planning and implementing curriculum change

C h a p t e v 14

Adrian Holliday

A C H I E V I N G C U L T U R A L C O N T I N U I T Y I N

C U R R I C U L U M I N N O V A T I O N

Introduction

N T H I S P A P E R I A M G O I N G T O L O O K A T thc issue ofcultural continuitv I in curriculum innovation. My major point will be that a major obstacle to true cultural continuity is our own professional discour. which prevent us from seeing the real worlds of the people we work with. We therefore need to be critically aware of ourselves as cultural actors antl learn how to see the people wc work with in their own terms instead of in our terms.

I shall begin with the principle of cultural continuity and why it is important both in the classroom and the wider domain ofthc curriculum and curriculum projects. I shall thcn demonstrate how professional discourses create obstacles to cultural continuity, and how this might tie avoided.

The principle of cultural continuity

Cultural continuity is achieved when meaningful liridges are bui l t bctwcen the culture of‘ the innovation and the traditional expectations of the people with whom w-c work. The notion of ‘cultural continuity’ is taken from Jacob (1 996), who is interested in the way in which the teacher mediatcs hcthveen a ‘foreign’ lesson content and the ‘local’ orientation of her or his students. Homever, it can be used to refer to a broader aim which has become common inTESOL in the last ten years ~ to be sensitive to the cultural expectations of the ‘rccipients’ of innmation, whcther they bc students or tcachcrs encountcring new tcaching methodologies, or stakeholders in curriculum projects. Phillipson (1 992) antl Pennycook (1 994) havc drawn our attcntion to the dangers of cultural or linguistic imperialism \\hen dominant forms of professionalism in TESOL arc transported from one place to another, as has my own work on how to make classroom and curriculum project methodologies ‘appropriate’ to social context (Holliday, 1994). The now influential phrase, ‘appropriate methodology’ was introduced into TESOL by Rowers many years ago (Rowers and Widdowson, 1986).The plea for more attcntion to the sociopolitical environment of TESOL, w-as made by Swales several years earlier ( 1 980). Coleman’s (1 996) work on the influencc of socicty on what happens in the classroom is a more recent part of this movement, as is recent critical thinking about how the paradigms of TESOL profcssionalism haw been

1 7 0 A D R I A N H O L L I D A Y

socially constructed (Beaumont and Wright, 1998). The basic idca of cultural continuity is that a particular innovation is adjusted to enable the hcst possiblc fit with a host environment (Figure 14.1). It is a two-way process in that the innovation needs to be informed by data from the host environment.

INNOVATION

a t t c m p to fit ho\t ~ t i l t i i rc

c.g. needs muL\ms, act ion rcsenrch. cthnogruphj, inioli.ing ‘insiders’, CI alriulion

f 1 0 S T ENVIRONMENT (classroom or institution; stucicnts,

tcachcrs or othcr stakeholdrrs)

Figure 14. / Cultural continuit!

The dominant discourses of teaching

There is a strange iron); here, which involves the prolhmatic nature of learner-ccntredncss and skills-based education. At first sight, lrarncr-ccntredncss and the teaching of skills would scem to support the possibility of cultural continuity in that they follow the principle that tcaching should connect with the perceptions antl needs o f the student. Indeed, lcarner- centredncss reprcsents an admirable attcmpt in cducation, sincc the 1960s, to allow students a more interactive, participant role in the classroom. At thr same time the teaching and learning of skills implied that the content of education had to be useful to the needs of the learner and the environment in which she or he \vas to operate.

However, with deeper analysis, various kvritcrs in education, such as Usher and Edwards (1 994), following thc critical sociology of Foucault, are Ileginning to argue that Iearncr- centredncss and skills-based education might lie having the opposite effect. The 1970s and 1980s brought an increased need for accountability; and a skills-based education lent itself well to the measurement of stutlcnt progress through the achievement of discrete learning objectives. The breaking down of skills into compctcncies was instrumental in this. The outcome is a bureaucratisation of lcarner~ccntredncss. Usher and Edwards (ibid.) argue that in swing the student in terms of a set o f pre-defined, mcasurablc compctcncies anti skills, she or he is reduccd to a learning automaton. Thus, the ‘learner’ at the centre of learncr- centredness is no longer a real person, but a product of mcasurablc educational technology.

T\vo things are going on here. First, what claims to bc a sensitivity to the ‘learner’ ~

learner-centredness ~ has liecome a lircaking up of the student into teachable skills. Second, the terminology with which education speaks about the ‘learner’ has become highly technical. Hence, learner-ccntredncss becomes what Fairclough (1 995) calls a ‘technologiscd discoursc’ which appears ideologically neutral but in fact reprcsents the bureaucratic and idcological needs, not of thc ‘learnrr’ , but of a particular professional group. Clark antl Ivanic assert that: ‘ “Skills” [ . . . ] suggests a set of neutral technologies or techniques that are somehow separate and separable from the social context. [. . .] I t has led to the vieiving of language and language activities as consisting of discrete, apparently

A C H I E V I N G C U L T U R A L C O N T I N U I T Y 1 7 1

tcchnologisrtl someit here else profcssional discoursc

manageable and “teachable” components, and so appears to facilitate teaching and learning. I t implies a normative and prescriptive view of communication’ (1 997: 84).

This perception is bcing confirmcd in research into the ideological basis for TESOL professionalism . Raxter (in process) has noted that in teacher training programmes, despite the liberal rhetoric of learner-centredness, the real concern is with the technology of teaching, which is presentcd as ideologically neutral, in which the ‘learner’ becomes an accessory ~ for the purpose of accountablc professionalism.

concern IZ ith learning need5 ant1 o b ~ e c t i ~ c s ,

skill\ , cornpetencec and uccountabi l i~~

Figure 14.2 Profcssionally constructrtl imagc of ‘the learner’

Hence, although we might claim learner-ccntrcdness, we construct an image of ‘the learner’ within our own powerful, technical discourse of professionalism.This is illustrated in Figure 14.2. If the innovation is a new classroom rncthodology claiming ‘learner- ccntrcdness’ , the surface implication is that there will therefore be a concern with thc needs of ‘the learner’. However, the tcchnologised professional discourse of learner-centredncss takes attention away from the real student. Learning needs and objectives, skills and competencies serve the accountability required by the discourse rather than the real student. The outcome is a control of ‘learning’ through planned tasks, again, serving thc technical needs of the discourse rather than the rcal student.

The dominant discourse of project management

I will now move on to the morc macro issue of curriculum innovation and arguc that a similar process is taking placc. Thc problem here concerns the way in which the so-called recipients of curriculum innovation are perceived, accommodated and managed.

There has been much rcccnt concern that curriculum innovation should hc scnsitive to the local setting. This has resulted in what has been called a more person-sensitive process approach to curriculum project management. The process project claims adaptation to situational needs. And in what might be called a stakeholder-centred approach, groups of local people arc quite rightly identified as representatives of these needs; and strategies arc dcveloped to satisfy their intcrcsts and maintain their ownership of thc innovation. Stakeholders can be broadly defined as all the people who have a stake in the innovation. Several examples of this can be seen in Hayes (1 99711). In projects in Indonesia andThailand,


Amlirosc-Yeoh reports how eighty-scvcn secondary school teachers ar r consultcd ‘in a fcasibility study’, antl in the resulting training:

A generally friendly and interactive style \vas adoptcd to counter any sense of isolation. [. . . ] To pcrsonalise the materials and to cstalilish rapport ivith the teachcrs, passive language was generally avoided and there was also deliberate choice of pronouns such as ‘we’, ‘1’ antl ‘you’ over pronouns such as ‘they’ or ‘he’ or ‘shc’.

(1 997: 89-90)

In Malta, Jarvis and Cameron ( 1 997) monitor the changing roles of teachcrs as they adopt and interpret innovation. Also, Martin antl Ralahanis (1 995) describe how in Egypt, ‘working parties’ are set up to involve senior rqx-escntativcs from USAID, the Ministry of Education and the language centre where the innovation \vas to take place, and ncgotiate conscnsus. Similarly, Weir and Roberts (1 994) tlcscribc ho\v ‘insitlcrs’ Iiecomc involved in the evaluation of the innovation process, in, for cxamplc, the cstahlishmcnt of ‘liasclinc’ data, and how formative evaluation liecomcs integratcd with self-directed tcachrr development.

er a problcm \vith this stakeholder-centred approach, similar to thc arncr-centred approach which I have already described. As with the

classroom, there is a strange irony. As bvith learner-centrcdness, a tcchnologised professional discourse has bccn created. Weir and Roberts ( 1 994) rightly note that as the concept of formative evaluation inTESOL maturcs, it takes on the role of quality control. Indeed, it falls in line with the growing dominant ideology of late modern society in which everything has to be accountable to the client. Even the pro project has to lie commodified along with the other aspects of cducation ant1 other institutional practices such as medicine noted 117 Usher and Edlvards ( 1 994) and Fairclough ( 1 995). Thus, we have a professionally constructed image of thc ‘stakeholder’, as lvc do of the ‘learner’ (Figure 14.3).

As with the technologised discourse of learncr~ccntredness, the technologiscd discoursc of stakeholdcr~centredness has an emphasis on control (right hand bubble). Here the control is situated in a prolifcration of highly technical project documrnts, at the centre of which are the current log-frame and time-lines for resource input. Although these documcnts are, quite rightly, intended as the product of ‘agreement’ with key stakeholders, thcy are very

control ol‘ participation through plans and

documcnts nc\v curriculum itcm

I I I

I I

I

I attempts to bc ‘stakcholtlcr~ccntretl’~’

I

I

concern with institutional needs, oiimmhip,

management ckr / I s undo c a r in t u hi /i<v I

I I

tcchnologiscd profcssional tliscoursr

wmewhere elte

Figure 14.3 Professionally constructed image 01‘ ‘the stakrholticr’


much the product of the technologised discourse itself. This is w r y clear whcn stakeholders who do not belong to this discourse find them incomprehensible.

In my experience, therc is an interesting puzzle here. Thrrc is often the appearance of’ n the various parties with regard to project documentation. The

hyperrational project discourse takes this as evidence that there is real agreement. Stakeholders coming from different discourses of their own might see the situation differently, and be prepared to go through the motions of agreement for their o\vn ulterior motives.This type of phenomenon is \vel1 documented in Holliday ( 1 994), where I describe the operation of informal ordcrs and deep action within the host environment, which have stakeholders pursuing their o\vn ends in their own ways. The following hvarning by Taylor against naive notions of mutuality rings true:

Establishment and maintenance of sustained dialogue between all those involved [. . . ] [is] not casy [ . . . ]There arc barriers antl inequalities of language, culture and education, and frequently even the need for such dialogue is not recogniscd by either sidc. There is unfamiliarity on both sides with the use of common management tools for the sharing and analysis of information (from project frameworks, analysis, tables, grids and diagrams to statistical methods and computrr programmes).

(1997: 116-17)

Something similar was found by Smith ( 1 991 ), who noted that notions o f ‘control’, ‘predictability’, ‘generalisation’ and ‘objective’ \vert constructed differently by different parties in educational innontion in a numhcr of scenarios.

An important extension of the discourse of stakchO1dc.r-centretlness is the equally technologiscd discourse of evaluation, \vhich bases itself very much on the carefully measurcd and verified consensus of stakeholders. If this consensus is only apparent, then the technology of evaluation cannot be as sound as it appears. According to Fairclough (1 995), a political, though tacit antl pcrhaps unconscious motivc, of tcchnologised discourses in late modern societies is to create a false image of consensus as \vc find ourselves gradually consumed by thc hchavioural technicalities which they demand. As we try to get our hcads around the discourse of quality control \ve find ourselves more and more taking part in it, eslxcially as the tliscoursc takes on the appearance of’lnr’ltlng us to participate in our o\vn cvay. I do not somehow think that the local participants in many curriculum projects are taken in in this way. They haw other tliscour of their o\vn to get on with.

Empowerment and ownership

This statc of affairs throws an intcrcsting light on the tray in which the behaliour of stakeholders is perccivcd and constructed by the tcchnologised discourse of stakcholdcr- ccntrctlness. In much o f the literature on stakeholtlrrs, there is a tacit polver distinction

n those parties who somehow instigate, manage, fund, design, and possess the technology of innovation, antl those who do not. InTESOL projects this distinction can be expressed easily in terms of expatriate, ‘nati pcakcr’ ‘experts’ on the one hand, and ‘local’ personnel on the other. This also corresponds \vith the ‘insider-outsider’ distinction, where cxpatriatc agencies antl pel-sonncl comc from outside in every sensr of the kvord, antl insiders arr local not onl! to the innovation scenario but to thc country within which it takes place.

I t is important to stress that I am talking here about perccptlons created within the discotirse of a particular innovation methodology, which constructs the reality of inno\-ation


scenarios in a particular way, rather than the r ea l i v . I t is also important to stress that the writers of literature within the discourse might themselves he unaware of the itlcological principles they are perpetuating. Fairclough (1 995: 36) makes the point that people arc often ‘standardly unaware’ of the itlcological meanings which have hecome normalised within their own language. Clark antl Ivanic ( 1 997: 176) confirm this lvhcn they cite a study which shows that many people are often not aware of the tlccpcr ideological meanings of what they rcad.Thus, it is the discourse, rathcr than individual actors within it, which reveals an ‘us’-‘them’ distinction found in the litvraturc.

Clark and Ivanic (1 997) make the point that the act of writing is itsclfa struggle within a world where competing discourses vie for hegemony. Such a struggle can be seen in the way in wrhich Smith (1 995) lvritcs about a kcy stakeholdcr group Lvhich falls into the local- insider category of ‘counterparts’ the people who work alongside ‘expert’ cxpatriatc curriculum developers hvith whom thcre is somc form of transfer to enable the innovation to continue after the ‘expert’ has left.

Smith suggests that it cannot lie denied that there may lie a pohver diftercnce in many developing world locations, \vhen thc expatriatc ‘expert’ has lhe ‘privileges [ . . .] granted to (or assumed by) the foreign gucst’ which enable access to budgets, key locations, events and people, and the counterpart docs not, and is then expected ‘to sustain project impact after the aid has been withdrawm’ on ‘ U S $ 2 5 pcr month’ (1995: 67- 8). Discussion of whether or not this is altvays thc case involvcs looking more deeply at the whole rclationship between insiders and outsiders; but here one can suspect that thc problem might not so much be one of power per se, but of the nature of the technology which the counterpart is expected to carry on. Might it bc that what thc ‘expert’ is considered to be expert in is not sufficiently compatible, or too ethnocentric to thc discourse ofscukeholder~cencredness from the outset? Smith acknowledges that a morc ‘humanistic approach’ to project ‘sustainability’ must get ‘closer to the ways of the rccipicnt’ antl that the po\ver required to sustain the innovation may not be something thc counterpart simply docs not have, hut something which she or he might ‘refuse to accept’ ( 1 995: 67). Here, as in so much of this literature, there is a concerted e@rt to get to grips with and understand the viewpoint of the ‘local’, but the outcome, the insistence that ‘empowerment’ of the ‘local’ is the answer, is still deeply rooted in the ‘us’-‘them’ perception, in which ‘they’ ‘don’t know the technology’ antl are ‘easily dominated’ .

Although analysts do try to get under the surfacc at the deeper social issues, and really do try to understand the viewpoints antl predicament of other partics in innoyation contexts, they tend to consider large cultural factors as the overriding issuc. Hence, Smith puts ‘cultural’ at the top of his list of ‘ohstacles’ to empowerment. Speaking about Cambodia he suggests that local personncl:

will have to push hard to bring about any changcs.This will t ie difficult where culturally one defers to and is not assertive towards someone higher in the hierarchy. [ . . . ] Othcrs have noted the ‘cultural nature of management’ [ . . . I antl the ‘differing cultural concepts as to the appropriate roles for professionals employed in the public sector’.

(1995: 71)

I IC continues to state the ‘need for a thorough understanding ly outsiders ofthe host culture into M-hich the innovation is k i n g introduced’ (ibid.: 74 citing Leach). He thus alludes to the model of cultural thinking seen in Hoftstetle, who looks at ‘the consequenccs of national cultural differences in the way people in a country organisc themselves’ and how ‘organisational practices and theorics arc culturally dependent’ (1 991 : xiii).


The rational, systematic nature ofthis national culture model fits \vel1 with the technical needs o f the discourse of stakcholtler-ccntretlness, as it does with many activitics, such as management, which seek to commodify human difference efficiently. Follohving this line of thinking, Flew sees ‘counterpart training’ as essentially an ‘interpersonal interaction across cultures’. She quite rightly shrinks from the perception of a one-kvay transfer from culturally superior rxpatriate curriculum developer to culturally inferior countcrparts as ‘potentially patronising’ ( 1 995: 76) and recommends ‘mutual learning between people from tliffercnt cultures ( 1 995: 81). One Lvondcrs, however, whethcr ‘trust and esteem (1995: 78) \vi11 he sufficient to lircak the ‘us’-‘them’ paradigm and stand in the Lvay of a potentially damaging

of mutual othcrisation. O n the onc hand, one would not nowadays recommend a professional exchange of virws on the hasis of a sharing of gender or racial difference. On thc other hand, the headings ‘training’ and ‘empowerment’ under which the exchange takes place seem to indicate the ideology of only one side.

Overall, the literature on stakrholders seems to crcate the ‘us’-‘them’ distinction in a very particular way (Figure 14.4). On the one hand, ‘they’ are deficient, mainly in tcrms ofthe technologised discourse itself; on the other hand, they arc classified as such vcry much in the same way, perhaps regartllcss of their so-called national culture. O n r implication here is that the major agent of difference is not the national culture at all, but the power of the tcchnologiscd discourse. A colleague of mine in a project in India commented that the project created thc notion of ‘all Indians together’. Perhaps it is not just Indians, but anyone who docs not conform to thc discoursc. Again, an important implication here is what does it all mean if the ‘Indians’ do not really want to conform to thc project after all?

1‘

S’I‘A K E H 0 L1)k J<S

‘US’ 1 ‘cxpatriatrs, nativc spcakrrs,

cxpcrts’ 2 ‘prohcicnt in thc tcchnolog: ’ 3 ‘<.an: managc, rcscarch, p lan ,

4 ‘hayc the po\vrr’ evaluate, organi.;c, train’

‘TI IEM’ 1 ‘local, insiders, nun-nativc

speakers’ 2 ‘don’t kno\v thc technolog!,

casil!, (1ominatc.d’

3 ‘ncctl to be: trainccl, trcatcci

srnsitivcly, untlrrstood, in\ olvcd, given ojvncrship,

em pori rrcti ’ 4 ‘culturallv clill.rcnt: c.g.

hicrarchical, cui Icctivist , uncritical, undrmocratic’

5 ‘all Indians togcthcr’

F i p r e I - ! 4 ‘U\’ - ‘ thrm’ configuration

Alternative ways of looking

There needs to be an alternative way of looking at the people \vc work with in innovation scenarios ~ in their own tcrms rather than ours. There is some litcrature developing in TESOI, which begins to do this. Hayes attempts to do this as he rccords personal accounts of what it is like to be a teacher. Thus:


One teacher recorded hcr experience. ‘When you spcak English everybody will (say to you) “What language you do?” Other teachers (will say) “You arc strange . . . you try t o show off like this” ’. [ . . . ] It is in relation t o their position in society, the culture and traditions of thcir schools and accepted n o r m s of behaviour within their classrooms that teachers in Thailand have t o ‘re-interprct (INSET activities) in their own tcrms’.

(Hayes, 1997a: 80)

Similarly, Barmada, revisiting the curriculum project at Damascus University in which I was involved in the carly 1980s, reveals an insight unnoticed by me in five years of project- motivated investigation:

But sometimes I feel as i f 1 represent the West in the classroom and as if1 were telling my students that our methods of learning and thinking are not good and should lie replaced by those o f the West I. . . ] ‘unpaid soldiers of the West’. This made my [sic] very nervous. I should pay attention t o what I say in the classroom.

(1994: 175)

Understanding ourselves

Something else ~ v e need t o do is t o liccomc aware ofthc fact that what we do as profossionals is n o t ideologically ncutral, bu t that it is par t of a pomuful, dangerous, ideological technologised discourse. We must come t o tcrms mith the fact that our discourse makes us see o thcrs in o u r o w n t e r m s , antl not in thcirs. We mus t not be naive to assume that technologies of investigation, cvaluation, quality control and management created within our own discourses arc equally meaningful t o other people. Wv must come t o t r r m s with the fact that thc l,i-idgcs \ve build t o rcach other cultures might only Iic meaningful t o o u r culturc. The concepts of Icarncr--ccntre(lncss and stakeholtler-centi-edness arc products of our own discourses, and may not ticlong t o the differently constructed worlds of those we wish to reach. We thus need t o look tlccply and critically at our ohvn discourses beforc judging those of others.

Bibliography Ambrose-Yeoh, A . ( 1997) ‘LXstance education and in-scrvice language teachcr devclopment’,

in Hayes, D. (et].) 86 89. Barmada, W. (1994) ‘Ikveloping an institutional self-cvaluation scheme in an ESP Centre in

the Arab world: rationale, experimentation and evaluation’ , unpublished PhL) thesis, Department o f Linguistics, University of Lectls.

Baxter, A . (In process) ‘The reproduction o f professional culture through teachcr education for ELT’, unpublished paper, Department of I.anguagc Studies, Canterbury Christ Church University Collcgc,.

Beaumont, M. antl Wright,T. (1998) ‘ELT and paradigm shifts: in from the cold or out on a limb’, unpul,lishcd paper prcscntctl at thc IATEFL conference, Manchester.

Bolvers, R. and Widdo\vson, H. (1 986) ‘A tlcbatc on appropriate methodology’ in Alhot t , G. antl Beaumont, M. (ctls) The Jcrrlopmenr ELT. the Dunf;ird Seniinur.~ I978 I993, ELT Kcviebv, Hcmel I Icmpsteatl: Prcntice Hall antl thc British Council 141-5.

Clark, R . and Ivanic, R. ( 1 997) The pollrics ofwriting London: Koutlcdgc. Coleman, H. (etl.) ( 1996) Sociey m d the Ionpage classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.


Crooks, T. and Crcwes, G. (cds) ( 1 995) Language and deidoprnent Bali: 1AI.F. Fairclough, N. ( 1 995) Critical discourse anab.sis: the critical stu+ ?f language London: Atltlison

Flclv, A. (1 995) ‘Counterpart training and sustainability: effecting an exchange of skills’ in

Hayes, D. (1997a) ‘Articulating the context’ in Hayes (ed.) 74-85. IHayrs, D. (ctl.) (1 99713) In-rervice teacher development: international perspectives ELT Revielz

Hofstctle, G. (1 99 1 ) Cultures and organisatlons: s.ftivare oj‘thc mind Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Holliday, A. R. ( 1 994) Appropriate methodology und social conrext Cambridge: Cambridge

Jacob, G. ( 1 996) ‘The CDS co-ordinator’, unpublished paper, Department of English,

Jarvis, J . and Camcron, L. ( 1 997) ‘Kole shifting in INSET: an exploration of a primary English

Martin, W. M. and Balabanis, L. P. ( 1 995) ‘Team dcvclopment in ELI- projects: a caxe study’ in

Pennycook, A. ( 1 994) The cultural politics of English as an international language London: Addison

Phillipson, R. ( 1 992) Linguistic imperialism Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, H. ( 1 995) ‘Power antl sustainability in language-related development projects’ in

Crooks,T. and Crcwes, G. (cds) 65-75. Smith, N. L. ( 1 991) ‘Evaluation rcflections: the context of investigations in cross-cultural

evaluations’ in Studies in Educational Evaluation, 17, 3-2 1 . Swales, J. ( 1 980) ‘The educational environment and its relevance to ESP programmc tlcsign’ in

Projects in Materials Design, ELT Documents Special. London:The British Council, 6 1 70. Taylor, G. (1997) ‘Management issues in INSET: a practical perspective’ in Hayes, D. (cd.)

1 1 6-1 27. Usher, R. and Edwards, R. (1 994) PostmoJernism and etlucation: djifcrent voices, djffcrent worlds

London: Routledge. Weir, C. J. and Roberts, J. (1 994) Evaluation in ELT Oxford: Rlackwell.

Wesley Longman.

Crooks,T. and Crewcs, G. (eds) 76-82.

London: Prenticc Hall.

University Prcss.

University of Punc, India.

project’ in Hayes, D. (cd.) 37 49 .

Crooks,T. antl Crewes, G. (ctls) 16 30.

Wesley Longman.

C h a p t e r 1 5

Kathleen Graves

A F R A M E W O R K OF C O U R S E

D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S E S

U R R I C U L U M DES I G N S P E C I A L I S TS have developed various frameworks C that break down the process of curriculum and course development into components and subprocesses (see, for example, Dubin and Olshtain 1986; Hutchinson andwaters 1987; Johnson 1989; Nunan 1985, 1988a, 1988h; liichards 1990; White 1988). A framework of components is useful for several reasons: I t provides an organized way of conceiving of a complex process; it sets forth domains of inquiry for the teacher, in that each componcnt puts forth ideas as well as raises issues for thc teacher to pursue; it provides a set of terms currently uscd in talking ahout course tlevclopmcnt and thus a common professional vocabulary and access to the ideas of othei-s.Thc fi-amcwork described hcre, while drawing on the work ofothcrs, is cast in terms ol’my own work with teachers. It is not a framework of equal parts: Each individual’s context clctermincs which processes need the most time and attention. Furthermore, the proc cs are not necessarily secjucntial hut may be carried on in the planning, tcaching, and rcplanning stages ol‘ course development.

InTalile 15. I , each componcnt is identified and rephrased in question form to clarify its meaning.

Needs assessment

What are my students’ needs? HOM. can I assess them so that I can address them? What is nccds assessment,’ and whv does a teacher undertake it? At its most basic,

nccds assessment involves finding out what the Icarners know and can do and what they need to learn or do so that the course can bridge the gap (or some part ofit).Thus nccds assessment involves seeking and interprcting information about onc’s students’ nceds so that the course will address them effectively. However, how one defines a student’s needs is a complex issue open to interpretation. One \vay o f conceptualizing needs is to distinguish bet\veen “ohjectivc” and “subjective” needs (Richterich 1980). Rrindley (1 989: 70) defines objective needs as “derivable from different kinds of factual information about learners, their use of language in real-life communication situations as well as their current language proficiency and language difficu1ties”and subjective needs as “the cognitive and affective needs of the learncr in the learning situation, derivable from information about affective and cognitivr factors such as personality, confidence, attitudes, learners’ wants and expectations

C O U R S E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S E S 179

Table 1 i 1 brame\\ ork component\

Needs assessment: What arc in) stutlcnts’ nectls? I lo\\ can I asscss them s o that I can adtlrcsa them?

Determining god5 and objectives: What are thc purpow and intcntlctl outcoinc< of thc

coiirw’ What \\ill in! students ncctl to do or lcarn to athic\c thew goal\/

Conceptualizing content: What 13 111 l x the backhone ot

\\ l la l )u<? hat I tcac h, What \I i l l I inclutlc in m\

Selecting and developing materials and activities: Ho\\ antl \\ ith \ \hat \ \ i l l I teach the courw) What I\ m\ iolc’ What a i ( m\ \tutlcnt\’ roles?

Organization of content and activities: Ho\\ \I i l l I oigani/c thc contcnt and act11 It icQ What 9: $tern\ 111 I ( l e \ clop’

Evaluation: course?

Ho\v \vi11 I assess \\hat students have Icarnctl? Hoiv \vi11 1 ~ S S C S S the cffcctivcncss o f thc

Consideration of resources and constraints: What arc the gi\cn\ ot in! situationi

with regard to the learning o f English and thcir individual cognitive style antl learning strategies.”

In assessing objective nccds, one can include information about students’ backgrounds ~ country and culture, ctlucation, family, profession, age, languages spoken, and so on;

students’ abilities or proficiency in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English; and students’ nccds with respect to how the> will usc or deal with English outside of the classroom. In assessing subjective nccds, one can include information about students’ attitudes toward the target languagc and culture, toward learning, and toward themsclws as learncrs; students’ expectations of themselves and of thc course; students’ underlying purposes - or lack thereof- in studying English; antl students’ preferences \vith rcspcct to how thcy will Irarn.

Different students have diffrrent needs, and the information gathered through needs assessment can help a teacher make choices as to what to teach antl how to teach it. For example, students who xvish to attend universities in knglish-speaking countries will have needs related to academic tasks antl academic discourse. Objective information about their prior experience in academic settings, their level of English, and thcir field of study can contribute to the teacher’s decisions about her course.Their suhjcctive needs may lie related to concerns about adjusting to the univcrsity setting and to a new culture, their lewl of sclf- confidcncc, or their expcctations regarding what and how they will bc taught. Subjective needs arc often as important as objective needs. Teachcrs may find that unless subjective needs arc taken into account, objective nccds may not IK met.

Who provides information about needs? Who determines the needs? A nccds assessment can include input from students as \vel1 as from the various people connectcd to the course, such as teachcrs, funders, parcnts, administration, antl employcrs. In a univcrsity FSL sctting, for example, information from the studrnts’ future professors regarding what thc studcnts mpill be cxpccted to read, research, and present can help the teacher shape her course (Tarone andYule 1989; see also Hewings and Hewings, p. 71 this volumc).‘Ikachcrs

1 8 0 K A T H L E E N G R A V E S

may have to work with a conccption of nccds dctc.rmincd by their institution or other party and conduct their assessment accordinglv.

When does one conduct a nccds assessment? Ikpcnding on one’s context, needs asscssmcnt can lie conducted in stagc 1 , the planning stagc; in stagc 2 , thc teaching stage; and also in stage 3, the rcplanning stagc, if one determines that the assessment must be modified in some \.ray. Teachers \vho have contact with their students prior to teaching the coursc can undertake a precourse nectls assessment. In many cases, however, a formal prccoursc ncctls asscssincnt is neither necessary nor appropriatc. Some teachers arc able to make fairly accurate assumptions ahout their students’ nccds with respect to the coursc on the basis o f prior cxpcricncc \vith the coursc or with thosc particular studcnts. In many cases, precourse asscssmcnt is simply not fmd i l c l x ~ a u s c ~ the tcachcr d o c s not have contact with the students until the first day of class.

Another important factor in tlcciding \vhcn t o assess needs is the teacher’s view of the p u r p w of nccds a mcnt can also IK a teaching tool because it can help students bccomc more aware and more purlioseful in their learning. Many teachers see it as an ongoing part o f teaching, o n the one hand, because it may take time to establish the kind of rapport with students that allo\vs fbr a clcar understanding of needs and, on the other, because they view it as a teaching tool that enables thcm to \vork in partnership mith thcir students t o determine ncctls antl ensure that the course mccts thosc nccds. lcachcrs who use nccds assessment as an ongoing part of their classes develop activities that help students clarify and focus their needs. Such activities can include mindmapping (crcating \vortl maps liascd on , for cxxamplc, the \vortl rvritrng) antl student-generated questionnaircs (Grant and Shank 1993). [ . . . ]

How docs onc conduct a ncctls ssmcnt? Teachers use a variety of methods. Questionnaires are a common needs a mcnt tool. They can bc written in English or, when appropriate and feasililc, in thc native languagc of thc students. O n e of the challenges in tlcsigning a questionnaire is choosing qucstions that will t)c interpreted correctly and wi l l provide the information sought, especially if one is seeking subjective data. Interviews with students antl others (such as employers or professors) arc another common way o f finding out students’ needs. Other means include observation o f or, in some cases, participation in the situations in kvhich students will use English. Teachers may obtain samples of written materials, such as manuals or tcxtlmoks, that students will have to use. Stern ( 1 992) cautions against gathcring so much data that one cannot analyze and put it to use.

Tests and intcrviclvs that mcasurc proficiency arc also a part o f needs assessment because they help dctcrmine what students already know and where they are lacking. Many institutions administer proficiency tests for placement purposes. Teachers ma? also design in-class activities for the first days of class that mcasurc stutlcnts’ proficiency in reading, xvriting, speaking, or listening.

Hutchinson antl Waters ( 1 987: 54) make a distinction hctivccn target needs (“what the learner needs to do in the target situation”) antl /earnin<y needy (“what the learner nccds t o do in order t o learn”). Nccds assessment is clearly a sensible undertaking when studcnts ha\c target needs ~ real-lift. languagc nccds and a context for using thc languagc skills gained in class, as for immigrants to an English-spcaking country, students studying o r planning to study in English-spcaking schools, or p c ~ p l c \vho use English in thcir work. However, even \Then nccds arc clcar, as \vith immigrants learning to function in a n r w culture, they may IK so general that the tcachcr has t o find hzays to assess antl define them so that thcy can be translated into realistic goals.Thc challcngc becomes focusing thc nccds assessment so as to provide adequate h u t not ovenvhclming data on which to base d

In other contcxts ~ particularly, but not only, EFL contcxts ~ teachers face a different

C O U R S E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S E S 1 8 1

problem because many of their students have no target needs, no clearly anticipated use for the skills gained through study. English may be a requirement for an exit or entrance cxam. I t may lie viewed as a subject like math or science, or it may be a social undertaking like the study of music. For these students, thc notion of needs outside the classroom is tenuous. The focus of the needs assessment shifts to the learning needs or subjective needs of the studmts so as to increase motivation and to help students find purpose antl interest in what they are doing in the coursc. For example, Gorsuch (1 991) dcscrilies a technique for helping students in a conversation class in Japan articulate thcir needs antl set periodic antl achicvablc goals to meet those needs.

Issues

Needs assessment is not a value-free process. I t is influenced by the teacher’s view of what the course is about, thc: institutional constraints, and thc students’ perceptions of what is being asked o f them. For example, one teacher of immigrants might ask thcm to list situations in which they us? or expect to use English, with the aim of providing instruction in the language and behavior necessary to deal Lvith those situations. Another teacher might ask the same students to articulate or enact problems they face in adjusting to the nmv culture, \vith the aim of helping thcm exert control over the acculturation process.

For many students, needs assessment is an unfamiliar procedure, and they may ha\-c difficulty articulating their purposes or nerds. The process itself may cngrnder uncertainty in the students, as knowing thcir nceds is presumably the responsibility of the teacher or institution. Questions may be interpreted differently by different students or may not elicit the anticipated answers. Studcnts’ perceptions of needs may not match those of the teacher. The teacher’s view of the students’ needs may conflict with those of the institution.

Thc content and method of needs assessment should he e\ aluatcd as to appropriateness antl effectiveness in achieving thcir purpose of identifying the nccds of the students. It may

ral tries to dcvc>lop ef‘fectivc needs assessment tools. Those tools should not he viewed as “one time only” pro ’es. Needs asscssment should he 1,icwctl as an ongoing process, both in its development antl in its use.

Determining goals and objectives

1Vhat arc the purposes and intentled outcomes of.the coiirxe?IVhat n,ill m,r’ students need to c/o or leurn to achieve these goals? What arc goals and ohjcctives antl what is the relationship betwcrn thcm? Goals arc general statcments of the overall, long-tcrm purposes of the course. Objccti\es express the specific \.rays in xvhich thc goals \vi11 be achieved.Thc goals of’a coursc rcpresent the dcstination; the objectives, the various points that chart the course to\vartl the destination.To arri\-c at thc destination, one must pass each of these points. [ . . . ]

Why sct goals antl objectives? Setting goals and chjcctives pro\-idcs a scnsc of direction and a coherent framework for thr teacher in planning her course. Breaking goals down into objectives is very much like making a map ofthc territory to be explored. I t is a Lvay for the teacher to conceptualize her coursc in terms of teachable chunks. Clear goals and ohjcctives give the teacher a basis for determining which content antl activities are appropriate lor her course. They also provide a framelvork for evaluation o f the effectiveness or worth of an activity : Did it help students achieve or make progress to\vard the goals and objectives? Clearly, thcre are many routes (objcctives) to a givcn destination, some more circuitous than others, and the length antl nature of the route will depend on one’s departure point.

There is no simple ans1vc-r to this question. To arrive at the goals, one asks the question, “What are the p u r p o s t ~ and

How does one choose appropriate goals and olijecti

1 8 2 I < A T H L E E N G R A V E S

intended outcomes ofthe course?’ Thr ans\vcr may he influenced by an analysis of students’ nccds, the policies of the institution, antl the \vay the teacher conccptualizcs content, among other factors. Stern (1 992) pi-oposes four types of goals for language learners: proficiency goals, cognitive goals, affective goals, antl transfer goals. Proficiency goals include general competency, mastery of the four skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing), or mastery of specific language behaviors. Cognitive goals inclutic master); of linguistic knowledge and mastery of cultural knowledge. Affective goals include achieving positive attitudes and feelings about the target language, achieving confitlcncc as a user o f the language, antl achieving confidence in oneself as a learner. Transfer goals involve learning how to learn so that one can call upon learning skills gained in one situation to meet future learning challcnges.Thus goals may address not only the attainment of kno\vletlge and skills but also thc development of attitude and arvarcn

Goals should also be realizable. Richards (1 990: 3) gives the example of a goal stated as “Students will tlcvclop favorable attitudes to\vartl the program.” Hci gocs on to point out , “However, while this goal might represent a sincere wish on the part oftcachers, it should appear as a program goal only if it is to be atltlrcsscd concretely in the program.”

The formulation of objectives provides the chcck as to whether the goals will be addrcssctl.To arrive at objectives, one asks, “What do students need to learn or do to achieve these purposes?” One of the challenges in formulating objectives is thinking of objectives that arc congruent with thc goals antl that arc not so narroxv that they enmesh the teacher in an unnecessary level of detail.

How does one state objectives? As Nunan ( 1 9881,: 60) has pointed out, “Olijectives are really nothing more than a particular Lvay of formulating or stating content and activities.” Thus how one conceptualizes and states objectives dcpentls on how one conceptualizes the content of the course. Content as knowlcdgc might lie stated as “Students will know . . . ,” “Students wi l l learn the . . .,” or “Students \ \ i l l learn that . . .” Content as skill might be stated as “Students w i l l hc able to . . . ,”“StucJents will know how to . . . ,” or “Students will develop the ability to . . .” I’erformancc or behavioral objectives arc most often associated with content as skill; hokvevcr, this rcprcscnts a narrolv view as they specify terminal behavior rather than the development of skills, such as those nccclcd to read, write, listen antl speak effectively (Richards 1990). Content as attitudc antl a\varencss \voultl be stated as “Students \vi11 be axvarc that . . .,""Students wi l l develop an awareness o f . . .,’“‘Students will develop an attitudc of . . .,” or “Students will cxplorc their attitudes towards . . .” Objectives stated in this way can help teachcrs address affectil e aspects of learning.

The examples given suggest what students will know, know how to do, or be aware of as a result of the coursc. Objcctivcs may also be statcd in terms of what students will do in the course. Saphier and Gowcr (1 987) list five kinds of objectives, all interrelated.Thc first three concern what students will do; the last two, what they will have mastered.

1 Coverage objectives articulate what will be cowrctl. Example: l4k will cover t h e j r s t j v e units of the course hook. i l c t i v i y objectives articulate what the students will do. Example tudents will write six d e t kinds ofparagraphs. Students i2,ill do paragraph derzlopment exercises. Involvement objectives articulate how to maximize student involvement antl interest.

tudents will engage in discussions about n.hich paragruphs they like best. Students Li.ill brainstorm lists of interesting topics to write about. /Mastey objectives articulate what students will be able to do as a result of their time in class. Examplc: Students will be able to write an interesting puragraph that contains u topic sentence and supporting detuils.

2

3

4


5 Critical thinking objectives articulate which lc-arning skills students 1% i l l develop. Examplc: Sttidents will he able to determine characteristics of u good paragraph and .say why the). think a paragraph is good.

