RELC Journal · 40 Learner-Centred Curriculum Innovation : A Case Study David Nunan National Curriculum Resource Centre Australia 1. Introduction With over 120,000 enrolments, the

http://rel.sagepub.com

RELC Journal

DOI: 10.1177/003368828601700103 1986; 17; 40 RELC Journal

David Nunan Learner-Centred Curriculum Innovation : A Case Study

http://rel.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:RELC Journal Additional services and information for

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 1986 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at University of Hertfordshire on December 15, 2007 http://rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


40

Learner-Centred Curriculum Innovation : A Case Study

David Nunan National Curriculum Resource Centre

Australia

1. Introduction

With over 120,000 enrolments, the Adult Migrant EducationProgram (AMEP) is one of the largest single English language programsof its type in the world. The Program is planned, coordinated and fundedby the Education Branch of the Department of Immigration and EthnicAffairs.

For a number of years, the AMEP has had a philosophy based on aneeds-based, learner-centred view of language and learning. Like manyeducational institutions, the philosophy was not matched by the realityof what went on in the classroom. Administratively and pedagogically,most teaching reflected a subject-centred philosophy.

Recently, however, there has been an active attempt within theAMEP to bring rhetoric and classroom reality more into line, by activelypromoting the learner-centred philosophy, and by seeking practical waysin which it might be given effect. The change has been gradual (almostimperceptible, in some cases), and beset with problems, some of whichwill be discussed in the body of the paper.

This paper looks at the nature of learner-centred curriculum

development, and also at some of the problems which have been encoun-tered in trying to move towards the introduction of learner-centredcourses based on adult learning models.

2. The AMEP - What Is It?

2.1 I Adult

In the first instance, the AMEP is concerned with adults. Learningprovisions within the Program must therefore be based on principles ofadult learning. One of the central characteristics of adult learners is thatthey are generally more interested in developing skills for coping with lifetasks and achieving life goals than mastering a predetermined body ofknowledge. In designing language courses, it is therefore more importantto focus on the development of skills than on covering content.

Another characteristic of adults, is that they have had a great many



41

experiences, including learning experiences. These past experiences needto be respected and taken into consideration in planning languagecourses.

’

2.2 Migrant

In the second instance, the AMEP deals with migrants andrefugees. These individuals come to Australia from many differentcultures, backgrounds and situations. As such, they have a great manydifferent cognitive and affective needs which have to be catered for inany learning arrangement of which they are a part. Consideration needsto be given, not only to what the learner wants to learn, but also howhe/she wants to learn, the length, intensity and the location of the learningarrangement and so on.

2.3 3 Education

Use of the word ’education’ highlights the emphasis within theProgram on the development of English as a tool for achieving goalsbeyond language itself. The emphasis is very much on language for livingrather than language for its own sake. This orientation is evident in theformal objective of the Program:

The objective of the AMEP is to provide a range of English languagelearning opportunities for adult migrants from non-English speakingbackgrounds, with the aim of enabling them:- to gain sufficient English to function at a basic level in the

community,- to acquire the skills necessary to continue learning English

autonomously, and- to gain language skills sufficient to have access to education and

other mainstream services.

(AMEP 1984)

2.4 Program

The actual delivery of the Program is undertaken by a variety ofstate-based educational authorities, rather than a single administration.Within each state and territory an Adult Migrant Education Service hasbeen set up. In some states, the AMES is located within the Departmentof Technical and Further Education, while in others it is part of theDepartment of Education. In New South Wales, which is responsible forover one third of the total Program, the Head of the AMES reportsdirectly to the Minister of Education. Despite these diverse arrange-ments, the AMEP sees itself as a Program; a coherent and systematicarrangement, with a set of clearly articulated principles for the provisionof the educational needs of adult migrants in Australian society.



42

3. Learner-Centred Curriculum Design

3.1 I PhilosophyA learner-centred approach to curriculum design represents a parti-

cular philosophy of language teaching and learning. This is what mightbe called a ’specific proficiency’ as opposed to a ’general competence’view of second language development. The specific proficiency view seeslanguage learning as manifesting itself in specific skills. It suggests thatthe most fruitful way of fostering language development is throughassisting learners acquire specific skills in the language rather than tryingto build a curriculum around the rather nebulous and ill-defined conceptof ’generative competence’.