Tension often exists between coverage objectives and mastery objectives hccausc thc timc it takes to master skills or knowlcdgc or to develop awareness may not corrcspond to the timc allotted in a syllabus.This tension can create dilemmas for teachers Lvho must cover antl test the material in the syllabus yet wish to ensure that students ha\c mastered thc material prior to moving on. The tension can also put tcachcrs at odds with their students or the institution if thc teacher believes that success is achieved through demonstrated mastery but the studcnts cxpect coverage to mean mastery.

Issues

The main issue is that many teachers do not formulate goals and objcctives at all or do so only after having thought about what they will teach and how. Studies on teacher planning undcrscore this fact (Clark and Peterson 1986). My own work xvith teachers has shown that they consider the setting of goals and objcctivcs a valuablc process but one that they find difficult to articulate and organize.They feel that they must first be clcar about what they arc teaching and how they vicw thc content.They report from expcricncc that they cannot clearly formulate their goals and objectives until after they h a w taught thc course at least oncc. (Returning to the map analogy, one cannot map a route until onc has traveled it.) Thus for many teachers, this is no t thc entry point into the process of course d

Another issue involves clarity with respect to students’ nccds. I t is easier to set goals in situations where these needs are clcar; otherwise, the goals of the coursc may shift and be redefined as thc course progresses. Finally, goals and objcctives are a statement of intent, subject to reexamination and change once the course is under way.

Conceptualizing content

Izl’hhat will he the backbone ofwhat I teach? What will I include in my yllahris? When a teacher conceptualizes content, she is figuring out which aspects o f language

and language learning she will include, emphasize, and integrate in her course. This is not the relatively simplc pro ’ it once mras.Two dccatlcs ago, language tcaching was still heavily influcnccd by a structural vicw of language (Richards and Kodgers 1986). This influcnce resulted in a“one size fits al1”approach to content and methods, meaning that, for example, an EFI, teacher could use the same textbook and the samc drills or pattern practice for factory workers, college students, and housewives. There \vas not much question about content: It was grammatical structures and vocabulary.

Much has changed in rcccnt wars in the ficlds of applied linguistics antl language acquisition and in approaches to language teaching. The proficiency movement, the concept and various modcls of comrnunicativc competence, the advent of ESP (English for specific purposes)), the proliferation of methods of language teaching, and the diversification of the population of English learners have all provided the teacher with many more options to consider in deciding what will be the backbone of her course (Canale 1983; Hutchinson and Waters 1987; Omaggio Hadlev 1993; Richards 1990; Savignon 1983;Yaldcn 1987). Now the choices a teacher makes are much more contcxt-dependent antl so involve a number of factors such as who the students are, their goals and expectations in learning English, the teacher’s own conception of what language is and what will best meet the students’ needs, the nature of the course, and the institutional curriculum. A course for


Grammar

immigrants in an English-speaking country w i l l likely stress different content than a course for high school students in their own country.

Let us look at somc ways of conceptualizing and categorizing content. The boundaries lietween categories arc permcablc; they ovcrlap conceptually antl are not exclusive of each other.The teacher’s challenge is to figure out \vhich ones are appropriate for her course antl how she will integrate thcm. They \vi11 he described and then outlined in a syllabus grid, lvhich \vi11 be adtlctl to with each successive component. In my experience, teachers do not usually use syllabus grids t o la! out the content of a coursc but a grid is a graphic way to illustrate possible categories.

The traditional w y of conceptualizing content, which many teachers have experienced in thcir own learning o f languagc, is as grammar structures, sentence patterns, and vocabulary. These aspects of language arc relatively . tcmatic and rulc-govcrncd and arc often the basis of content found in tcxthooks. Th includc rules of word formation (morphology), rules of pronunciation (1’ nology), antl grammatical structures and relationships among \vortls at the sentence IC 1 (syntax). A syllahus grid that includes these aspects of language might look likc this:

Pronunciation Vocabulary

Grammar

For language teachers, the possibilities for \vhat t o include in a syllabus opened up cvith the advent of what has come to I)c called the communicative approach (Larsen-Freeman 1986).Thc work of sociolinguists such as Hymcs ( 1 972) antl Hallitlay ( 1973, 1975) antl of applied linguists such as Wilkins ( 1 976) and Van Ek ( 1 975) has helped reorient thinking about the nature of language.‘l’he communicativt, approach is liased on ideas about language, on the one hand, antl about the purposes 01‘ languagc learning, on the other. Language is used in a context, hvhich clctcrmincs and constrains the choices that language users make with respect t o purpose, stvle, register, antl topic. Learners must use the language and have pui-poses for using it. From the point of view of‘ conceptualizing content, the communicative approach added s ral dimensions. First, it adtlctl the dimension o f language functions, such as to apologi information. I t also atltlcd the dimension of notions, kvhich form a continuum 1rom general concepts such as time, space, and relationship t o specific topic-related notions such as house and home, \veather, antl personal identification (Van Ek 1975). Language was sccn as being used for communicative purposes in situations lvith other people, which call on the learner to pay attention to both the content o f the languagc and its appropriatcncss tvith respect t o formality, non-verbal behavior, tone, antl so on. Communicative situations might include ortlcring food in a restaurant, buying stamps at the post office, extending an invitation to a social cvcnt. Thus \.re can add these catcgorics t o our syllabus grid:

t o persuade, to con\

Pronunciation Vocabulary

I bunctions I Notions antl topics I Communicative situations I

Thc proficiency movcmcnt antl thc dcvclopmcnt of proficiency guidelines have c m p h a s i d a four-skills-based approach to syllalius tlcsign (Chaggio Hadley 1993). For somc teachers, these skills arc a g i v m , as studcnts have to use some combination ofspeaking,


Listening skills Speaking skills

listening, reading, and \vriting in class. However, because hecoming proficicnt in each o f these skills cntails mastery of a set of subskills and processes, many teachers choose t o emphasize certain skills or find ways t o integrate them. For example, to become proficicnt in writing, a student must learn ho\v to structurc paragraphs, holv to use cohesi\e &\ices, the rhetorical styles o fwr i t t en English, editing techniques antl so on . Thus bvc can add thc f o l h v i n g categories t o o u r syllabus grid:

Reading skills I Writ ing skills

Functions

I Grammar I Pronunciation I Vocal>ular! I Notions and topics Communicative situations

The emphasis on communicative competence as based on antl brought almut by interaction has prompted a vielv of language as not just something one lcarns hut something one tlocs.Thus teachers may conceive of the i r s);llal)us in terms of what thc students will do in the classroom as activities or tasks.Tasks ha\e been \ariously defined. Prabhu ( 1 987: 24) defines a task as an activity that requires learners “to a r r i \ e at an ou tcome from givcn information through some process of thought,” such as deciding on an itinerary based on train timctablrs or composing a telegram to send to soincone. Tasks have also been defined as projccts in which learners Lvo1-k together to ~-)roducc. something, such as a putting together a ncLvspapcr or conducting a survey (Hutchinson 1984). Nunan (1 989) proposes a task continuum, lvith rea l - izor ld tasks at one end and pedagogic tasks at the othcr. Real-world tasks ask students to use languagc in ways that they might outside thc classroom, such as listening to thc radio, reading the ncn.spapcr, o r using a train schedule. Pedagogic tasks arc ones that \vould not occur outside ofthc classroom hut help stutlcnts tl lop skills necessary t o function in that world, such as information gap actiyitics.

lopcd in the Unitctl States in response to thc influx 01’ immigrants in the 1970s antl 1980s. It is a comlination of the communicative and task-lmctl approaches antl has bccn used in courses for teaching immigrants, who have immediate ncctls with respect t o functioning in English in thc community and in the workplacc. Competencies are “task-oriented goals written in terms of behavioral objecti\ es that inclutlc langu Ixhavior” (Center for Applied 1,inguistics 1983: 9).Thcy arc the language antl Ixhavior nc x - y to function in situations related to living in the community antl lintling and maintaining a job. Competencies related to living in thc community h a w also been called ljfi-skilf.7. Those related to jobs have been called rmmioncd skills. (See, for example, the California ESL Model Stantlards for adult cducation 1993.)

However one dcfincs them, tasks can 1)c gcarcd to one’s spccific g roup of learners. For liusiness personnel, tasks might include giving a business presentation or lvriting a report; for university students, tasks might include \vriting a rcscarch paper or preparing a report from notes takrn at a lecture. We can add t \vo othcr categories to our spllahus grid:

Thc competency-bascd approach t o syllabus design was dc

Tasks and activitics Compctcncies

I Listening skills I Speaking skills I Reading skills I Writ ing skills I

Grammar

I 1,unctions I Notions and topics I Communicative situations 1 Pronunciation Vocabu 1 ai.)


Culture

The role of culture in language learning i s receiving increasing attention. Culture provides a broader antl deeper context h r hob\ one knows or tlctcrmincs what is valued, appropriate, or cvcn feasible and why. Damcn (1 986) calls culture the “fifth dimension of language teaching.” Kramsch ( 1 993) asserts that culture is not just a fifth skill or even an aspect of comrnunicativc competence but the underlying dimension of all one knows and does. Thus a teacher who views culturc as an integral part of a syllabus might include thc development of awareness of thc rolc culturc plays in human interaction, how to understand and interpret the cultural aspccts of language antl behavior, antl the development of skills in behaving antl responding in culturally appropriate ways in addition to knowledge of the target culture.

The learning of language through or in conjunction with suhjcct matter can also lie the focus of a language course. Such courses haw hccn called content-based because they integrate “particular content with language teaching aims” (Brinton, Snow, and Wesche 1989). Such content may lie school- or work-related for example, history, economics, or computer technology. A content-based course may teach the subject matter directly or use subject mattcr as the basis for language-learning lessons. Thus the target language can be both a means for and a by-product of learning the subjrct matter. Content-based approaches play a critical role in bilingual programs for childrcn as well as in ESP courses and, increasingly, in EAP courses. We can add culturc antl content to our syllabus grid:

Content

Competencies Tasks and ac ti\ ities

I Listening skills I Speaking skills I Reading skills I Writing skills I I Functions I Notions and topics I Communicative situations I I Grammar I Pronunciation I Vocabulary

Another major change in hmv teachers conceptualize content has come about because of the view that one teaches learners, not just language. The emphasis on the learner has introduced other important elements into a teacher’s conception of what she will teach: the learner’s affect, which includes attitudes, self-confidence, and motivation, and the learner’s approach to learning, which includes both uncierstanding and developing one’s learning skills. HOW to improve learners’ self-confidence or helping learners become aware of thcir attitude toward the target culturc may lie cxplicitly included in a syllabus, as may activities that help learners become aware of their strengths and ovcrcomc thcir weaknesses as 1earners.The development of definitions, taxonomies, and methods of developing learning strategics is onc way in which thc cmphasis on helping learners bccomc self-aware has influenced syllabus design (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990).

For somc tcachcrs, enabling studcnts to participate in determining the content of their course so that what they do in class gives them the tools to cope with and change what they will encounter outside of the classroom i s thc focus of thcir course. Thus they ask the learners to engage in participatory processes that help them understand the social context of their problems antl take control of thcir personal and professional lives through work in the classroom (Auerbach 1993; Auerbach antl Wallerstein 1987). We can now add two more categories to the syllabus grid, learning strategies and participatory processes. The completed grid i s shown in Figurc 15.1 .


Participatory processes Examples: problem posing, experiential learning techniques

Culture Examples: c u It u re awareness, culture behaviour, culture knowledge

Listening skills Examples: listening for gist, listening for specific information, inferring topic, choosing appropriate reponse

Functions Examples: apologizing, disagreeing, persuading

Grammar Examples : structures (tense, pronouns), patterns (questions)

Learning strategies Examples: self-monitoring, problem identification, note taking

Tasks and activities Examples: information gap activities, projects, skills or topic-oriented tasks such as giving a speech or making a presentation

Speaking skills Examples: turn-taking, compensating for misunderstandings, using cohesive devices

Content Examples: academic subjects, technical subjects

Competencies Examples: applying for a job, renting an apartment

Reading skills Examples: scanning for information, skimming for gist, understanding rhetorical devices

I Notions and topics Examples: ti me, quantity, health, personal identification

Pronunciation Examples: segmentals (phonemes, syllables), suprasegmentals (stress, rhythm, intonation)

Writing skills Examples: using appropriate rhetorical style, using cohesive devices, structuring paragraphs

Communicative situations Examples: ordering in a restaurant, buying stamps at the post office

Vocabulary Examples: word formation (suffixes, prefixes), collocation, lexical sets

F ~ p r e I : . 1 ’l’hc complctctl syllabus grid

Issues

Teaching involves making choices. I t is not possible to teach a syllalius that cxplicitly encompasses all the areas mentioned here so teachers must tlccidc lvhich catcgorics make sense to them for a givm coursc. The categories also overlap, both conceptually antl in the classroom. For example, pronunciation is an important part of speaking skills. Vocabulary development is a part of notions antl topics. Ixarning strategies can bc linked to specific skills. Some of the categories arc vast and can lie divided into several subcategories. Many rcatlcrs will find that they ~ v o u l d label or define the categories differently or that certain categories are missing. For example, some teachers conceptualize content thcinatically.

Teachers of courses whosc content has already hcen specified will face different issues. They may find that thr breadth of content is unrealistic for the amount of time they have to teach it or that the way content has been defined is inappropriate, in their view, for the purposes of the coursc. The ovcrlapping nature of the categories may be an aid in finding ways to adapt the existing content to their vision of the coursc.

Selecting and developing materials and activities

Hopi ant1 crith nhut w i l l I tcuch the coiirrc~LYhut i r mj ro1eiVVhat lire my \tutlent\’rolec~ For many teacher\, coui \c dc\ clopment \tarts not with determining objccti\ e\ or


conceptualizing content but with ideas about the course in action.Thc-y think about material they will usc, activities their students will do, techniqucs thcy \vi11 cmploy.They think about the Ivay thcy want their students to lcarn and their own role in the classroom.

For many teachers, the rnatcrial thcy use forms the lmckbone of the course. I t is somcthing concrete that students use, and it provides a focus for the class. Choosing material may mean development o f new material when teaching a course for which there arc no suitable materials, collecting a variety ofmatcrials, or adapting existing materials.Teachcrs consider a variety of factors in developing, choosing, or adapting matcrials.T\vo of the most important arc their cffvctivencss in achicving the purposes of the course and their appropriateness for the students ~~ antl thr teacher. Appropriatcnrss includes student comfort antl familiarity with the material, language level, intercst, and relevance. Some teachers incorporate instruction in ho\v to use unfamiliar materials as part of their course design. Feasibility and availability arc also important to consider.

Developing new materials and activities for using them rcquires time and a clcar smse ofwhy thcy will he used, ho\v, and by whom. Because ofthc lack of time, teachers arc often constraincd or prefer to adapt existing mattw-ids. Experienced teachers often devclop a set of core materials antl activities that they adapt each time thcy teach a course.The materials themselves are flexible and can lie used in a number of ways, depending on the target skills or competencies. For example, ncwslxipcr articles can he used as a basis for developing reading skills, expanding vocabulary, or discussing culture. Pictures can be used as a focus for learning grammar or as a starting point for a writing assignment. Core activities are related to the way the teacher conceptualizes the content. A teacher may have a repertoire of activities for teaching pronunciation or for- having students lcarn to understand cultural differences. For some teachers, materials antl activitirs are integrated into a mcthod, such as the “language expericncc”approach (Rigg 1 989) .Thc emphasis on proficiency and lcarning language in context has led many teachers to use as much authentic material as possible in their classes (Omaggio Hadley 1 993). For contcnt-Inset1 courses, authentic matcrial is the foundation.

For teachers who arc required to use a certain text, course development i s thc adaptation of the text, for the contrnt o f the text determines the content o f the course. However, the text is not thc coursc; rather, kvhat the teacher and studcnts do with the text constitutes the coursc. Textlmoks arc tools that can be figuratively cut up into component pieces and then rearranged to suit the needs, abilities, antl interests of the students in the course. The material in a textbook can lie modified to incorporate activities that will motivate students antl move thcm l>cyond the constraints of the text. Das (1 988: viii) points out that matcrials should not “pre-specify learning outcomcs or attempt to control or substantially guide learning: their function is primarily to provide opportunities for learning through interaction.”

The question “How will I teach?” also encompasses a teachcr’s approach and how she iievvs her role and that of the learners. How much initiative will the students be expected to take, and toward what end? Ilow will the students be asked to interact?Thc emphasis on learner awareness and concern for extending learning beyond the classroom have made the role of the learner a central focus of how a course is taught. Teachers design courses with activities and materials that have the students take a more active role in reflecting on their learning, determining the content ol’the course, antl pursuing projects of interest to them. Such an approach ma! tacilitatc the search for materials in that the emphasis is not on the materials themselves hut on what the students (lo with them.

C O U R S E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O C E S S E S 189

Issues

For some teachers, the lack of materials is a challenge; for others, it is an opportunity. loping materials requires time before, during, and aftcxr the course ~ for preparing,

using, antl modifying them, rcspcctivcly. Yet having to use certain materials may produce the dilemma of coping with a tcxt that does not meet students’ nerds or docs not promote the teacher’s view of the roles of learners antl teachers. Other aspccts of course devclopmcnt, such as needs a. to adapt unsuitahle materials and to what extent. Evcntually, all materials arc adapted or modified in some \vay. Even materials that have been d r v e l o p d h y teachers for specific courses \vi11 be modified o \er time.

ment antl objective setting, may help thc tcachcr .

Organization of content and activities

How will I organize the content anti activities? What ystems will I ckidop?

Regardless of whether one follows a fixcd sequence or adopts a morc fluid approach to the order in which one teaches the content, part of course de\elopmcnt is figuring out

tems lor organizing the course. Systems can focus on the lesson level (the organization o f each lesson) antl on the course I c w . 1 (thc ovcrall organization of the course). We will look first at specific considerations in sequencing inatcrial and then at eonsiderations of the overall organization o f the course.

deciding ho\v to sequence material, one considers h i l t l i n g from the simple to the complex, from more concrete to morc open-ended or so that unit or activity A prepares stutlcnts for unit or activity B. Building fi-om the simple to the complex in a writing course may mean learning how to write narratiw prose before developing an argumentative paper. In an

introductory language course, it may mean learning the nurnlicrs 1 to 9 to use telephone numbers antl then learning the numlxrs 10 to 60 to tell time. Ruiltling froin morc concrete to niore open-ended in a writing course may mean that students first unscramhle and discuss a sample paragraph before writing their o\vn paragraph. In an introductory language coursc, it may mean talking about a family in a textbook picture using prescrihetf ocahulary I d o r e talking ahout one’s on-n family.

Conceiving o f activities as Iiuilding Mocks puts them in a “leeding” relation xvhcrc one activity feeds into another “if it provitles something that is needed for the second onc . , . or the second exercise could not be donc unless thc first had already heen completed” ( 1 . o ~ 1989: 145). For example, in a reading unit, students predict the content from pictures or headings that accompany the tcxt before actually reading thc tcxt. Or prior to a rcstaurant role-playing activity, students learn mcnu itcms antl the language for ordering f(~od.

The principle of recycling matcrial means that studcnts encounter previous matci-ial in ne\\ w y s : in a new skill area, in a differcnt type o f activity, or with a new focus. For example, material encountered in a listening activity may lie recycled in a 1% riting exercise. Matcrial encountered in an individual reading acti\ity may be rccyclcd in a role play with other students. Material about the target culturc may be recycled in an activity about one’s o\vn culture. This approach to recycling material assumes that each new encountci- with the material provides a challenge to students, therely maintaining thcir interest and motivation. Recycling has the effect of integrating material and thus augments students’ ability to use or understand it.

Two general, complcmentary principles of sequencing are building and re

1. . .I Two complementary ways to approach thc overall organization of a course arc as a cycle

or as a matrix. Both approaches suggest a core of material to be learned and activities to be


conducted within a givcn time frame. In the cyclical approach, a regular cyclc of activities f'ollo\vs a consistent sequrncc. In a matrix approach, the teacher xvorks with a set of possible activities for a givcn time frame and, as thc course progresses, dccides which activities to lvork with. For an E A P course, I3lyth ( 1 996) dcscrilm such a situation, in which she compiles a list of possible activities and materials and then tlccidcs which to use, depending on her studcnts' interests as \vcll as the availability of the materials.

The cyclc and the matrix arc not mutually exclusive; inany teachers use elements of both. Certain features in a course ma! lie predictable, augmented b y other elements drawn fi-om a matrix, dcpcnding on the situation. Teachers who work with a fixed syllabus, such as that in a textbook, may nevertheless follow a cjclc in thc way they lvork with the material. Adapting material oftcn means approaching it as a matrix from which to select, depending on onc's students. Many teachers also set u p certain tlaily or weekly rituals. For example, somc teachers hegin cach session \vith a \varm-up or review. Some tcachrrs liegin each week with a student presentation or end cach \vcck with an oral feetlback session. All of thcsc methods of organization permit a teacher to g i \c a s h a p to her course.

Issues

Although thc order in \vhich thc content and materials arc taught may hc determined prior to teaching the course, it ma! also bc dctcrniinctl antl modified as the coursc progresses. For some teachers, a negotiated syllabus, in which teacher antl students decide togcthcr what they will learn, is prcfcralile. In such c a ~ , a predetermined scqu'nce is seen as a handicap as it docs not a l h v teachers to takc into account the particular group of' students in thcir course. In such a course, the sequence is not dctcrminetl beforehand. Rather, the teacher has a map of the possihlc tcrritor! antl \vorks \vith the students to dctcrmine where it is most useful for them to go and in bvhat order. Whet-c a syllabus is provided, achicving flexibility is an issue.

Evaluation

How will I u.s.sc.ss ithat stiitlents have learned? Him. iv711 I assess the $fictivcnc.s.s of ' the course? For most teachers, evaluation tncans evaluation ivithin the course; assessing students'

proticiency, progress, or achie\micnt. Ho\v proficient arc students in listening? Arc students improving their \\.riting skills? Have the); Icw-iied to I'unction in English in the workplace? Teachers liuild in some form o f studcnt evaluation when developing a coursc, ranging from formal tests to informal ' four purposcs for testing: to measure proficicncy, to csscs, to place students in a course or program, antl to assess their achicvvment in a course or program.Thc same testing instrument may be used for- more than one purpose. For cxamplc, thcTOEFL test is used b y graduate programs in the United States as a proficicncy test, but it is sometimes used as an achievement test ifstutlcnts show a gain on a7'OEFL posttcst. Ho cr, tests are not the only means teachers have to assess their students. Tcachcrs may structure their classroom activities so that they can assess their students whilc the students participate. They may use a portfolio approach, in which students put togcthcr a portfolio of their work (Fingeret 1993).They ma); involve their students in deciding what should be assessed and how (Hull 1991).

Evaluation in course development also includes evaluation of the course itself'. Was the course effective? In what ways? Where (lid it fall short? Such an evaluation may not be directly linked to assessment of student progrcss, although student evaluation and test results

mcnts. Hughes ( 1 989) tliscu ose specific strengths antl w


can provide feedback on the effectiveness of the course. I f the students do \vel1 on tests or arc judged to have made progrcss, presumably the course has been effective. R u t if students do not make progress or do not demonstrate a certain level of achievement, the effectiveness of the course may be questioned. Finding \vhcrc the fault lies \vould lie onc of the purposes of course evaluation antl could involve having students suggest why they did n o t make the progress expected.

Why docs one evaluate? Gcncrally speaking, a course is evaluated to promote and improve its effectiveness.This may be an internal matter, as when the teacher is concerned with developing the best course possible, in \vhich case the evaluation is done largely for the Ixncfit of the students and the tcachcr. However, courses are also evaluated to provide documentation for policy reasons, such as continued funding or retention in the curriculum. In such cases, evaluation is an external matter, and the teacher may he rcquircd to use certain methods of evaluation or to document the effectiveness ofthe course in a manncr prcscrihetl by an outside party. This in turn may influence the development of the course.

What can be evaluated? Any part ofthe process of course development can lie evaluatcd, including thc assumptions about antl analysis of students’ needs or backgrounds, goals antl ohjcctivcs, materials and activities, means of ing students’ pi-ogress, student participation, student roles, and the tcachcr’s role. each element of the frame\vork is itself subject to evaluation. Was the needs assessment cffcctivc? Did I seck the right input, antl did it enable m e to make appropriate decisions about the course? If not, \vhy not? Wcrc the goals and objectives appropriate and achievable? Should they be changed? Did students find the material appropriately challenging, or was it too easy or too difficult? Wcrc th r activities appropriate? I> id all students participate easily? Did I find suitable \rays to evaluate students’ progress? Did the tests test what had heen learned?

When does one rvaluatc? In curriculum design, a distinction is usually made bctwcrn fbrmcitivc ei.uluotion, which takes place during the development antl implementation of thc curriculum for purposes of modifying it as it is Iieing developcd, antl summutire evaluation, which takes place after thc curriculum has heen implemented, for purposes of evaluating its success antl improving it for future implementation (Brown 1989). A teacher \vho is involved in each stage of coursc design can think o f cvaluation as an ongoing part of the entire proccss.’l‘hus evaluation can occur in the planning and teaching stagcs of the course, after it is over, and \vhcn it is replanned and rctaught.

Who evaluates? A t the course I C \ el, the teacher and thr students are the principal r, administrators, funtlers, parents, and clients may h a c a role in

cxvaluation, antl thcir role may influence the shape or existence of the course. How does one evaluate? A variety of ways arc available. A tcachcr’s most important

means is close observation of’what students do in class and how they do it. If’students ha\? great difficulty performing certain tasks, on<’ might lie \ to question the appropriatrncss of thc objectives or the acti\ itics. Informal chats hvith students can often pro\ idc as much information as responses to formal questionnaires. Teachers can also provide time for students to give written or oral input regarding specific aspects of the course. For example, somc tcachcrs hold rcgular oral fccdhack scssions with thcir stutlcnts; and others h a w students write in journals. The teacher’s own reflection and self-questioning play an important role in evaluation.

Issues

Teachers tend to avoid extensive evaluation because they feel inadequate to a task in what they considcr is thc domain of“cxperts,” for which special training in sytematic analysis is


necessary. Teachers must become familiar with thc various purposes and types of tcsting, but thcy must also tlevisc their own systems and arcas of inquiry. As with needs assessment, teachers must experiment kvith different methods ol’evaluation and monitor the success of each so as t o maximize the effectiveness of thcir courses.

Consideration of resources and constraints

What are the girwx ofmy situation.? Resources and constraints arc thvo \ y a y of looking at the same thing. A required coursc

liook may bc a constraint for one tcachci- and a resource for another. A class of fe\ver than ten students may be a rcsource lor one tcachcr antl a constraint for another. Though these givens may seem secondary to the processes just descrihcd, in fact thcy play a primary role in the devclopment o f a coursc because it is in considering the givens that a teacher begins t o makc sense of processes such as ncctls assessment and material selection. I have referred to this elsewhere (1 996) as prolilematizing: defining the challenges of one’s situation so that one can makc decisions about what t o do. In the absence of prohlcmatizing, a teacher may seck to graft solutions appropriate t o another unique situation onto her situation. This hecamc clear t o me in the case of an EFL tcachcr who faccd an extraordinary challenge: designing a conversation class for 140 studcnts in a space meant for half as many. She felt that having examples o f nccds analysis questionnaires \vould lie a key to drveloping her coursc.To me, this was an example o fa tcachcr seeking answcrs from outside without having first specifically defined the challcngcs of her o\vn situation. Such prolilematizing could eventually result in an examination o f hou. others approached needs analysis as an aid in developing her owm. Hci-c is a skctch o f one Ivay of prolilematizing this teacher’s situation:

This is a coni-ersation class, brit there are 140 students in u .space thnt.fi:ts 70. I nccd to look at \vays of hvorking within t h c constraints of the classroom such as ways t o group or rotate students. Il’hut kinds o_f‘coniwsations can 1 4 stridcnts possib[r hare? I ncctl t o assess their language ability (At what I c i d can t h y c a r y on a conrersation?) antl find out about thcir hackground and interests (Il’hat can the), haiz coniw-sations about?). Ho\v will I go about doing that? What kinds of questions should I ask them? If thc assessment shows that their ability is lo\v, I nccd to focus on the kind of prqm-ation and foundation work necessary for conversations to take place. How cc7n I get them to work together ro hare these conversations? Classroom managcment is an issue. I need to look at available matrrials \vith carefully structured activities as a means of classroom management. Or perhaps I could ask other teachers what has worked for them in this situation. How can I monitor their u c t i r q ? I nccd to examine my rolc in the classroom. I also ncctl to think almut thc types of monitoring antl evaluation mechanisms I will u s r in the class. Il’hut has worked in the post? I need to think allout thc acti\ ities or classes in which I felt that things went wcll. Why did they gc) wcII?Wliat can I takr from thosc succcsscs and huild into this coursc!

Thcsc arc questions that I propose. Were thc tcachcr to go through a similar process, shc might ask different ones or respond to the same ones in different ways becausc of her intimate knowledge ofhcr context antl her rolc in it. For cxample, how students arc graded, whether there is a required text, and attendance patterns \vould all influence the kinds of


questions she would ask. I inclutletl the question about past succcsscs because tcachcrs carry their experiencc ovcr from one context to the next, and being able to understand what has been successful antl why can provide a foundation for planning a coursc. In the context under discussion, the teacher had already taught the course and thus could be realistic in her expectations about lvhat she could hope to accomplish mith this group of students.

‘The constraints and rcsourccs of one’s situation take many forms, some tangible, others not. Teachers work with or without physical antl material resources such as lmoks, technology, a classroom, and furniturc. The lack o f physical rcsourccs may cncouragc a teacher to use available resources in creative ways. The availability of technology may allow a teacher to have groups of students work indcpcntlcntly. Time is another important consideration in designing a course. How often, how long, and o\er what period of time will the class meet? How much time is available to the teacher to prepare for the course antl the classes? A teacher may adjust her teaching priorities according to the length of the course. The kinds of activities she designs may bc affectcd by the amount of timc shc has, hoth in class and before class.

The institutional philosophy, policy, and curriculum are important givens. Having to work within existing curricular guidelines is both a constraint antl a resource; so is ha\ ing to devise one’s own syllabus. The type of administrative antl clerical support provided by the institution affects a teacher’s choices. For example, lack of clerical support will suggest streamlining paperwork and materials. Support from the administration for innovation will encourage experimentation.

The numbers, levels, antl cultural backgrounds of the students are both a constraint antl a resource. For example, a large class may cause a teacher to focus on classroom management. A multile\d class may influence the teacher’s selection of material or activities.

The teacher herself is the most important given. Her background, experience, and belicfs play a significant role in the choices she makes. For example, one teacher will focus on certain content becausc she dccms it csscntial to successful language learning, while another will ignore the same content. A teacher who usually devclops hcr own materials may choose to use published materials whcn teaching a course' whosc contcnt is new to her.

teacher makes. Teachers plan antl teach courses not in the abstract but in the concrete of their constraints and rcsourccs. For cxamplc, an ESL teacher hvho teaches in an intensive English program, whosc students change from one program to the next, may need to investigate the background antl proficiency of her students, whcrcas for a high school EFL teacher, this may be a given because she knows the students. The teacher in the intensive English program might begin with a question such as “ I I o w can I find out the cultural background and needs of my students so that I can address those needs effectively in thc six weeks of the coursc?”Thc high school teacher’s initial question might be quitc different, say, “How can I keep my students motivatcd in a rcquircd course?” Course development, like teaching, is not a neatly organized process t a complex one in which teachers arc constantly considering multiple factors and pro ding on many fronts.

The givens of a situation cover a broad range of factors and affect

Issues

The givens of one’s teaching situation, both tangible antl intangibly, cannot lie ignored. Effecting change rcquircs both recognizing what can be changcd and accepting what cannot. The“If only . . .”syntlromc (if only \ve had the technology, if only we had quieter classrooms, if only our students were more motivatcd) can obstruct change as firmly as the “Yes,


hut . . .” 5>ndrome (Yes, hut that \ \ i l l rimer mork in m> wtting.) Problemati/ing enables a teacher to tlecidc \ that shc can changc, \I hat she can’t, antl cc hcrc to start

Conclusion The components discussctl in this chapter and summarim-d in Table 1 5 .1 should serve not as a checklist for thc teacher bu t rather as a set o f tools for talking about, understanding, antl directing thc process of course tlc lopmcnt. Each component is contingent on every other component . For cxample, assessment dcpcntls o n how one conceptualizes content or on how. she interprets students’ needs. Conccptualizing content in tu rn influences the course goals antl objectives. Thus whcrcvcr one starts in t h r Ixocess, each component will eventually come into play. Each componcmt is, in many respects, one \vay of\vorking with the whole.

Note 1 The tcrms needs tina$,.si.i antl nerds usicrsmcn~ arc often used intcrchangcabl!. Rut as Susan

Pomcroy oncc suggcstcd to me, thcy rcfcr to separate processcx: Asscssmcnt involves obtaining data, \vhercas analysis involves assigning value to those data.

References

Aucrllach, E. 1993. “Putting the p back in participatory.”’l’ESOL Qiurterb. 2 7 (3): 543 ~ 545. Auerbach, E. and N. Wallcrstcin. 1987. LSL f i r Action: Problem Posing at ICbrk. Reading, Mass.:

Addison- Wesley. Blvth, M. (1. C. 1996. “Designing an L A P course for postgratluatc students in Ecuador.” In K.

Graves, ctl., Teuchers as Course Derdopers. Carnhritlgc: Cambridge University Press. Rrindley, G. 1989. “The rolc ofncccls analysis in adult ESL program tlesign.” In K. K. Johnson,

ed., Thr Secontl Language C ~ ~ r r i c t i l ~ ~ n i , 1111. 63-78. Camhritlgc: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, D. M., M. A . Snon., antl M. 13. Wcachc. 1989. Content-based Seconcl lungriagc Instruction.

Brown, J. D. 1989. “Language program c\-aluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities.” In R. K . Johnson, etl., The Second Langrrage Crirriculum, pp. 222-243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

California Drpartmcnt of Education. 1993, English (7s ( I Second ~.on~qtrugc .l)fodel Stuntlartl.sfbr;ltluZt Education. Sacramento.

Canale, M. 198 3. “From communicative compctcnce to communicative languagc pedagogy.” In J . Richards and R. Schmidt, eds., Lungmqe ~7ntl Communicntion, pp. 2- 27. I ondon: Longman.

Crnter for Applied Linguistics. 1983. From [he Clasiroom to the Ilbrkpluce: Teuchin<q ES/. to A d t h . Washington, 1l.C.

Clark, C. antl P. Peterson. 1986. “Tcachcrs’ thought proressex.” In M. Wittrock, ctl., Handbook ?f’Rescorch on Tcuchin<q. 3rd ed., pp. 255-297. NcwYork: Macmillan.

Danien, L. 1987. Culture /.earning:7he Fifrh Dimcniion in the Ltrngtiage Classroom. Reading, Mass. : Addisom Wc-slc~.

Das, B. K . 1988. Murcricl1.s f o r L u n p q e /eurnin<q antl Teuchin!/. Singaporc: SEAMEO Rrgional I.anguage Centre.

I h b i n , F. and E. Olshtain. 1986. Corirse Design: Developing Pr~~qrums clnd Materiab f i r Language Leclrning. NecvYork: Cambritlgc University Press.

Fingerct, A . F. 1993. It Belongs to .l!e: :I Guide to fortfblio Assecsmcnt in .4dult Education Programs, Durham, N. C.: Litcrac! South.


Gorsuch, G. I991 . ‘Helping students create their own Icarning goals.”LangLiaiqeTeucher I 5 ( 1 2):

Grant, S. antl L. Shank. 1993. “Bcyond questionnaires: Engaging learners in ntwls assessment.”

Graves, K. 1996. “Teachers as course devrlopers.” In K. Graves, cd., Teachers us Course

Halliday, M. A . K. 1973. Explorutions i n the Functions pflungtrage. London: Arnold. -. 1975. Lecirning How to ,Venn: Explorations in the Der,elopmenr $Lc7nguuge. London: .\mold. Hughes, A . 1989. Testing.for Languuge Teacher,-. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hull, I.. 199 1 . “Self-monitoring and self-evaluation: A guide for facilitating intkpcndcnt and

autonomous learning.” Unpul)lishetl master’s thesis, School for Intcrnational Training, Rrattlcboro, VT.

3 , 9 .

Presentation at the TESOI. conference, Atlanta.

Derelopers. Cambridge: Caml)ritlgc University Press.

Hutchinson, T. 1984. Project English. Oxford: Oxford Uiiiwrsit! Press. Hutchinson, T. and A . Waters. 1987. English for Spcc$f;c Purposes: .I Lccirning-Centered ..lpprooch.

Cambridge: Camhritlgc Uniwrsity Press. Hymes, D. 1972. ‘ O n communicativc competence.” In J. Pride antl J. Holmes, rds.,

Sociolinntiistics, pp. 269-293. I-larmontlsnmth, England: Penguin. Johnson, R. K . cd. 1989. “A tl ion-making framework for the coherent language

curriculum.’’ In R. K . Johnson, ctl., The Second Lungiiczge Curriculum, 1111. 1 2 3 . Cambridgc: Cambridge Univrrsity Prvss.

Kramsch, C. 1993. Contest onJ Cultrire i n Langtiap Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Larsen-Freeman I>. 1986. Techniyucs and Principles in Language 7iaching. Oxford: Oxford

Loiv, G. 1989. “Appropriate design: The internal organisation of course units.” In R. K. e Second I , u n p i g e Curriculum, pp. 1 36-1 54. Cambridge: Cambridge

Nunan, D. 198 5. Lungtiuge 7koching Course Detign: Eentls antl Irsuex. Adclaidc, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre. . 1988a. The Learner-Centred Currimltim. Cambridge: Caml)ritlgc Uniwrsity Press.

Univrrsitv Press.

-. 198811. Sjdluhtis Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -. 1989. Designing Eilsks f i r the Corninunicatir.e Cluvcroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Omaggio Hatlley, A. C. 1993. Teuching Lungtrugc i n Context. Boston: Hcinlc antl Hcinlc. O’Malley, J. M. , antl A . U. Chamot. 1990. Learning .Ytrute<qiec in Second Langwqe .4cyuisition.

Oxford, R . 1990. Language Learning Slrulegics: f l h t Ever), Teacher Should Know. Ro\vlcy, Mass.:

l’rahhu, N. S. 1987. Second Lungtinge fedagogj.. Oxford: Oxford Univrrsity Press. Richards, J. 1990. The I.ungricige Teaching Mcirrix. Ncn-York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. and T. Rodgcrs. 1986. ilpprouches und ,I.lethoci.s in l . u n g u q e 7euching. Nc\v York:

Cambridge Uni\ crsit) Press. Richterich, R. 1980. “A model for the definition of language needs of adults.” In Trim,

Kichtcrich, Van kk, antl Wilkins: 3 1-62. Rigg, P. 1989. “Language experience approach: Reading naturallv.” In I l h 7/19‘ Don’r ,4lI Spccik

English: lntegratiniq the ESI Stticient inro the Regular Classroom. Chicago. National Council of Teachers of English.

Saphicr, J. antl R. Gower. 1987. The Skillfiil Teticher. Carlisle, Mass.: Research for Bettrr Teaching.

Savignon, S. 198 3. Communicotiiz Competence: Theor), and Prcictice. Reading, Mass. : Addison-

Stern, H. H. 1992. I.ssue.s and Options in Lanpu‘qe Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1’1-

Cambridge: Cambritlgc University Press.

Nc\vbury House.

Wcslcq.


Taronc, E. and G.Yulc 1989. Focus on the Iungiiuge Learner. NcwYork: Oxford University Press. Van Ek, J. A . 1975. Threshold-level English. Oxford: Pcrgainon Prcss. White, R. V. 1988. The ELT Curriculum: Design Innovutlon und Mona~qemcnt. Oxford: Blackwell. Wilkins, D. A . 1976. Notionul SJ.lluhu.ses. Oxford: Oxford Uniwrsity Prcss. Yaltlen, J. 1987. The Cornrntrnicuti\.e S ~ l l a h ~ i s : Ei.oIution, Design and Irnplernentution. London:

Prcnticc-Hall International.