The ’specific proficiency’ view of language development is neatlysummarised in the following quote:

A proficiency oriented language curriculum is not one which sets outto teach learners linguistic or communicative competence, since theseare merely abstractions or idealisations : rather, it is organisedaround the particular kinds of communicative tasks the learners needto master and the skills and behaviours needed to accomplish them.The goal of a proficiency based curriculum is not to provideopportunities for the learners to &dquo;acquire&dquo; the target language : it isto enable learners to develop the skills needed to use language forspecific purposes.... Language itself is not the focus of the curri-culum but is viewed as one of the means needed to realise non-

linguistic goals.(Richards 1958 : 7-8)

3.2 A Learner-Centred Curriculum Model

There are a number of essential tasks which need to be carried outby the learner-centred curriculum designer. The process begins with aninitial analysis of learner needs. From this analysis broad course goalsare established. From these are derived specific learning objectives.Materials and activities to enable the learner to work towards achievingthe learning objectives are created or adapted from existing sources.Consideration needs to be given to the learning mode and environment.Is learning to take place in a traditional classroom setting or outside? Ifoutside, is this to be the home, the workplace, a hospital or communitycentre? Will the learning take place in a class, in small groups or in anindividualised mode? The final task for the curriculum designer is todecide on the evaluation techniques to be used to determine whether ornot the learning objectives have been achieved.

While these tasks can be partly carried out before a learning arrange-



43

ment begins, it is important for the curriculum and the teacher to be flexi-ble enough to modify and change the program after the course hasbegun. For example, while an initial needs analysis can establish thegeneral direction of the course, there is a need for informal monitoring toidentify changing needs and to identify the sorts of affective needsrelating to preferred methodology and learning style preferences whichare often very difficult to determine before a relationship has beenestablished between teacher and student. In the same way, evaluation isnot something which only happens at the end of a course, but should beongoing throughout the course.

3.2.1 Needs Analysis and Goal SettingNeeds analysis has generally been equated with the linguistic and

experiential content of a course (Munby 1978). While the identificationof relevant structures, functions, topics, notions, lexis and so on are obvi-ously important, they are by no means all that have to be considered. Atthe very least, a comprehensive needs analysis should answer the

following questions:What is the learner’s overall purpose in learning the language?What will be the linguistic content of the course?What will be the experiential content?What is the learner’s learning style and preferred learning strategy?How can these be reflected in the methology?What macro-skills will be emphasised?What should be the pace, length and intensity of the course?What is the learner’s preferred learning arrangement?How should the course be evaluated?

While most of these questions can be given some sort of an answerwithout reference to the student, this hardly reflects a learner-centredphilosophy. It is important, therefore, to involve the learner in thedecision making process through discussion and consultation. Wherenecessary this is to be carried out with bilingual support. The con-sultative process is also meant to be a learning process, assisting learnersdevelop a view of themselves as autonomous learners.

Answers to the above questions can be based on information rela-ting to biographical data about the learner. It can also be based oninformation about patterns of language use, language proficiency,learning style, life, educational and occupational goals, and previouslearning experiences.



44

In a classroom-based institution, information derived from an initialneeds analysis is used for grouping purposes. In the past, grouping wasalmost exclusively in terms of either language proficiency or macro-skillarea. Currently, there is a move towards more flexible grouping arrange-ments. Classes, or modules within classes can be constituted on manydifferent bases for example:1. First Language Background Bilingual Course for Indochinese2. Macro-skill Low Level Literacy3. Occupation (current) ESP for Motor Mechanics

4. Occupation (projected) English for Horticulture5. Special Need The Language of Childbirth6. Biodata Food, Nutrition and Diet: A Bi-

lingual Approach for Older Migrants7. Learning Strategies Learning How to Learn8. Educational Goal Pre-tertiary Study Skills

Having grouped learners, the next step is to derive course goals. Agoal is a broad statement about the general directions the course itselfwill take. The level of generality of course goals can be seen in thefollowing examples:

Understanding English grammar betterCommunicate with my children’s teacherUnderstand televisionTo improve learners’ pronunciationTo develop confidence in listening to authentic materialsTo improve knowledge of safety in the workplace

From the examples, it can be seen that goals can be couched ineither learner or teacher terms.