C h a p t e v 1 6

David Nunan

ACTION R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E

E D U CAT10 N

Introduction

N T H I S P A P E R , I H O P E T O P R O V I D E A R A T I O N A L E for the uw of I action research in recond and torcign language education Quc\tions addrcwd in the paper include

What is action research in languagc education? Is action rcscarch 'real' research? What arc some of thr problems confronted by teachers doing action research? What are somc of the solutions to these prolilcms? What arc the views of the tcachcrs on the action research process?

The palier 11 i l l lie illustrated \z ith data from a longitudinal action rewarch project.

Action research: description and rationale

Until comparatively recently, the focus of concern in much of the writing on sccontl and foreign language cducation was at the level of method. Mcthodological prescriptions \vcrc gcncrally argued logico-tletluctivel>. and prescriptions fbr practice wcrc gcncrally devoid of data.'l'his tcndcd to reinforce the gap hctwccn theory, research and practice, a gap which, according to van Licr, is due in part to the obstacles which pre\ent teachers from doing rcscarch:

Thosc of us \\rho hvork in teacher education knoxv that one of the most difficult things to lialance in a coursc is the tension between theoretical and practical aspects of the profession. . . . Theory and practice arc not perceived as integral parts of a trachcr's practical professional life. . . . This situation is the rcsult of communication gaps caused b y an incrcasingly opaquc research technocracy, rcstrictiw practiccs in cducational institutions and liureaucracics (c.g. not validating research time, or not granting sabliaticals to tcachcrs for professional renovation), and ovcrhurdening teachers \vho cannot conceive of\vays of theorising and researching that come out of daily work and facilitate that daily \vork.

(van Lier, 1992: 3)

1 9 8 D A V I D N U N A N

Despite the difficulties referred to by van Iier, thcrc is some evidence that the picture is beginning to changc.The changc has Ixxn prompted in part hy a grokving sensitivity on the part of many researchers to the complexities of the tcacher’s task. I’ractitioncrs, on their part, seem to have grown tired of the s\vings and rountlabouts of pedagogic fashion, antl are looking for evidence before cmlx-acing the latest tt-end to appear in the educational market place. This is not to suggest that a revolution has taken placc, however.

While position papers, and logico-tlcducti\ c argumcntation have not tlisappcared from the scene (antl I am not suggesting l~or a inomcnt that thcy should), thcy are counterhalanced hy empirical approaches to inquiry. I believe that these days, \vhcn confronted liy pedagogical questions antl I)roldcms, researchers and teachers are more likely than \vas the case ten or fifteen !cars ago, to seck relevant data, rithcr through their own research, or through the rcscai-ch of othcrs. IXescarch activity has increased to the point whcrc those \Tho fa\mur logico-dctluctivc solutions to pedagogic problcms arc lieginning to argue that thcrc is too much i-cscarch.

(Nunan, 1992)

An important concept underpinning action rcscarch ( A R ) is that ot reflcctilc practice In his exccllcnt liook on rcflcctne teaching, Wallace (1 991 ) argues that rcflectilc teaching pro\ ides a \T a! of de\ eloping prolcssional c otnpctcncc 11) integrating two wurces of kno\i ledge, rcccxi\ cd k n o n lctlgc antl cxpcricntial kno\z lctlgc, \\ ith practice Wallace’s conccption I \ captured in Figurc 16 1

Trainee’s existing

conceptual schemata or mental constructs

STAGE 1: (Pre-training)

Experiential knowledge

‘Reflective cycle’

COMPETENCE

STAGE 2: (Professional education/development) GOAL

He links this with action research, arguing that:

‘action research’ can he attractivc for two reasons: 1 It can havc a specific antl iinmcdiatc outcome \vhich can I)(- directly related to practice in the teacher’s o\vn context. 2 The ‘findings’ of such rcscarch might lie Iiriniaril? specific, i.c. it is not claimcd that thcy are necessarily of general application, antl thcrcforc the methods might he morc free-ranging than those of conventional rcscarch. . . . ‘Kcsearch’ of this kind is simply an extension o f the normal t-cflcctii e practice o f many teachers, Iiut it is slightly more rigorous antl might conceivahly lead to morc effective outcomes.

(Wallace, 1 99 1 : 56-- 7)

As we can see from the selcctcd extracts presented a h v c , action rcscarch is justified on the grounds that it is a valuable professional dcvclopment tool. I t rcpresents what I would

A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E E D U C A T I O N 1 9 9

call an ‘insidc out’ approach to professional development. I t rcprcscnts a departure from the ‘outside in’ approach (i.e. one in lvhich an outside ‘expert’ brings the ‘good news’ to the practitioner in the form of a onc-off workshop or seminar). In contrast, the inside out approach begins with the concerns and interests ofpractitioners, placing them at the crntr-c ofthe inquiry process. In addition to being centred in the needs and interest of practitionrrs, and in actively involving them in their own professional development, the inside out approach, as realiscd through action rcscarch, is longitudinal in that practitioners arc involved in medium to long-term inquiry

lopment are justification enough for the ent of an action research agenda. However, I believe that a further rationale for pmcnt of such an agenda comes from the research process itself, and I shall deal

er, I should like to look at the steps

I believe that the Ixnefits to professional d

with this in section three of my paper. First, h o involved in the action research process.

Steps in the research process

The action rcscarch process is generally initiated b y the identification b y the practitioner of something which they find puzzling or problematic. This puzzle or problem may, in fact, have emerged from a period of obscrvation and reflection. Thc second step is the collcction of basclinc data through a preliminary investigation which is dcsigncd to identify what is currently happening in thr classroom without trying to change anything. Rased on a rcvicw

is formetl.The next step sting practice, along with

a way of evaluating the effects of this change.Thc final step is reporting on the outcomes of the interaction, antl, if necessary, planning furthcr intcrvcntions.T\vo examples ofthc action research cycle are prcsentcd inTahlcs 16.1 and 16.2.

yielded b y the prrliminary investigation, an hypothc lopment of some form of intervention or change to

Action research and ‘real’ rcsearch

In thc first part of this paper, I argucd that action research can IIC justified on professional

Table 16.1 ‘I‘hc action rcscaarch cyclc: an FSI example

Prob lcni / p u r ~ l c + intlcntitication

I Preliminary + in\cstigation

Hypothesis + I

I Plan intrrvrntion +

Outcome +

A teacher identifies a Imhlcni/purzlc. ‘MY students don’t sccni intci-cstrd o r moti\ atctl.’

I What’s going on7 Rccmrtling and oliscrving class ove r sc\ cral days.

I Content doesn’t secm to stimulate students. Exclusive usr ot display questions.

Increase UYC of rctcrcntial questions. Makc links bct\vccn

content antl learners.

I . . .

I Morc complcx intrractions. Morc in\ ol\ cmcnt and interest Morc ‘natural’ discoursc, c.g. students nominate topics, Ss disagree \vith tvacher, S--S interaction.

Staff‘tlc\ clopmcnt session. I

200 D A V I D N U N A N

in English.

I

Table 16.2 ’l’hc action research cvc,lc: a h r c i g n language cxainplc

I I’rohlcm + A tcachrr idcntifics a p r o l A m in hcr classroom. ‘My stutlcnts itlcntitication aren’t using thc targct language [(;rrman].’

I 2 I’rcliminary -+ What’s going on? Ilcccirding and oliacrving class ovcr scvrral

in \ cstigation

I

4 Plan intc-rvcntion + Tcachcr incrmscs target Ianguagc iisc.

Tcachcr usrs (k r i i i an h r clasarooni managrmrnt ctc

I

dcvelopmcnt grounds. Hou t AK can also be justified o n research grounds. In fact, I believe that there is s ntially patronising in the vimv that, Mhile AR might be good for profcssiona , it hardl? counts as r arch. [,et us, t o use a currently fashionable t e r m , ‘ his vie\v. First of all, \\.hat (lo \ \ r e mean by ‘research’? What is the functi

Elscw-here, I havc defined research as ‘a sjstcmatic proc ’ of inquiry consisting of th ree elements or componcnts: ( 1 ) a question, I m h l c n i , or hypc csis, (2) data, (3) analysis ant1 intcrprctation of data’ (Nunan, 1992: 3 ) . Action research incorporates these three clcments antl thercforc qualifies as ‘rcal’ 1-csearch. For mc the salient distinction hctwecn A K and othcr forms of research is that in .4K the I- arch process is initiated and carrictl out I,>. the practitioncr. As l’ar as I am concerned, the opposition is not lict\vccn action research and ‘rcal’ research, but Iiet\vc.cn good rcscarch and bad rcscarch. A further characteristic, pcrhaps differentiating A R from othcr forins o f practitioner rescarch, is that it incorporates an clcmtwt of intervention antl change.

Fundamental to any discussion of‘ research is a consideration of the rcscm-cher’s conception o f notions such as ‘ t ruth’ , ‘ohjcctivity’, and thc status of kno\vlcdgc. I recently attemptctl to deal \vith the tensions of objective antl subjective kno\vletlgc b y suggesting that they represent t \vo altcrnati\.c \vays o f looking a t thc world:

T\vo a h - n a t i v e conceptions o f t h c nature of research provide a point o f tension within the book.Thc first view is that external t ruths exist ‘out there’ somewhere. According t o this view, the function o f rcscarch is to uncover these truths. The second vicw is that t ru th is a ncgotiablc commodity contingcnt upon the historical context within \vhich phenomena arc observed antl interprctcd. Further ‘[rescarch] stantlards arc subject to change in the light ofpracticc [lvhich] \vould sccm to intlicatc that the search for a substanti\c universal, ahistorical nicthotlology is futilc.’ (Chalmcrs 1990: 2 1 ) . . . This second, context-bound attitude to research entails a rather differcnt role for the classroom practitioncr than the first. If knmvledgc is tentative antl contingcnt upon context , rather than alisolutc, thcn I liclicvc that practitioners, ra ther than being consumers of o thcr pcoplc’s rcscarch, should adopt a research orientation to their o\vn classrooms.There is cvidcnctx that the tcachcr-researcher movement is alive and


m c l l and gathering strength. Howcicr, i f the momentum mhich has gathered 15 not to falter, and i f the teacher-researcher molement 17 not to becomr >e t another fad, then 5ignilicant numbers of teachers, gracluatc students, antl others \z i l l ncctl skllls in planning, implementing and e\ aluatmg research

(Nunan, 1992)

There are thosr hvho \vould arguc that my definition of research as a systematic process of inquiry involving formulating a question, collccting relevant data, antl analysing antl interpreting that data is inatlequatr, that in order to count as research, the process should also meet the twin structures of reliability antl validity. Key questions for establishing the rcliahilitv and validity of research arc set ou t inTable 16.3.

Tuh/e 16.3 Questions for establishing thr rcliahility and validity of a stud!

‘Ijpe k’cy Y l l C S t l O f l

Internal reliability Would an intlepcntlcnt researcher, on re-analysing the

data, conic to the same conclusion?

Extcrnal reliability Would an indcpcndcnt researcher, o n replicating thc

s t u d \ , come to the same conclusion?

Intrrnal validity Is the rmcarch design such that \vc can confitlcntl> claim

that the outcomes arc a result o f thr experimental treatment?

External \alidit> Is thc research tlcsign such that \z c (‘an grneralisc I x y n t l thc subjects untlcr inkcstigation to a witlcr population?

Soirrcc: Nunan. 1992

While I would argue that any rcscarch needs to tic rclialde, the issue of validity is more problematic. If one is not trying to establish a relationship Iwt\vcen variables, hut (for example) to dcscribc and interpret phenomena in context, does the imperative to demonstrate that one has safeguarded one’s research from thrcats to internal validity rcmain! By the same token, if onc is not trying to arguc from samples to populations, then it would not be unreasonable to a, r t that external validity is irrclmant. I would argue that as most AR is not concerned mith arguing from samples to populations, external validity is not at issue. (For an cxccllcnt discussion of issucs to do n i t h reliability and validity in qualitative rcscarch, see LeComptc and Goctz, 1982.)

It is popularly assumed that the purpose of research is to test theories. For examplc, ‘That communicative language teaching is more Ffective than audiolingualisrn.’ Allwright and Bailey h a w pointcd out that there arc problems mith this proposition. In the first place, some theories are untestable (for example, Krashen’s attestations on ‘subconscious’ acquisition). Secondly, classrooms are too complcx for us to control all thc variables in the manner prescribed by experimental research. Thry propose an alternativc purpose for research, namclj to try antl understand and deal with immcdiatc practical problrms facing teachers and learners (Allwright and Bailey, 1991). If \vc accept this alternative purpose, M C art’ drawn immetliately into embracing AR, because it makes no sense for an outsider to arhitratc on the practical problems facing teachers and learners. This does not mean that outsiders,


such as unhersity-based researchers, hahe no role to play in practitioner-based research. However, the role is one of collaboration and ad\ icc rather than direction and control.

Problems and solutions in doing action research

I would now like to reassure those who might feel that I am looking at teacher research through rose-colouretl glasses. I t is certainly not the case that everything is rosy in the AK garden.The principal problems identified liy teachers with whom I have Morked in a number of different contexts include the following:

Lack of time Lack of expertise Lack of ongoing support Fear of being rclvealcd as an incompetent tcacher Fear of producing a public account of their rcscarch for a wider (unknolzn) audience

We have cxperimcntcd tvith a number o f solutions to the problems. I believe that thc chances for an action rcscarch agenda to succccd will be maximiscd under the following conditions:

There is somcwne ‘on thr ground’ to ‘okvn’ the project. One or more individuals with training in research methods arc availablc ‘on tap’ to provide assistance and support to tcachcrs. ‘Teachers are given paid relcasc time from face-to-facc teaching during the course of their action research. Collaborative focus teams arc established so that teachers involi et1 in similar areas of inquiry can support one another. Teachers arc given adequate training in methods antl techniques for identifying issues, collecting data, analysing and interpreting data, and prcscnting the outcomes of their research,

In order to facilitate the process, colleagues antl I haw del elopcd an in-service programmc.This programme \vas initially devised for the IdPT project (Languages Inservice Project forTeachers) in South Australia, antl has bccn further moditietl and refined in Sydney, where a project has bccn establishctl h inging together mainstream teachers, ESL teachers, and teachers of LOTE (Languages Other than English). InTalilc 16.4,l have provided a summary of the professional development programme as it currently exists.

Evaluating action research

From what has already Iwen said, it is clear that action research is difficult, messy, protilematic, and, in some cases, inconclusive. I t consumes a grcat deal of time, and often strains the goodwill of the teachers invol\etl, as well as those with whom they work. Ho\vever, evaluative data from teachers themselves suggests that teachers who have hccn involved in action research are overwhelmingly in favour of it. For example, Mickan, who collected data on the reaction of outside teachers to his LII’T project, writes:

Teacher4 hahe welcomed the article4 from LIPT. The) ha\e found them particularly useful and re l aan t hcxausc the! depict the complex circumstances of classroom life

A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E E D U C A T I O N 203

in an honest and direct way.They have found them a rich source of ideas and valuable for informing their own practice. Thc warts and all descriptions (including failures and successes), thc research techniques used, the analTsis of' results and the contextual detail are all rlcments hvhich readers relate to and understand. As such they posscss a validity which derives from the detailed narration of classroom ecology. The cxpcriential reports g iw other practitioners models and ideas for their ow-n practice. They also suggest topics and procedures for classroom investigations in diffcrcnt contexts.

(Mickan, 1 99 1 )

Table 16.4 The insen icc programme in outline

Session I An introduction to classroom olxc.rvation and rcscarch

a

I) A series of reflective activities dcsigncd to gct tcachcrs thinking about their o\vn teaching stylr . Rcllccting on the teaching of others: teachers examine anti critique cxtracts from a range of classrooms identifying those aspects o l thc extracts thcy liked and tlislikctl.

c Identification of ideological beliefs and attitudes underlying critiques.

Rctwccn session task: teachers record and rcllcct on their o \vn teaching.

Session 2 An introduction to action research

a I> c

Teachers I-cport back on the hetween wssion task.

Introduction to issues and methods in action rrsearch

Introduction to thr action research pro'

lop a draft action plan.

Session 1 Focus groupc antl action plans

a

I-, c Refining qucstions.

Brt%vc.cn session task: baseline ohscr\ation, focus group meetings, preliminary data collection.

Session 4 Analysing data

a

Iictwcrn session task: ongoing data collcction antl analysis, focus group meetings

Session 5 Writing up a

h

tlctwccn session task: production of draft reports

Session 6 Rch ing reports

Participants rcccivc fccdback on anti discussion of their reports

Srssion 7 Ebaluation Participants c\ aluatc thc LIPT process and provide fccdback on how their involvement changcd them.

Formation of focus groups antl appointment of facilitators.

Sharing of draft action plans.

Participants devclop ways of analysing and making scnsr o f thcir (lata

I'articipants rcccivc input on prcscnting their research. Development of draft rrporting outlines.

An evaluation by Lewis (1 992) is also favourable. She reports on a study conducted with a group of teachers of French immersion programmes in British Columbia.The focus of hcr research was the effect on the professional practice of the teachers of engaging in AK. She drew the following conclusions from her research.


1 ’l’hrough thc pro o f systematically iniplcmcnting thcir o\vn choice of action project f the students in particular, each tcachcr learned more about thcir

o\vn thcories, or frames for teaching, antl motlifictl thcsc frames t o a ccrtain extent . The frames for tcaching o f the participants in this study arc related to the bigger questions of second language education antl education in general. Practice cannot lie understood thoroughly n i t h o u t aplircciating how educational theory i s expressed lvithin teachers’ frames and neither can theor? bc uscful without rccognising that \ \hat counts is how theory Ixwmies cxIircsscd \Tithin practice. The ‘tcachcr as r archer’ o r ‘rdlcction in action’ approach t o tcachcr education can lie a \ c r y powcrtul \vav of facilitating changc in curriculum.

2

3

In elaluating the last o f t h c I IPT proicct\, \\e asked teachers to complete the folio\\ ing statements:

Action research i s ................................................................................

Action research i s carried out in order to ...................................................

Wc also a\ked thcrn t o respond to thc folio\\ ing:

I What are the most significant things you have lcarncd in carrying ou t your classroom research? What qucstions/issucs has y o u r classroom research raised for vou? What further arcas/itlcas arc you interested in pursuing?

2 3

Sample responses to the til-st of thcsc prolxs on the most significant outcomes for the participants arc set ou t in Appendix 1 . It can be sccn that thcsc are ovcrwhelmingly favourable, the participants choosing t o focus either on the sulistanti\c content outcomes (‘By collecting antl a n a l y i n g data on ni! children, I found that they wcrc m o r e highly motivated than I had given thcm credit for’), learning procrss outcomes (‘The active involvement o f the children in thc learning process facilitates learning.’ ‘ I discovered that kids know ho\v to learn ~ the project taught me to listcn to thcrn’), or reflections on the research process itself (‘In norking through the action research ~iroc‘ess, I discovcrctl \vhich methods of data collection arc most suited t o my research question ~ next t ime I will hc lietter prcparctl as I \vi11 lic more awarc of\vhat I am looking for, and \ \ i l l be het tcr able to match my questions antl data.’). The enthusiastic validation of learner-ccntrcd approachcs t o instruction, cvcn though this \\‘as not a primary aim o f most research, i s also Lvorth noting.

Finally, participants \\‘crc asked to complete a chccklist to indicate how thcir traching had changed as a result of thcir involvement in the projcct. Iksu l t s are set ou t inTablc 16.5. It can Iic sccn from thc sur\.ey that, if sell’-rcports are t o l ie believctl, the expericncc \vas, for most teachers, an over\\ hclmingly positi\.e onc.

Conclusion

In this Ijalier, I have argued that the atloption o f an action research orientation can bc justified lopmcnt terms antl rcscarch terms. Despitc thc Iw-caucratic difficulties

and obstacles Ivhich arc placed in thc \vaT of tcachcrs , thc clitism of a certain cadre of researchers (somc of 1% hom ~ v c r c once classroom teachers themselves!), and the suspicion which i s sometimes directed at academics Lvho arc trying t o promote a closer rrlationship

A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E E D U C A T I O N 205

‘ruble / 6 . 5 How has your tcaching changeti? Complete the follo\\ing: ‘Since I havr hecn doing action research, 1 tint1 that \\ hen I tcach I no\\ . , .’

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5

LtY\

10 0 0

1 3 0 5 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0 0

tcntl to be &recti\ c try t o itsc a greater \aricty ofI)cha\ iours

praise students criticise students am axvarc of studrnts’ teeling.\ gi\ c directions ani conscious of mv n o w \ crbal communication

use the targct language in class

am conscious of non-verhal cuc\ of students tr \ to incorporate student itlcas into my teaching spend more class time talking mysclf try to gct ti-! to get tiivcrgcnt, open-cndcd student responses distinguish I)ct\vc.cn cnthusiasm and lack o f oi-dcr

students \\-orking in groups

Mot-c

1

16 15 0

18 4

1 1 19 1 2 20

1 1 5 14 9

About the ,amc 14 6

1 0 1 1 h

16 14 6

1 2 5 9 8

10 I 5

t r \ to get \tutlcnt\ to participate 18 7

bet\ccen theory, rcscarch, antl practice, there is c\ idence that things are beginning to change I can otter no more fitting conclusion to this paper than the follo\sing extract from the v o r k ot t no ot the prolession’s foremost adlocates of the dc\clopmcnt ot hai-monj bct\ \ccn theor), rcwarch and practice, ~ h o h a c strixen in thcir OM n teaching, Lcriting antl research, to enhance thc status ot both practitioner and r archer \\ ithin language cducation

\lo\\ I > , thc profcs5ion as a \\ hole is reahsing that, no matter hou much intellectual cnergj is put into the inicntion of ncv methods (or of ne\\ approaches to s!Ilahus dcsign, antl so on), \\hat rcall; matters is \\hat happens 1% hen tcachcrs antl learners get together in the classroom This 4hitt in emphasis from concentrating on planning decisions to concentrating on looking a t M hat actuall) happens in the cla\sioom, has led r archers to h a c much greater respect for c l a w oom tcaching I he more m e look, the more \\e find, antl thc moic \\e rcahw hov complex the teacher’s 101) is And tcachcis, in thcir turn, faced a t last 111th rrsrarchcrs mho ha\c at least some itlea ot the cnoi mous complexit) ot e \ e r jda j clas\rooni l i t c , arc heginning tu he more r Bcing a gootl classroom teacher means being all\ e to \z hat goes on in the claswoom, all\? to the problems ot rorting out \\hat matters, momcnt bj momcnt, from \I hat tlocs not Ant1 that 15 \ \hat classroom rcscarch is all about gaining a better undcrstanthng of \\hat good teachers (and lcai ncrs) do instinctncl; as a matter of course, so that ultiinatelj all can hcncht

(Alhr ight antl Railej, 199 1 )

pti\c to thc \\hole research enterprise

Appcndix 1 What are the most significant things j o u ha\c lcarned in carr)ing o u t !our cla\woom research!

The active inyol\ emcnt of the chiltlrcn in the learning process facilitate5 learning.


. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Children have differcnt learning prcfcrences antl teachers nccd to allow for this in their instructional practices. Children find it difficult to express feelings and opinions on papcr. It is casy to ‘spoon fectl’ children, but this leads to ineffcctive learning. Teaching problems only go alvay if they arc recognized and tackled. The most important outcomc for mc was that I learnctl how to do action research, To benefit, I thcreforc have to do it again! Working with the children together (c.g. finding their thoughts/feelings and acting on them). In working through the action resrarch process, I discovered which methods o f data collection are most suited to my research question ~ next time I will be bctter prepared as I will be morc aware of what I am looking for, and will be bctter ablc to match my questions and data. The process removcd my tunnel vision to teaching. It helped me to make links xvith other teachers o f Mandarin, as well as parents antl the community. The proccss dramatically cnhanced my rapport with students. I found that by careful, step-by-step direction o f students, I was able to give them tools to manage their oivn learning. Ry collecting and analyzing data on my children, I found that they were morc highly motivated than I had given them credit for. The most important outcome for me was that I tliscovered the children enjoy (and respond well) to bcing consulted about their learning and tieing given some say in what they learn. There \vas a negative outcomc for me I’ve learned not to expect children to havc complctcd tasks or to value something just because they’re important to mc. I found thatyear 7 learners still need lots of structure and guidance, even when independent skills arc cncouragcd. I was disappointed. I expected too much in my initial project ~ book flood! Only book trickle is possible in such a short time. The most important discovery for me \vas that my students nccd morc time and opportunities to work in groups as they need to learn to work on their own without teacher directed lrssons all the time. The need for informed input in this proccss ~~ one ncctls to read ctc., recent research and thinking in order to maximize value of one’s obvn research, and move beyond one’s own ‘lilinkercd’ vision. The positive bcnefit of concentrating o n one particular area because the attitude/ approach of opennrss and inquiry carries ovcr into one’s teaching in gencral. I have learned that students with a very limited knowledge of the target language are prepared to try to hvrite morc than I expcctcd, and that in future I should try to foster this willingness in my classes. Contrary to my exprctations, I found that the chiltlrcn lverc keen to be part of a ‘project’. This led to increased motivation (maybe Hawthorne Effect?). I have learned that one ncctls to undcrtake classroom research. One needs to intervene

observation alone isn’t a good enough indicator of how much children are Icarning. In my research, I tlelvctl into how my lessons were arranged and the effectiveness (or not) of my teaching. I looked closely at my learning strategies. I t allowed me


t o construct a unit that mas tlesigncd for junior primar: 5tudent5’ needs and intercsts and m) research allowed m> to construct strategic’s accordinglj. I disco\cred that kids kno1.r ho\t to lcarn ~ thc project taught me to listen to thcm

Acknowledgements Grateful acknondcdgcment is made to thc British Council for financial support. Figurc 16.1, ‘Reflecti\-e practicc model o f professional cducation development’ from Training Foreign Language Teachers:A Rcjlectlve ,4pprouch ( M . Wallace, 1 99 1 ), is reproduced h v kind permission of Cambridge University Press.

References

Allwright. D. antl K . M. Bailey. 1991. / ,OCLIS on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP. Chalmers, A . 1990. Science and i t s Fabrication, 21. Milton K LcComptc, M. antl J. Goet7. 1982. ‘Problems of rclial it? and valitlity in cthnographic

Le\vis, C. 1992. Action research with French immersion teachers: a pilot study. Unpuhlishcd monograph, University of British Columbia: Canada.

Mickan, 1). 1991. LIPT: Languages lnscrvice Program for Tcachers Stagc 3 1990. Action Icesearch Keports Volume 6, March I991 . Adelaide: Languages and Multicultural Centrc.

nes: Open University Press.

arch.’ Review ?fEducarional Research, 52/ 1 .

Nunan, D. 1 992, Research Methods in Langiiage Learning. Cambridge: cui‘.

Van Lier, I.. 1992. Not the nine o’clock linguistics class: investigating contingrncy grammar. Unpublished monograph, Monterey Institute for Intcrnational Training, Montcrey : California.

Wallace, M . 1991. Training Foreign /.anguage Eachers:A R$ecrive,Ipproach. Cambridge: CUP.

C h a p t e r 17

Susan Feez

C U R R I C U L U M E V O L U T I O N I N T H E

A U S T R A L I A N A D U L T M I G R A N T

E N G L I S H P R O G R A M

1 Introduction

1 . 1 The Adult Migrant English Program

H I S C H A P T E R TRACES T H E DEVELOPMENT OF curr iculum and syllabus T design in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). The AMEP is a n English-languagc programme offered by the Australian government to all immigrants of non-English speaking background. Many people believe that the AMEP has hccn an important e lcmrnt in the succcssful integration of the thousands of peoplc from diverse Inckgrountls 1%-ho have migratctl to Australia sincc thc Sccontl World War.

1.2 Fifyyearr of curriculum development

Oler the fift) )car\ ot the AMEP, teachers h a c interpreted dc \c lopmcnts in applied IinguistiLs in order to customisc the curr iculum to thc need5 ot non-tngl ish 5pcaking immigranta '1 heir intcrprctation5 ha\ c rcflcctcd thcii- bchcfs about language and languagr learning, both conscious and unconscious Thew I,clict\ ha\c shaped the \x a) tcachera in the AMEP ha\ e di\ idcd language up into chunky ot content and then sccIucnLcc1 the w n t r n t into claw-oom act11 ities L)c\clopmcnt\ in applied linguistic5 olcr the last hft) ycars h a c resulted in three distinct \xa\es of tcac hing a p p r o a ~ h c s in the AMFP These arc.

I structural approache\ 2 lcarncr-centrccl, ne b a d , conimunia t i \ c a p p r o a ~ h e \ 3 trxt-bascd approaches

2. I Structural approaches

2. I . 1 The origins ofstructural (ipproachec

At the bcginning of the tlvcnticth century the learning of a foreign language in formal educational settings was limited t o the privileged fen,. Students learnt the language by studying grammar rules and using thcsc rulcxs to translate literary texts, a method known

A U S T R A L I A N A D U L T M I G R A N T E N G L I S H P R O G R A M 2 0 9

as grammar-translation. As the century unfolded antl more people had the opportunit? or need to trawl, there was a demand for approaches which taught people how to communicate in a wider range of contexts n i th speakers of other languages. Applied linguists in Britain antl Amcrica responded to this demand in different ways. British applied linguists developed situational language teaching, lvhilc in America audiolingual methods \\ere d an account of these devclopments scc Howatt, 1984; Richards and Rotlgers, 1986).

The AMEP looked to British situational language teaching, \vhich linked structures ‘to situations in which they could be usctl’ (Richards and Rodgcrs, 1986: 35). British situational language teaching had emcrgctl becausc a group of British linguists, in particular Firth and Halliday, \yere rxploring holv structure and meaning were relatcd to contrxt and situation (see Richards antl Rodgers, 19x6).

2 I 2 Srr irctirrcil upproat he\ and hehai roural eclucatronal py rholog

Teachers using situational/structural approaches taught Icarncrs the component parts of language. They used tcchniques dcvclopetl liy hchavioural psychologists to teach ‘correct’ language habits and accurate forms. Words and structures \vci-e taught in a fixed sequence through response, rcpctition and mcmorisation using, for example, imitation drills and substitution cxcrcises.

Situational language teaching \vas used in the AMEP becausc non-English~speaking migrants needcd to be alile to use ‘real-\.vorld’ English as quickly as possible on arrival in Australia. All learners in the AMEP mw-e taught the samc dialogues in a fixed sequence from a common textbook. These dialogues \vert ‘situated’ within an everyday ‘setting’ such as a restaurant or a railxvay station. The dialogues introduccd lexical items antl grammatical structures which were then practised by the learners in follow-up activities. The dialogues used at the time no\v seem very contri\-ccl and inauthentic nrvcrthcless, they drew learners’ attention to language use in

The linking of structures to situation in the AMEP curriculum was an earl) examplc of the close link \vhich continues to this day between the academic discipline of applicd linguistics antl the de\ elopmcnt of curriculum and expertise in the AMEP When comparcd with equivalent language learning approaches of the day, thc situational approach stands out for its responsiveness to the needs of learners. Through this syllabus AMEP trachers \vcrc tlevrloping expertise in linking thr language learnt in the classroom and the language learners nccdcd to use in rcal life. This expertise became the foundation on which future tlevclopmcnts in AMW curriculum were based.

Other innovations during this period no\v taken for granted everywhere asTESOL Iwst practice includc:

a concern with all the macroskills of language ~ listening, speaking, reading and writing the usc o f thcmcs antl topics as a basis for coursc design classroom management stratcgiex in\ olving clicitation techniques, pair antl group lvork presentation and practice techniques \vhich incorporated rcalia, concrete and visual materials, gcsturc and mime the identification of teaching ohjcctives in tcrms of \\.hat thc Icarncr should bc able to do with English at the enti of the course.

2 1 0 S U S A N F E E Z

2.1 .-! The challenge to structural u p f r @ i ~ h e ~

Despite the innovations outlined almvc, t.hc situational approach retained the follotving limitations:

Language forms \vert learnt in isolation antl in a fixed progression irrespective o f the learner’s necds and goals. Language learning was f,roduct-orientecI, teacher-centred, concerned with accuracy more than fluency, antl atomistic, that is, concentrating on individual isolated phrases and structures. Grammar and vocabulary \\ere taught in isolation from thc \vay language \vas used in real life situations (sccYaltlen 19873).

2.2 Leaner-centred, needs-based communicative approaches

From the end of the 1970s the AMEP l q a n to move akvay from a ccntraliscd, structural approach towards an indivitlualiscd syllahus in \\-hich classroom teachers were responsible for syllabus dcsign. Teachers constructed their syllahuscs from a diverse repertoire of syllabus elements and methodologies. These can be roughly grouped according to whether thcy were informed by:

1 2

second language acquisition antl progrcssiw pcdagogies communicative and social theories of languagc. antl language learning.

2.2. 1

Approaches Lvhich were d c s c r i l d as more ‘natural’ lvays of lcarning a language cmerged after thc American linguist Chomsky claimed that language use was ‘not imitated bchaviour b u t . . . creatcd anew from untlcrlping kno\vlctlge o f alxtract rules’ (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 59). Following Chomsky, sccontl language acquisition (SLA) theorists began to describe language learning as a proccss in lvhich learners actively test their emerging interpretations of the new language.

Influenced by SLA, AMEI’ teachers began to understand that a learner’s non-standard approximation o f the target languagc,, or interlanguage, was not mcrelp ‘incorrcct’ but rather revealed how the learner \vas progressing (Corder, 198 1 ; Sclinker, 1991). AMEP teachers felt that, if language learners were in an environment rich in language input just beyond what thcy 1vei-e able to produce themselves in a stress-frcc cnvironmcnt, they would acquire the target language unconsciously, effortlessly and flucntly (Krashcn, 1 988).

A stress-free learning environment m-as achicved by drawing on the progressive pedagogics which had emcrgcd in Wcstcrn education by the end of the 1960s. Progressivc pcdagogies cncouragcd teachers to abandon their traditional authoritarian role in ordcr to:

.\aturn1 longtiage learning i7nd progrewre pcclqogie.s

tlcvclop more equal antl respectful rclationships with learncrs facilitate humane, interesting and interactivc educational settings recognise and respond to the individual needs, interests antl motivations of learners encourage learners to takc responsibility for their omm learning, to takc risks and to discover knowledge as they need it.

AMEP teachers were especially concerned with learning principles appropriate to adults including, for example, self-directed antl contract learning (Kno\vlcs, 1 990). Some AMEP

A U S T R A L I A N A D U L T M I G R A N T E N G L I S H P R O G R A M 211

teachcrs also became intrrested in approaches which highlighted social justicc, and political and personal freedom (for example, Freire, 1972).

By the end of the 1 980s many AMEP teachers had developed the following Iiclicfs about language learning:

Fluency is more important than accuracy. Intervention in thc learning process is countcr-productive because it diminishes the individual's motivation, self-expression and personal development and takes rcsponsibility for learning avay from the learner. Learners should 'own' thcir learning so teachers should negotiate the curriculum with learners based on learner need. Classroom materials should he based on authentic languagc use and tcachcrs should - dra\v on a wide range of methotlologics. -- -. -.-,.______

r : ,. (. , * -7" ' ,.,,,/ ," <L j I . '

, - ' ..

2.2.2 Hjmes, Hollida?; connn~mication and discourse ' , , . . A/,', , I , , , J , . , L',,f-l~,,$9!-.L- , .,-. ,

Communicative and social thcories of language and language learning emcrgPd-fi-m-tht. ~-

work of linguists who were concerned with meaning, function and social context, in particular Hymes in the United States and Halliday in the United Kingdom (sccYalden, 1987a). Hvmes (1 972) used thc tcrm 'communicative competence' to account for the two kinds of knowledge successful language users apply. These arc:

knowledge about languagc knowledge about the appropriate language to use in particular social contexts.

Research into the nature of communicative competence lead to the development of a range of approaches to language teaching known collectively as communicative language teaching. (See the following for accounts of these approaches: Brumfit, 1986; Richards and Rodgcrs, 1986; Melrosc, 1991 : 1-1 6; Yalden, 198717). By the end of the 1980s the communicatiw language teaching methodologies had liecomc the basis of the AMEP curriculum.

Meanwhile Halliday (1 975; 1976; 1978) was developing a comprehensiw, systematic way of describing language in terms of:

The work of Hymes and Halliday influcnced the English language teaching syllabus documents prcpared by the Council of Europe in the early 1970s (van Ek and Alexander, 1980). These documents were based on stretches of meaningful language with a real communicative purpose rather than on isolatctl sentences, grammatical structures or lexical itcms. Wilkins ( 1976) categorised these units of meaningful language in terms of t\vo general hcadings:

- ' -

the meanings people make with language what people do with language the social contexts in which language is used.

functions: units of meaning identificd on the basis of their communicative purposc, for example greeting, persuading and suggesting. notions: the language used to express a general area of meaning such as time, quantity and emotion.

Increasingly AMEP teachers provided learners with opportunities to use extended chunks o f language, or discourse, to achieve communicative purposes in context rather than simply providing opportunities for memorising isolatcd grammatical structures and vocabulary. In addition language proficiency in the AMEP began to be assessed against scales which describcd what learners could do with language at different levels in terms of extended

2 1 2 S U S A N F E E Z

stretches of meaningful language, as \vel1 as in tcrms of grammar and vocabulary (Ingram and Wiley, 1984).

d , AMEP teachers Iiccamc increasingly aware of criticism being levrllcd at inventories of notions antl functions, for example hy Candlin (as cited in Mclrose, 199 1 : 19- 20) and Widdo\cson ( 1 979: 248 as quoted in Yaldcn, 1987a: 77). These critics pointed out that, although these \vcrc lists of units of meaning rathcr than lists of words and structures, they remained inventories of isolatctl components and so were of questionable value in de\ eloping communicative competence.

As the 1980s progre

2.2.3 The challenge to learner-centrcJ, ncctlc-hacd comrnrrnicc7ti1.c approaches

By the mitlL1980s, for each new class they taught, AMEP teachers \vere cxpcctcd to:

analyse the nccds of learners (13rindIcy, 1984) negotiate language learning objcctivcx with thc learners use functional-notional inventories to select antl sequcncc syllabus elements implement learner-ccntretl, communicative methodologies based on self-dircctcd learning antl the development of fluency provide opportunities for tlcvcloping thc skills antl strategies learners needed if they werc to become effective listeners, spcakcrs, readers and writcrs.

In practice the task of designing coherent courses from all these componcnts proved to br very difficult. As teachers tried to tlcvisc situations in which the studcnts could practise different bvords and structurcs in ‘natural’ contcxts o f use, fluency \vas cmphasised at the expensc of accuracy. Tcachcrs tended to sclcct and sequence syllabus elements according to their perception of xvhat ‘worked’ in the classroom, forgetting that communicative practice alonc \vould not dcvclop communicative competence. As Hymes had pointed out from the Iieginning, learners also ncctlcd to dcvclop kno\vledge ahout language.

By the end of the 1980s AMEI’ tcachcrs hvere grappling with ‘the complexities of designing intlivitlualiscd programs lvith little institutional support’ (Brindlcy and Hood, 1990: 223 -4). A consequence ofthis was that AMEI’ learners had little sense of progression or achievcmcnt (Brintllcy, 1985; Nunan, 1987). To ovcrcomc these difficulties, teachcrs requested ‘non-mandatory curriculum guidelines to assist thcm in planning courses to meet the nccds of commonly recurring Icarncr groups’ (Nunan, 1987: 59).

One commonly recurring learning group in the AMEP wcrc ‘stabilisecl’ lcarncrs nrho had achieved a non-standard intcrlanguage xvhich allo\ved thcm to survive in Australia.Thesc learners, howe\rer, did not progress to more standard forms of English. Ikcausc teachers were focusing on fluency in classrooms and were trying not to intcrvcne in language learning, learners were interacting with each other, not with the teacher. Consequently thc opportunities for learners to engage with stantlard English wcrc limited and their interlanguage hecamc established as the means of communication. Non-standard forms of English limited students’ opportunities in Australia, especially in further cducation and employment.

AMEP curriculum (Icvclopcrs realisctl that it \vas tiinc to 1-cvisit the idea of planned intervention in the process of language Icarning, but this time from thc persprctivc of :

an interactive model of grammar and discourse, one that demonstrates the necessity and importance o f both levels of languagc to the languagc learning process and to the attainment of communicative competence.

(Celce-Murcia, 1990: 146)


Developments in the wider field of English-languagc teaching wcre supporting this shift. Widtlo\vson ( 1 990: 164), for example, strongly challcnged the ‘natural’ approach to language learning.

The early 1990s initiated a period of rapid social, economic and industrial change in Australia. AMEP learners ncctlctl increased levels of English-language proficiency if thcy were to access community services, find work or participate in further education in this changing environment. I f their English-language skills were to bc recogniscd in this environment, AMEP learners would have to demonstrate their language skills in tcrms of explicit outcomes of a rccognised curriculum (for an account of this period, see Hagan, 1994).

The \\ riters of the AMEP curriculum were faced with sevcral challengcs.’I’he needs of AMEP learncrs in the changing social environmcnt tlemandctl that the AMEP curriculum comprise:

a flexible framework to accommotlatc thc diverse ncctls of learners across a \vide range of tcaching contexts across Australia

a common language for describing learner n c d s and goals explicit statements of what learners could do at the end of each stage of the pathway, that is, explicit outcomes a communicative approach which reflected real-life language use in tcrms of discourse rathcr than isolated elements such as words, structures, functions or notions an explicit and tematic approach to the tcaching of language structures antl features.

a clcar learning pathwa?

ro meet the challcngey, the AMkP curriculum tlc\elopers again turned to the v o r k ol Ilallida) They began with Hallida>’s itlea of a text being a nholc un i t of language use Working mith \\hole texts in real contexts of language use, AMEP learners nould h a c the opportunit) to dc\elop communicati\ c fluenc) as well as accuracy in tc-rms ot tcxt structure, grammar, lexis and surface features such as pronunciation and spelling The 4MEP curriculum tic\ eloper? also turned to a petlagog> tle\elopcd t i ) Hallida! ’$ collcagues in Australia Thi.; pcdagog?, the genrc approach, pro\ ided a model for explicit intcxr\ention in the process of languagc learning

2.3 Genre-based approaches

2.3.1 Language i l c tcvt

The foundation ofthc gcnre approach is thc study ofn-hole tcxts in contcxt. A tcxt is a unit of discoursc (spoken or written) in which related meanings are \vovcn togcthcr to make a unified whole hvhich achicvcs a social purposc (see Halliday in IIalliday and Hasan, 1985: 10). Halliday has shown that there is a n a tcxt and thc contcxt in which it is used. Systcmic functional ling s explore register variation in language; in other \vords thcy explore the 1% tcxts \ ary from social situation to social situation. Considcr, for example, the diffcrcn n the following tcxts:

a telephone I d 1 antl a lcgal bill an exchange bctm student a story pulilishcd in a book antl a story told in casual conversation.

n a parent and a child anti an exchange bct\vcen a tcacher and a

2 1 4 S U S A N F E E Z

At the same time they look for the underlying patterns in texts which remain relatively stablc in order to achieve similar purposes across registers and which makc texts culturally and socially meaningful.

2.3.2 The genre approach

A group of educators tlra\ving on systemic linguistics developed a pedagogy based on the notion of‘genre’. (For more detailed accounts o f the genre approach in schools, see Cope, Kalantzis, Krrss and Martin, 1993; Krcss, I99 1 ; Martin, 1993; Rothery, 1996). A genre is a relatively stable pattern which recurs in tcxts used to achieve the same general social purpose. For example, linguists are able to describe patterns which recur when people use language to:

explain how somcthing works give instructions

organisc information

This information is vcry useful to language teachers and learners because it makes learning to use language a much less hit-andmiss affair. I t makcs it possible to identify what people need to lie able to do with language in order to be successful in education, in the community and in employment. Learners work with individual tcxts which excmplify different genres in order to learn:

build a relationship through casual conversation recount a series o f events to share what happened with someone else entertain liy telling a suspenseful story or an amusing anecdote

persuade someone to your point of view

makc a story newsworthy for the electronic or print media.

the overall patterns of different genres of communication specific language features used in examples of that genre most relevant to their individual learning needs.

Genre pedagogy is a teaching approach in which students work systematically and comprehensively wi th the language of texts belonging to the genres relevant to their educational goals. Genre pedagogy is usually presented to teachers in the form of a cycle of teaching and learning. (For a diagram and tletailcd description of the teaching-learning cycle initially used in schools, see Kothcry, 1996: 101 4.)

2.3.3 A language-based theory of learning

The cycle of teaching and learning designed to teach about texts reflects Halliday’s (1 992: 19) view of learning as a process of ‘learning to mean and to expand one’s meaning potential’. Research into first language dcvclopment hy Halliday and his colleagues revealed language learning to lie a social process (for example, Halliday, 1975; Painter, 1985; 1996). Halliday (1 991 ) describes educational learning as an organised social process in which the construction of meaning takes place systematically.

2.3.1 Scaffblded learning

In a genre-based cycle of teaching and learning:

Lvhat is to he learned and assessed is made explicit to students tcacher-learner interaction is valued as much as interaction between learners.


The design of the gcnrc-based teaching-learning cycle draws on the theories of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1 934/ 1978; 1986). Vygotsky’s work suggests that instruction preccdcs learning. Drawing on both Halliday’s and Vygotsky’s ideas, the genre approach is used to construct a social context in which languagr learning can occur. In that context:

teachers and learncrs collaborate tcachers interact with learners to guide them towards their potcntial level of pcrformance the ttxchcr’s role is an authoritative one similar to that of an cxpcrt supporting an apprentice language is used interactively to mediate learning.

The genrc-based cycle of tcaching and lcarning has two key characteristics:

scaffolding joint construction.

Scaffolding occurs when the teachcr contributes what learners arc not yet able to do alone or do not yet know.Teachers adjust, and strategically diminish, thcir contribution, supporting learncrs as they progress towards their potcntial level of independent performance.

Joint construction occurs when tcachrr and learner share the responsibility for functioning until the lcarncr has the knowledge and skills to perform independently and with sole responsibility. (For further discussions ofscaffolded learning scr Gray, 1985, 1987, Gibhons, 1998 .)

The genre-based teaching-lcarning cycle was initially del elopcd for primary schools, but it has been adapted for ESL (see Burns, Joyce and Collin, 1996: 88; Cornish, 1992: 17; Hammond, 1989; 1990; Hammond, Burns, Joyce, Rrosnan and Gerot, 1992; Hood, Solomon and Burns, 1996; Joyce, 1992: 44). All variations of genre pedagogy, cspecially those designed for more advanced students and adults, provide lcarnrrs with opportunities to extend and customise their knowledge about text into spccific contexts which are important to thcir own educational or personal goals.

2.3.5 Critical litcracj

All variations of genre pedagogy also emphasise the tlevelopment in learncrs of a critical approach to what they arc lcarning (see Rothery, 1996: 1 16--20). By making the language patterns of different types of texts more visible, genre pedagogy also makes morc visible the values and worldviews embodied in those patterns. Thew values and worldviews arc then open for discussion, negotiation, criticism and challengr (Christie, 1991 : 1 1 ; Christie, 1995).

3 The Certificates in Spoken and Written English

3.1 A national curriculum framework

The genre approach provided the writers of the national AMEP curriculum with two key design principle\:

1 a diqcoursc-oriented unit of language around which to write gencraliscd curriculum outcomes an intcractive pedagogy for intervening in and supporting language learning. 2

2 1 6 S U S A N F E E Z

The writers of the curriculum used these principles t o develop a curriculum framework called the Certificates in Spoken and Written English (CSWE) .This frametvork was written in terms of a pathway of language outcomcs organiscd across four levels:

1 Beginner 2 Post-beginner 3 Intermediate 4 Advanced.

Thc CSWE language outcomes arc written in terms o f genrcs t o make the language descriptions general enough to lie a common language for planning courses and monitoring and assessing learner progress across the AMEP. At the same time Halliday’s languagc model allows teachers to use the notion of register to customisc the very general genre descriptions of the framework in order t o meet the specific language-learning nccds of individual AMEP learners.

3.2 From curriculum to syllabus

3.2. I D$ning tcrrnc

Thc \\ riters of the CSWF differentiated Iictn ccn t v o I C \ el\ of English-language provision, one gencral, the curriculum l e ~ e l , and thc othcr spccihc, the syllabuy leic,l.

3.2.2 Genercil otrtcornes: the curricirlurn l e rd

The CSWE is written at the general Icvcl o f curriculum. 1.carners \vork through the CSWE pathway at a pace related to their educational liackgrountl. As they movc from level t o level, they n v r k in increasingly spccialiscd contexts, from a gcncral lcarning context at Iicginncr and post-hcginncr 1 1 to morc spccialiscd contexts rcla to employment, further study or community access at the intcrnictliatc antl atlvanccd 1

The discourse-oi-icntctl learning outcomes arc \vi-ittcn in tcxrms of \-cry general gcnre categories, for example, description, rccount, instructions or information tcxt. These categories are thcn linked to a macroskill listcning, speaking, reading or writing ~ in order to dcscrihc what a learner should he ablc to do with language at thc cntl o f a course of study at that level, for cxamplc:

Can tell a recount Can rcad written instructions Can write a tlcscription.

The outcomes arc grouptd into language-learning domains:

listrning antl speaking reading hvriting.

This organisation makes it possihlc to Iircak the curriculum into smaller modules for students t vho need intensive \vork in listening antl speaking or rcading and writing lvhere one of thcsc areas lags behind the other. The complctc lcarning path\vay is illustrated in Figure 17.1.

Can dcmonstratc understanding o f a spoken information tcxt


ASLPR 0 to 01 1

General contexts for language learning

Students may be grouped by learning pace (Bands A, B, C)

Modules

Orientation to Learning * Speaking and Listening

Reading and Writing * Mixed Language Skills * Numeracy (optional)

ASLPR 11 to 2 1

Syllabus strands I

Orientation to Learning Speaking and Listening Reading and Writing

* Mixed Language Skills * Numeracy (optional)

ASLPR 12 to 1 *

General contexts for language learning

Students may be grouped by learning pace (Bands A, B, C)

Modules

Orientation to Learning * Speaking and Listening

Reading and Writing Mixed Language Skills Numeracy (optional)

ASLPR 2 all skills + *

Vocational Further English study

Mixed focus

Modules

Orientation to Learning Speaking and Listening

Mixed Language Skills * Reading and Writing

F i p r c 17. I Ccrtificatcs in Spokcn

and Writtcn English: curriculum

structurc

2 1 8 S U S A N F E E Z

1 2

Can untlcrtakc the roles ant l rcsponsil)ilities o f a learner in a foi-mal learning cnvironment Can use a range of learning strategies and resources

Can clrmonstratc untlcrstantling of a spoken intorination tcxt

Can provide personally relc\ant information using spoken language

Can request information/gootls using spokcn language

Can tell a short rccount

3 4 5 6

7 8 9

I O

Can read rocial sight signs Can rcad simple written instructions

Can rcad a short information tcxt Can rcad a short narrativc/recount

1 1 1 2 1 3

Can complete a \implc formatted tcxt

Can w ritc a short clcscription Can 1% ritc a \hart rccount

Figure 17.2 Outcomes for Certificate I in Spokcn and Writtc-ri English

The way curriculum outcomes arc organisetl into domains within a level is illustrated by the list of outcomes for Certificate I in Spoken antl Written English, the beginners’ level, in Figure 1 7.2.

Each outcome is written in terms of a gencralisrd tcxt type, or gcnrc.The key language fcaturcs of each text type are written as clcmcnts of the outcome. Performance criteria for assessment are based on the clcmcnts. Thus the performance criteria for each outcome draw on what the gcnre approach tclls us almut thc prcdictahlc language features of that type of text. The elements, and their related performance criteria, are organised, using Halliday’s language model, into:

lexical and grammatical features phonological or graphological featurcs.

fratures relating to the structure and texture of whole texts

(For overviews ofthc stratified systemic functional language model see Eggins, 1994: 1-24; Fcez, 1998: 8; for an introduction to functional grammar see Butt, Fahey, Few, Spinks and Yallop, 2000).

The number and complexity of the pcrformance criteria for each outcome depend on the learner’s level. The range within which stutlcnts will be assessed against those criteria, and an evidence guide, is also indicated for each outcome.

Figure 17.3 shows an example o f a writing outcome for Certificate 1 , the beginncr level. Because the outcomes of the CSWE are explicit, learners studying within the framcwork know what is expectcd of them at any point in the learner pathway. They are also able to map their own progress. In addition, teachers working within the AMEP, and in other contexts wherr the CSWE is used, share a common framework for course design antl for assessment.

Elements Pcrformancr criteria Range statements €t idence quide

Discourse structure 1 can use appropriate staging

2 can use conjunctions

Grammar and vocabulary

3 can use vocabularv appropriate

4 can construct simple clauses 5 can construct simple noun

to topic

groups

6 can use action vci-bs in the past tense

7 can use pcrwnal pronouns

8 can express time and/or location

uses appropriate staging, i.e. beginning, middle and end (orientation, sequence of went3 and optional reorientation)

joins simple clauscs with conjunctions, for example ‘and’, ‘then’, ‘bccauw’

uses vocabulary appropriate to

constructs simple clauscs constructs simple noun groups and uscs adjcctivcb, for example ‘I had a good weekend’, ‘My Lvcckcnd \vas good’ uses action verhs in the past tense

topic

uses personal pronouns as required indicates timc or location as required, for cxamplc b y using advcrhs and/or prepositional phrases

Sample task at least five clauscs Lrith Learners recount sequence

of past cvcnts, for example excursion, \reekend activities

correct past tense forms

uses at least one conjunction

familiar/rclc\ant topic

rccourse to dictionary may include a fc\z grammatical, punctuation and spelling ci-rors, hut errors should not interfere n i t h meaning or dominate text mav redraft

Graphology I t is assumed that:

thrre may be inaccuracies in letter formation, spelling and punctuation teaching programmes \vi11 pay attention to graphological features

In CSWE I the punctuation focus \vi11 I,c on capital letters, full stops and qucstion marks

Figure 17.3 Compctcncv 1 3: Can Lvrite a short rccount

2 2 0 S U S A N F E E Z

3.2.3 Spec!fic objectives: the .y~l/crbu.s leiel

The general CSWE framework is common t o all AMEP programmes. Teachers report learner achievement at the end ofa course against the performance criteria of the common framework. The design of indivitlual courses o f study, however, is carried out at the levcl of the syllabus. A t this level teachers address the needs of specific groups of learners.

Course objcctivcs arc statrments about \vhat is planned for a particular course of study. They bridgc thc gap between the general outcomes and a specific learning context. Course ohjcctivcs arc a distillation of an analysis of Icarncrs’ ncetls and goals and other variables of the lcarning contcxt.

To design a systematic plan of course content customiscd to the learners in their class, teachers kvork through the following steps:

1 Analysing lrarner nerd and set specific course objectives, including language-learning objectives related to the immediate contexts where learners need to use English. Linking the specific objccti\cs to the general curriculum outcomes, identifying the immediate contexts in \vhich Icarncrs will be using tcxts hclonging to the genre of that outcomc. Identifying and selecting what nceds to I)c learnt to meet the course objectives. Sequence the syllabus clcmcnts into an cffcctiw progression of teaching and learning. Planning how to monitor learner progress during the course and assess learner achievement at the end of the course against the specific course objectives. Planning how to report learner achicvcment against the general curriculum outcomes.

2

3 4 5

6

3 . 2 . 4 From c u r r ~ c u / u m to s)illabu.s: f r o m genre to regi.stcr

We haw already scen that language outcomcs in thc CSWE framework arc based on gcncraliscd text pattcrns, or gcnrcs. To customisc thc general curriculum outcome to a specific course, teachers identify the immrdiate context of use in which these text patterns will be used. In other words thcy identify the register or variety of language learners will be working with.

For the selected context of use, teachers identify the social activities and topics which relate to the chosen situation of use (the field), as well as the role of those involved in the situation (the tenor). Thc CSWE outcomcs arc already written in terms of whether the tcxts will be spoken or written, that is, the role language is playing in the situation (mode). For contcxts of use relevant to specific students, teachers may need to refine the mode description of some outcomes. For cxamplc, thcy may need to teach a particular spoken text in the context of using the telephone rather than speaking facc-to-face. (For more dctailctl introductions to Halliday’s model of register see Eggins, 1994: 49 80 and Fccz, 1998:75 81).

If at the level of curriculum, lcarncrs arc working towards thc general outcome Can write a short rccount (CSWE I , Competency 1 3 ) , they might work with tcxts such as thc following:

a recount of an excursion to a place of interest (fcltl) for a class book (mode) being prepared for visitors to the teaching ccntrc on open day (tenor) a recount ofa traffic accident (field) onto an insurancc form (mode) as part of a claim to an insurance company (tenor) a rccount of a mishap with an clcctrical appliance (field) in a letter of complaint (mode) to a manufacturer (tenor)


a recount of a visit to a tourist destination (field) o n a postcard (modc) to a friend (t cn or) .

I f learners arc pi-eparing for employmcnt, they might work with this text:

a recount of an incident (ticltl) on a shift hantl-ovcr rcport (mode) for the foreman (tenor).

Learners could produce any o f these texts at the end of a cycle of teaching and learning to meet the requirements of thc competency.

The elements and performance criteria of each CSWE outcomc are listed in two catcgories of language featurcs:

tliscoursc structure, lvhich relates to the rccognisable parts of the genre pattern and

grammar and vocabulary. are linked to construct a cohesive, uniticd tcxt

As learners work with specific texts, the elements and performance criteria of thr outcomc guide what thcy learn about the structural, grammatical, lexical and phonological o r graphological language features of texts of that type. Each element is atldressctl within the specific context of situation in bvhich the learners are learning to write the tcxt typc.

3.2.6 lUni~r o/’rcork

The process of syllahus drsign also involves linking the tliffcrcnt types of texts bcing taught in the course into related units o f work. For example, a unit o f work on lvriting a t rx t lielonging to thc genre of recount at CSWE Level 1 can lie linked to units ofwork on spoken accounts and written descriptions. ‘l‘hese units of \vork might he based on related contcxts of use or students might lie shown how to transfcr what they have lcarnt to completely new contexts of USC.

The approach to assessment which underpins the CSWE is described l i v Mackcn and Slatlc ( 1 993: 205-6, 207) in the folloxving way:

an eflkctivc language assessment program must IIC linguistically principled, explicit, critcrion-refercnccd, and must inform different types of assessment, including diagnostic, formative and summativc assessment. . . . Shared critcria based on a sound kno\vledge of language and its varieties nil1 cnahle teachers to rcflcct on the strengths and to diagnose \veakncsses in the texts Iiroduced by their students.

The gcncral curriculum outcomes of the CSWE provide general statements and related performance criteria against which all AMEl’ teachers can assess learncr achievement within a common framework. Specific course objectives providc a syllabus-lcvel focus for assessment of individual learncr progress. Teachcrs can use the data collected at both Icvcls to evaluate their course dcsign.

Instead of grading and ranking learners against \ague notions of general language proficiency, assessment within the CSWE frame\vork enables learners to demonstratcx,

2 2 2 S U S A N F E E Z

against the explicit criteria of the curriculum and syllabus, what they have learnt during their course.

3.3 Text-based syllabus design

Texts, these stretches o f unified, meaningful and purposeful natural language, arc thc core component of a text-based syllabus. Each t rx t is a single instance of language use in a particular context of situation. lkxts, howcvcr, draw on prcdictablc gcncric text patterns, or genres, which relate to social purposes and thc tmiadcr cultural context. Syllabus elements and syllabus design principles focus on thc use of wholc tcxts in context.

3.3.1 Syllabur element\

The key elements o fa tcxt-based syllabus in the context of thc CSWE are:

texts, identified according to the type, or genre, they belong to, and therefore, to the curriculum outcome to which they relate topics, organiscd according to whether they relate to community access, employment or further study languagefeatures, related to the text type of the text in which they arc used skills antl strategies, organisctl according to situation/registcr, especially macroskill activities and tasks, including teaching activities antl assessment activitics, which determine the materials antl resources recluiretl.

Figure 17.4 is an outline for a unit of’llork on casual conversation to illustratc how syllabus elements have been selected to customise a gcncral curriculum outcome to the needs of a specific group of learners.

3.3.2 Design principles

labus is what Ur ( 1 996: 178) tlcscrilm as a ‘mixed or multi-strand’ syllabus. such as topics, tcxts, structures, Icxis, skills and

stratcgics ~ ‘in order to be maximally comprehensive’ (Ur, 1996: 178). In summary, a text- based syllabus is a mixed syllabus in which the organising principle is the study of lvholc tcxts in context. In the context of the CS WE, coursc objectives, antl therefore learner nccd, determine the selection of syllabus clcmcnts. These elements arc then incorporated into a tcxt-based cycle of teaching and learning.

rent syllalius elements

3 3 3 from yllubus to rncthodologj n teht bared y c l c of teaching and leorning

Genre pedagogy, and its intcractivc cycle of teaching and learning, provides teachers with a framelvork for selecting, organising and sequencing the comprehensive mix of text-based syllabus elements in a principled way, supporting lcarncrs as they gradually mow to increasingly independent language use.

The process of sequencing syllabus elements, that is, what is to be taught, involvcs teachers in deciding how to teach them; in othcr words, it involves teachers in choosing a methodology. The text-based methotlology designed to support learners working towards CSWE outcomcs is rcprcscntcd graphically in Figure 17.4.


Figure 17.4 Mcthotlology to support lcarncrs Lvorking to\vartls CSWF outconics

Source: Fccz \ \ i t h Jo)-c.c, 1998:28, atlaptctl from Callaghan antl I<otlici-)-, 1988; Cornish, 1992; Grwn, 1992

This methodology is built around five phases of classroom interaction atlaptctl from the original genre-based cycle of teaching and lcarning (Rothcry, 1996).

Phasc 1 : Building contcxt

Context- building is a critical phasc for second-language learners. In this phasc lcarncrs experience and explore thc social context of the target text type, building cultural knowledge and thc knowlcdgc of thc immediate context of' use. Once this knowlcdgc is shared between teacher antl learners it can hecomr thr foundation o f suliscqucnt languagc learning. Typical context-l,uiltling activities arc 111-ainstorming; listening antl talking to others; guided reading of' relevant material; vicwing realia, pictures or video; taking part in role-plays and discussions, cross-cultural comparisons, guided r

For example, to Iiuild the context for filling out an insurancc claim, students might engage in the following activities:

build up vocahulary lists

arch or field trips.

viehying a tclcvision advertisement for a car insurance company

research information about insurance written in their first languagc to identil). key words and concepts they nccd to undcrstand in English meet and interview, in English or in their l'irst language, pcoplc who have played different rolrs in the contcxt of car insurance in Australia complctc a table comparing the nature of car insurance in their country of origin and in Australia survey the different typcs of texts which they may be called on to use in the contcxt of car insurance in Australia.

2 2 4 S U S A N F E E Z

Phase 2: Modelling and dccon5tructing tcxt

Phase 2 is teacher-directed. Learners arc introduced to model texts Ixlonging to the target genre in the context they cxplorcd in Phase 1 . Lcarncrs use the model tcxts to study the structure and language features ofthc tcxt typc.This is the phase in which second-language learners learn the grammar ofthe target languagc, hut in the context of purposcful language use.

For example, activities relevant to writing rccounts at lieginner level would focus on thc structure of simple tlcclarativc clauscs with past simple tense forms of action verbs, as well as the usc o f conjunctions and prcliositional phrases to scqucncc thc clauses in time. Students would also learn the structure o f noun groups. Many traditional ELT grammar activities can be effectivcl? uscd during this phase, although, in the context of Halliday’s grammar, learners’ attention is always drawn to meaning as \vcll as form.

Phasc 3 : Joint construction

During this phase the teacher begins to hand over rcsponsiliility to the 1carncrs.The learners contribute to the construction o f a tcxt helonging to the target tcxt typc with thr teacher acting as guide, antl i f ncccssary, scrilic. Teacher and lcarncrs discuss and negotiate the mcanings they are making as the! go.

Phaw 4 Intlcpcndcnt con\tr uct ion

During this phasc the scaffolding is taken ama) antl lcarncrs research the context and nark \\ ith their 01% n tcxts intlcpcdcnth, consulting 12 ith othcr lcarncrs and the teacher onlj as needed Achie\cmcnt asscssmcnt 15 carried o u t at thi5 stage of thc L ~ L I C .

Phase 5: Making links to rclatcd tcxts

le, links are niatlc to r-clatcd tc.xt typcs, so learners have thc opportunity y have lcarnt in othcr contcxts of use, comparing and contrasting

tliffcrcnt tcxts antl thcii- uses antl effectiveness. Some lcarncrs ma); bc ready to adapt the tcxt type they have lcarnt to control to a specific IiurIiosc, adjusting thc stages antl the language fcaturcs as necdcd.

3.3.4 dleeting thc ncccls ?f’clf;tfcrcnt Ictirncr~

Whenever necessary the teaching-learning cycle is modihcd to suit the ncctls o f different learners. Learners can cnter at an! phasc of the cycle, returning to an earlier phase for review as needed or skipping phascs if thcy arc not ready or if they do not need them. In most adult ESL classcs thc context-building phasc is essential. Some beginning learners with minimal formal Icarning in their first language, however, may not go beyond the joint construction phase for some more challenging tcxt typcs. In contrast, many tcrtiary- educated adult lcarncrs with sophisticatctl study skills find the joint construction phase unncccssarv.

3.3.5 ..I lun<qLqtrugc teuching rcpertoirc

A characteristic ofthc teaching-learning cycle which makes it so valuable to AMEP teachers is that it allows thcm to draw on a variety of tasks, activities, classroom management styles and asscssmcnt proccdurcs. Tcachcrs in thc AMEI’ draw on a sccond-language teaching repertoire Lvhich has been built up over fifty years. Text-liasctl syllabus design makes it


possiblc for teachers to selcct, modify and locate a mricty of mcthods in a principled antl strategic way. In othcr words, they select from thc language-teaching repertoire mcthods which make it possible to build the type of classroom intcraction required hy thc tliffercnt phases of the cycle.

4 Conclusion

Overall the AMEP has bcncfitcd greatly from basing its new curriculum on genre pedagogy. AMEP learners now can track thcxir progress against general descriptions of English text patterns \vhile, at the samc- time, learning to customisc thcir own texts to mcct thc demands of thcir immediate situations. Learners can consciously build the cultural and linguistic knowledge which will help them make the most of the new community thcy arc entering. The CSWE is a framework within which teachers plan courses antl map learning pathways.

To support curriculum change in the AMEP, classroom materials antl resources modelling a tcxt-based approach to syllabus design have been published (for examplc Brown and Cornish, 1997; Clemens antl Crawford, 1994; Cornish, 1992; Dclaruelle, 1998; Fccz, 1998; Jovce, 1992; NSW AMES writing team, 1997). Professional development has included cxtensive training in educational linguistics, course design and assessment. Sincc thc implementation of the new curriculum framework, there has also been an ongoing cycle 01’ national classroom-based collaborative action rcscarch. The action rcscarch model provides teachers with a useful tcchniquc for rellecting on and rrnovating classroom practice (see Burns and Hood, 1995; 1997; 1998; Burns and Joyce, 1999).

Genre pcdagogy, like language pedagogy generally, is evolving and changing. The \vay tcachers in the AMEP arc working with the pedagogy is also changing as different tcachers intcrprct it in different ways. When teachers first applied genre pcdagogy, many s u p - imposcd structural approaches onto the generic descriptions of text structure and languagc fcaturcs.This resulted in teachers teaching text patterns as fixcd rulcs and forms rathcr than in terms of meaning and function. I t also resulted in some teachers fceling that they had to abandon the lcarncr-centred mcthotls developed as part of n e e d s - b a d , communicativc approaches and return to teacher-ccntrcd classrooms. As tcachers have adaptctl to the new curriculum environment, gaining knowledge, skill and confidcncc and adjusting thcir bclicfs about language and language learning, they are increasingly integrating thc best of situational, learner-centred antl communicative approaches into a text-based framework. Teachers are also beginning to identify kvhich aspects of the text-bascd approach need reviewing or developing.

Thc AMEP is currently experiencing a period of rapid change. Changing political and economic ideologies are moving the AMEP away from being a stable, unified, public-scctor programme to a more fragmented market-oriented programme. It remains to be seen whether this new oricntation will bc able to dclivcr a service of’ comparable quality. I t ccrtainly is not clcar whether thc new environment will continue to support the principled development of AMEP curriculum and cxpertise in tandem with dcvclopments in thc ficltl of applied linguistics.

While the future for migrant education in Australia is unclear, it is clcar that text-hascd approaches provide language educators with a strong foundation for further developments in language teaching. The key clcments of this foundation arc:

an understanding of what constitutes a whole unit of language in the context of its use

2 2 6 S U S A N F E E Z

a methodology for providing learner? Lvith experience of whole unit.; of language use in context while they are still only ablc to manage language fragments.

From this foundation, language educators havc thc opportuni ty t o develop increasingly effective ways of‘ teaching explicitly and systematically about t ex t , g rammar and lexis in o rder t o makc it possible for learncrs t o build skills in spoken and wri t ten English which they would not be ablc t o tlcvclop on their owm.

References

Rrindley, G. ( I 984) ‘The role of nccds analysis in adult ESL programme design’. In R. K. Johnson (etl.) The Secontl Lungooge Curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brindley, G. (1 985) The Asse.s.sment of Second Language Prqpcicnc).: Issues and Approaches, Adelaide: NCRC.

Brindle);, G. and Hood, S. ( 1 990) ‘Curriculum innovation in adult ESL’. In G. Brintlley (ed.) The Second Language Curriculum in : lct ion, Sydney: NCELTK.

Brmvn, K. and Cornish, S. (1 997) Reuch Street \:An English Course_fbrAdults, Sydney: NSW AMES. Rrumfit, C. (ctl.) (1 986) The Prncticc o j Communicatire Eaching, Oxford: Pergamon Press. Burns, A. and Hood, S. (eds) (1 995) Euchers’ Lbices: Exploring Cotir.se Design i n a Changing

Burns, A. and Hood, S. (cds) (1 997) Euchcrs’lbiccs 2: Zuching Di.spuratc Leurner Groups, Sydney:

Burns, A. and Hood, S. (cds) (1 998) Tcuchcrs’lbices 3:lcoching CriticalLiterucy, Sydney: NCELTR. Burns, A. antl Joyce, H. (etls) (1 999) Tcachers’lbices -I: Stuying Learner-centred i n a Compctcncy-

based Curriculum, Sydney : NCELTR. Burns, A., Joycc, H. antl Gollin, S. (1996) ‘I See what you Mean’ : Using Spoken Discourse i n the

Cla.s.sroom:A Hundhook,fbr Euchers, Sydney: NCELTR. Butt, D., Fahey, R. , Fccz, S., Spinks, S. antlYallop, C. (2000) Under.standin<q Functional Grammar:

An Explorer’s Guide, 2nd cdn, Sydney: NCELTR. Cclcc-Murcia, M. ( 1990) ‘Discourse analysis and grammar instruction’, Annual Review ?_f’

Applied Linguistics 1 1 : 135-5 1 . Christie, F. (1 990) ‘The changing facc of litcra ’. In F. Christie (ed.) I.iteracy_fbr a Changing

Clbrld, Melbournc: The Australian Council )r Educational Research. Christie, F. (etl.) (1 991) Eachin<q Criricul Social Literacy: /I Project ?/‘National Sip! f icance on the

Preservicc Preparation of Eachers f i r Eaching English Litcrac).. A report submitted to the Federal Minister of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra.

Christie, F. (1 995) ‘Genre-based approaches to teaching literacy’. In M. L.Tickoo (ctl.) Reuciing undWritin<q: Theory into Practice, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Clemrns, J. and Crawford, J. (1 994) W6rd.s will Earel: An Integrated Communicative English I .anpuge Programfor Intermediate I.erd Imrners, Marrickville, NSW: ELS.

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Krcss, G. and Martin, J. (1993) ‘Ribliographical essay: developing thc theory antl practicc ofgcnrc-based literacy’. In R. Cope and M. Kalantzis (ctls) The Powers $Literucy:A Genre Approach to Eciching Writ ing, London: The Falmer Press.

Curriculum, Sydney: NCEI TR.

N C E LTR .

Corder, S. Pit (1 98 1 ) Error Ano(c.ci,s and Interlungnuge, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cornish, S. (1 992) Curricolum Gnitlelines, Sydney: NSW AMES. Dclarucllc, S. (1 998) Reach Street 2:An English Conr.se,forAtinlts, Sytlncy: NSW AMES. Eggins, S. ( 1 994) An Introduction to .Qstemic Functional Linguistics, London: Pinter. Ek, J . van antl Alexander, L. G. (1 980) Threshold Level Eniqlish, Oxford: Pcrgamon Press. Fccz, S. lvith Joyce, H. (1998) El;t-hu.sed Syllahns Design, Sydney: NCELTK. Freire, P. (1 972) Pedagoyy ( i f the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Pcnguin.


Gibbons, P. (1998) ‘Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language’. Language and Education 1 2 (2): 99-1 18.

Gray, R. ( 1985) ‘Helping children become language learners in the classroom’. Paper given at the Annual Conference of the Mcanjin Reading Council, Brisbane, May 1987, in M. Christic (et l . ) Aboriginal Pmpectives on Experience and Learning: The Role tf’ Language in

Aboriginal Education, Gcelong, Victoria: Dcakin University Press. employing wholistic

methodology in the classroom’ The Australian journal ofEar(v Childhood 1 2 (4): 3-1 9. Gray, R. ( 1 987) ‘ H o ~ v natural is “natural” language teaching

Green, J. (1 992) Making the Links. Melbourne: AMES Victoria. Hagan P. ( 1 994) ‘Competency-basctl curriculum: the NSW AMES experience’, Prospect: A

Hallitlay, M. A. K . (1975) Learning Hov. to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language,

Halliday, M . A . K . ( 1 976) System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1 978) Langtiage as a Social Semiotic, London: Etlward Arnold. Hallitlay, M. A. K. (1991) ‘The notion of“contcxt” in languagc education’, in 1‘. Lc and M.

McCausland, Language lnteraction and Development: Proceedings of’ the International Conference, Vietnam, 199 1 , Launccston: Univcrsity ofTasmania.

Halliday,’M. A . K. (1 992) ‘Towards a language-based theory of learning’. Paper prepared for the Phonctic Society of Japan in the context of the Symposium on Language Acquisition Tokyo 3, Octobcr 1992.

Halliday, M. A . K . and Ilasan, K. (1985) Language, Contest and7ixt:Aspcct.s of language in ~7 Social Semiotic Perspective, Geelong, Victoria: Deakin Universit? Press.

Hammontl, J. (1 989) ‘The NCELTR literacv project’, Pro.spect: ’4 journal clfZ4u.stralian TESOL 5(1): 27-70, Sydney: NCELTK.

Hammond, J. (1 990) ‘Teacher expertise antl learner responsibility in literacy development’. In Pro.spect:A journal ofAustralian TESOL 5( 3): 39 5 1 , Sydney NCELTR.

Hammond, J. , Burns, A , , Joyce, H., Brosnan, D. and Gerot, L. (1 992) English for Social Purposes, Sydney: NCELTR.

Hood, S. , Solomon, N. antl Burns, A. (1996) Focus on reading, Sydney: NCELTR. Howatt, A . ( 1 984) 11 H i s t o y ofEnglish Languuge teaching, Oxford: Oxford Univ Hymes, 1). (1972) ‘On communicative competence’. In J . 13. l’ridc antl J. Holmra ( r t l s )

Ingram, D. and Wilcy, E. (1 984) Aristralian Second Language Proficieny Ratings, Canberra:

Joyce, 1-1. (1 992) Workplace Ex t s in the Language Classroom, Sydncy: NSW AMES. Knowles, M. ( 1 990) The Adtilt Learner - A .h‘eglected Species, Houston: Gulf. Krashcn, S. ( 1 988) Second I.ungtia~cleAcytiisition and Second Language learning. NeIvYork: Prentice-

Hall. Krcss, G. (1991) ‘Texture antl meaning’. In W’orking with Genre, Papers from the 1989

Conference, University of‘lkchnology, Sydney, Sytlncy Common Ground. Mackcn, M. and Slatlc, D. (1 993) ‘Assessment: a foundation for effective learning in the school

context’. In R. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds) The Power.s oJ‘Literacj.:A Genre Approach to the ‘Itaching !f Writing, London: Falmcr Press.

Martin, J. R. (1 993) ‘Genre antl literacy modelling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 13, 14-172.

Melrose, R. (1 991 ) The Communicative Syllabus: A Sjxtcmic-functional Approach to Languqe teaching, London: Pintcr.

NSW AMES writing team (1997) LVanjarri: Indigenoux A~istralia in the E S L Classroom, Sydney: NSW AMES.

Nunan, D. ( I 987) The Teacher or Curriculum Developer, Sydney: NCELTR.

journal ofAristralian TESOI~ 9 ( 2 ) : 3 0 4 0 , Sydney: NCELTR.

London: Edward Arnold.

Sociolinguislics, H a r m o n c h orth: Penguin, pp. 269-93.

Australian Government Printing Service.

2 2 8 S U S A N F E E Z

Painter, C. ( 1 985) Learning the Mother Tongue, Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Painter, C. ( 1 996) ‘Thc dcvclopment oflanguagc as a resource for thinking: a linguistic view of

learning’. In R. Hasan and G. Williams (cds) Li teruy in Sociey, London: Longman. Richards, J. C. and Rodgcrs, T. S. (1986) j1pprociche.s and Methods in I.anguap Teaching: it

Description and Anahsix, Cambridge: Cam1)ritlgc Universitv Press. Rothery, J . (1 996) ‘Making changes: tlc~eloping an educational linguistics’. In R. Hasan and

G. Williams (eds) Literacy in Socict,i., London: Longman. Sclinker, L. ( 1 99 I ) Rediscovering Interlanguqqe, London: Longman. Ur, P. (1 996) ,4 Course in Lungucige Eciching: Practice and Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge

Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1 934/ 1978) /141ntl in Socicy: The Development qj’ Higher f.ychoJogical Processes,

Vyptsky, ,‘. L. S. ( I 986) ThoLight and Lunguu‘qc, revised and cditcd b y A . Kozulin, Cambritlgc,

Widdowson, H. (1 990) Aspects of’longuuge Icciching, Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Wilkins, D. (1 976) Notional Syllabuses, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yalden, J. ( I 987a) Principles ?f’ Cowse Design , f i r Language Eacbing, Nen. York: Cambridge

Yalden, J. (1 9871,) The Cornmunisatit.e S~~l lahus: Evolurion, Design and Implementation, London:

University Prcss.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity Prcss.

MA: MIT Prcss. . .

Unilersity Press.

Prentice-Hall.

C h a p t e r 18

David R. Hall

M A T E R I A L S PRODUCTION: T H E O R Y

A N D P R A C T I C E

Introduction: learning a language

E F O R E P L A N N I N G O R W R I T I N G M A T E R I A L S {or language teaching, thcrc B is one crucial question \ve need to ask ourselves.Thc qucstion should be the first item on the agenda at the first planning meeting.1hc qucstion is this: How do we think people [earn la ng u a p ?