In most classes, there will be a need for some sort of negotiation toachieve consensus among learners on the most important goals. Aprocedure for carrying out this negotiation is suggested in Brindley 1984(pp. 115-119).

3.2.2 Objective SettingWhile broad course goals can often suffice for the day-to-day plan-

ning of learning activities, for evaluation, it is necessary to specify whatthe learner is to be able to do at the end of a course of instruction as

performance objectives. A formal performance objective has three parts:



45

1. A description of the learner’s performance which answers thequestion, &dquo;What should the learner be able to do after the learn-ing experience?&dquo;

’

2. A statement on conditions which answers the question &dquo;Whatare the circumstances under which the learner will be requiredto demonstrate the behaviour?&dquo;

3. An indication of the standards required. This answers the

question &dquo;How well should the learner perform?&dquo;

An example of a formal three-part objective is as follows:

&dquo;The learner will identify key words in a recorded message(performance); the message, spoken at normal speed, to be heardonly once (conditions); all words to be identified (standards).

Gronlund (1981) suggests that performance objectives will help ateacher to strike the correct balance in developing a course. He statesthat:

All too frequently, little attention is paid to determining preciselyand specifically what type of pupil performance is desired at the endof an instructional sequence. As a result, one or two extremesituations typically exist. In the one case, intended outcomes arelimited to the learning of material covered in a textbook and teachingand evaluation procedures are primarily concerned with the retentionof textbook content. At the other extreme, overly ambitious goalsare set for a course - goals so general and so idealistic that they areimpossible either to achieve or evaluate. The reason these twosituations are so common is probably because the task of clearlydefining instructional objectives appears gargantuan and thereforeoverwhelming. It need not be, despite some admitted complexities.Furthermore, rewards in terms of more effective teaching, learningand evaluation are great. (p. 29)

A frequent criticism of the objective approach is that any givencourse could spawn many more objectives than the classroom teacher hastime to prepare. One way of overcoming this, is to keep objectivesrelatively content free, and, to use objective/content grids in which theobjectives are kept fairly general, and the standards and conditions arelisted separately. (For a detailed description of the development and useof such grids, see Nunan, 1985). While such a grid is extremely useful forcourse planning purposes, it is still desirable to derive a sample numberof specific objectives for course evaluation.

3.2.3 Materials Activities and Learning Arrangements

Having established the objectives of the course, the teacher is in a



46

position to select, create or adapt from existing sources, materials andactivities most likely to lead to the objectives being achieved. In an idealsystem, materials would be tailor-made anew for each course. However,it is unrealistic to expect teachers to go through this process for eachcourse they mount. In reality teaching centres are discovering areas ofrecurring need and are able to predict and plan ahead to a certain extent.

The other curriculum decision that needs to be made relates to thestudents’ preferred learning modes and the degree to which it is possibleto cater to a variety of needs. With the development of self-access andindividualised learning centres, it is becoming more and more possible todevelop and promote flexible learning arrangements.

3.2.4 Evaluation

The final phase of the curriculum development process is theevaluation. In the past, this phase has all too often been omitted. It is,however, a necessary component in any curriculum plan. It is particularlyimportant in a needs-based, learner-centred program which is directedtowards the achievement of specific goals and objectives.

With its emphasis on self-direction and the development of learnerautonomy, the AMEP has stressed the importance of encouragingstudent self-evaluation through self-assessment checklists and the like.

It is when one comes to planning the evaluation phase of a programthat the advantages of setting specific performance objectives becomesapparent. By specifying types of performance, conditions and standardsfor students one is making explicit the sorts of observable behaviourstudents should be able to exhibit at the end of a course. Students caneither be required to demonstrate mastery of a sample of the objectives,or the teacher can make assessments based on observation. Alternatively,students can simply be given a list of objectives (translated into the homelanguage for low level learners) and asked to assess whether they couldperform the objectives to the specified standards and under the specifiedconditions if so required.

There are many different techniques available which teachers mayemploy if they so desire. Some of the methods and istruments used in theAMEP include proficiency rating scales, dictation and close tests,performance based rating scales, discrete point tests, counsellinginterviews, standardised self-assessment profiles, self reports, teacherconstructed tests, questionnaires, group discussions, course reports, andanalysis of tape and video-recordings. (Language Assessment Working



47

Party, 1984). These vary from formal, standardised tests to informalassessments. As with on-going needs analysis, informal evaluation

techniques should be employed throughout a course and will probablyprove to be more valuable than formal measures from the viewpoint ofthe classroom teacher.

As a result of the Language Assessment Working Party, the AMEPestablished a project to document current course reporting practiceswithin the program, and to make recommendations for systematicteacher-based evaluation.

4. Problems

The above description, along with the techniques described,represents an idealisation. Although the move towards the implementa-tion of learner-centred curricula is in its infancy, a great many problemshave already arisen. Changing the direction of any social institutioncreates confusion and uncertainty and educational institutions are noexception.

4.1 I Lack of Expertise

Perhaps the single greatest problem has been lack of expertise at alllevels. With no other language projects of a similar size and scope to actas a model, the AMEP experiment is characterised by improvisation.Administrators and teachers have been learning as they go along.

While there are no learner-centred language programs of the size,scope and complexity as that administered by the AMEP, there areexamples of large scale curriculum innovation in other areas ofeducation. There is also a great deal of information about processes ofcurriculum change, and the monitoring and evaluation of developmentsin program planning and implementation.

One major criticism which could be levelled at the Program is thefact that there has, as yet, been no systematic attempt to monitor andevaluate the changing nature of the curriculum, or to make any realisticassessment of the effects of policy implementation at the classroom level.This is a matter which needs to be addressed.

4.2 Demands on Teaching Staff

From the description of the learner-centred curriculum processdescribed in Section 3, it should be obvious that much greater demandsare placed on teachers than is the case in an institution adhering to asubject-centred philosophy. In addition to the skills required to be a



48

competent classroom practitioner, teachers need highly developed skillsin needs-assessment, counselling, objective setting and evaluation. Theyhave to be flexible enough to teach in a variety of different modes andenvironments. Apart from mainstream classroom teaching, they may berequired to teach in individualised learning centres, self-access centres, adistance learning mode or in an industrial setting.

4.3 Lack of Administrative Support

Despite stated AMEP policy, many of the administrative arrange-ments within state AMES Centres are still based on a subject-centredview of language and learning. Staff:student ratios, the definition ofteaching, facilities and accomodation still assume that the only learningarrangement will be the traditional classroom.

In a needs-based, learner-centred system, individual counselling byteachers is essential. The counselling is of a particular kind, designed,among other things, to find out what and how the learner wants to learn.In some states, however, teachers are officially precluded from carryingout counselling functions.

4.4 Lack of Materials

A needs-based system is characterised by variety and flexibility oflearning arrangements. Such learning arrangements require appropriatematerials. At present such materials are inadequate.

While the need for appropriate materials has been recognised, andsteps are being taken to remedy the current lack (these are described inSection 5). It is important, however, to develop materials within anoverall curriculum model which gives adequate consideration to needs,objectives and evaluation.

4.5 Rhetoric and RealityIn Section 2, an idealised description of the various elements in a

learner-centred curriculum model is presented. Given the problems andconstraints just described, the reality is quite a distance from therhetoric. In this section, the gap between the ideal and what is actuallyhappening at the teaching level is described.

In terms of needs analysis, in an ideal system, the teaching teamwithin each AMES Centre would conduct initial needs analysis usingappropriate bilingual and counselling resources where necessary.Information would be gathered on such things as biodata, macro-skillneeds, linguistic needs, preferred methodology, learning styles, preferred



49

learning arrangement, pace of learning, degree of skill required andpreferred method of evaluation. The team would have adequateresources, including appropriately trained bilingual support andinformation collection procedures. The information collected would beused for making decisions on how the learners are to be grouped.

In reality, there are inadequate resources for needs assessment, andteachers are very often inadequately trained for the tasks involved. Datacollection is weighted very heavily towards the collection of biographicalinformation. Those data which are collected are all too often ignored inthe planning of courses and grouping of students because administrativearrangements do not allow them to be taken into consideration. In smallcentres, it is often claimed that low student numbers prevent classes beingconstituted on bases other than language proficiency.

In an ideal system, goals would be set according to the objectiveand subjective needs of the learners. In classroom learning arrange-ments, the teachers will negotiate with the group to prioritise goals. Indi-vidual students whose personal goals differ markedly from the group willbe offered alternative learning options.

Because inadequate time is allowed for planning courses and nego-tiating with students, teachers tend to decide on course goals in advance.Sometimes content and methodology are calculated to suit the needs andinterests of the teacher or the system.