Nobody knows ho\v we learn language. Of course, thcrc arc plenty of theories around. Many people makc: a distinction between first language learning and second or foreign language Icarning. Others distinguish clearly between “learning” a language and “acquiring” a 1anguagc.Thcrc is a further distinction between “learning to spcak”, “learning to understand spokcn language”, “learning to read”, antl “learning to write”, wi th some thinking that thc arc similar proccsscs, others that they are clifferrnt but rclatcd proc YS, and still others thinking that they involve completely unrrlatcd skills. Some think that hvc learn by studying and internalising rules, othcrs that xvc learn by rcpcatrd practice of common patterns, vet othcrs that \YC learn by mcmorising hvords antl collocations, b y simulating real situations, by negotiating, by hearing and reading things we can understand [. . . I‘l‘hc list is long.

No-one knows how \vc learn language, so the \vortls we think in the original qucstion are very important. What is our own opinion?What can the writing team agrcc on? I t is our view of how we learn language that will underpin wcrything else that we do in planning and writing our materials. There arc, of course, other important considerations, some of which will be mentioned here, and there are always constraints the straitjacket of a ccntraliscd syllabus, the need for pupils to pass public examinations, the lack of lilirary rcsourccs, a cultural prefercnce for the teacher being the holder of all knowledge, the need for an orderly and industriously quict classroom, and so on. But thcsc should not govern what we must do.Thcy should bc acccptcd as fcaturcs of the context in which \\-e attempt to do what we think is the right thing to do.

tion of this chaptcr, I will put forward somc of my own liclicfs about language learning and teaching, suggesting criteria liy which materials might lie evaluated. The discussion is conducted under four headings: the need to communicate; the need for long-term goals; the nced for authcnticity; antl the ncctl for studcnt-ccntrcdncss. In the third and final section, I will examine materials from projects in which I have been involved antl evaluate thcm in the light of the criteria.

2 3 0 D A V I D R . H A L L

Theory

The need to communicate

There are three things about language learning that arc fairly obvious and uncontroversial, but which are not often enough stated together. First, just about everyone learns to communicate fluently in at least one language. This is normally thc L1 or mother tongue. Second, very few people learn to communicate fluently in a new language learned entirely in formal language classes. Third, most people who learn to communicate fluently in a language which is not their L1 do so by spending a lot of time in situations where they have to use the language for some real communicative purpose.

The conclusion I draw from thcsc three facts is that the need to communicate is at the heart of learning a language. If lvc want our pupils or students to learn English, we must put them in situations where they ncctl to communicatc in English. For rcal communication to take placc, there are three conditions:

1 2 3

We must haw something that Lve want to communicate. We must have someone to communicate with. We must have some interest in the outcome of the communication.

In most languagc-teaching materials, and in most languagc-teaching classrooms, thcsc three conditions do not exist. It is, of course, unrealistic to expect that they could exist all the time. A sccondary school class of forty pupils and thcir teacher cannot all have the need to communicate in a forcign language for thcir owm purposes all the time. Nevertheless, given the lack of success of conventional classroom teaching, it is perhaps worth making the attempt to approximate as closely as possiible to the three conditions.

The need for long-term goals

In devising a syllabus, materials or methodology for a language-teaching program, it has always heen necessary to conduct some sort of needs analysis. This tends to concentrate on aspects of language structure, language function, situational features, technical content, or behavioural outcomes (competencies).

We should, however, look at the longcr-term ncctls of students. The language-teacher operates within fairly tight limitations. What, in oliservahlc terms, can lie achieved in a program of one school year when you see the students three times a week and they never have to use thc target language outsidc those three hours? By the end ofthe year, the students may be able to perform more or less satisfactorily in a formal test, but only the really cxceptional will have progressed to anything approaching fluency. N o matter what exciting methodology you use, the results are always going to he disappointing.

I t is only in the longer term that some students will cxperience the need to communicate in the targct language and mi l l havc the chance to become fluent. In looking at needs, perhaps we should look more closely at this longer term. If we are going to help our students succeed in learning a language, M’C must prepare them for the opportunities which will come outside the classroom. In other words, we must teach them how to learn. By ‘teaching horn to learn’, I do not mean to refer to learning in classroom settings, where considerable work has been done on learning styles and thcir applicability to the language class (Hawkey, 1982; Willing, 1989), but rather to the ahility to take advantage of any opportunity to learn outside the classroom.

M A T E R I A L S P R O D U C T I O N 2 3 1

If a tcachcr is to provide students with the tools to learn language outside the classroom, the main aim has to be to give students confidence in their ability to communicate dcspite difficulties, to the point where they can: (a) initiate communicative cvcnts, and (b) persist with the attempted communication even when it becomes difficult. The use of gestures, facial expressions, rewordings, questions, guesswork, and approximations is a crucial part of such communication, and the ability to use such strategies becomes an essential feature, in my view, of student needs.

I believe that in a natural setting, people learn language by having to communicate something that they do not know how to say. While more elegant or more accurate or morc verbal ways of expressing the point may be developed as similar situations are repcatcd, the real initial learning takes place when a solution has to be found to thc problem of not knowing how to communicate something. I t is the long-term goal of our language teaching to provide our students with the confidence and ability to do this.

The need for authenticity

In the light of the above assumptions about language learning and the long-term needs of language learners, the question ofthc use of authentic materials can lie refocused. I t is not, primarily, the materials themselves which have to be authentic. I t is, rather, the response to the materials

Many materials are impeccably authentic, by which I mean that they arc ‘found’ matcrials originally written for some other purpose than languagc tcaching. But because they deal with topics from the students’ particular specialisation, they often deal with topics which arc already very familiar to students. The reading of such rnatcrials becomes merely an exercise, not involving an authentic need for reading it is neither thr seeking of specifically needed information nor the exploration of a new topic. in many casc-s, it is nothing more than the reading ofa text for the purposes of being tested on it through various forms of comprehension tasks and linguistic manipulation.

An authentic response depends on thc existence of an authentic need. In the classroom context, this need may only be an approximation and may be artificially created. I t can be helped, in ESP matcrials, by close cooperation with the content teacher, so that the kS1’ matcrials complement and support what is happening in the content class. At the very least, an authentic response dictates the atltlressing of content rather than form, and discussion for clarification or expansion rather than for the mere checking of understanding. (I am not saying that teachers should not check understanding. Checking can be donc just as easily and is more natural during genuinely communicative events.)

what is donc with them ~ that should be authentic.

Kenny (1 989) classifies student response to content into threc catcgorics:

thc empirical the interpretational the socially validated.

By ‘empirical’ is meant the addressing of the content as a context-free, isolated entity. The empirical response involves working out the meaning of a text within the boundaries of the text. The language tcachcr’s typical tools of comprehension questions, structure manipulation exercises, summaries, vocabulary explanation, and mode-switching (e.g., text to table, graph to text) all stay firmly at the empirical level of response.

An ‘interpretational’ responsr addresses the meaning of a text in relation to the individual. I t involves assimilating new knowledge into the structure of information in the individual’s head. Learning styles arc obviously important in this area, as thcy rclatc: to the

2 3 2 D A V I D R. H A L L

way in which knowledge and experience arc storcd and retrieved. Thr content is examined in relation to existing kno\vledge structurcs and belief systcms.Traditiona1 essays (“Compare and contrast the vicws of x andJ”) might include interpretational responses to a number of texts, as might examination of parallels and contradictions between different texts.

The ‘socially validated’ response involves exposing the individual’s response to a text to group evaluation. In other words, it is not enough to assimilate new knowledge individually. The undcrstantling of a text antl the validity of that understanding need to bc tested through group interaction, and the intcrprctation defended in a process of critical scrutiny. Public presentation of ideas through postcr sessions, tlcbatcs, presentations, and so on, is an opportunity for socially valitlatctl responses. In this context, the opportunity for cross-disciplinary communication in ESP classes with a heterogeneous student population should be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage (Hall, 1994).

To put thcsc three categories of response anothcr Lvay: the empirical has a single dimension ~ the contcnt; the interpretational has two tlimcmsions ~ the contcnt and the individual; while the socially validated adds a third dimension that of society, represented in the classroom 1y the group. Combining the nccd for authentic response with the nccd for drveloping confidcncc to initiate and pcrsist \vith communication, we can see that it is desirable to aim for a socially validated response to materials in class. It is also clear that most materials used in thc language-teaching classroom approach neither social validation nor the prerequisites for communication. What sometimes looks like a social validation activity is often no more than an exercise in which real beliefs are not cxplored, the contcnt being dictated Iiy either thc tcacher or the matcr-ials. An example of this might be where a student is given notes on arguments for better public transport and asked to “role-play”, by giving a presentation as a lobbyist to a group o f other students playing the role of policy-makcrs.

The need for student-centredness

The language classroom may bc thought ol’as ha\-ing thrcc components ~ the teacher, the learners, antl the materials. Traditionally, all of the actual contcnt of the class, i.e., \vhat is talked about, comes from the teacher or thc materials. The potcntial for learners to participate in generating materials has long been neglected. I \vould suggest that studcnts themselves arc in a unique position to look for rclcvant resource matcrials.Thcy know what their owm needs antl interests arc.

The process of learners searching tor materials and then bringing thc materials back to class where they arc prcscntcd to other students involvcs morc than simple selection. The process changes student status from passive receivers of information to active accountability (see Kcnny, 1993). Their selection of materials not only has to be pi-< defended. Where only tcachcrs and textbooks have previously been exposed to comments about the repetitiveness, irrelevance, tedium, interest, varicty, or pertinence of thc lcsson, now cvcryonc becomes accountahle.

I do not mean h y this that ready-made or teacher-prepared materials and the teacher haw n o place. But materials writers might givc morc thought to the use they can make of student invcntivcncss and energy, antl the advantages of allobving student participation in resource gcncration. It is possihle to build opportunities for this into your materials: not everything has to he specified in advance. You do not hale to be operating in a resource- rich cnvironment to (lo this. Even bcginning learners in an environment with fc-w samples of targct language use can b e involved in content-generation, e.g., Clayton et al., 1993, Kcnny and Laszebvski, 1993.


Sample materials

I have Iieen involvcd in a number of materials and curriculum development projects. I will hcrc illustrate four of them and give an example of representative classroom activity from each, analysing the activity in terms of the above discussion.

A notional-structural approach

The development of the materials which became the “Nucleus: English for Science antl Technology” series arose out of the demands of the tcaching situation in the early scyenties at the University of Tahriz in northern Iran. I’rachcrs and students alike Lvcrc unmotivated by the general knglish textbooks then in use and wanted something more rclevant to the actual purposes to which students were going to put their English.

Thc new materials were arrangcd under chapter headings labcllcd with scientific “concepts” such as Measurement, Description antl Process (Bates, 1978; Dudley-Evans et al., 1976), in a similar xvay to a Notional Syllabus (Wilkins, 1976). There is no doubt that the materials were very innovative in a numhcr of ways, b u t it is also clear that the ostensibly notion-based framelyork for thc syllabus disguised an undcrlying structural approach using pattern practice and traditional guided writing trchniqucs. The series proved to be very popular when it was released commercially, and thc syllabus framework was widely imitated, both in other commercially produced textbooks and, more significantly, in hundreds of indi\idual materials-writing projects in different institutions around thc world as ESP became the catchword o f the late 70s and earl! 80s. Hcrc is a rcprcscntativc exercise

A quadratic cquation has two solutions, called roots. If the factors of’ a quadratic equation can lie found easily, then \vc can find the roots by factorising.

Example: 1:aLtorisation ofx’ + 1-1 2

The roots of the equation arc therefore 3 antl 4.

0 gi\es (A ~ 3)(x + 4) = 0.

No\\ make similar rentences about thc follo\z ing:

a) x2 + 7 x + 10 = 0 b) x’- 91r + 18 = 0 c) x2 100 = 0 ti) x2 + 5x 6 = 0

(Hall, 1980: 51 52)

In tcrms of expected student responsc, it is clcar that thcrc is nothing here beyond the empirical 1evel.The student may bc motivatctl by thc partial relevance of the subject-matter, but thcrc arc no dcmands made on student inventiveness and nothing is contributed by the student. All language production is controlled entirely b y the textbook, to the extent that conceptually correct answers that arc not in conformity with the prescriptiveness of the textbook author are deemed to bc incorrect. In tcrms of the prerequisites for communication, this text would only prowke authentic communication if students disagreed on some aspect of the content and the teacher allowcd thc discussion to go beyond thc dcmantls ofthc tcxt.The view of languagr learning is essentially behaviourist that learning takes place through exposure to language patterns.

2 3 4 D A V I D R . H A L L

A communicative approach

The University of Malaya Spoken English Project of the early 80s (Hall, 1985; Khong, 1984), set up with British Council help, used the Munby ‘communicative’ needs analysis approach (Munby, 1978), and was perhaps thc only major project to attempt to do so with any rigour. A major problem in the project \vas that the first 18 months of the 3-year project were devoted to discussion of necds analysis and theoretical considerations, with the predictable result that by the time it came to actualll; writing, the team members wcrc so entrenched in different antagonistic theorctical positions that consensus writing had become almost impossible. Despite the warnings in this chapter to consider theoretical positions seriously before planning materials, writing should not be delayed too long. The acts of‘ writing and trialing cannot be delayed until a fully worked out thcorctical position has been established. In fact, the dcvclopmcnt of theory and practicc go hand in hand. See Figures 18.1 and 18.2 for a representativc example.

1 You are looking lor a scholarship to stuly ovcrscas.

Complete this table with the dctails o f the scholarship you \voi i ld likc to gct

Amount pcr month

Ihration

Subject o f study

Country

Extra alloLvanccs

2 You have some accommodation to rent. Fill in this table \vith thc details of the accommodation you can offcr

Nature of accommodation

Number o f rooms

Rcnt

Facilities

Location

Conditions

Figtire 18.1 Workshect 1 : stutlcnt A only

M A T E R I A L S P R O D U C T I O N 235

1 You are looking for accommodation to rent. Complete this table \vith dctails of the accommodation you would like.

Nature of accommodation

Numhci- of rooms I kacilitics

Location

2 You have a scholarship to offer. Fill in thr table with the details of the scholarship

Amount pcr month

Duration

Country I Conditions I

Figtire 18 2 Work\hcct 2: \tudent B onl)

No linguistic structure is prcscribcd in the example given, although the matcrials did in fact include a language support section in each unit in an attempt to anticipate the languagc needs of the activity. One consequence of using the Munby approach was that often more time was devoted to setting up a situation than actually doing the activity. I t \vas not unknown for a couple of pages of input to produce only a line or two of linguistic output.

The above excrcise is fairly typical of the sort of information gap cxercisc frequently found in ‘communicative’ textbooks. Despite an outward appearance of social validation (opinions have to be exchanged), roles are assigned, and content re la t idy tightly controllcd. The cxcrcisc docs not havc thc thrcc prcrcquisitcs for genuine communication. The content is not the student’s own ~ the role-play attempts to create ownership artificially ~ and in the end it is a mattcr of indifference to the student whether the outcome of the financial negotiations is advantageous or not.The student is not e n p g k , is not involved to the extent of having a personal stake in the outcome.

2 3 6 D A V I D R . H A L L

A genre-based approach

The approach to reading and writ ing tcchnical texts tlcvclopcd at thc Asian Institute of Technology inThailand in thc mid-80s can hc classified as a gcnre-liasetl approach (Hall e t al., 1986) in that it attcmpts t o analpsc tcxt in t e rms o f thc typical discourse featurcs and language functions to I>(- found in tliffcrcmt kinds of technical writing, particularly those relating to the research article antl the student dissertation. Unlike the approach takcn by Australian genre- tmcd theorists (Dcrclvianka, 1991 ; Martin, 1993), it tlors no t a t tempt t o assign grammatical fcatures t o particular functions. It aims, rather, to provide analytical tools t o students so that they can approach rcatling in a critical \vay, transferring this skill to a critical rcatling o f their o\vn \vriting. Hcrc is an example of an activity, chosen more because it is short than because it is rcprcscntativc. A more representative sample would stretch to many pages and normally involvc thc analysis of par t of a text in the context of a whole article or thcsis.

Predict how thc follo\z ing cxtracts might continue. All extracts arc takcn from the journal “Solar Energ! Materials”,Vol. 19, 1 antl 2, 1989.

In fig. 6 the dependence o f thc optical transmission antl sheet resistance on the annealing t ime at 620°C for t w o tlil’fcrcnt coatings are shown. The liehavior of transmission T and shcxct rcsistancc R at this temperature in thc investigated timc interval is different for diffcrcnt stabilizer matcrials. For Ni (see fig. 6) we oliservctl at thc beginning an incrcasc o f the transmission and a decrease of the shcet resistivity. Aftcr two minutes,

T\vo diffcrcnt unconstrained optimization approaches \\rere implemented to evaluate layer thicknrsscs and Ag optical constants. In onc approach all unknmvns ( three thicknesses and 36 pairs o f n antl k) \vcrc evaluated simultaneously using the Marguartlt algorithm [ 1 2 , 131.Thc meri t function, F , \vas the following:

where the whscript I denotes ith mcasurcmcnt, the superscripts cxp and cal refer to the experimcntal and calculated \ d u e s , rcspect i \e l j , and rn i\ the numlier of measurement\. We M 111 call this the “one shell” approach.

Fig4a shows that in the casc ofthick coatings (60 C/dm’ and more) the well known cmission characteristics of intcrmcdiatcly absorbing dielectric media are obtained. The dashcd curvcs wcrc calculated with the optical functions of fig. 3 and agree satisfactorily wi th the emittance mcasurcmcnts.


This is a small part of a unit for students of Encrgy Tcchnology on sequencing. It concentrates on using linguistic antl contextual clues for efficient reading. Students discuss possible completions to the extracts in small groups, so that there is a limited tlegrcc of genuine interaction, provided that the texts are ones that arc of real interest to the students. In terms of the criteria for communication and response to text, this third example seems to me to lie approaching authenticity within the constraints of the classroom. In particular,

of text very often involved discussion of the intention ofthe authors and a critical examination of their arguments, often cxtcnding to students’ o\vn knowledge and hence involving social validation.

uhlishcd texts antl to get students to bring their own work to class. This appeared to lie> more motivating, given that the aims of the Information-Structuring course were to help students develop their own writing for immediate deployment in assignmcnts and a research-based thesis. In this hvay, the course also fulfilled the criterion that it should provide students with the tools to continue improvement after the coursc. Ncverthclcss, some of the tasks in the course still looked like exercises designed for practice rather than the occasion for genuine involvement, antl it is \vorth noting that the course for which these materials were originally developed at A l l ‘ has itself now cvolved into something which integrates language and other skills \vi th the initial stages of carrying ou t research and writing a thesis.

As the course developed, we began to rely less and less o

A studen t-generated, experiential approach

The ‘Talkbase’ approach, also tleveloped at the Asian Institutc of Tcchnology in the 8Os, ( I Iall, 1994; Hall antl Kennv, 1988; Hall and Kenny, 1995), was devised for an intensi\,e, full-time course. No detailed timetal>le or content is specified. Only a general syllalius outline is given, Iiased on a repeatcd pattern of Plan, Do, Report Rack, Evaluate, and Plan Again. Studcnts carry out a major piece of intlcpentlent Lvork during the coursc, using all the resources of the immcdiatc environment including teachers and other students. Work

poster sessions,

. of this chaptcr, does not use teaching materials as such, so representative examples are difficult to find. The syllahus is a set o f procedures rather than a set of materials or a set of linguistic, functional, Iiehavioural or situational categories. Hohvever, a description of thc first week of opcration may help to give an idea ofwhat the course is like.

O n the tirst morning of the course, the only teacher-provided “material” ot’the first wcck is given to studcnts.’l’his consists of a slip of paper, on which arc written the lvortls:

1 through a series of report-back sessions in various modes tions, individual consultations, interviews, and so on.

‘l.he course, unfortunately for the purpo

Wclcomc to thcTalklmw courw. We mould no\\ like >ou to lea\? the classroom antl to Lome hack again this afternoon ready to talk for a fcn minutes aliout X.

‘X’ is a single wort1 or a phrase chosen by the teacher. Examples arc: Drying; Uncxpcctcd Outcomes; Autonomy; Water; Technology ; Saving.

First presentations by students arc normally short anti not particularly coherent, bu t they are discussed by the teacher and all the other students, normally in groups. At the end of this, students have to plan again, informed nolv hy feedback from others antl h y thcir experiencc ol‘\vhat others hale tlone.They then go off and report hack a second time. 0 1 1

the third occasion, thcy report in writing, and writing is passcd around among the group for comments. As the first lveek develops, students begin to find personal meanings in thcir

2 3 8 D A V I D R . H A L L

“word”and gradually the very wide area covered by the original word is delimited to a topic which is of personal intcrcst to the student.

As the coursc develops, and students hcgin to analysc published and unpublished academic discourse produced hy others, both form of presentation antl organisation of content improve markedly, antl communication within the classroom, as well as outside i t , becomes committed and almost totally student-dominated. Except at a very few places, such as the example from the first day of the first week, texts (recorded interviews, journal articles, etc.) are found and brought to class by the students themselves, so that course content is generated by students, not by teachers.

Students find themselves engaged in research in their own field of study, research which many of them will go on to develop further as part of their Master’s or Doctoral dissertation. They struggle to communicate their research not only to others in the class who share their technical specialisation, but also to those \vho ncctl more detailed background information. At the end of the course, students’ scnse of achievement at being able to present complex technical information to various differcnt audiences givcs them precisely that confidence mentioned in the section of this paprr on “The need to communicate” to initiate communication and to persist with it when there are difficulties.

In terms ofthc prerequisites for communication, they are all present: there is a genuine commitment to communicate, there is a genuine audience, and students care about whether they have made their point. It is intercsting to watch the effect that this has on weaker students, who in many language classes would never open thcir mouths unless forccd to by the teacher. In this course, the desire to take the floor and to make a point does not depend on linguistic ability or a forceful personality; it depends on having something to say. In terms of Kenny’s three categories of interaction with text, activities fall clearly into the social validation category. Students present their work, their ideas and their opinions for public scrutiny.

Concluding remarks

The principles and opinions given in this chapter are based on personal experience and reflect my own development as a teachcr and materials writer.Thc ‘social validation’ of my values has ultimately been through presentations in journal articles and conference presentations, but initially they have been discussed in the hothouse context of materials and curriculum development teams and tested in actual use in the classroom.

For materials writers, it is worth bearing this in mind.You do not write to conform to somebody else’s model.You look at other people’s models and you read current theory, but in the end your materials and the writing of the materials will not be the simple passive implementation of someone else’s ideas.Thcy will be developed in the interaction between the writcm, the teachers and the studcnts.They will contribute to the sum total of materials writing experience. Both your own and other people’s beliefs about effective language learning will be modified and enriched by your experiences.

References

Bates, M. 1978. “Writing ‘Nuclcus”’. English for Spectfic Pnrposes, ed. by R. MacKay and A. Mountford, 78-96. London: Longman.

Clayton,T., Shaw, J. , Le,T.T. M., Nhan, C. H. and Pham,T. 1993. “Discovering resources in Ho Chi Minh City: preparing the ground”. L a n p a g e Programs in Development Projects, ed. by W. Savage, 33 1-341. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.


Drrelvianka, B. 1991. Explorin<q How Texts Morbrk. NcwtoLvn, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Dudley-Evans, A., Shcttlcsbvorth, C. antl Phillips, M. 1976. “The ESP materials of the Uniwrsity ofAzarabatlegan,Tabriz, Iran”. Teaching Englishjbr Science antl Technology, ctl. I)? J. C. Richards, 163-1 97. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Hall, D. 1994. “ l h e advantages for the LSP teacher of having different specialisations in the samc class”. The Practice of l SI‘: Perspectlves, Programmes and Projects, ed. by R. Khoo, 209-2 17. Singaporc: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Hall, D. antl Kenny, R. 1988. “An approach to a truly communicative mcthodologf. English./& Specjfic Purposes 7: 19-32.

Hall, D. and Kenny, B. 1995. “Evolution of a language ccntrc: pursuing autonomy in a collegial context”. Spreading English: E1.T Projects in International Development, ed. by A . Pincas, 2 6 4 2 . Review of English Language Teaching 5, 2 . Heme1 Hempstcad: Phoenix El II:

Hall, I). , Hawkey, R., Kcnny, B. and Storcr, G. 1986. “Patterns of thought in scientific writing: a course in information structuring for engineering students”. Eng/ish for Spec?$c Purposes 5 : 147-160.

I Iawkey, R. 1982. “An investigation of interrelationships bet n cognitive/affective and social factors and learning“. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.

Kenny, B. 1989. “Content and language learning”. Paper presented at the Fifth International ILE Seminar, Hong Kong.

Kcnny, B. 1993. “Invcstigative research: how it changes learner status”. T E S O L Qiarter1, 27: 217 232.

Kcnny, B, and Laszewski, M. 1993. “DoingTalkbase with Lao technicians”. Language Programs in Development Projects, ed. by W. Savage, 18 1-1 92. Bangkok: Asian Institute ofTechnology.

Martin, J. R. 1993 “Life as a noun: arresting the universe in science and humanities”. Writing Science, cd. by M. A. K. Halliday antl J. R. Martin, 221-267. London:The Falmer Press.

Wilkins, D. A. 1976. Notional Sy/lahuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willing, K. 1989. Teachlng How to Learn. Sydney: NCELTR Publications.

C h a p t e r 1 9

Simon Sergeant

C A L L I N N O V A T I O N I N T H E E L T

C U R R I C U L U M

Introduction

H E C 0 M PL E X I T Y 0 F I N FO R M A T I O N T EC H N 0 L O G Y (IT) innovation T and the speed of diffusion antl technological advance sccm to h a w lcft the English language teaching profession searching for ways o f integrating IT usefully into thr curriculum. While there seems to be little doubt ofthc potential of 1'1; it is difficult to specify the nature of the new learning opportunititx Papert ( 1 987) and l'erkins (1 985) highlight the fact that there is much still to 1~ tliscovcrctl about the placc of computer-assisted learning (CAL) in education, and this is still the case totlay.'I'his article does not claim to produce answers, but I hopc it \vi11 contriliutc t o awareness of the problcm. The aims o f the article arr :

to cxamine thc nature of CALL (coniputcr-a tee] language learning) innovation ant1 its potential as a force for curricular change hvith cxamplcs tlrawm from my work in a language ccntrc in Singapore; to invrstigate reasons fbr the shorttall Iictwccn thc potential ot' CALL and actual use, and discuss reasons why CALL opportunities arc not taken; to indicate strategies by which a changc agent may add valuc, to a CALL facility.

Computers in commerce antl industry arc associated with higher cfficiency.This assumption has been carried into the educational arena, antl into language teaching in particular, with varying degrees o f succcss. CALI. as a discipline is cstablishing a rcsearch basc after several years' local trial and error supportcd by anccdotc. Hohvevcr, rcscarch is oftcn carried out under ideal conditions \vhich arc only partially realizable \vithin the constraints of everyday use. These local constraints arc informed t i y attitudes of the major stakcholdcrs in CALL: managcrs (usuallj non-users), CALI. pcrsonncl (initial users), and tcachcrs antl studcnts (entl-users). Students, who arc thc recipients of CALI,, arc thc least consulted during thc dwision-making proccss.Thcy arc also thc ones lvho arc most tlisadvantagetl if CALL is not effectiwly implcmcntcd.

The full potential ofintcgrating computers into the ELT curriculum has not yet been reached and their use is still limited. CALL is trcatcd as a separate entity antl boltrd on to the existing curriculum. I will suggcst in this articlr that duc to the additional complexity

C A L L I N N O V A T I O N I N T H E E L T C U R R I C U L U M 2 4 1

of the computcr medium compared with normal classroom activitics, a high standard of teacher expertise is csscntial. Without this cxpcrtise not much useful learning takes place antl CALL becomcs a form of ‘electronic baby-sitting’.

Background

CALL facilities have lxcn available at my teaching institution for many years, starting Lvith an exploratory project to in tigatc the pedagogic value of microcomputers in the ELT classroom. Since then, informal e\-aluation based on the observation of teachers and students using computers, positive comments in student questionnaires antl informal discussions all suggest that on the whole, despite a small number of negative reactions from students, using computers to learn English can be enjoyable as well as educational.

CA1.L facilitics have grown so that computers feature throughout our course structure. The main computer room houses a network of computers. Students usually work in pairs or groups of thrcc. Timctabling is Ilexihle. Slots are booked, usually a meck in advance by teachers when they feel their class would most benefit. O n a 100-hour full-timc course, a student may spend ten hours using the computer. In terms of a quantitative evaluation, CALL in our centre has had an extrcmcly high adoption rate. Ovcr a ten-year period there have been between 300 000 and 350 000 half-hour lessons hooked.Thc actual time students sprnd in front of a computer and the high degree of adoption by teaching staff is an important visible sign of success, especially as use is discretionary, but it conceals the important dimension of quality, bvhich I shall rcturn to later.

Teachers arc trained in a number of ways. Each teacher has a short induction giving them a broad overview of CALL and how to use the most popular programs. The teacher is then supported by written information which offers more detailed help. A CALL co-ordinator (CC) is on hand to respond to questions as they arise, while more experienced teachers pass on their cxpcrtisc. A special four-clay training course, the CALLTeacher Education Course (CALLTEC), was also designed. CALLTEC aims to give teachers the theory and practical cxpericncc necessary f‘or effective CALL use and materials development.

The fascination of the computer as machine

The introduction of computers into the culture of language learning is a complex change. When we think of CAI,I., the first impression is of the computcr itself, apparently doing something sophisticated mith students peering intently at thr screen. Then \vc may reflect that the apparent sophistication is a stitchcd-together product of people and systems with their inherent flaws. Less obvious is the enthusiast working late behind the scenes trying to ensure that the stitchrs arc not obvious and that the thing does not suddenly get out of control, by making the hardware, software, pedagogy, communications and infrastructure robust. We then need to add the reactions ofthe users and managcrs: enthusiastic, accepting, indifferent, cynical, nervous or rejecting. Finally, we step back and look at the whole picture, and reflect on how all these interacting elements constitute a new s u k u l t u r e of language learning.

It is clear that, together with a fascination for computers, many students rank acquisition of computing skills alongside thc acquisition of English language as essential for survi\ al in the modern world. Given thc holding pow-cr of the computcr, it is hardly surprising that lvc tend to foreground the computrr antl computrr- applications, when we should concentratc more on the interaction between the technology antl the culture of learning. Papert ( 1 987) calls this tendency technoccntrism ~ making an object the centre of our

2 4 2 S I M O N S E R G E A N T

attention.Technocentrism is endemic in CALL research and evaluation as well as in the way teachers, students and managers perceive computers in cducation. It often leads to thc assumption that having provided the opportunity to use computers, lcarning happens liy itself.

The ecology of CALL innovation

CALL, like any classroom innovation, takes place at many levels. ‘The first important thing is that change is systcmic, that is to say it takes place in an cnvironmcnt which consists of a number of interrelating systems’ (Kennedy 1988).

Kcnnedj employs a ‘wheels within wheels’ diagram in which classroom innovation forms the centre of the whcel, and institutional, educational, administrative, political and cultural levels form progressively outer circles. Chin and Benne (1 976: 33) discuss the problems of introducing new ‘thing’ technologics (for examplc, audio-visual devices, television, computers) into school situations:

As attempts arc made to introduce these new thing technologies into school situations, the change problem shifts to the human problems of dealing with the resistance, anxieties. threats to morale, conflicts, disrupted interpersonal communications and so on, which prospective changes in patterns of practice evoke in the people affected bv the change.

Paisey (in White 1988: 1 16) reminds us that

. . . it is people who inhabit an institution, and an organisation consists of networks of relationships tietween people acting and reacting on each other ~ thus organisations contain rational as \vel1 as non-rational clcments . . . Most crucially, an educational organisation is operated b y the persons who arc themselves thr instruments of changc. Without their willingness and participation, thcrc will be no change.

These writers give some idca of the dynamics of introducing ‘thing’ technologics into interacting systems and sulisystems, although they fall short of providing a detailcd model of the curriculum in a state of flux.

Innovation or change?

White (1 988) defines innovation as ‘a deliberate effort, perceived as new and intended to bring about improvement’. I t is distinguished from change, which is any difference between Time 1 and Time 2 . Delano et al. (1 994) define innovation more narrowly for the ESL context in terms of change, development, novelty and improvement. An innovation in a second language teaching programme is an informed change in an underlying philosophy of language teaching/learning, brought about by direct experience, research findings, or other means, resulting in an adaptation olpedagogic practices such that instruction is better able to promote language lcarning.

Kemmis et al. ( 1 997) make a distinction between minimal and maximal curriculum innovation. Minimal innovation occurs when there is a change in the way a particular aspect of the syllabus is presented to students.Thc course will be altcred to accommodate the new idca. Maximal innovation would be evident in a massive reorientation of a course influenced by the CALL aspect of the course.


First order and second order innovation

Pcrkins ( 1 985) sheds light on the \I ay in which innovations are minimally adopted in education. I IC distinguishes b c t v ontl order ‘fingertip rffects’ of information

sing technology. First order fingertip cllects are t h c o I I\ .’ I O U \ : c I‘ff I crcncrs an innovation , t h r iinmctliatc advantagc p u t at one’s fingcrtips, such as Iwing able to c‘onvcrsc with

fricmds overseas (tc,lrcommunications), or casicr typing (the lvord procrssor). Second order fingertip effkcts arc the deeper rcpcrcussions o f t h r innovation. ’l‘he use of the word

or for instance puts a p v c r f u l tool at thc fingertips of the L2 student o f \vriting. lit? t o crcatr antl manipulate text easily to move, insert, copy or tlclctc hlocks bel‘oi-c

dcciding how the completed document \vi11 appear, libcratcs the \vritcr f rom linear constraints and from the chore o f reivriting in long-hand.

l ‘hc ‘opportunitirs get taken’ hypothesis (Pcrkins ibid.) suggests opt i students will recognize the opportuni ty of large-scale editing. The deeper el‘fects involving a restructuring of the cogniti! e skills underlying t h r \vi-iti Iic ‘soaked up’ l i y assigning \vriting tasks on the word processor. In other words, the opportuni ty t loes the teaching liy itself. Hou.evcr, Pcrkins claims, ‘Most typically . . . the opportunities arc not taken.’

The nature of missed opportunities

Somrthing mill always be learned when a stutlcnt engaucs in a CALL activity but this may not be cvrn at Pcrkins’ first ortlcr 1 1. C>pportunities lor the derper second Irvel learning may also be missed. Considcr the rcsults o f a su r \ o f perceived program usc among full- t ime students on a 100-hour intensive gcnrral English course. At thr end o f t h c course 200 students \vcrc asked \vhich programs they had used and to estimate how many times they had used them.Thc results arc shonm in Figure 19.1.

O n e o f I’erkins’ criteria lor transfer of learning is a varicty 01’ \vide-ranging practice. This is not occurring since almost 57 pcrcvnt of perceived CALL use is accounted for hv two programs: Storyboard’ and Gapmastcr.’Teachcrs arc not exploring tliffci-cnt programs. The popularity o f Storyhoard antl Gapmaster may IIc accounted for by the case of entering texts into thc programs, or ‘authoring’ .To author Storylioartl, teachers typr in a tcxt (author the program) antl save it . The samc applies t o Gapmaster. Teachers place the words they \vant t o blank ou t in square hrackets. The t rx t s i w d are usually rxtracts f rom student textbooks or grammar/vocahularv practicc books.

Another v ay ot‘gctting closcr t o t h r nature ofmissed opportunities is t o rclatc the le\-cl o f actual program use t o types 01’ learning genei-atcd by CA1.L. Krmmis ct al. ( 1 997) distinguish five lcarning stvlcs for CAL, which Phillips ( 1 985) uses to map the types of’ lcarning naturally arising from a particular program typcx. These arc recognition, recall, comprchcnsion, experimental and constructive understanding, In thc first style, the student is required merely to recognize prcviouslv presented language forms. In the student is required t o reproduce previously acquired knowledge. Neither rccognition nor recall involve the active construction of ncw kno\vlcdge. The third tvpc, comprchrnsion, involves a more active role antl entails the ability to operate on a Iiody o f content and transform it in some \Yay. Experimcntal learning may involve thc active exploration o f a simulation. Languagc production is less consti-aincd by on-screen tcx t . Constructive understanding involves using the coinputrr as a tool to discover n

The most common use of Storylmard is for students t o retric previously encountered in their textbook. S t o r y h a r d contains a ‘cheat’ feature \vhich means

?


Stor) board Gapmaster Word procc-ssing Vocal) Games Tcstmastcr Grammar Games Clarity Grammar Pinpoint Fast Fuod Word s t o re FCF Fxcrciscs Matchmastci- London Adventure

1266 614 577 322 150 116 94 49 3 5 34 22 1 3 10

38.3 18.6 17.5 9.8

4.5 3.5 2.8 1 . 5 1 . 1 1 .o 0.7 0.4 0. 3

Instructional /conjectural Instructional Einancipatory Instructional Inatructional Instructional Instructional Instructional/conjectural

Kcvelatory Instructional Instructional Instructional Kcvelatory

* Instructional: Icarncrs irecall \I hat has Iiecii taught Revelatory: Icarncrs take part in a rclati\cIv struc.turcd learning situation, c.g. a simulation Conjectural: lcariicrs cngagr in tasks \\ ith opcii-cn(lcd, unprcdictalilc solutions bmancipatory: Icarncrs cng"gc in authentic, real a d \ itivs

Figtrrc / ' I . I l'crccivcd program use

that at any time a student ma: see the entire tcxt again lvithout a penalty.Thr same applies to individual words. Both thcsc stratcgirs arc uscd liy studcnts to reduce learning load. Though teachers intcnd this activity to improvc comprchcnsion, the type of learning arising from this activity is usually at thc I 1 of recognition or rccall. Copying a text verbatim may help students to rcmcmlier words or syntactic structures, spelling may improve, and it is probably more fun than copying a text using pen and paper.

If they work o n a Storylward acti\-ity collaborativcly, students may learn something from the language they use to complctc the text. though research on the nature of' talk generated in front of CALI, programs summarized by Nicholls ( 1 992) and Nicholls' own research on Storyboard in particular suggest that conversational spin-off is limitrd. The discourse produced is impoverished in terms of lcxical and syntactic varicty, v i t h many single wort1 utterances and repetitions of screen text, and it is of limited pedagogical value.

Gapmaster is most frcqucntly uscd in the drill-andpractice mode. An cxcrcise from a grammar textbook is typed in, for instance to practise question tags. The outcomc is fixed and non-ncgotiablc. Thc facility of the program to accept more than one correct answer rcquircs more effort hy a teacher to author thc altcrnatives (enter the tcxt rcquired) and is often not uscd. The off-screen interaction is limited and the learning is at the level of rccognition or rccall.

The problem of opportunitics for learning not tieing taken deepens when thr mode of the CAI,L cxpcricncc is considered (Figure 19.1). CALL in the instructional mode accounts for 8 1 percent of total use, ivhercas CALL in the revelatory mode accounts for 1.4 prrccnt.

ing accounts for the total use of CALL in the cmancipatory mode at 17.5 percent. CALL in thc instructional mode involves no negotiation of outcome. The aim of activities is for the student to produce tcxt which has hccn prc-determined before the


activity liegan .They involve the manipulation of language in ways which do not involvc any exchange of meaning.Transformation exercises antl controlled pattern practice are activities \vhich involvc thc production of language but not the use of language (Willis 1990). This approach is thcrcforc at odds with current communicative language teaching mcthodology

rts that people learn a language best by using the language to achieve real meanings and outcomes. Underwood (1 984) commcnts that CAIJ, in this modc trics to simulate what the tcachcr docs in the classroom to be exact, thc least interesting things. I t tends to be authoritarian, evaluative and overly structured. The shortfall between thr potential learning opportunities that could be rcalizcd and the reality of the way programs arc frequently undcruscd is obvious.