Ideally, in setting objectives, the teacher will consult the learner,and provide clearly specified objectives which fulfill performance,standards and conditions criteria, and which are directly linked to coursegoals.

In reality, objectives, if they are formulated at all, are generallycouched in terms of what the teacher hopes to cover rather than in termsof what the learner should be able to do. Learners are rarely involved inobjective setting, and it is uncommon for them to be given a clearindication of what they should be able to do at the end of the course.Intuition and past experience dictate what many teachers do from day today. Lack of time is most usually cited as the reason for not developingclearly specified objectives.

In terms of materials, in an ideal system, teachers would developtheir own materials from a variety of sources to achieve courseobjectives. Materials and learning activities would take learners beyondthe classroom and show them how to exploit community resources forlanguage learning purposes.



50

In reality, teachers have neither the time nor the resources (nor,often, the specialised skills) needed for materials development. Theymust therefore look to published sources. These are often quite unsuitablefor use within the Adult Migrant Education Program, reflecting neitherthe policy nor philosophy of the Program.

Learning arrangements in an ideal system would range from wholeclass to small group to individualised study. It would be possible forlearners to choose combinations of mode, along with courses of varyinglengths and intensity to suit both their own preferences and their majorlearning goals.

In reality, the lack of suitable administrative arrangements, alongwith generally high teacher:student ratios, has resulted in the

perpetuation of the ’four walls’ syndrome in which virtually all teachingoccurs in the classroom with set groups. Administrative inflexibilityalong with a lack of suitable materials usually precludes the developmentof more flexible arrangements. Even in those centres where self-accesscentres have been established, students, more often than not, followcourses and materials which were designed to be used in a teacherdirected classroom.

In an ideal system, evaluation and assessment would be carried outconstantly at a variety of levels, from whole-centre and programevaluation to the assessment of individual students. Student assessmentwould be in terms of the achievement of specific learning outcomes. Self-assessment would also be a priority.

The reality is that systematic evaluation is a rarity within the Pro-gram. In many courses, there is little evidence available to the learners oranybody else that course goals have been met.

It should be obvious from the description of the processes involvedthat the introduction of a needs-based, learner-centred philosophy makesmany more demands on the teacher than a system-centred curriculum.As well as being a classroom practitioner, the teacher also needs to be acurriculum designer, with skills in needs analysis, objective setting,materials development, and evaluation. Many of the problems identifiedin the previous section derive from lack of teacher support and expertise.

In recognition of this, the AMEP has taken steps to provide teacherswith support services to assist them in developing needs-based curriculain the form of the National Curriculum Resource Centre.



51

5. Conclusion

In a recent publication, Candlin (1984) declares:

The objectives of curriculum innovation in public educational

systems ... can only be attained where there is a realisation by allkey parties that these objectives are as far as possible to be

concurrently pursued in a climate of participation and collectiveresponsibility.... The road to curriculum innovation is littered bythe wrecks of plans for which no shared responsibility existed and forwhich there were no agreed procedures for implementation andevaluation. (p. 153)

In the case of the experiment described in this paper, it is being rea-lised that a systematic approach is crucial, if adequate practical solutionsare to be found to the problems which stand in the way of the effectiveimplementation of learner-centred curricula.

References

AMEP. 1984. Adult Migrant Education Program Handbook. Canberra:DIEA.

Candlin, C. 1984. Applying a systems approach to curriculum innova-tion in the public sector. In John A.S. Read (ed) Trends in LanguageSyllabus Design. Singapore : SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Brindley, G. 1984. Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the AdultMigrant Education Program. Sydney: N.S.W. Adult MigrantEducation Program.

Gronlund, N. 1981. Measurement and Evaluation in Education NewYork: MacMillan.

Language Assessment Working Party. 1981. Towards a ProposedFramework for Evaluation. Canberra : DIEA.

Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1985. Using Objective Grids in Planning Language Courses.Prospect, 1, 2.

Richards, J. 1985. Planning for Proficiency. Paper presented to theCATESOL Convention, San Diego, California, April 19-21, 1985.



Documents

RELC Journal · 40 Learner-Centred Curriculum Innovation : A Case Study David Nunan National Curriculum Resource Centre Australia 1. Introduction With over 120,000 enrolments, the