Summary of the problem

Teachers with a low level of CALL, expertise arc less likely to be ahvarc of the rangc of opportunities offered by authoring and using \%-ell designed CAI,[, activities, though some novices make up for this by being enthusiastic and crcative liecause they do not havr preconceived ideas. During a four-hour lesson, migrating to the computcr room is a welcome change of ne which tends to g i w thc- tcachrr and students a break from each other. Once a task has hcen set, the teacher can take a more passive rolc, offcring guidance only when requircd, sometimes not at all. Tcachers take a technocentric viewpoint and assume that thc minimal task imposed by the program, whcthc~r gap filling, test reconstruction, or intcracting at a basic level with a simulation, constitutcs a worthn.hile task.

Each timc teachers use a new CALL activity, it represents a micro~innovation.Tcachers will usually make a cost/benefit calculation based on how much benefit their classes \vi11 reccivc from half an hour in front of the computer offset against the amount of effort and risk involved.The effort teachers need to put into lcarning a new program and training their students to take part in an activity will be calculatcd.The risk of failurc is an important part of thc calculation, based on perception ot the reliability of the hard\varc antl the complexity of the program.The more complex a program is, the more a tcachcr will fear thc failurc of the activity due to someone pressing thc \rrong key or cntcring part of the program that the teacher has not yet discovered. A number of personal failures, for example with Lvortl processing, may disco gc a tcacher from using valuable activities, and staffroom anccdotcs about such experien will discourage other teachers. As a consequence, thc safer, less complex activities tc o lie favoured by the majority.

Certain factors militate against the use of more time-consuming integrated activities such as simulations, which involve the class and the teacher in learning how to use a program that has less repeat value than a text reconstruction activity. This type of program involves more preparation and time in terms ofpre-CALL and post-CALL activities in the classroom. There is the need to complctc the textbook material prescribed for the le especially the case where classes are shared by more than one teacher, so ‘extra’ activities, which are less obviously related to course content, may be less used. There is, thcrcfore, a danger of over-using a small number of programs and requiring students to use the same program (with different texts) repeatedly.

A similar cost benefit calculation applies to the creation of materials. Certain programs such as Storyboard arc easy to author (enter text) and highly productive in tcrms of the ratio of authoring timc and effort to the amount of student use. Storyboard has a consistent history of almost 100 percent relialilc use, so there arc few lost lessons. Under conditions of teacher ownership, materials are Lvrittcn into courses using these easily mastered packages


\vhich produce as much student ‘liusyncss’ as Iiossililc tor the least effort in materials writing or lesson preparation.

Most materials exist only as texts. Thcy arc supplcmcntary t o the tcxtlmok matcrials. They arc easily authored materials ~1ri t tc .n into courscs, s o that a particular unit in a textbook may tic supplcmcntctl \\it11 a t ex t reconstruction activity, a vocabulary activitv a n d / o r a gapfi l l ing acti\ it!. Thcy arc \\ rittcn into the teacher’s notes, antl Iiecomc institutionalized, fixed supplcnicntarv clcmcnts Ibr a Iiarticular coursc. The syllalius then Iiecomes resistant t o more integrated acti\ itics in cniancipatorv or rc\clatory motlcs, such

ing or simulations. At this stagc it is tlifl’icult t o alter the materials or introducc a \vitlcr variety o f prograins.

The Iireliondcrancc of CAI.1. inaterials in the instructional mode (see Figui-c 19.1) reflects the nature 01’ the \\ idcr syllalius, pritnarily tlcri\-ctl from textbooks with a structural/functionaI ordering ol‘itcnis. In the \vitlcr syllalius thcsc structures and functions arc supplemented \vith fur ther materials 01’ the same nature. A nunilicr of communicative activities are also a\ ailalilc, but arc considered secondary t o the process ol teaching the subject matter of the syllalius. This is also rcflcctctl in the Iialancc of C A I l materials. The prc\alcncc of the supplementary usc 01‘ CAI I . tends t o t ldinc the normal level of CALL use, \vhich is the typical Icvcl of’atloption of‘ the majority of’tcachers.

CALL implerncntation strategies

CALL expert ise is a complex skill \vhich can lie acquired liv various means. In an ideal situation, the CC (CAI.1- co-ordinator) gains cxlicrtisc hv studying the ticltl intcnsivrly, by talking to other practitioners antl by everyday olisci-vation antl practicc. A selection of thcsc skills are simplitictl antl translcrrctl to teachers through in-service training in various forms antl through dealing mith c\~ct-v(Iay Iiroblcnis and qucrics. A similar sclcction, simplification and transfcr o f skills takcs placc Iict\vc.cn tcachcr and stutlcnts.

‘I‘hc CC, in his/hcr efforts t o cnsurc cfl(xtivc CALL Icssons, is in thc position o f co- ordinating the interaction o f two highly complex systems: net\\ orkctl computers and the staff within the organintion (scc Appendix Ix-lo\~ ).XI cnsurc adoption, the CC can therefore ivoi-k at the ‘thing’ 1 1 o r at the ‘person’ Ic\-c.l. Working at thc ‘thing’ Icvcl lcatls t o case of access for all users: students, tcachcrs antl niatci-ials \vritcrs. Working at the ‘person’ Icvcl in\-olves creating antl maintaining a flo\v o f information t,ct\z n all stakeholders \z ithin the institution, both users (students antl tcachcrs) antl non-uscrs (managers, technical staff, atlniinistrativc staff

O n a day-to-tla: Iiasis, thc CC makes decisions about the most cffcctivc lint. of work, ivhrthcr to focus acti\ity from thc bot tom-up o f the system (c.g. materials development. bvr i ting cl ear ins ti- uc ti ons / tlocunic n t a t ion) or from t he top - don n ( c . g. t cac he r training, maintaining the goodwill of the managcmcnt) . E\.crytlay priorities usually in\-olvc thc bot tom-up approach, dealing \\ ith Iiroblcms as they arise, \ \orking under the assumption that if things arc running smoothly, thc good\vill o f the managcmcnt is a s s u r d . Impro\ cnicnts made to the system, materials antl instructions arc permanent , \z hcrcas training antl retraining is a constant rcquircnicnt lbr nc\v staff or for those requiring updating. Most of thc t imc it is more Iirotital)lc to locus on Iicrmancnt improvements. For example, something can hc made easier for t e a c h - s t o usc, Iivrhalis simplifying a procedure bv a single key press, or \vriting clearer instructions. Il‘this is multiplied hy 40 staff or 2000 studcnt users, it means that far less training is rcquirctl.

Thc l d l implementation of CALL is a lengthy Iiroccss. Five ycars \vci-c nccdctl in our ccntrc for the institutionalization of a minimal Icvcl o f CAI.1.: to set u p system structurcs,


t o source soft\\ arc, to providc instructions t o teachers, to author high cluality materials antl ~ v c a v c them into the s t ructure of courses. Eight years m ~ ~ c recluii-et1 before ou r ccntrc

ti thc standard of' implcmcntation antl expert ise rcquircd t o gcncratc a teacher training course such as CALLI'EC.

Summary of value-adding activities

'I'hc summary in the Appendix t o this articlc illustratcs thc ua!s in \\.hich a teacher Lvith rcsponsilility for CAI .I ma: add \-aluc t o a CALL facility hy \\-orking \vith managers, tcachcrs and studcnts cithcr at the thing (system) I C

Whcrc only a sniall amount o f non-teaching t ime is made availal)lc, the main focus o f activity tcntls t o shift alvay from teacher training to other consitlcrations which, Tvhilc thcy arc morc mundanc, are the sine clua non oi' CALI,: trouldc shooting, software acquisition antl installation, timctabling, maintenance of materials (printing, cataloguing, dclction, filc hackup) antl therefore the lcvcl o f use tleci-cases in scope antl quality. The pro\-ision of morc t ime allo\vs the CC to focus on value-adding activities 1% hich arc lcss conccrnctl nit11 the day-to-(lay running of the facility such as teacher training, tlc\-cloping interesting matcrials, c\.aluation and self-education,

1 or at the person 1c

Conclusion

With insufficient management, thc Icycl o f CALL use is likclv to tlcclinc.Thc change agent, in this casc the CA1.I. co-ortlinator (CC), is ccntral to the ~ ~ ~ w c e s s of ensuring that CALL operates smoothly. The CC deals lvith practical problcms, antl ensure5 that the innovation is at least minimally implcmentetl .Thc C C can minimize problcms faced I>! users of' CALL. by 'atltling \ d u e ' tc t cm at iarious lcvcls. O n a larger scale, the actions of thc CC arc pivotal t o thc pi-ot igniiicant curriculum change. 'I'hcsc actions are rcsponsihlc tor facilitating conscious learning opportunities by ensuring that CALL learning exists, antl that managers, tcachers antl students rccognizc these opportunitics antl take them.

To crcatc antl maintain the CALL facility in good working ortlcr requires a pi-ofcssional change agcnt: the CAI.1 co-ortlinatoi- (CC) or a team of' protcssionals with a high tlcgrec ofcxpcrtisc in CAL.I..Thcy can intcrprct CALL use in tcrrns of current mcthotlology, define, crcatc antl maintain high quality learning structures antl communicatc their potentials t o managers antl users simply antl cffectivclv. T h e CC is rcsponsihlc for the creation and maintenance of a s tudent learning niche within the cui-riculum. Ideally, thcrcfoi-e, the cxpcrtise of the CC as change agcnt should include at least a rudimentary appr-cciation o f ho\v CALL is cmhcddctl in the curriculum antl ho\v to tnanagc the innovation.

In this article, I havc cxplorctl the nature of' day-to-day CALI value-atltling activity within the context o f t h c CALI, facility \vhcrc I work. I pu t for\vartl possildc strategies lot- dealing u i t h prohlcms arising from the institutionalization of a minimal Icvrl of CALL u s ~ ~ . The resolution o f these problems is sccn as a precontlition for maximal benefit to the ELI' curriculum.


Appendix: value-adding activities

1 Working with non-users (managers)

Infuencing Influencing thc private evaluation ol CALL I)> managers, on the level of finance and hardware/softm arc.

Echnica/ matters Reassuring managers that the technical performance of the system is robust and reliable

Materials development Encouraging managcrs to have an active interest antl investment in materials dcvchpmcnt for CALL.

Eacher training kncouraging the management to initiate antl dc\clop various forms of teacher training.

Conimunicationr Improl ing the information flou bctu ccn CALL personnel and manager?.

Evaluation Evaluation b? managers of CALL on thc lcvcl o f consumcr satisfaction, observable organizational change antl flow of communication.

2 Working with users (teachers and students)

Mbrking at the y5tem l a e l Designing and programming the s)stcm to make it reliable and transparent to use, and idcntifying thc nrcd tor new ha r th arc

Software evalciation c7nd acc~uitition Initiating the purchase or design of ne\v software antl submitting it to materials writers for evaluation.

GLlidlng C/ILL ure Administering the timetable. Writing instructions and manuals to support CALL use. Cataloguing and publishing materials in a form that teachers find useful when planning lessons.

,Ilaterialc tlevelopment Writing materials and model lessons antl supporting teacher5 1'1 ho arc authoring coursemare.

Eachcr training Initiating and developing tcachcr training, ranging from presentations and markshops to responding to the day-today questions of individual teachers. Training may be cithcr in thc use of existing activities or in thc creation of materials.


E I a Ilia t I on E\aluating thc lc\el of CALL usc and thc contribution CAI I can make to diffvrcnt cour5c-5.

Inpuencing

Changing the may teacher5 think ahout CALL.This l e ~ c l is the pri la te domain of thc teacher, concerned \\ ith how teachers relate t o CALL and the \\a> CAI I is integrated into a lesson at the planning stage.

Notes

1 In Storylmartl, students have t o rcasscmblc a tcxt which has 1)ct.n deleted from the

Gapmastrr is a form ofcloze procedure, \vith students filling in missing uor t ls in a text. ScI-cCn.

2

References and bibliography

Krurnfit, C., Philips, M. antl Skehan, 1’. (eds) 1985 ‘Computers in English LanguagcTcaching: AVien from the Classroom’. In British Council Occasionu[ Papers no. 122 (British Council/ Pergamon)

Chin, I<. antl Benne, K. I>. 1976 ‘General stratcgics for cffccting changes in human systems’. In Bennis,W. G., Rcnnc, K . D., Chin, R. and Corcv, K . D. (cds.) 1976 The Planning of’Chnnge (Holt, Rinchart antl Winston, Nc\vYork)

Delano, I . . , Riley, I,. and Crookcs, G. 1994 ‘The meaning of innovation for ESL teachers’. In Syxtem vol. 2 2 no. 4 (I’crgamon)

Kcmmis, S. , Atkin, R. and Wright, E. 1997 ‘ I low do students learn?’ (Occasional Paper no. 5 , CAKE, University of East Anglia)

Kcnncdy, C. 1988 ‘Evaluation of LL‘I‘ projrcts’. In .+plied Linguistics i.01. 9 no. 4: 329 4 2 (OW)

Nicholls, L. 1992 ‘Computers as a stimulus for talk: the nature of talk gcncratcd by pairs of studcxnts using StoryIx)ard’. In 0 . L - C X L vol . 9 no. 2: 19-29 (University of Queenslantl, Australia)

Papcrt, S. 1987 ‘Computer criticism vs. technocratic thinking’. In Educutionnl Reieorch 17: 22-30 (NE‘EK, Koutlcdgc)

Pcrkins, 1). N. 1985 ‘The fingertip effect: hon information-processing technolog? shapes thinking’. In Etiticutionul Reseurch 14: 1 1-1 6 (NFER, Routlctigc)

Phillips, M. 1985 ‘Logical possibilitics and classroom scenarios for thc tlcvclopincnt o f CALI,’. In Brumfit, C., Phillips, M. antl Skehan, P. (e&) 1985

Untlcr\vootl, J. I I . 1984 Linguistics, Cunip~iters und the Lcinguuge Eucher: ci Cornrnunicatir,e .,lpprocich (Newbury HOLISC)

White, R. 1988 The E l T Curriculum: D e s i p , Innoration and .Ilunuiyerncnl (Black\vell) Willis, D. 1990 The Le~ ic i i l Syllabus (Collins)

P A R T F O U R

Evaluating curriculum change

C h a p t e r 20

Pauline Rea-Dickins and Kevin Germaine

P U R P O S E S FOR E V A L U A T I O N

1 Introduction

N U M B E R 0 F D I F F E R ENT P U R P 0 S E S for evaluation can lie identified. They A can he divided into two broad categories:

1 general purposes 2 specific, topic-rclatctl purposes.

The main g e n t d purposes arc examined first.

2 General evaluation purposes

E\ aluation ma) bc undertaken for thrcc principal rcawns

1 accountability 2 3

curriculum de\ elopmcnt and betterment self cle\elopmcnt tcac her\ and othci language teaching profc\\ional\

Evaluation f o r purposes of accountability

Evaluation for purposes of accountability is mainly concerncd with determining whether there has bccn value for money, in other words \z hethcr something has been both effective and efficient. The main aim is to report on a product and givc an evaluative judgt,mcnt, whether something is intrinsically a ‘good thing’ or not. Generally the information tlcrivcd from evaluation for purpo 1 of accountability is not used in any niajor \vay to improve thc functioning o f the curriculum or classroom practice. Kathcr it informs decisions as t o whether something is to continue or be discontinued. If, for example, sponsors or heads o f institutions are not satisfied with thc implementation of a particular project, then cuts may be made.Thus, if a particular reading schcme is introducctl, cvaluated a year later, and then judged to b e ineffccti\-e, it is highly likely that a school \ \ i l l discontinur supporting this venture.

E\ aluations of this type are largely, although not exclusively, the domain of policy makcrs or pro\-itlrrs of resources. There is a close link bctwccn pmver and cdua t ion for accountability. There arc other points to notice. Usually, such evaluations arc carried out after an innovation has been running for some time, or at the end of a project. This type of

2 5 4 P A U L I N E R E A - D I C K I N S A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E

evaluation, knoivn as summcitii’c L‘I illtrotion, has also tended t o in\ olvc testing and mcasurcmcnt , ant l anal! scs of thc statistical significance of results olitainctl. It has focuscd on the o\.crall outcomes, i .c. end product ol ’an inno\ation, antl has consistently failed to takc into account tcachcrs’ cvaluati! c comtnc‘nts. Sumniati\-c cvaluations arc liinitctl I)! their focus

on outcomes a t the cntl o f an educational inno\ a t. ion.

Evaluation f o r purposes of curriculum development

Tcachcrs have a kc? rolc to pia! in thc curt-iculum r-cnc\\.nl a n d dc\.clopmcnt process. The ideas o f Stcnhousc ( I 975) \\.crc piiota1 in placing classroom practice at thc fot-cfi-ont of’ curriculum cnquirics:

Fi-otn the first set oftrials it \vas learned that information coming from children’s test results \vas tentati1.c antl not readily usable for guiding re\\ .rit ing tvithout being supplcmcntctl liv other data. Thc rcsults pla!ctl a U S C ~ L I ~ part in confirming that thc gctwral approach o f t h c materials \ \ as cttccti\.c in promoting achievement of i t s stated o b j c c t i \ q antl the dcvclol imcnt o f tests also had s i d e - l m d i t s for the production of Units. Rut for indicating changes which \zouId make thc Units morc effective the? \\ere of much less use than information from other s o u r c ( ~ . . .

Whilst it could not be said tha t the test information \vas without value for this Project, it can I)c said that \vhcrc resources a rc limited antl it is necessary to conccntt-atc itlion gathering in l i ) r tnat ion t o give thc greatest rc turn on mom?, t imc ant l human energy, then the choice nm~i ld l ie for tcachct-s’ reports and tlircct olxcrvations in the classroom antl not for tests of short -term changes in children’s twhaviour.

(Harlcn 1973: 91 92 cited in Stcnhousc 1975)

t val u a t i on for CLI r r i cu lu ni t l eve I o p in c n t pur 1x ’ \vi11 involvc information from tcachcrs an(\ other relevant El :I‘ l)rofcssioiials. I t por tan t in the management of evaluation to inclutlc a l l relevant partics. From this it follo\vs that tcachcrs have major contributions t o make in the c\.aluation of‘ c lassrooms. It is the tcachcr, ra ther than the ‘ t rs tcr’ or the evaluation ‘expert’ , ~ h o has most information alwut specific classroom contcxts. This information may l ie rcportctl a t various times antl in various f’orms, for example as rcymnscs to qucstionnairc,s, intcrvic\vs, records, o r d iary kccping- It ma? Iw largcly descriptive antl qualitative, and ncctl not entail tests, measurements, and intcrcnccs about curr iculum quality from statistical data. In contrast to summative ?valuation for purposcs of accountability, cvaluations intended to improve thc curr iculum will gather information from tliffei-ent people ovci- a period of timc.‘l’his is known as,fhrrnutive evuluution. Such evaluations arc ongoing antl monitor t l lopmcnts hy identifying the strengths antl \vcakncsses of all aspccts of teaching antl learning. As opposed to mcrcly passing an cvaluatil-e judgement on the cnd product of a tcaching programme (summativc evaluation), formativc e\ aluation is drsignctl to pro\-itlc information that may l i e used as the basis for future planning and action. It is formative sincc it aims t o strengthen and improvc the curriculum.

Evaluation for purposes of teacher selfdevelopment

A third antl major rolc that evaluation has to play i s in formalizing and cxtending a tracher’s kno\vletlge ahout teaching antl learning in classrooms. This is sometimes referred to as illurninatii,e evuluution (Parlctt antl Hamilton 1987) Iiecausc i t involves raising the

P U R P O S E S F O R E V A L U A T I O N 2 5 5

coiisciousncss o f tcachcrs antl otlic-1- tL'1' practitioners as t o \\.hat actually happens (as opposed t o what is s u p p s c d to happen) in the language teaching classroom. This t) pv of cvaluation is also tlcvclopmcntal antl formative.

Evaluation of this kind is tlcf'initc~lT not conccrncd \vith mcasurcnicnt. 'I'hrough alvarcncss-raising activities, tcachcrs arc involved in dcscrihing antl Iwttcr understantling their o\\ n contexts \vith a \ i c \ \ t o improving thc teaching ant1 learning proc c\.aluations arc both illuminative ant1 formati \e in purp)sc.Thc! focus more o n th antl less on the product, of tcaching antl learning antl have a tnajor role t o play in tcachci-

Summary

In this section \\ c h a c examined the general purpows f o i e\ aluation (accountal)ilit>, lopmcnt, antl tcachrr self dc\clopment) . Accountabilit: 1 5 us

\\itli sumniati\c e\aluation 1% hilc cui riculum tle\clopmcnt and teacher sclt ti

arc Ix t tc r informed 11) c\ aluation as a formati\c p r o ~ c c c

1 . 1

3 Specific topic-related purposes for evalu a t' ion

tion, i v c t-xaniinc \va!s in \vhich evaluation is important t o classroom tcachcrs antl ho \v their a\varcncss can 1)c raised by evaluation acti\-ities. We arc concerned 1% ith formative and illuminative evaluation, associated Tvith curriculum drvc~lopmcnt antl tcachcr self-development.

What is meant b y thc cni.ironmen/ o f t h c classroom since it is this that pro\.itlcs the focus for our c d u a t i o n s ? Thr cmvironnicnt is macle u p of man! things including the social organization of thc classroom, the tcxtlmoks, the inodc(s) of teacher presentation, antl the resourcrs available t o the teacher. Thus, \vhcxn \vc ask the question 'Do o u r teaching antl Itm-ning Ixogrammcs \vork?' (i.e. arc they cffcctivc?), \\e need to itlrntify clearly the focus

of OUI- question. A r e \vc intcrc~stctl in evaluating the classroom organization, aspccts of tcach grammarlThc

c\aluator has t o he clear as t o \\.hat is hcing cxamincd. ntation, o r is thc focus on the textbook or thc \Yay

Kcv factors arc that:

1 2 3

c\aluation is not restricted t o the testing of Icarncrs' alditics more than just thc end product is important \\ hcn cvaluating a learning Iirogramnic thcrc arc diftercnt conditions that may explain, or contrihutc to\\ artls an cxplanation of, w h y a prugrammc is su

4 other information, rclatcd Ilkrcnt aspccts of the teaching antl learning pi-ocess, should be incluclctl in an evaluation of the. curriculum, t o complcmcnt (lata tvpically tlcrivetl lrom a test analysis of learner pcrformancc.

In other ~ v o r d s , the varied processes of teaching arc as important as the outcomc of learning, antl in 01-der to improve learning outcomes, there is a need t o examine more closclv those conditions that ma? contribute t o succcssful language learning. What is ncctlcd is a d e d c t l examination of the cnvironmcnt created by the teacher antl Icarncrs to promote cffcctiw language learning. Evaluation is thc means h y lvhich \vc can gain a Iwttcr understanding of \&at is cffcctivc, \\-hat is less cttc.cti\.c, antl xvhat ai1ptw-s to he of no use at all. In ortlcr t o do this, evaluation must focus on both the means antl thc product of the learning pro .


4 Materials

Before anal) sing the extent to \\ hic h g i ~ en tcaching and lcarning matcrials arc suitable, there arc preliminary questions to address rhc matcrials selected tor cla5sroom ure can hc defincd in a numbcr of c\ a! 5

What do materials meanforyou?

1 110 you refer cxclusivelj to textbooks, or do you includc teachers’ guides, teaching manuals, supplcmcntarv units, rvatlcrs, audio and visual materials, etc? L)o you make a distinction hctwccn materials dcsigncd spccilically for first and second language teaching, and also I)ct\vccn those targeted specifically for use in school and materials that arc non-pedagogic but authcntic? Do you include materials produced by thc teachers and the learners?

2

3

The role of materials within your teaching and learning context

1 2

What rolc(s) arc the) cxpcctcd to play? What goal(s) arc they expcctcd to achie\e?

How are the materials to be used?

1 2

Are the) to be uwtl as thc sole 5ourcc and rcwurcc for teaching? Arc the\ one of scvci-al a\ ailablc resources?

There has hccn a tendency for overreliance on classroom teaching materials, with unrealistic expectations made of thcm. However, the cff‘ectivcncss o f teaching and learning is not cxplained solcly in terms of how good or bad the learning materials are. As Allwright ( 1 98 1 ) suggcsts, materials are only purr of thr. co-operative management of language learning. I t is also crucial not to ovcrrniphasizc the importance of learning materials.

Evaluation of classroom learning materials

The first xvay in Lvhich materials inay I)c cvaluatcd is in terms of’ how wcll they reflect the principles by M hich they havc Ixxn writtcn. In the case of class textbooks, the evaluation criteria will be those used lvhcn tlcciding \vhich hook is best for your teaching context. When it comcs to teacher-made materials a specification, i.c. a list of criteria against which to evaluate the materials, is indicated at thc outset ~ or accumulated during the proccss of materials writing and is thus ‘known’ to the tcachtxr. In both cases, \ve arc rcfcrring to the theoretical worth of the materials.

Examining the materials as they stand, that is Lvithout rcfcrence to their actual use in the classroom, gives us no information about how these materials actually work with a class. This distinction between the theoretical (i.c. construct validity) and empirical value of materials has becn explored b y Rrccn ( 1 989), who distinguishes three phases in the evaluation of materials: materials~as~\I.orkplan, matc,rials-in-proccss, and outcomes from materials.

We can generalize from the notion o f ‘tasks’ to the notion o f teaching and learning materials in the following manncr. ‘Materials-as-workplan’ refers to the theoretical value ofmatcrials, taking up the range of points covered in comprehensive checklist. Rut, as Breen (1 989: 189) statcs:


Workplans can only provide opportunitics for change in knowledge and capability and for successful outcomes in relatively unpredictable antl broad measure.

‘This brings us to an evaluation of ‘Materials-in-pro .’ . This stage gcncrates information about the \rays in \vhich learners antl teachers actually use and rcspond to materials, thus providing indicators as to whether the materials are ‘succcssfuI’ or not.Thc ‘outcomes fi-om materials’ rcprcscnt the relative achievements of learners.

Who evaluates the inaterials is the final point to he considcrcd here. Lon. ( 1 987) comments on the range of individuals connected \vi th a language learning course and examines both the nature antl purpose of the evaluations they arc likely to make. For I.o\z-, ten tliffei-cnt perspectives on materials evaluation could be offered:

The Lcarnei- The Parent The Teacher Thc Head or College Principal I’hc Teacher Trainer The Curriculum Committee Mrmbcr The Inspcctor The Educational Rcscarc hei- The Ikhlishcr The Materials Designer

(Low 1987)

U) examining the role(\) of these p i ticipating groups in the materials cx\aluation process, L o n ( 1 987) shou s hon each group \r 111 h a c different interests and different questions to be ansirered For examplc, a materials writer might carr: out a formati\e e\ aluation designcd to indicate 1% hcthcr the texts arc appropriate to the targct learners, antl then make the nccessar! changes A parent, on the othcr hand, might onl) be intereyted in examination results, M hic h imphes a summati\ c asscyymcnt ot learner pcrformancc

O n the premise that ‘teachers ma; lieneht greatl) in the eialuation, design and usc of materials b\ cngaging the help and r IC\\ s of learners’, Rrccn and Cantllin suggest a! s in \r hich learners ma) participate in the e\aluation of materials

On the procedurcs f o r tiorking with tasks and actir.itie.7 in the clossroom What do you find are the most useful w a What arc the Iwst kinds o f language lcarn for your choice? What can a tcachcr do which \z-oultl hclp you most \\hen you arc learning a nc\v language? What can other learners in thc class do which would hclp you most whcn you arc learning a new language? What is your favouritc kind o f language lesson? What are the reasons for your choice? What are the good things and the had things about learning a language in a classroom? What can materials best provide you with to hclp you learn a new language! What arc thc best kinds ol’ language learning materials? What do they look like? Why do you think they’re best?

to learn a new language? tasks and activities?What arc the reasons


What is good and not so good a h i t the tnatcrials you arc \vorking Lvith no\v? What do you think is missing from them? What changes \vould you make t o them?

(13rcc.n antl Candlin 1987: 27)

As with most in\ cntorics ol’this kind, the qucstions can Iic reformulated to make them morc relevant t o individual contexts. It is important t o recognize the diffcrent and relevant contriliutions t o materials evaluation. As I.o\v ( 1 987: 27) maintains: ‘the evaluation of a language learning programme, or the materials used t o tcach it, invol\cs morc vie\vpoints than that of the “intlclien(lcnt” outsi(lc olxervei-’.

Summa iy

In evaluating materials it is t i ai-\ t o cxaminc the Ivays in \vhich teaching and learning materials arc sensitive t o the uagc Icai-ning lira< . Evaluation criteria should relate not only t o thc aims antl contents o f language Icarning, hut also, and importantly, t o the procctlurcs lor lvorking with texts and Iicd;)rming tasks in the classroom. It is necessary to analyse learner outcomes, h i t not to the exclusion of cvaluating other aspects o f the teaching antl learning process. From this \\.e mav conclude that a comprchcnsivc evaluation of‘ our teaching antl learning materials \vi11 cntail a thcorctical (i.e. \vorkplan) and cmpirical (i.e. process) analysis of materials, the data I’rom lvhich \vi11 bc augmented Lvith details of learner outcomes. The importance 01‘ ohscrvational (lata, derived from an analysis of materials in use, should n o t h e untlcrvalucd.

5 Teachers and teaching

Purposes f o r classroom observation

F,Yaluation is a crucial par t ol’ teaching, Iiut how is it done \vcll!Testing knowledge o f theory is not cnough to judge clfectivc teaching. Wc need t o ol)scrvc tcachci-s in action using thr ir kno\vletlgc in t h e real sctting of thc classroom. Classroom oliscrvation givcs us thr opportunity t o see tcachcrs putting theory into prac.ticc: it shmvs us what tcachcrs tlo rather than \\.hat thrv kno\v.

Grading teachers

Your o\vn tcaching context \ \ i l l influence your view on the ~ iuqioscs of‘ classroom ol)scrvation. The cxpcricncc of many tcachcm suggests that it is primarily summative in p u r p c , incxtrica1)ly Imund u p \vith reporting a grade, accountability, and jutigcmcmtal statements.

The focus \\.lien grading tcachcrs using a checklist is mainly o n the product of teaching antl Icarning, for example, ‘ability t o cstalilish rapport’ , ‘suitalility of matrr ia ls and methods’, ‘use of aids’. Also, thc chccklist is used by an cxtc-rnal oliset-vcr.T!’pically, tcachcrs a rc \.kited by inspectors \vho check thcir class rccor~ls and lesson plans, obscrvc a Irsson, antl then comment on the lessons using a chcc.klist as a guide. Sometimes this evaluation is car-rictl out without much participation hy thc tcachcr i v h o is actually Iicing ohscrvctl.

I . ‘ . I


Teacher development

Using observation merely to grade teachers, for example, with a vicw to promotion, is extremely limiting. I t is important to use observation to provide information that teachers can use as a basis for future action. Here we refer to the formative value of classroom observation where the feedback from evaluation will he used to further develop or improvc an aspect of classroom practice, or as part of curriculum bettrrment or tcacher self- de\ elopment. Consider this following way of evaluating teacher performance:

The classroom assessment process should consist of three stagrs: 1 prc-lesson matcrial 2 the lesson 3 the trainee’s post-lesson evaluation

1 Thr pre-lesson material includes: (a) information about the class: descriptive and evaluativc (b) the scheme of Lvork and the place of the assessed lesson in it ( c ) the lesson plan (normally accepted form)

2 The Icsson; attention to the following: (a) classroom pcrsonality (b) classroom management (c) awareness of learners

(d) what is being sought (e) how it is being sought (f) what thc learner is doing

The above should be gone into in detail.

3 Post lesson evaluation; written self-assessment on: (a) the lesson plan (b) the major headings on the asse5smcnt schedule (c) any additional releiant points

(James 1983)

In this approach not only is the tcachrr formally included at stage 3 by means of a written self-assessment, but also there is an attempt to examine the process or teaching and learning. The category ‘what the learner is doing’ could highlight, for example, the nature of the interaction (teacher to learner, learner to learner, learner to teacher) or the type of writing that the learners are doing: copying from the blackboard, filling in a gapped passage, reordering words and sentences). An item on a checklist which focuses on ‘how’, i.c. what the teacher is doing, can also identify a wealth of information about the teacher and teaching, for example, ‘What are the different question types that the teacher uses?’ ‘How are visual aids used at the different stages (presentation, practice, or production) of the lesson?’ Checklist items such as these focus attention on details of the teaching and learning process and provide information that is useful in terms of modifying and improving classroom practice. I t is, therefore, an example of formative teaching evaluation.

Peer teaching is an alternative mcthod of evaluating teachers in training. Here trainees ‘teach’ a lesson to their colleagues.Tutor and learner observers look out for specific points in the teaching practice. Feedback can come both from the trainer and fellow learners. Another way is using microteaching. In its simplest form a trainee teaches a group of learners for a short period of time, for example, fifteen minutes covering a specific topic or skill

260 P A U L I N E R E A - D I C K I N S A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E

(apologizing, reading for specific information, ctc.). Again, peers and/or a trainer observe this performance and comment on it using a checklist as a guide.

The observation involved in the above practiccs can he used for improving thc teachers’ techniques, monitoring their progress, antl counselling thcm on relevant aspects of their teaching, However, in many ca. , they arc primarily geared towards training and grading, in other words, used to determine Lvhcther thc training institution will qualify a teacher, the syllabus is being covered, the teacher uscs the appropriate methodology, and so on. Additionally, not only is the olxcrvation largcly controlled by someone other than the classroom teacher, but checklists may reflect an cxtcrnal observer’s judgement on what is effective teaching. Thcrc is a need to consider lvays in Lvhich teachers themselves may become more involvctl in the proccss of evaluation.

Teacher self-development

A more participant-orientated cvaluation through observation is important in raising teachers’ awarcncss, a key feature ofthc teacher development process.Taking microteaching as an example, \vc can consider ways in hvhich evaluation may be made more illuminative, collaborative, and useful in terms of tcachcr self-dcvclopmcnt.The proccss can be examined at three levels: self-evaluation, peer evaluation, antl collaborative group work. We shall examine these in detail.

Teacher selfevaluation

Self-Evaluation is simply thc practice of tcachcrs reflecting on what has taken place in the

the form of brief notes written immctliatcly after the lesson. Or it can be part of a written (such as the class record) or oral rcport on thc lesson itself. Alternatively, a checklist can be used. One of the advantages of self-cvaluation inventories is that they can be designed by individual teachers to suit thcir own tcaching contexts. They are relatively simple to use and pet potentially they can providc a wealth of information about teachers, their teaching, and thcir learners.

I . . . tsson with a vie\v to improving their performance. It can lie very informal, for example in

Peer evaluation

Peer evaluation can be incorporated into microteaching where several trainees are present during the lesson or where they share the same microteaching session. Here it is important for there to be somc means of encouraging open and constructively critical discussion.

Now, consider the following procedurc (adapted from James 1983) which may involve both teacher self-evaluation and peer evaluation.

1 The teachers prepare an open profilc of themselves as teachers. I t is in the form of a sort of self-presentation which can precede the feedback session at the end of the microteaching. Statements such as the following would make up a teacher’s own professional principles:

I always correct learner errors. I do not allow learners to use their first language.

2


I teach the rules of grammar to help lcarncrs use the language. I never ask a learner to use language which has not been previously presented

I always use authentic materials as a basis for teaching. I make certain that a large proportion of the learners’ time is spent in group work. I never ask learners to read aloud to the rest of the class. I always mark learners’ writtcn work. I believe that learner errors are the result of first language intcrferencc. I try to exercise a strong personality in the classroom. I adapt my teaching to suit what the learners say they want.

For each of these statements, the teachers in discussion groups indicate whether they agree or disagree. I f thcrc is tlisagrccment then they are asked to rewrite the statement to reflect \vhat they think.

and practised.

3

Note that this self-cvaluation checklist [. . . ] does not presupposc any external obscrwr. Nonctheless, in microteaching it can be used by both peers and tutors to discuss hvhat constitutes elements of good teaching practice. Because peer evaluation is collaliorativc in approach, thc teachers being observed might themselves suggest areas of their teaching that they feel need to be improved and ask their colleagues to concentrate on thest,.

At this point cvaluation has moved away from the narrow summative functions of evaluation for grading purposes and has taken on illuminativc and support functions and bccome formative in purpose.

Collaborative group work

This is a fui-thcr cxtension o f peer-evaluation where thc focus of the evaluation is agrecd on beforehand by the group. More control is in the hands of the peer group but it requires good lcatlership skills. Collaborative group work can offer an additional opportunity to evaluate the trainer and the programme.

Kouraogo (1 987), in an article about Rurkina Faso, discusses the junction of teachers’ self-help groups which can form the basis of a collaborative national teacher organisation.

Kouraogo suggests that groups could meet on a monthly basis and discuss the practical problcms that tcachers have. A t a later datc, these small groups antl their discussion topics could be Ilrought together in a national conference. One of the purposes of these self-help groups is that they may not only help teachers resolve practical prohlcms, hut may also cncouragc antl support teachers in difficult circumstances.

Summary

We havc moved from the narrow perspcctive of grading teacher performance t o an evaluation of tcachers and teaching which can provide information of practical use to tcachers for the development of their ttwhing. Evaluation through obscrvation is useful a t all stages of a teacher’s ea]-eer to improve the quality of teaching for the benefit o f the Iearncrs. I t may be a gradual process which is initially promptcd by an rxtcrnal olxcrvrr but latcr moves tobvards self-evaluation. Since tcachers may find themselves in a situation where there is little or no in-service training, evaluation can bc the m a n s to understanding their own teaching bettcr, improving their performance, and adapting to the changing needs of the classroom. Evaluation in this broad scnse is an important part of teacher education which teachers can use throughout their careers.

2 6 2 P A U L I N E R E A - D I C K I N S A N D I < E V I N G E R M A I N E

Bibiliography

Allwright, D. 198 1 . ‘What do \ce need matcrials for?’ English Language Teaching Journal 36/ 1 : 6-9.

Rrecn, M. 1989. ‘The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks.’ In: R . K. Johnson (ed.): The Second Language Curriculum. Camhridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Brecn, M. P. and C. N. Candlin. 1987. ‘Which materials?: a consumer’s and designer’s guide.’ In: L. E. Sheldon (et].): ELTTextbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development. ELT Documents. London: Modern English Publications/British Council, 1987.

James, G. 1983. Teacher A.s.se.s.sment 2: Report of the Second Exeter Seminar. Exeter: Language Centre, University of Exeter.

Kouraogo, P. 1987. ‘Curriculum rcncwal and INSET in difficult circumstances.’ English Language Teachingjournal 41 / 3 : 171

Lon, G. 1987. ‘The need for a multi-perspcctivc approach to the evaluation of foreign language teaching materials.’ Evaluation and Research in Education 1 / 1 .

Parlett, M. and D. Hamilton. 1987. ‘Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programmes.’ In: R. Murphy anti H. Torrance (eds.): Evaluating Education: I.s.sues and Methods. London: Harper and Row, 1987.

Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research unci Development. London: Hcinemann Educational.

8.

C h a p t e r 21

David R. Carless

A CASE S T U D Y OF C U R R I C U L U M

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G I < O N G

1 Introduction

U R R I C U L U M I N N 0 V A T ION is 110th a highly complex phenomenon (Fullan, C 1993; Markee, 1997) and one that requires further research and investigation (Markee, 1993; Stollcr, 1994). To date there is insufficient information on the process of curriculum implementation: the extent to which teachers carry out innovations as intended by the developers, how they go about moulding the innovation to their own context, the strategies that they use during thc implementation process and how their pupils respond to the innovation. Within the Hong Kong context, as elsewhere, it is common for curriculum innovations to result in a facade of change, but with little noticeable impact on what goes on in the classroom (Morris, 1992, 1995).

The study described in this paper sought to explore the process of the implementation of Hong Kong'sTarget-Oricnted Curriculum (TOC) initiative through a multiplc case study research design. In order to facilitate detailed discussion, this article will focus on one of the case study teachers who seemed to be particularly successful in implementing the innovation. A picture of the process of curriculum implementation will be developed mainly through the analysis of qualitative data, comprising classroom observation and interviews. The aim of this analysis is to verify and devclop elements of' the theory of curriculum innovation through exploringTOC implementation in the specific context of a well-qualified teacher, positively oriented towards the innovation.

The paper will begin with a brief review of selected factors affccting the implementation of curriculum innovations. This will be followed by a short discussion of the main elements of TOC. A description of the rcsearch methodology and its rationale prepares the way for the main body of the paper containing a presentation and discussion of relevant data from the study, including lesson transcripts and interview extracts. Implications for primary ELT, teacher education and curriculum innovation are discussed.

2 6 4 D A V I D R . C A R L E S S

2 Review of selected factors affecting the implementation of in novat ions

l‘hc litcrature on the management of change (c.g. Fullan, 1991 ; Markee, 1997) indicates a numhcr of different factors that may affect the implcmcntation or non-implementation of curriculum innovations. This , tion \z i l l hrictly discuss just three factors that seem particularly relevant to the caw study discussed in this paper, namely teacher attitudes, teacher training and teachers’ undcrstantling of the innovation.

’l’rachcrs’ attitudes otniously affcct thcir xhaviour in thc classroom. Thcir attitudes tend to be derived from their owm expcricn as learners, thcir training, their teaching experience, their interaction \vith collcagucs and the values and norms of the society in kvhich they work. When teachers’ attitudcs arc congruent with the innovation, then they are likely to be positivcly tlisposctl to\vards its implcmcntation. However, teachers who arc initially enthusiastic about an innovation may easily become disillusioned if there is a lack of support for thc innovation, such as inadcquatc rcsourcing or negative sentiments from the principal or colleagues.

If the innovation is incompatible \vith teachers’ existing attitudes, resistance to change is likely to occur (Waugh antl Punch, 1987). Within EIT , for cxample, there arc a number

nt reviews o f largely unsuccessful attempts to implcmcnt learner-centred communicative curricula amongst teachers \vhosc background and experiencc tends towards more traditional tcachcr-centred methods. In some form this scenario has been documented in China (Hui, 1997; l’cnncr, 1995), Egypt (Holliday, 1994), Grcccc (Karavas- Iloukas, 1995), and Oman (IIarrison, 1996). [ . . . ]

Teachcr training antl support are crucial issues in the prcparation of teachcrs to implcment a ne\v curriculum [ . . . ] . Vcrspoor (1 989), in a study of change in developing countries, suggests four clements nccdcd for successful teacher training to support innovation:

permanent and locally available in-service training, e.g. through a cascading model; establishment of effective adjustment ofthc content oftcachcr training to the teachers’ o\vn Icvcl of knowledge and experience; and encouragement o f teacher motivation antl commitment, e.g. through improved working conditions or opportunities for professional dcvclopment.

t cms for supcrvision antl support of teachers;

Training therefore needs to be ongoing antl tlcvclopmcntal rather than piecemeal (Brintlley and Hood, 1990). Teachers need both on- and off-site training; the former to relate the innovation to the realities of the spccific school context, the latter to permit the opportunity to reflect on the meaning of the innovation away from thc pressures

If teachcrs arc to implcmcnt an innovation succcssfully, it is e. thorough undcrstantling of the principles and practice of the proposed change. It is desirable that they understand h t h the theorctical underpinnings and classroom applications of the innovation, but it is the latter that tends to prove most essential, especially in contexts kvhcre teachers are not \ycll-traincd and/or lack sound subject knowledge. Fullan (1 991, p. 199) \varns us of a cardinal fact of social change, that “ p ~ o p l c will al\vays misinterpret and misunderstand some aspect of the purpose or practicc o f something that is new to them.” For example, Karavas-Doukas ( 1 995), in an investigation o f a communicative syllabus being introduced in Grcck secondary schools, found that teachers exhibited incomplete understanding of the innovation they were charged with implementing and that these misconceptions contributed to negative perceptions of’ thc innovation.

C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G I < O N G 2 6 5

Dissemination of innovation from curriculum developers or change agents is often insufficient to achieve understanding amongst potential implcmenters. Instead, what is often needed is the negotiation of meaning between developcrs and teachcrs, so that a sharcd vision of the implications of the changc can be tlevclopcd. Understanding can be further consolidatcd by the gencration of specific classroom teaching procedures for thc innovation along tvith resource materials that can be used without adaptation in the target classrooms. Allied to on-site classroom support discussed carlicr, these strategies seem to be promising methods in minimising the problem of misconceptions about innovations.

3 Nature of TOC

A TOC cross-circular framework \vas d loped tiy a research antl development team, and outlined in Clark et al. ( 1 994). Initially T O C was to bc implemented in the three core primary school subjects of Chincse, Mathematics and English, with subscqucnt introduction of other subjects and also extension into secondary schools. Thr implementation schedule forTOC is an incremental one, starting in Primary 1 classes Lvho p r o c c d through the school using TOC. I litherto, schools have licen given some flcxihility in the pace antl extent o f implementation.

In summary, TOC is made up of three main conceptual elements: targets, tasks antl task-based assessmcnt.The learning targets provide a common direction for learning for all schools in Hong Kong and facilitate the planning o f schemes of work or text-books and the evaluation of progress towards the targets. “’Tasks” are purposeful and contextualiscd learning activities through which pupils progress towards the targets. Criterion-referenced assessment is used to assess pupil progress towards the targets and enables information to bc recorded antl reported to relevant parties, such as parents. This alignment of targets, tasks and assessment forms an integrated curriculum framework, linking teaching, learning and assessment in a rccursive way.

A major premise of TOC is that pupils should be actively involved in thcir owm learning and in the construction and dewlopment of knowledge antl ideas. TOC postulates that students learn through five fundamental, intcrtwining ways of learning: communicating through receiving and sharing meaning, inquiring through questioning or testing hypotheses, conccptualising through organising knoivlctlge and identifying patterns, reasoning through logical argument and by deducing or inferring conclusions and problem-solving, including identifying, justifying and evaluating solutions. TOC also proposes that more attention should be paid to the individual learning needs of different pupils, so that variations in pupil learning styles, speeds and abilities can lie licttcr catered for.

T O C is, to a large extent, congruent with “intcrnational good practicc”, based on current knowledge about how children learn, and with respect to ELT, TOC has much in common with communicative methodologies. I t is, howevcr, innovativc within the I Iong Kong context where teacher-centred, whole-class teaching styles predominate and tcachers tcnd to emphasise the transmission of information and knowledge. “It is a tradition o f the education system in Hong Kong that didactic teaching is a superior mode because of constraints of public cxaminations and unwillingness of tcachcrs to change” (Wong, 1 996, p. 92).

4 Research methodology and rationale

The study involved case studies of three English teachcrs, in different schools, implementing TOC over a 6-month period in their own Primary 1 or Primary 2 classrooms, with pupils

2 6 6 D A V I D R . C A R L E S S

aged 6-7 years old. The case study approach seems particularly suitable to investigate a curriculum innovation becausc, as indicated earlier, relatively little is known about how innovations are or arc not implemented in the classroom context. Case studies enable information to be collected from a number of sources and over a period of time. The approach enables the development of an understanding of thc phenomenon from the teacher’s view. This teacher perspective is crucial because teachers arc the key element in the implementation process, in that they arc the individuals who will implement faithfully, reinvent or reject an innovation.

The central focus of the study was to explore the nature of curriculum innovation through analysing thc pro 1 o f TOC implementation in the classroom. The research questions that guided the study focused mainly on the following issues:

the teachers’ attitudes towards English teaching antl towards TOC; the teachers’ familiarity n i thTOC principles, the extent to which they believed that they were carrying them out, whether they were actually implementing T O C principles and the strategies that they Lvere using; and the extent and nature of change antl development in the teachers during the period of the study.

Data collection methods used for the study comprised classroom observation, focused interviews and an attitude scale. Classroom observations were conducted for 5 -6 con- secutive English lessons for each teacher in three separate cycles during the school year, totalling 15-1 8 audio-taped observations per teacher. I took the role of a participant observer and was willing to take part in lessons; for example, I tried to encourage, assist or monitor pupils during individual, pair or group activities. Both quantitative data in terms of a tailor-made classroom observation schedule and qualitative data in terms of lesson transcriptions and field notes were collected. This “compatibilist” stance (Lynch, 1996) or mixetl-method approach aimcd to facilitate triangulation through the use of both numerical and non-numerical data.

A 26-item attitude scale was developed to measure the orientation of respondents to ELT andTOC.Thirteen ofthe items (numhers 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 10, 1 1 , 1 2 , 13, 14, 17, 18,20 and 24) implied a broadly positive orientation towards TOC and related principles, the other items indicated a broadly negative orientation. The attitude scale was administered to the case study teachers prior to the classroom observation period and again 6 months later at its conclusion. I t was also administered to a wider sample of primary English teachers.

A series of five scmi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the three teachers. A baseline interview, prior to the commencement of classroom observation, collected relevant background information about the teacher and the school. Post- observation interviews, carried out at the end of each cycle of observations, focused primarily on the lessons that had just been observed. Summative interviews were conducted in order to probe into some ofthe main issues, arising from the classroom observations and the ongoing data analysis. All interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher.

For reasons of space, this paper will focus principally on qualitative data from the classroom observations and interviews.

5 Background to the teacher and the school

The teacher involved in this case study, rrfcrrcd to as Carol Lee (a pseudonym), had 4 years’ teaching experience at the commencement of this study. She has completed a teaching ccrtificate as an English major from the Hong Kong Institute of Education, the main provider

C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G I<ONG 2 6 7

ofprc-scrvice teacher education in Hong Kong. She also holds a B.Ed. degree from a British university and is currently studying for an M.Ed. at thc Open University of Hong Kong. She is very well-qualified acadcmically in comparison with the majority of Hong Kong primary teachers. In fact, a recent survey indicates that only 3% of English tcachcrs are graduates and 550/0 of English teachers are not subject trained (Education Department, 1996). A t the time of the research, it was the third year that she had taught in her current school. She is the pancl chair (similar to a head of department) for the subject of English and also th rTOC coordinator in her school.

Her school is situated in Kowloon, one of the major urban areas in Hong Kong. The school is a bi-sessional onc, meaning that thcrc are two sessions, a morning OIW antl an afternoon onc that co-exist more or less independently in the samc premises. Carol works in thc afternoon session.This section has seven timetabled lessons of 35 min each between 1 .OO pm and 5.40 pm. Seven lessons prr week are allocatcd to the subject of English. Ih r ing the period of the research, she carried out TOC with a Primary 1 class of 26 pupils aged mainly 6 ycars old.

The principal of the school is supportive of Carol and allows her a high degree of autonomy, both as the T O C coordinator and the pancl chair for English. His ohvn attitudc to TOC is characterised by Carol as one of acquicsccmce rather than cnthusiasm. In her opinion, the reason for TOC implcrnentation in the afternoon session \vas mainly to follow the lead of thc morning session rather than through a proactive dcsirc to introduce TOC.

6 Findings and discussion

This main body of the paper \vi11 consider data from thc three sources mentioned carlicr, namely classroom observation, intcrviews and the attitude scale. [ . . .]

6.1 Classroom data

In ordcr to providc a flavour of how this teacher carries out TOC in hcr classroom, thc lesson transcript shown in Table 2 1 .1 provides excerpts from one of the lessons observed in the first cycle of observation. The target language structurcs for the lesson were, “Who is this?”“This is + names of family mcmhers.”

Although the methodology of this lesson may seem relatively typical of international ELT practice, in comparison with the traditional norms prevalent in Hong Kong primary schools, it represents an innovativc approach consistent withTOC principles.l’he mingling activity part of thc lesson (see lines 2 9 4 0 ) cxcmplifies a numbcr of’keyTOC features.Thc pupils are activcly involved in using the targct language and are carrying out a7‘OC language learning task. The open-ended nature of the activity caters for learner difficulties antl the pupils can respond at their obvn lcvcl both in terms of quality and quantity of utterance. In terms of the five fundamental intertwining ways of learning, pupils are principally involved in communicating and inquiring, hvi th elements of‘ reasoning and problem-sol\-ing involved in the identification of family members in the photos. Taken as a whole, this lesson thcrefore seemed to indicate that Carol was able to put into practice a number of the main features ofTOC, a finding corrolmratcd by subscqucnt olxervational data not included in this paper.

With respect to ELT, \?IC can see in this extract a numbcr of reatures that havc heen indicated by Ellis (1 988) as likely to facilitate second language <le\-elopmcnt.

2 6 8 D A V I D R . C A R L E S S

Table 2 1 . I Excerpt from a Irsson transcript

1

5

10

1 5

2 0

25

30

3 5

40

(She takes our an altractii e cnlurcycd plioro o/ ber,faini!r~)

1': Look at me (points to herself). I am Miss I cc. M! name is Miss 1 . c ~ . I am Miss Lee. My name is Miss I r e . Ant1 this (points to t he phoro) is my family, And this is my family. Miss 1. (points)? Who is thi.;? Who is this? L1: This is Miss Lev. L2: This is Miss Lrc. L3: This is Miss Lee. '1': l'his is me (points). I am Miss I ce. This is my fhmily. This is my fathtxr (point\). 'l'his is my mother (point.\). ,4ntl I ha\c t \ v o sisters. They arc my sisters (points). 'fhis is my sistcr (points). ficr name is Cclinc. I Icr name is Cclinc. 'I'his is mv sister (points) . Her namc is Stella. Her name is Stella. This is my father (points). 'l'his is my father. He is a man. fie. IIc is my father. His name is h i . His name is h i . I IIS. I lis narnc is h i . (Then she recups and remind\ pupi1.s o f t h c nume.s und then usks them questions

ahorit the names antl relationships of her,fumi!i member,. She then usks them to take

out theirfami(r. photos; man) of them make comments in Cantonese, [~rcsiimub(~

C.\CIMS / u p o l o ~ p s ; she tells pup i l s i u r h no photos t o take oiit their hunch& II hich

hc71.e photos in them. She takes one p u p i l photo as cin crumple.)

'1.: Look. Who's this (points)? Who's this? This is . . . L4: Irene. L 5 : 'I'his is Ircnc. .I.: Good. This is Ircnc. I Icr narnc is Irene. Okay, this is Irene.

L L L : This is Irene. T : Her name is Irenc. 1.1.1.: I Icr name is Ircnc. T: And this one (points), \\bo's thi.;? (Further ifemon.strution and pructicc)

T: Stand up. Stand up. No\v I \ \ant you t o gct \\ ith [sic] vour photo or your hantll)ook ( U S E S p m r e ) . You can walk aroun(1 and then look at the othcrs, 'What's this?' antl then you can ansmrr , you can answer okay no\v t ry, get your hook antl get your photos readv. ( S o m e get ot i t o/ their seuts.) Yes, go around (cises gcstwe). . . . . . . . . . (f'upils leure their scot) mil mow toiwrds the Iron1 o/.thc clci<.s)

Ircne, you can ask 'I'onimy. O r I Icidi you can ask Kitt Okay come out. Comc hcrc children. Comc hcrc chiltlrcn. (Pupils stand near the.front V f t h c tluss, ut,f;r.st the), tire led b), the teacher 10 u\k the

turget yuestions und ms iwr them, brit uftcr some ini t i t i l prompting and

family. This is m y family. W h o is this

encouragement, more indcpenclcnt pupil purliripcition del-clops. 7hc re\curcher also joins in which encoriruges firrthcr coinmunicution in the turgct lcingriuge.)

'I'i-anscription c,onvcntions: T = teacher; I 1 , 1.2 ctc = itlciitifictl Icarncr; L1.L = whole class choral; (in

itulrcs) = commentary; . . . = pausc; CAI'ITALISATION = c%mphasis.

C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G K O N G 2 6 9

the target language serves as the medium as well as the focus of instruction; the input is rich in directives; thcre is an adhcrcncc to the “here and now” principle; studcnts seem to be converting input into intake: and in the activity stage, learners have some intlcpendent control over the propositional content: they havc some choice over what is said and there is some information gap bet\vecn speaker and listener.

Notekvorthy is the quantity o f comprehensible input to which the pupils are k i n g exposed and the use oftechniques such as repetition (e.g. lines 2 S), short simple scntences (e.g. lines 10 14) antl visual support (e.g. use of the photo) to facilitate pupil understanding. Interview data indicates that thc teacher is aware of Krashen’s (1 987) distinction between acquisition and learning and that she believes that acquisition is the most favourablc routc for pupil language learning. “For primary school students, I think acquisition is important for them. I hclieve that it’s much more easy for them to acquire a language rather than learn a language” (baseline interview, p. 9). In other words, she has a clear rationale for using the target language so as to lacilitatc language acquisition among the pupils.

I t is suggested that the task-liased approach of 1’OC puts a greater onus on teachers’ language proficiency than more restricted form-focused tcxthook exercises. Carol’s lluent antl confident use of English seems to play a greater rolc in the choice of language medium than the pupils’ own limited knowledge of the language. In other words, she is able to maintain English medium during the lessons mainly hccausc of her own high overall proficiency and her ability to use clear, simply English supported by pointing or gestures. This contrasts with a view, commonly expressed b y Hong Kong primary tcachers, that thcy nccd to use Cantoncse or mixed codr because ofthc low le\ el of language skills ofthe pupils. Carol explains thc I)encfits of using the target language as follo\vs:

If thcy can try to listen to English more, it is easicr for them to learn a language. I think it’s strange if you learn, for example, Frcnch in a Chinese \ray \vith Chinese as a teaching medium as that’s why pupils like to go overseas to learn a language. I th ink it’s a kind of acquisition and I havc t o give them an environment that English is the first language instead 01’ Chinese.

(summativc inter\ie\v, p. 1 )

6.2 Interview data

Haling looked briefl> at an example of how Carol tarrieq outTOC in the classroom, I 1% 111

nou proceed to discus, a number of themes from the inter\ IC\\ data.Thc extracts discussed here relate to her attitudc touartls TOC, her understanding of TOC, the rolc ot the principal, change implementation, teacher \upport and teacher reflection

6.2.1 .Ittirude tortar& TOC‘

Her actions in thr classroom, her statcments in interviews and her attitudc scale responses all indicate that Carol has a positive attitude to\rards TOC and associated principles. For example, in thc interviews shc describes hcr attitudes towartlsT0C as “positive” or “more than positive hut I can’t say very positive.’’

Initial analysis of the attitudc scale responses shows that she has a more positive orientation to principles congruent ivithTOC than a lvidcr sample ol‘primary school English

2 7 0 D A V I D R . C A R L E S S

teachers. The following are the statements that she either strongly agreed with or strongly disagreed with in both parallel administrations o f the attitude scale used for the study.These provide a sample of her attitudes.

She strongly agreed with the following statements on both administrations of the scale:

Item No. 3 7 9

10 1 1 13 14 24

Statement Making errors is a natural part of the learning process Thc main rolc of the tcachcr is to facilitate learning amongst pupils Pupils learn most when they arc actively involved I t is important to give pupils the opportunity to learn at their own pace Pupils learn through constructing their own grammar rules It is important for pupils to create their own sentences I t is important for pupils to use a communicativc approach to teaching The tcachcr would take into account pupils’ needs and interests

She strongly disagreed with Item 22 of the attitudc scale, on both administrations.

ltem No. Statement 2 2 Under TOC pupils \vi11 be less motivated than before

Overall, her expressed attitudes scem to be congruent with the constructivist view of‘ learning cspoused in thc TOC framework (Clark et al., 1994, p. 1 5) and those linked to communicativc and/or task-based approaches to EIll: Interview data indicates that her attitudcs scem to derive mainly from her English language learning experiences as a school student, her prc-service training and her experience of“1anguage immersion” when studying in the UK as an adult.

6.2.2 Undersranding ? I TOC

The first four interviews all asked rcspondcnts to summarise their understanding of the main principle of TOC. Carol put different emphases on different aspects of TOC at various times, but in general demonstrated a rcasonalile, though not full, understanding ofTOC, despite confessing to some confusion about the differences betwwn TOC tasks and asso- ciatcd terms, such as activities, exercises or worksheets. The following sample answer is quoted to illustratc clcmcnts of her conception of TOC:

I think Lve should try to motivate thcm, try to increase their interest in Icarning, not just copying. I think put the knowdcdgc in use is quite important in TOC. I think in T O C it should bc more livcly, not just a classroom situation, not just learn this but know that it is useful and they can use it and they know that it is useful for the whole lifc, I think that isTOC.

(post~obscrvation interview three, p. 7)

Although she has not uscdTOC terminology directly, she has touched on a number of TOC elements, for example, active involvement of pupils (first two sentences), task (“knowledge in use”), real-life context (“ not just a classroom situation”). Understanding of the principles and practice o fa curriculum innovation tend to cvolve over time and it is to be expected that Carol will dcvclop hcr intcrprctation ofTOC further as she continues to gain experience with it.

C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G K O N G 2 7 1

6.2.3 The role $the principal

Instructional leadership, staff’ development, the building of collaborative cultures, academic, administrative and resource support are some of the main means by which principals can facilitate change. In Carol’s case the principal is supportive and willing to permit her a high degree of autonomy. I t is not clear the cxtcnt to which this is an informed management strategy or is indicative of a reluctance to be directly involved with‘I‘OC, a “wait and see” attitude prevalent amongst principals according to Morris et al. (1 996). Carol acknodcdgcs the supportiveness antl flexibility of her principal:

Even he thinks we shouldn’t do that [implemcntTOC] hut once we started, he gives a full support to me and if I want to take some courses he always mentions that I shouldn’t worry about missing lessons. He thinks that it is good for me to take some courses and he always asked me to encourage my colleagucs to go out antl take some courses. He doesn’t control what I did, I can do it hohvever I like.

(baseline in t enkw, p. 5)

This laissez-faire style is in contrast with more authoritarian leadership stylcs commonly perceived to bc! found amongst many Hong Kong principals. In Carol’s case, it seems to be effective as shr has the confidencc and ability to benefit from the autonomy granted by her principal.

6.2.4 TOC and change

Change is often best effected gradually and as indicated by Clark et al. (1994) in theTOC curriculum framework there should he flexibility over time-scales, with the development and implementation of TOC being aligned with the readiness of teachcrs and schools. As Carol comments:

Maybe it’s too rushed for the school to run thcTOC class, hve have to adapt it and change bit by bit. First of all, wc have changed the time for each lesson, change thc format of teaching, before kvc just adapt the ivholcTOC, theTOC matter lvcausc wc have to change the assessment task, the format of assessment, the format of rcport card, too man! things at a go, so I don’t th ink it is a good way to change the curriculum.

(baseline interview, 1). 16)

O n the othcr hand, thc implementation of ‘I‘OC seems also to have brought some benefit to Carol. As indicated b y Morris clt al. ( 1 996) in their report on a major T O C rcscarch project, innovation can be used by principals 01- teachers as a vehicle fbr countering inertia and lc-gitimising attempts to improve. The introduction of T O C provides teachcrs with a rationale for more activc antl innovative teaching approaches. Carol expresses it in the following way:

Because it is TOC I can do a lot of activities and prepare a lot of things. I have an cxcusc, because it is TOC class so I can make it different from the other class. If cvcrybody is doing a traditional class, maybe if1 do it in a tliffercnt way then the others may say, “why do you have to do so many things?Wc don’t do it so ifwe compare with you, it seeins that we are lazier than you,”so because it’sTOC class, it’s a kind of excuse or reason why I change my way of‘ teaching.

(summativc interview, p. 7)

2 7 2 D A V I D R. C A R L E S S

In other \vortls, thcTOC initiativc pi-ovitlcs a theoretical and administrative backing for Carol to carry out the kind of learner-centred activitics that shc \vould likc to carry out any\vay. This enables her to teach in her preferred \vay, yet with less risk o f facing negative peer pressure from her more tratlitional~mintlcd colleagues.

6.2.5 Teacher-researcher collaboration

As mcntioncd carlicr, school-bascd support is an essential component of inservice teacher education provision for innovations (Vcrspoor, 1 989).‘l‘his support can take different forms, for example, the collaboration bct\z n a tcachcr and a tcacher educator researcher as described in this paper \vas mutually enriching. From my anglc, 1 have dcvcloped new understandings of the primary classroom antl of TOC, and in my o\vn teacher education classes, I now frequently use examplcs from Carol’s class to exemplify points that I am making. From the teacher’s point o f vicw, Carol comments as follo\vs:

You make my class a real English class, you make the classroom really English.You make me get used to having somcliotly watching my lesson, so now I don’t care if anybody comes into my classroom antl \vatchcs ho\v I teach, and I have confidcncc in my teaching and YOU have given me a lot o f atlvicc in thc whole year, thank you very much. I think I’ve improvctl in some parts.


It is also suggested that thc process o f k i n g intci-vic\vcd plays a role in clarifying a teacher’s understanding of thc innovation by prompting thought and discussion about relevant issucs.

6.1.6 Tcacher reflection and der cloprnent

A t various points in the intcrvic\vs, Carol s h o w s hcr open-mindetlness and interest in finding out more allout teaching as a means for prolkssional improvement. She comments on the value of peer observation in thc following extract:

I think going to another classroom to \vatch how the others teach is important. I think it’s good because now I a m doing the assignment [M.Etl. assignment] and I hale to go into the classroom to \vatch the students. Even though I hvatch the studcnts, I can watch how the teachers teach, I think I really learn a lot of things, many many things. I think my teaching skill is quite good already but I tind I can lcarn some more even ne\vcr things. So, I believe that if teachers likc to watch each other, I think the others can give you some comments s o you can improve antl also improve by watching how the others teach . . . but I think it is difficult Iwcause a lot of teachers don’t likc other pcoplc to come in their classroom antl \vatch how they teach.


Other responses also show an interest antl atiility in identifying and beginning to reflect on relevant teaching issues. Reflection and the ongoing consideration of alternative teaching strategies is one of a numlier of factors identified hy Hopkins and Stern ( 1 996) as being characteristic of effective teachers. ’l’hc following extracts show evidence of Carol developing a rcflcctivc orientation to her tcaching:

C U R R I C U L U M I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I N H O N G I<ONG 273

I think under the condition of TOC brighter students become brighter and lirighter but the weaker students arc still very weak and I am still puzzling about this problem.

(baseline interview, p. 17)

. . . qometimcs I find that the> c n j q doing thow actillties hut how much dit1 the! really learn? I just wonder

(pmt obscr~ ation inter\ IC\\ 2 , p. 1 )

7 Conclusion

This paper tried to show how a well-qualified English teacher has responded to a curriculum innovation. Reference has been made to her attitude towards the innovation, her understanding of thc innovation, her classroom teaching, her professional development and interview comments on a number of issucs relevant to thc change process. The anal! of a case study, so extrapolating the findings is not possible but it is suggested that the discussion has raised a numbcr o f issues that may have \vidcr implications.

I t has been indicated that despite the challenges associated with successful curriculum innovation, this teacher’s initial experiences withTOC have been largely positivc. A number of her charactcristics have assisted her:

hrr academic and professional training; her high standard of English proficiency; her positive attitudes ton-ards teaching and toivards the innovation; and her desire for further self-improvement and professional development.

This discussion is not incant to imply that curriculum innovation can only lie fostered bv teachers who have the abovc characteristics, but it is fair to sa\’ that such teachers arc probably in a favourable position. Therefore, gcncral governmental initiatives that upgradr the professionalism of teachers, in addition to being desirable in their o\vn right, do help to pro\-ide a climate conducive to the development of curriculum reform. Such initiatives arc part of a long-term enhancement of primary education in Hong Kong (Education Commission, 1992) of whichTOC is one componcnt.This reinforces Stenhousck \enerablc dictum that thcrc is no curriculum development without teacher tlevclopment.

In addition to these wider initiatives, support for teachers at the classroom level plays a significant role in facilitating the implementation of innovations. In this case, the supportivencss o f the principal and fruitful collaboration bet\vccn the teacher and an external teacher ctlucator/rescarcher seemed to encourage a capable tcachcr in carrying out the innovation. In other cases, proactive involvcmcnt from principals or scnior colleagucs and/or ad\ )ry visits from inspectors, tcacher trainers or experienced teachcrs may be needed to facilitate implementation, Support and encouragement, in one form or another, are an essential prerequisite for successful classroom implementation of a curriculum innovation.

References

Brindlc); G., Hood, S. , 1990. “Curriculum innoIation in adult ESL.” In G. Brindle) (F t l . ) . The Second Language Curriculum in Action. NCEUI’K, Sylncy.

2 7 4 D A V I D R . C A R L E S S

Clark, J . , Scarino, A , , Brownell, J., 1994. Improving the Qialiy $Leorning:A Framework for Target- Oriented Curriculum Rener4d in [long Kong. Institutc of Languagc in Education, Hong Kong.

Education Commission, 1992. Report No 5: The teaching profession. Government Printer, Hong Kong.

Education Department, 1996. Teocher Suri,e),. Education Dcpartmcnt, I-Iong Kong. Ellis, R . , 1988. Classroom Second Longucige Derelopment. Prentice-Hall, London. Fullan, M., 1991 . The h’erz. ,Weaning of Etlucationul Change. Teachers College Press, NcivYork. Fullan, M., 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of‘Educational Refbrm. Falmcr Press, London. Harrison, I . , 1996. “Look who’s talking noLv: listcning to voices in curriculum rene\val.”In: K.

Railcy, D. Nunan, (Eds.). Ibice.s,from the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 283 303.

Holliday, A , , 1994. Appropriate .Clethodologj, antl Social Context. Carnhritlge University Press, Cambridge.

Hopkins, D., Stern, D., 1996. “Quality tcachcrs, quality schools: international pcrspectivcs anti policy implications.” Teaching and Teacher Education 12(5), 501 -5 17.

Hui, L., 1997. “New bottles, old \vine: communicative language teaching in China.” English Teaching Forum 35(4), 38 41.

Karal as-Doukas, E. , 1 99 5. “Teacher identified factors affccting the implementation of a curriculum innovation in Greek puldic secondary schools.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 8(1), 53 68.

Krashen, S . , 1987. Principles and Practice in Secontl Language .kyui.sition. Prcnticc-Hall, Englcnood Cliffs, NJ.

Lynch, B., 1996. Language Program Eraluation: Theor). antl Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Markcc, N., 1993. “Thc diffusion of innovation in language teaching.” :lnntial Review ofApplied Iinguistics 13, 229-243. See also chapter I O of this volumc.

Markee, N., 1997. Managing Curricular Innoration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Morris, P., 1992. Curriculum Development in [long Kong. Education Papers 7. Faculty of

Morris, P., 1995. The Hong Kong School Curriculum. Hong Kong Univcrsity Press, Hong Kong. Morris, P. and 1 2 associates, 1996. ‘liirget-Oriented Curriculum Evaluation Project: Interim Report.

Faculty of Education, University of I long Kong, Hong Kong. I’enncr, J . , 1995. “Change and conflict: introduction of the communicative approach in China.”

TESL Canatlajournal 12(2), 1 17. Stoller, F., 1994. “Thc diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs.” Applied Linguistics

IS( 3 ) , 300-327. Verspoor, A , , 1989. Pathways to Change: Improi,ing the Qua/iy ?f’Etlucation in Developing Countries.

World Bank, Washington DC. Waugh, R . , Punch, K., 1987. “Teacher receptivity to systemwide changc in the

implementation stage.” Revieri ofEJucutionul Research 57( 3), 2 37- 2 54. Wong, Y. F., 1996. ‘‘To investigate the understanding of principals antl teachers of the kc?

features of the Target-Oricntctl Curriculum (TOC) antl their perceptions of its impact on their teaching.” Unpublishctl master’s thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Education, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.

C h a p t e r 22

Joan Lesikin

D E T E R M I N I N G S O C I A L P R O M I N E N C E :

A M E T H O D O L O G Y F O R U N C O V E R I N G

G E N D E R B I A S I N E S L T E X T B O O K S

Introduction

H E M O S T S I G N I F I C A N T I N F L U E N C E on an individual’s role is“the social T prescriptions antl behavior of others,” according to Thomas and Biddle (1 979, p. 4). The female and male characters in ESL textbooks have the potential to serve as those others ~ sources of social prescriptions antl behaviors for ESL students. According to some studies (e.g., Cole, Hill, and Dayley, 1983; Rem antl Rem, 1973), same-gender role models provide stronger role identification for some people than models of a different gender. Thus, for example, female characters in texts are stronger role models for some lvomen than they arc for some men. Any one dcpiction of a female or male, however, may lx- inconsrquential; it is a particular bias sustained over time and through repetition which has a cumulative cffcct.

Because of their ubiquitous presence in our schooling, cducational texts may have just that effect. Content analysis of textbooks in a variety of educational subjects (e.g., social studics, Slectcr and Grant, 199 1 ; science, Powcll and Garcia, 1988; teacher education, Satlker, 198 1 ; children’s rradrrs, Weitzman and Rizzo, 1974; ESL, Porreca, 1984) has shown them to contain gender bias. And \vc know that teachers in a variety of cducational subjects usc tcxthooks about s nty pcrccnt ofthc time (Komoski, 1985); ESL tcachers arc probably no exception.

The potential influence ofgendered role models may haw particular weight in ESL in highcr education. For many ESL collcgc students, ESL textbooks may be their first encounter with the American educational system. ESL textbooks especially may have a morc profound cffcct than texthooks used suhscqucntly in a collcgc student’s academic carerr.

ESL text materials attempt ideological neutrality in order to appeal to a broad and often censorious educational market. Real and imagined pressures have often led writers antl publishers to substitute or eliminate topics deemed objectionable to various constitucncics (lanner, 1988) . l cx t materials published for second language lcarning in particular prcscnt language in ways that reinforce the sense of ideological neutrality. These texts arc typically

2 7 6 J O A N L E S I I < I N

filled both with extended discourse in narratives or essays and with individual sentences in lists. I.anguagc itcms may br prcscntetl \vith littlc i f any surrounding context, dcvoid of its history of usage, and with little background given to make sense o f it. Yet ideological knowledge in tcxts informs meaning, according to critical linguists such as Hodge, Kress, and Fairclough (Fairclough, 1989; Krcss and €lodge, 1979) whose theory of social semiotics links language with power. External social forces influcncc a writer’s choice of language. Thus, the meanings and structures of language in a textbook or any other writing ~ reflect ideology. Feminist critical analysis, an outgro\vth of critical analysis, focuscs on the semantic and structural properties of language in ordcr to examine ideas antl assumptions about gender. Feminist content analysis, on thc other hand, is grounded in a semantic and lexical linguistic tradition in the social scienccs. Feminist rcscarchers use both these general and sometimes overlapping perspectives.

The methodology 1 present bclow allo\vs for the analysis of text materials containing both extended discourse, whcrc ideology may lie more apparent, and context-reduced sentences, where ideology may be less apparent, as can lie found in many ESL text materials. The approach, related to feminist critical analysis, analyzes languagc at the structural/mcaning level and seems to bc lrss inferential than analyses that only count

of language clcments.

Methods of analyzing gender bias in texts

Researchers haw rxaminetl gcndcr hias b y quantifying language items ~ in the content analysis tradition and by interpreting language content ~ more in the critical analysis tradition, or by combining methodologies that encompass these perspectives. Recently, Macaulay and Brice (1 997) reported the results of two studies that show widespread gender bias and stereotyping in the example sentences of syntax textbooks. Using a combination of methodologies, they looked at grammatical function, thcmatic role, and lexical choice, based on the works of Jackendoff ( 1 972), Dillon ( 1 977), and Cowper ( 1 992). Using another methodology to examine ESL textbooks, Porreca ( 1984) found widespread bias primarily Iiy quantifying language items. Her study focused on omission, firstncss, occupational visibility, nouns, masculine generic constructions, and adjectives.

The methodology I propose both interprets language content and quantifics language items. Similar to Mills’s methodology ( 1 995), grounded in Hallitlay but dealing only with extended discourse, the present methodology can also he applicd to context-reduced, sentence-level items. It is advantageous because it gets at meaning that may be hidden duc to the presentation of context-rcduccd language. The methotlology can be used alonc or in conjunction with other mcthodologies, such as those in Porreca’s study, in order to triangulate findings. If different methods haw similar results, we can lie more certain that the findings arc robust antl not influcnccd by our methotlology (Firestone, 1987).

A variety of approaches may he needed to account for the inherent contradictions in tcxts. For example, in examining the middlc chapter of Developing Reading Skills: lntermediate (Markstein and I Iirasawa, 198 l ) , this researcher (Lcsikin, 1994) found less than half as many frmalrs named as males (40: 100) yet a greater quantity of femalc-specific nouns and pronouns ( 1 00:84). At the same time thc two structural analy. , based on Halliday, presented below, showed that females antl males are equally represented in terms of social prominence.

D E T E R M I N I N G S O C I A L P R O M I N E N C E 2 7 7

Analyzing gendcr bias as social prominence in texts

The methodology is based on M. A. K . Halliday’s examination of the functions of language, specifically his concept of participant roles of nouns and pronouns and the division of theme and rhcmc from the Prague School of Linguistics and reconstituted by Hallitlay (1 985). I use these concepts to dctcrminc the relative social promincncc of females and males in written texts.

Theme, rheme, and last stressed element

According to Quirk and Grccnbaum (1 973), “the thrmr is the most important part of’ a clause from the point of view of its presentation of a message in sequence” (p. 41 2).Themc is the psychological suliject. It is the first clement in a clause (lvith the exception of initial adverbs) ‘‘VI hich serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that with which the clause is concerned” (Halliday, 1985, p. 38). Rhcme is the remaining part of the messagc, which develops the themc.‘lhc last strcsscd clement of a clause is also important.Thc person or persons occurring as the last stressed element bear the information focus of the clause and, like the, person or persons in theme position, have communicative prominence (Quirk and Creenhaum, p. 41 2) .

From communicative prominence to social prominence

A charactcr in the position of theme or as last stressed elcmcnt in a clause is the person in a position of communicative prominence. It is the person who is the center of conversation, the topic in writing, or the information focus until anothcr person is introduced or focused on or the communication or text ends. People who are centers of conversations, topics of writing, or the information focus ~voultl seem to have more social prominence than pcoplc who are not. We communicate about people who in somc way intcrcst us or arc important to us; those Lvho are not of interest are not thc focus. Thus pcoplc can be perceived as having different degrees of social prominence hy the dcgrcc of intcrcst shown them.

Similarly, in a Ivrittcn text such as a textbook, if characters of one gcnclcr (rcprcscntcd ly gcndcr-spccific nouns or pronouns) occur more frequently in the position of communicative promincncc as theme or last strcsscd clement ~ an underlying message to rcatlcrs is that one gentler has higher social prominrncc than the othcr. Thc); most likcly prcsent a stronger, more alluring role model than those characters in rheme position.

Participant junctions

The division of gender-specific nouns and pronouns in clauses into theme, rhcmc, and last stressed element does not specify what those role models potentially are. A noun or pronoun in a clause also has a participant role in terms of the ideational function of the clause, 1% hich helps us to get at the ideological message. Since themes and last strcssed elements arc the most prominent and could be more intlucntial rolcs for students than those rolcs cmbcdtictl in rhrme, I examine their participant functions.

According to Hallitlay, the ideational function of a clause is how it represents experience in terms of meaning. The role of a noun or pronoun in a clause is how it participates in thc process of a particular experience expressed by that clause. Thus the noun or pronoun also has a participant role in terms of this ideational function.

2 7 8 J O A N L E S I K I N

The participant roles can be di\ided into two groups (seeTable 22.1). In Group I , the functions include doing, acting, sensing, saying, attributing, and rclating. Those in Group I1 are the complcmcnts of the participants in Group I . Group I participants take a more active role experientially than those in Group 11, whcre the role o f actor is defined a3 the most active and direct participant in an experience.

Table 2.2. I Participant roles o f nouns anti pronouns

Group 1 Group I I

Actor Beha\ cr Sayer Scnwr Token

Rccipicnt, Client, Goal Brnchciai-?

Rccci\cr, Targct I’hrnomrnon Valuc

Procedure

The procedural steps to apply this mcthodology arc:

Collect all clauses in the “unmarked” form (thosc that are not questions and/or negations), containing at least one gentler-specific noun or pronoun (e.g., Anne is here or T h y waitedfor Rob to come). ‘ Categorize these clauses b y gcnder antl by thcme/rhemc distinction. Simultaneously examine each clause to see if it contains a last strcssed gender-specific noun or pronoun in the same clause signaling a competitive focus of new information. If it does, note the gender-specific focus. Eliminate themes or rhemes which have both female and male nouns or pronouns (c.g., Anne and John arc here or Either June or Bob I$) since co- occurring forms offset each other. Tabulate the number o f themes, rhcmes, and last strcssed elements according to gender, and compare the numlicr of themes and last stressed elements to the number of rhemes, by gender. To determine the roles of thosr gender-specific nouns antl pronouns labeled as theme and last stressed clement, re-examine them in terms of participant functions. Tabulate the themes and last stressed elements by participant function and gender. Lastly, incorporatc into the results the quantity of themes and last stresscd clt‘ments compared to quantity of rhcmcs.

Findings

Theme and rheme

I applied this methodology to a singlc chapter in each o f scvcral tcxtbooks devrloped for the ESL academic markrt. I will discuss thr findings from one o f the textbooks, Grammar in Use (Murphy, 1989), to demonstrate thc application of the methodology.

Out of 55 gender-spccific nouns and pronouns in clauses, 44 are theme, as in Ann in /inn telephoned someone (p. 94). Of these, thc ratio of females (n = 15) to males (n = 29) is 5 2: 100 (34”h to 66%). Elcven gentler-spccific nouns and pronouns in clauses are rhcmcs, as in him inyou want him to get some stamps (11. 101). Of these, the ratio of females (n 3) to


males (n = 8) is 38: 100 (27% to 73%). In addition, seven gender-specific nouns as rhemes are the last stressed elements in seven of the clauses, as in Torn in I’ve just seen Torn (p. 98). Of these, the ratio of females (n = 2) to males (n = 5) is 40: 100 (29% to 7 1 Yo). As theme and rheme (including the last stressed element) of a clause, female nouns and pronouns are present on average 33% compared to 67Yo for male nouns and pronouns (n = 37) or thc ratio of 49: 100 (seeTable 22.2).

Table 22.2 Grammar in Use: frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as thcmc and rheme in “unmarked” clauses

Female Malc Totul Ratio

N YO N YO N I; to M l’hcmc 15 34 29 66 44 52:100 I‘\hcmc 3 27 8 73 I I 18:100 Total 18 3 3 37 67 55 49: 100

Note: Thcmc = psychological subject o f a clause; rhcmc = noun or pronoun devrloping the subjcct including last stressed clcmcnt I)caring information focus.

As theme and as the last strcsscd clcmcnt (n = 5 1 ) ~ the prominent forms in tcrms of meaning ~ 17 are females and 34 arc males (33% to 67%) or a ratio of SO: 100. (SecTablc 22.3 .) Thus males dominate thc positions of communicative prominence in clauses in this chapter by double the numbcr of females. The total number of female to malr nouns and pronouns in the chaptcr is morc equitable: 44% to 56%.

Table 22.3 Grammur 7n I1.w frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as thcmc and last strcsscd clcmrnt in “unmarked“ clauses

Female Malc Total Rutio

N 96 N Yo N 1 t o M Thcmc 15 34 29 66 44 5 2 : l O O Elcmcnt 2 29 5 71 7 40: I00 I‘otal 17 33 34 67 51 50: 100

Note: Theme information focus.

psychological subject o f a clause; clcmcnt = last strcsscd clcmcnt in a clausc~ bearing

Participant rolcs

By examining those gender-specific nouns and pronouns in theme position in the same clauses to determinc their participant roles, I found that they (n = 44) function in fivc participant roles (see Table 22.4). That is, they are actors, sensers, tokens, sayers, and bchavcrs. The 15 females occupy four of the rolcs while the males occupy fivc. Males outnumber females in all rolrs except that of senscr, where fcmalcs (n = 4) arc prcscnt twicc as often as males (n = 2). Howcvcr, males (n 1 1 ) arc actors, the strongest participant role, more than three times as often as females (n = 3) or the ratio of‘ 27: 100. In addition, there are more than twicc the numbcr of m a l a (n = 10) than females (n = 4) as sayers or

2 8 0 J O A N L E S I K I N

the ratio of 40: 100. The roles of actor antl sayer h a c the greatest numher of nouns and pronouns. Femalc5 (n = 4) antl malc5 (n = 5) arc most clcnly matched in the role oftokcn, the second largest role, in thc ratio of 80: 100.

Tuhle 22.3 Grarnmur 7n Use: frcquc.nc.! of‘partic~il~aiit I-olea ofgcntlci--specitic iiouiis antl pronouns in

“unmarkctl” clauscs

Roles N (Yo N “0 N F to M 8ctor 3 21 1 1 79 14 27: 100 Scnscr 4 67 2 3 3 6 100: 50 ’l’okcn 4 44 5 56 9 80: 100 Saycr 4 29 10 71 14 40: 100 Reha\ cr 0 00 1 100 1 0 : I O O Total 17 3 3 34 67 5 1 50:100

.\ole: Actor = a doer; acnscr = a p v r w n li,cling, thinking 01- sccing; token = a pcrson having an

attribute or relation to another; saver = a vcrlialircr; Iwhavcr = a person cxhibiting physiological or

psychological Iwhavior.

Summary of findings and implications

Males dominate the positions of communicativc prominence ( 1 00: 50) in G‘rummar in Use. At the same time, males arc actors, the strongest participant role, more than three times as often as females and dominate four of thc five roles in thcmc position in clauses, with an overall prcscncc more than t\vice that o f fcmalcs. Males arc primarily presented as actors and sayers, suggesting males as thc docrs antl vcrlializcrs. Fcmalrs outnumlxr males as scnsers, suggesting females as feeling, thinking, antl sccing indivitluals. Both arc fairly evenly divided as tokens expressing having an attribute or relation to another. While thc comparable l‘rcqucncy of females and males varies antl males occupy thc two strongest roles, all the roles presented for lmth females and males arc activc cxpcricntially.

The grcatcr quantity of males in the position of communicative prominence antl in thc participant roles in clauses in the chapter suggests that the males presented havc greater social prominence antl thcrcforc more pocver than the femalcs.Thc greater number o f male nouns and pronouns in clauscs in general rcinforccs these finclings of dominancc.Thc findings also suggest that fairly traditional, stereotypical roles arc prescntcd for each gcndcr (the males as actors and sayers; the fcmalcs as scnscrs).

Grammar in Use is onc ofthe largest sclling textbooks to thc academic ESL markct, based on the opinions of ten marketing experts in pul)lishing and distributing ESL textbooks ( h i k i n , 1995).Thc tcxtbook may influence how our students view their ohvn social power relative to that of others as thcy sort out a new gentlered identity in the acculturation process. Language learners arc “constantly organizing and reorganizing a smsc of who they arc and how they rclatc to the social world.‘l’hcy are, in othcr \vords, engaged in identity construction antl ncgotiation” (Norton, 1997, p. 41 0). As part ofthe acculturation process, ESL students’ new identities arc shaped in part by what thcy read in our classes. When the texts they read reflect biased assumptions about gentler, thc texts may transmit these hiascs, often reinforcing the lower prcstige antl p v c r ascrilxtl to fcmales.


To my knowledge, no research has been done on the effects of gender bias in ESL textlmoks. Studies on gentler and language have suggested that gentler bias and sexual stcrcotvping in written tcxts antl pictures and sexist behavior in classrooms have delrtcrious effects for American femalcs. These effects include feelings of exclusion, devaluation, alienation, and lowered self-expectations. (See, for example, McArthur antl Eisen, 1976; Montemavor, 1975; MacKay, 1979; andTodd-Mancillas, 198 1 .) Macaulay and Brice (1 997) report on several empirical studies in education suggesting that “thr stcrcotTping of mathematics as a male domain negatively affects females students’ attitudes toward, performance in, and perceived proficiency in the subject” antl that graduate students (females most especially) who pcrccived gender-biased behavior in their classes wcrc negatively affected; in some cases they hvithtlrew from the discipline or graduate program (pp. 820 821).

’l’hc results of these studies suggest that our female ESL students, like American females, may also construct less ponwful and prestigious identities than their male counterparts from similar sources. The undervaluing of women potentially adds to the female language learner’s sense of alienation and worthlessness, making adjustments more problematic antl perhaps slowcr than for her male counterpart.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to offer some recommendations for countering the gender bias that may I x present in ESL textbooks and elaborate on the reasons for classroom teachers

n focus o n ~ gentler issues with students. Teachers might begin by citing ccs of gentler bias in the ESL class’s textbook.

By discussing what ~ v e as tcachcrs perceive as gender hias, ~ v c may find that students have different pcrccptions antl vieLvs from our own. Discussion might lead to reflective hvriting or to studcnts interviewing Americans or fricnds and family members on specific topics raised about gendcrcd roles, behaviors, stercotypcs, or expectations. Students may also creatr alternative tcxts as language learning activities. For example, students might take a published tcxt containing generic masculine forms (c.g., he, mankind) and rewrite the text using more inclusive languagc. A subsequent activity could have students applying this new kno\vlctlge to their o writing. Wc can also counter the gentler bias by supplcmc~~ting the material with more nly represented tcxt in instances where wc arc comfortable \vith other aspects of thc textbook or cannot change the textbook for programmatic reasons. Finally, we can write to publishers or speak to their representatives at professional conferences to makc them a\vare of our disco\eries ofgendcr bias in their materials antl our distaste for these biases.

In bringing gcndcr bias in ESL textbooks to our students’ attention, \IC immediatel) raise gcndcrcd behavior antl roles as issues in their ow-n acculturation process. Rehavior and role assumptions and cxpcctations arc changing, not only in the US mainstream culture but in the students’ cultures as \rcll. Students may be avwe of these forces o f changc in their own cultures but may not be a\varc of them in thc US. As their teachers, \ve help our students explore, sort out, and construct their new roles and idcntitics in the new culture by making the unconscious conscious.

Knowledge of gender bias in educational tcxts and in other aspects of schooling, such as pcrccivcd academic strengths and differential conduct antl expectations of teachers in relation to female and male students, ma): help stutlcnts reflect on their prior school experiences, consider their present behaviors with teachers and students, and make kno\vlctlgeablc decisions about their future educational goals. In constructing ne\v identities,

2 8 2 J O A N L E S I I < I N

issues of gender also seem highly relevant to our students’ familial, social, and occupational realities and expcctations.

Issues of gentler impact on our students’ lives in their gendcred roles as family members and in their expectations of family life in the US. What will lie the household division of labor? Who will care for aging parents? Who will contribute to family support? What are the expectations for daughters and sons regarding work, education, family, religious or cultural customs?

Gender roles and behaviors also frame our students’ social lives. As young adults in a new culture, they may now, as never before, consider choices in gmdered social roles and behaviors. Dating and courting customs may undcrgo change in the new culture; our ESL students are ripc for exploring options, their benefits, and drawbacks. Who do I date? How do I arrangc it? Do I tell my parents? Do 1 submit to their expectations?

As collcge students considering career options, our ESL students may also want to explore gender issues in the US workplace. Topics such as child care options, sexual harassment, perspectives on parental leave, work-related stereotyping, and career opportunities can p r o d e information and reflection on students’ future participation as gendcred lvorkers in the US.

Our students knew the expcctctl gentlcrctl hehaviors and options in their own cultures, but now in the US, they probably do not. Issucs of gentler have relevance for our students and can provide valuable information and insights as they learn English and create new identities.

Note

1 Eliminating clauses containing qucstions and/or negations may exclude somc data but makes thc analyses of the participant roles that follow more straightforward.

References

Bem, S. L., and Bern, D. L. (1973). “DOCS sex-biased job advertising ‘aid and abet’ scx

Cole, D., Hill, L, and Dayley, L. (1983). ‘ ‘ L h masculine pronouns used gcnerically lead to

Cowper, E. A . ( 1 992). A concise introduction t o .yntactic t h e o y . Chicago: University of Chicago

Dillon, G. L. ( 1977). Introduction to contemporay linyuistic .semantics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Fairclough, N. (1 989). Language anti power. NewYork: Longman. Firestone, W. A. (1987). “Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative

Halliday, M. A. K. (1 985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Jackendoff, R . (1972). Semantic interpretation in pnerat irvgrammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Komoski, P. K . ( 1 985). “Instructional materials will not improve until \vc change the system.”

Kress, G. and Hodgc, B. ( 1 979). Langtiuge as ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lesikin, J. (1 994, Octobcr). “Contradictory findings in text anal A focus on gender.” Paper

presented at the Applied Linguistics Symposium, NYSTESOL, NewYork, NY. Lesikin, J. ( 1 995). E S O L textbooks and the social power of’ESOL student: Procedurcs,for analyzing the

potential influences of textbook churacteristicv. Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University Teachers Collcgc, New York.

tiiscrimination?”journal of’Applied Social Pychology, 3 (1 ), 6-1 8.

thoughts of men?’’ Sex Roles, 9, 737 750.

Press.

Prcntice-Hall.

research.” Educational Researcher, 16 (7), 16&2 1.

Educational Leadership, 42, 3 1-37.

D E T E R M I N I N G S O C I A L P R O M I N E N C E 283

McArthur, L., and Eiscn, S. ( 1 976). “Achievements of male and female storybook characters as detriments of achievement behavior by boys and girls.” journal of’ Personulicv and Social P.ychology, 33,4677473.

Macaulay, M., and Brice, C. (1 997). “Don’t touch my projectile: Gentler bias and stereotyping in syntactic examples.” Langmge journal q f t h e Linguistic Societl, Vfilmericu, 73, 798 825.

MacKay, D. G. ( 1 979). “Language, thought, and social attitudes.” In H. Giles, W. 1’. Kobinson, and P. M. Smith (Etls.), Language: Social psychological perspective.s (pp. 89-96). New York: Pcrgamon Press, 1980.

Markstcin, L., and Hirasabva, L. (1981). Developing reading skills: Intermediate. New York: Newhury House.

Mills, S. (1 995). Feminist stl,’listt’cs. London: Routledge. Montcmayor, R. ( 1 975). “Sexism in children’s books and elementary teaching materials.” In

A. P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. L. Gcrshuny, and J. P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and langnuge (pp. 161 -1 79). Urbana, IL: National Council ofTcachcrs of English.

Murphy, R. ( 1 989). Grammar i n use: Rgerence and practice,for interrnetliute students oJEng1ish. New York: Cambridgc University Press.

Norton, B. (1 997). “Language, identity, and the ownership of English.” TESOL Quarterb, 3 1, 409-429.

Porreca, K. L. (1984). “Sexism in current ESL textbooks.” TESOL Quarterb, 18, 705-724. Powell, R. R., and Garcia, J . (1988). “What research says . . . about stcreotypcs.” Science nntl

Children, 25: 21-23. Quirk, R., and Grcenbaum, S. (1973). A c o n m e grammar ~ f c o n t e m p o r a y English. Fort Worth,

TX: Idarcourt Brace Jovanovich College. Satikcr, M. (1981). “Diversity, pluralism, and textbooks.” In J.Y. Cole and T. G. Sticht (Eds.),

The textbook in American society (pp. 4 1 4 2 ) . Washington, DC: Library of Congress (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 185).

Sleeter, C. E., and Grant, C. A. (1991). “Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks.” In M. W. Apple and L. K . Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics o f t h e textbook (pp. 78-1 10). NcwYork: Routledge.

Tanner, D. (1988). “The textbook controversies.” In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum (pp. 122-147). Chicago, IL: NSSE.

Thomas, E. J . , and Biddle, B. J. (1979). “The naturc and history ofrole theory.”In E . J.Thomas and B. J. Biddlc (Eds.), Role theory: Concepts and research (pp. 3-1 9). Huntington, New York: Robert E. Krieger.

Todd-Mancillas, W. R. (1981). “Masculine generics = sexist language: A review of literature and implications for speech communication professionals.” Communicafion Quar terk , Spring, 107-1 1 5 .

Wcitzman, L. J . , and Rizzo, D. (1974). “Images of males and females in elementary school textbooks.’’ New York: National Organization for Women’s Legal Dcfcnsc and Educational Fund.

Index

abilities 16 accountahilitj 2 5 3 - 4 action research 197 207; tlcscription antl

rationale 197 9; and 'real' rcscarch 199 202; steps in pr(i

activities 185 6 ; organization o f content antl 189-90; selecting and tlcvcloping 188 9 ; see ulso tasks

activity ol)jcctives 182 3 adoption ol'innovation 1 19, 1 2 2 3 Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)

208-28; Certificates in Spoken and Writtcn English 21 5 25; communicati\c approaches 2 I O- I 3; curriculum devclopmimt over 50 v c m 208; grmx-hawd approaches 21 3 1 5 ; structui-al approachc%s 208-1 0

affective goals 182 affects 10-1 1 age 103 5 Allwright, I) . 201, 205 Altman, H.H. 128 analysis: antl classification 57 9; as thc prccursoi

aquaculture outreach project 137 48 art 103, 105, 106 Asian Institute o1'Tcchnology, Thailand 1 38,

cnt 190-1; CLTin Korca 160 I ; CSWE

oftask\ 60 2

7; Ace o l o aquaculturc outreach project

2 2 I 2; 'I'OC 265 Aston, G . 58 -9 astrophysics papers 7 1 attitude markers 76 attitutlcs 161; students' 162; tcachcr\' 162, 264,

attrihutcs of innovations 1 2 3 attrihutive hedges 76 Austin, S. 105 Australia: AMEP see Adult Migrant English

Program

269 70

Australian Languagc Levels (ALI.) guidelines

authenticity 2 3 1 2 availahilit) of material.; 1 1 2 14

42 4

I k h n i a n , L.F. 149 50 Railcy, K . M . 201, 205 13angalol-c Project 48 Rarmatla, W . 176 haw foi-m of vcrlx 5 1 basic intrrpcrsonal communication skills (BICS)

I3a/crnian, C. 80 Iichavioural educational psychology 209 Brnnv, K.1). 123, 242 Ucrctta, A . 1 19 Rhatia, V . K . 72 Iilingiial education 9% 107 Ih-ccn, M.P. 2, 257-8 Krctt, P. 7 3 4 Rricr, C. 276, 281 Rrintllcy, G . 38, 178-9 Hrown, H . D . 112 Rrumfit, C. 1 2 1 Rrunci 99 107 burcaucrati\ation 74

100 I , 104

CALL (conipiitcr~a.;sistcd language learning) 4 ,

CALL co-ordinator (CC) 241, 246, 247 CAI .I_ .l'cachcr Education Course (CALLTEC)

Canale, M. 149 50 Candlin, C . N . 58, 257-8 Cartcr, K. 64-9 powm casc-stud) rcseai-ch 5 , 265-73 Cclcc-Murcia, M. 1 12, 2 12 Certificates in Spoken antl Written English

change: liindamcntal 120- 1 ; innovation and 242

240 9

24 1

(CSWI:) 21 5-25

I N D E X 285

checklists 259-60 Chin, K. 123, 242 Cliomsk!,, N. 5 5 , 2 1 0 Clark, R. 174 Clarkr, I). 147 classification 57- 9 classroom genres 74 5 , 78 9 classroom obser\ation 258, 267-9, 272 clozc, self-crcatctl 1 3 2 ~ 3 cognitii c academic language proticicnc! ( c . 4 I t')

100 1, 104 cognitive goal\ 182 cohcrcnt c~rclatr t l sti-atcgics 60 cohc\ion, lexical 57 Coleman, H. 127 collaboratii-c gi-oup \\ ork 26 1 collocations 5 1 common-core teaching 80 1

communicatii e compctcncc 5 5--6, 149 comniunicatii-c language teaching (CLT) 2 ,

9-26;achie1ing23 5 ; .4MEPZl0-13; delining 14%50; tlilriculties due to 1 5 3 , 160 1 ; in I:l-L c'ontcxts 150 1 ; inadequatc account of EIL teaching 160; managing the learning process 30-2, 33; materials protluction 2 34 5 ; and syllahus tlcsign 184-5; tcachcrs' tlifliculties in introducing in South Korea 149-67; teachers' niisconcrptions ahout 1 55 6

5 5 7; syllahus tlc\ign 18 5- 6; target compctcncc 1 1-1 2

240 9 compiitcr~assistctl language learning (CALL) 4 ,

computcri/ctl Iarigiiagc corpoi-a 2 3 , 64 70 consti-aintc and rcso~~rccs I92 4 content: conceptualizing 18 3 7; lexis 46 54;

organimtion of 189 90; and process 2 ; role in CLT I C ) 22

content-l>asccl courscs 1 86 contcnt q~ccilyirig lists 49 54 context 24; formal antl infornial I6--17 context~huiltling 2 2 3 continuity: content antl 2 1 ; cultural 169 77 contrilxitions, learner's 1 2 14, 15 convci-gcncc htratcgies 60 1 Cooper, K . 1 , 1 18 core compctcncics 42- 4 corpora 2-3, 64 70 countc%rparts 174-5 course tlevclopincnt proc

(.ourscwork 1 14-1 5 coverage objcctivch 182- 3

178-96

critical literacy 94, 21 5 critical thinking objectives 182-3 c ~ i h - a l c.ontinuity 169 77; pi-inciple 169 70 culture 186 Cummin\, J . 100 I , 104 curriculum: rvaluation for p i i r p e s o f

curriculum ( le i clopmcnt 2 54; managing thc learning process 3 3--8; purI>o\c o l I0 1 1 ; w e

also s! Ilabus ciirriculum~planniri~ grid 44 curriculum project managcmcnt 171 3 cyclical-organisetl courscs 1 90

tleconstructing text 224 tlcticit pcrspccti\c 109 de-lcxicalisctl item\ 5 I description 66 7 tlei eloping countries 1 3 5 tlc\iational perspecti\ c 109 diffcrcntiation 1 5 16 tliffusion olinno\ation 3, 1 1 8 26; paradigm

shifting and 108 1 1 diffusion of scholarship 1 1 1 direction 15, 2 2 disciplinar! \ariation 3, 71 83 tlisciplinc-spccifc coinponcmts 80- 1 discourse: AMEP 2 11-1 2 ; tcchnologicetl

discourw compctencc 55 7 (liscour\c s! I labus 5 5 6 3 drills 92 Dutllc! -E\ ans, I.. 74 dynamic pcrspcctii c 109

discourse 170 3, 175, 176

tast-Wcst Center, Hoiiolul~i 1 1 1 cclcctic s! Ilahusc.; 56 educational gron th, local I 6 3 educational syllabus 46-7 ctlucationd system 1 5 3, 158 9 ctlucationi \aluc.s/attitud(~s 161 Etl\vartls, K. 170 EFI teaching: CLI"5 inadcquatc. account 01' 160 Ellis, K . 267 9 cmcrgcnt language pi-ogram fi-ainc\\ ork 1 37 4 8 emphatics 76 cinpirical~rational inno\ation strategies 121 4 empirical response 2 3 1 2 cmpoizcrnicnt 173 5 cpistcmic grammatical subjects 77-9 cquililxium paradigm 1 1 1-1 2 evaluation 5 , 173; action rcscarch 202 4,

205-7; aquaculturr outwach Ixojcct 146; CLT 22 3; course tlevclopmcnt pro< 190-2; materials 2 56 8; purposes for 5 , 2 5 3-62; teachers antl tcaching 2 58 62

papers 87 9; grammar-hasctl 158 cxaminations: General

exclusion\ 4 7 9

286 I N D E X

expantling 145-6 Expanding Circlr 1 10 I I , 1 12 1 3 expectations, learner 13-14 experiential content domain 29-30 experiential, student-gcneratcd material5 2 37- 8 ‘cxperts’, expatriate 174-5 expressive functions 1 1 2

facts, computer corpora as 65 first order innovation 243 Flew, A. 175 focus 20 formal learning context 1 6 ~ 17 formative evaluation 23, 191, 254 function \\ ortls 5 1 functions 54, 2 1 1 ; syllabus design 184-5 fundamental change 120-1 funding, insufficient 159

Gapmaster 243, 244 gender bias 5, 275-83 General Secondary Education rxamination

papcrs 8 7 9 Gcncsee, F. 103 genre: AMEP and genre-based approaches

2 13-1 5 , 220-1, 225 6; disciplinary variation 72 - 5; gcnrc-based approach to materials production 2 36-7; LINC and genre theory 93-6

genre-related strategies 60 qeocmtrism I 14 I 5 gcography 105, 106 Gcrman Model 1 05 goals: long-term 230 I ; setting 39 45 , 181-3 Gorlach, M. 1 1 3 govcrnmcnt(s) 88, 89, 92, 97 Gouer, R . 182- 3 grading teachers 258 9 grammar 32, 162, 184; LINC and 90 2 grammar-based examinations 158 Grammar in Use (Murphy) 278~-80 grammatical subject 77-80 group projects I34 group work, collaborative 261 grouping 3 9 , 4 1 , 130, I34

Hallitlay,M.A.K. 7 5 , 9 4 , 9 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 , 214,

Hamnctt, M. 109 10 Havelock, K.G. 1 2 3 4 Hayes, I>. 175-6 hedges 76 Henrichsen, L.E. 123, 124 Hewings, A. 78 9 high-structure teaching 32- 3, 34-5 highway engineering 74 Holliday, A. 1 50 Holmes, R. 74

277

I long Kong 263-74 ‘hourglass’ articles 7 3 humanistic education 29 humanistic/ps!.chological oricntation 38-9, 4 1 Hutchinson, T. 141 hvhrid models 124 Hqland, K . 75-6, 8 0 Hvincs, D. 21 1

illuminativr evaluation 255 implementation: factors affecting 264-5 impro\emcnt, innovation and 121 incluaions 47 9 indcpcndent construction 224 indigenization 109--10 individualization 1 27 36 informal lcarning 16--17 information rcport 93-4 initial contributions, learner’s 12-1 4 Inner Circlc 1 10, 1 12-1 3 innovation strategirs 123 4 institutionalisd utterancrs 5 1 instrumcntal functions 1 1 2 integrative functions 1 12 interacting needs 141, 142 interactive tliscoursc 58- 9 , 62 interactive learning model 2 12 13 intrrdependent participants 17-1 9 interlanguagr continuum information 1 12 International Ccrtificate Confercnce (ICC) 62 intrrpcrsonal function 75 interpretational response 23 1-2 involvement objectives 182-3 Ivanic, R . 174

Jacob, G . 169 Jacobson, W . H . 141-2 Jamcs, G . 259 Johnson, M. 5 3 joint construction 2 15, 224

Kachru, B B 108, 112, 113 Kennedj, C 119 Kenn) , R 144, 2 3 1 ke!\vord\ 89 90, 92-3 knowledge about language 3, 87-98 Korea, South 149-67, educational system 158-9 Kouraogo, P 261 Krashcn, S 120

Lakoff, G . 53 language: knowledge about 3, 8 7 98; and the

syllabus 48 9; as tcxt 2 13-14; views of language and languagr teaching 88-9

language acquisition 269; agc and 103-5 language awareness 96 language competence 149 50 language corpora 2 - ~ 3 , 64-70

I N D E X 287

language fcatures 22 I Language in thc National Curriculum (LINC)

project 3, 87-98; ban 89-90; lessons from 96--7

language proficicncy orientation 38-9, 4 1 language use needs 141, 143 largc classes 158; intlivithalization and 127 36 Larking, L. 102 last stressed elcnicnts 277-8, 279 learner-ccntredness 4, 170 I ; AMEP 210-1 3;

managing the learning process 27-9, 29- 30, 38 -9, 40; materials production 232

lcarncrs 248-9; actively involving in n c d h analysis 137 4 8 ; and CI T 11-14, 15, 18 19; contributions 1 2 14, 1 5; and introducing CLT 153, 156-7, 162; mccting nee& of different lcarncrs 224; antl paradigm Yhifting 1 1 I 12; participation in c\aluating matcrials 257-8; roles 18-1 9, 28

theory of‘2 14; lcarning-teaching context 16-~17; scaffnldcd 214-15; styles antl CAL 2 4 3 4 ; tension of syllabus v language and learning 48-9; ways of and T O C 265

learning: language 229-32; language-based

learning-ccntredness 29-30 learning nectls 180 1 learning process, management of 2 , 27 45

learning process goals 3 6 7 learning stratcgics 41, 186-7 learning tasks see tasks lcnding (class) library 1 3 1 , 1 34 Lewis, C . 203 4 Lewis, M. 68 lexical approach 2, 46--54, 68 lexical syllabus 56 Lincoln, Y . 110 linguicism I I S linguists 89, 97 linkage models 124 linking related texts 224 LIPT action rrscarch project 2 0 2 4 listening skills 185 local educational growth 163 Logan, G.E. 127- 8 Long, M. 1 1 2 long-term goals 230-1 L o n , G. 257, 258 low-structurc teaching 32--3, 34-5

Macaulay, M. 276, 281 MacDonald, S.P. 77 8 , 79 Mackcn, M. 221 Malaysian Communicational Syllabus 5 5 managcment of the learning process 2, 27-45 Masch, N. 105 mastery objectives I82 3 materials: availability of 1 1 2-14; evaluation of

256 8; pro1)lenis in using CALL 245 6; selccting and tlc\cloping 188-9

of rxpcrtise and time for 156; sample matcrials 233-8; theory 230 2

rnatcrials protluction/drvclopment 229- 39; lack

mathematics 103 matrix-organixd course5 190 McCarthy, M. 52 media I 5-1 6 metacogniti ve nccds 14 1 , 144 mctacommunication 14-1 5 metadiscourse 75-6 metaphorical patterning 5 3 4 methodology: CLT 14- 17; CSWE 222 4 Mickan, P. 202 3 microteaching 260 1 missed opportunities 243- 5 modal auxiliaries 5 I modal verbs 90-2 modelling text 224 models of innovation 1 2 3 4 motivation 157 moves 72-3 Munby, J . 58 Murphy, R.: Grurnmur in IJsc 278 80

name tags 130, 134 national curriculum: Australia 2 15 16; England

antl Wales 89 natural language learning 1 20, 2 10- 1 1 needs, long-tcrm 230-1 needs analysis 38-9; actively involving learners

1 3 7 4 8 ; course development proccssey framework 178 8 1

needs-hascd communicative approaches 2 10 1 3 negotiated spllahus 147 Nicholls, A. 120 normati! e-re-cducati\ c innovation strategics

notional/functional syllabuses 12 1 notional-structural approach 2 3 3 notions 2 1 1 notions and topics 184-5 ‘Nuc1eus:English tor Scicncc and Technology’

Nunan, L). 28, 29, 3 2 , 4 0 , 4 8 , 198, 200 I

1 2 3 4

233

objective knowledge 200-1 objccticc needs 178-9 objectives, setting 3 9 4 5 , 181 3 opportunities, missed 243 5 oral skills 154, 162, 185 organization of content and activities I89 90 Outer Circle 110-1 I , I I 2 1 3 ownership 173-5

paradigm shifting 108-1 I ; students’ difficulty I l l 12

2 8 8 I N D E X

participant roles 277 8, 279 80 participatory processes I86 -7 I'atton, M. 108 9 I'aulston, R. 1 1 1 peer c\ aluation 260L 1, 272 pccr teaching 260 pcrccii ctl attributes of innovations 109 Pcrkins, D . N . 243 person markers 76 phenomenal grammatical subjcrts 77 9 physical education 103 , 105, 106 planning grids 44 planning strategies 60 plant hiology 74 politeness s t ratqics 60 politics 105; and kno\vlctlgc about languagc 3 ,

87- 98 Porrcca, K.L.. 276 po\vcr-cocrcivc innovation strategies 12 3 4 Prabhu, N.S. 48 , 120 prescription 66 7 prc-s> I l ahus 59, 60 pincipal, rolc of 271 prohlcm-sol\ ing motlel 1 2 3 4 1)rohlcniatizing 192-4 process 2 ; txaluation of curriculum proccs\

2 2 3; management o f t h r learning procc\s 2, 27 4 5

~ I - O C C S S compctcncc 1 3 process project 171 3 profcwional dc\clopmcnt 197 9, 259 60,

professional genres 72 4, 75 6, 77 8, 79 proficicncy: languag' prohcicncv orientation

272 3

38-9, 41; lo\v antl introducing CI T 156 7; movement 185

Iiroficicnc> goals 182 proficiency tests I80 ~~i-otilc cards 1 10-~1 , 1 34 progressivt. [mlagogics 2 10 1 1 project managcmcnt 171 3 pronunciation 184 proportional syl lahi is 56 I)S)chological/humanistic orientation 38 9 , 41 purposc: of curriculum 10- 1 1 ; piirp(~scs for

c\ aluation 25 3-62; specific purpow orientation 38 9 , 41

cfuc\tionnaii-c\ 1 30, 180

radio ne\\ \ 1 32 , 1 34 Ramii-e/, J [I 99, 101 iapport 129, 129 3 1 reading learning need\ 141, 143, \kill\ 162, 185 record\, corpora a\ 65 6 r( education 128 reflccti\r practlcc 198, 272 3 rcgi\tci 220-1

rclational markel-s 76 relevance 129 rcliahility 201 repair \tratcgics 61 rcpcrtoire: language teaching repertoire 224-5;

target rcpertoirr 1 1 reporting hack 145, 2 37 8 research: action research antl 199-202 rcscarch articles (KAs) 72-4, 75-6, 77-8, 79

12, 19 ~ 2 0

lopmcmt and tliffubion ( K D and U) n10dcI 12 3 -4

rchcr-tcacher collaboration 272 ancc: to change I 19, 122, 264; to class

participation 157 resources antl constraints 192 4 I-csponsil)ilit~ 129 rhcmc 277-8, 278-9 Richards, J . 1 I 2 Kogcrs, E.M. 109, 119, 123 romanticism 88 routes 1 5 . 22

Samraj, R . I ' .K . 77 8 , 79 Saphicr, J . 182 3 scaffoltling 2 14 1 5 scholarship, diffusion of I 1 1 scirncc 101, 103 second order inno\ ation 243 sclf-created clcm' 1 3 2 3 self-dcvclopmcnt, teacher 255, 260 1 sclf-c\ aluation 260- 1 sclt-learning programmcs (SI P) 1 3 1 4 scniantically densc itcyns 5 1 wntcncc hcatls 5 1 2 sequencing 20 I , 4 7 9 , 189 Singleton, I ) . 103-4 situational language tcaching 208-1 0 skills 54, 162, 185 skills-hasctl rtlucation 170--1 Sladc, D. 221 Smith, I I . 174 social Iwhaviour 90 social interaction motlel 1 2 3 4 wcial prominence 275 83; a n a l y h g gender bias

social sciences 74 wcially validated response 2 3 1 -2 wciocultural context 121 socio-linguistic competence 56, 154 5 speaking skills 154, 162, I85 specific pui-posc orientation 38 -9, 41 stakchol(lcr-ccntrctl approach 171- 3, 175 stance75 6 stanclard English 90 Stcnhousc, I.. 254 Stephens, J.M. 24 steps 72 3 Stern, H.H. 182

as in tcxts 277 -80

I N D E X 2 8 9

Story1x)artl 243 4 , 245 strategic competence 56, 154-5 strategic pre-syllal)us 59, 60 stratcgics: tliscoursc 60 2; innovation 123-4;

structural approaches 183; AMEP 208-10 structural indigenization 1 10 student-gcneratcd, experiential materials 2 17 8 stutlcnts see learncrs subdivision 2 1 subjective kno\vledgc 200 1 suhjectivc needs 178-9

learning 41, 186 7

bilingual cducation and 99 107; S E C also disciplinar! \ ariation, tliscipline~.;pccific components

suhstantive intligcmization 1 I0

support, teacher 159, 272, 273 supra-scntcntial linking 52 Swain, M. 149-50 Swales, J . 72-3 syllabus: AMI:P/CSWE 220, 222--5; design antl

disciplinary variation 80 1 ; discourw syllabus 55 61; Icxis in 2 , 46-54; tension of syllabus v language antl learning 48 -9

aluation 2 3 , 191, 253-4

syllahus grids 184 7 synonyms 52 ‘synopsiaing’ words 52

‘Talkhasc’ approach 237 8 targct competence 11-1 2 targct need.; 180-1 Target-Oriented Curriculum (I‘OC) 26 3 ~ 74 target repertoire 1 1 12, 19-20 targets 265 Taronc, k, 73 task-bascd learning 2, 27-45, 59 tasks 61 2, 265; aquaculturr outreach project

145; individualizing learning tasks 1 31 4 ; syllabus design 1 8 5 6

Taylor, G. 173 teacher education 155, 162 3, 264 teacher support 159, 272, 271 tcachers 248 ~ 9 ; attitudes 162, 264, 269 70;

grading 258 9; prrccived tliffjcultic\ in introducing CLT in Korea 149-67; professional dc\elopmcnt 197 9, 2 59-60, 272 1; purposes For evaluation 258 6 2 ; re.;earchcr-teacher collaboration 272; 1 - 0 1 ~ in CLT 17 18; sclf-development 25 5, 260 1 ; understanding of innovations 264 5, 270; view of needs assessment 180; views on language and languagc teaching 88, 96-7

tcaching: dominant discourses 170-1 ; high- structure antl low-structurc 32-3, 34 5; language teaching rcpertoire 224-5; text based cycle 2 2 2 4

Teaching knglish to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) pi-cparatory programs 108-17

technical texts 2 1 6 - ~ 7 technocentrism 241 2 tcchnologisctl tliscourse.; 170-3, 175, I76 Tcrrell, T. I20 tcxt: language as 2 1 3- 14; mctadiacoursc 75 6 ;

theme 277 8 , 278-9 thcoretic intligcnization 109 10 ‘thing’ technologies 242

tcxt l)ascd syllabus design 222 5

training, tcachcr 155, 162- 3 , 264 . - . e ,

1 .*-~-.‘”~.~‘-,...~-~,, ; transactional language 62 transfer goals 182 ‘I.riin, J .L.M. 102

-_

understanding of‘ innovations, teachci-s’ 264 5,

units of nark 2 2 1 University of Illinois a t Urbana- Champaign

University of Mala)a Spoken knglish Project

Ur, P. 2 2 2 ‘us’-‘thein’ configuration 175 Usher, K. 170

2 70

(UIUC) 1 1 1

234 5

validity 2 0 1 value-adding activities 247, 248 9 valuc-synonyms 52 values 16 1 Van t k , J .A. 102 Van l i c r , L. I97 variation 2-3; disciplinai-v 3 , 71 Vaxrus, F. 109 vc>rhs, hasc form o f 5 1 Vcrapoor, A . 264 w c a h l a r y 49, 184 voluntary lcarning 130 Vygotsky, L. 21 5

83

Wallace, M . 198 Waters, A . 141 Witltlo\vson, 11. 48, 58, 142 4 , 146 Wilkins, 0. 49, 21 1 Willis, 1). 48, 49-50, 68 \+ords 49-54 work-related needs 1 3 9 4 0 World Englishes paradigm 108 17 ‘would’ 5 1 writing: learning ncctls 141, 143; skills 185

Yaltlen, J . 57