Innovation in English Language Teaching
‘This v o l u m c brings to the fore divcrsc, f u n d a m c n t a l issucs a b o u t thc processes a n d politics of c u r r i c u l u m c h a n g e and i m p r o v e m e n t , new t e c h n o l o g i e s , a n d concepts of
language use, c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d i n s t r u c t i o n vital to g u i d i n g the organization a n d practiccs of teaching English internationally.’ Alister Cumming, Ontario lnstitritqfbr Studies in Education, Ilniversiq, $Toronto

Teaching English Language Worldwide
A sclcction o f r e a d e r s ’ 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 S t t i d i e s 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 mill give any person interested in the suhjcct an over\ ic\z of the phenomenon of thc usc antl usage of English in the modern nurltl. Perhaps morc importantly, this series \vi11 be crucial to thosc studcnts \z ho do not h a w available t o 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 oftducation Orpnisution, Regionul Lungiiule Centre,

‘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, / n y t i r r i t e f E d u c u t i o n , 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.’ G u y 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. A t 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 t o 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 M A in Education is designed particularly for those with experience in teaching, educational administration or allied fields. The M A is a modular degree and students are free t o 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 M A in Education (Applied Linguistics) entitles students t o apply for entry t o 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 t o the Course Reservations and Sales Centre, The Open University, PO Box 724, Walton Hall, Milton I<eynes M1<7 bZW, or e-mail, or telephone +44 ( 0 ) 01908 653231 or visit the website<. For more information on the M A in Education (Applied Linguistics), visit

Macquarie University introduced distance versions of its influential on-campus degrees in 1 9 9 4 and now has students in over thirty 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 or by writing t o the Linguistics Postgraduate Office, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia tel.: + 6 1 2 9850 9243; fax + 6 1 2 9850 9352; e-mail:

I n n o v a t i o n i n E n g l i s h 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 from different parts of the Englishspealcing 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; Martin Hewings; Adrian Holliday; Gary M. Jones; Clarice Lamb; Joan Lesikin; Defeng Li; Numa Markee; Michael McCarthy; David Nunan; Pauline Rea-Dickins; Zakia Sarwar; William 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


Theopen University


London and New York in association with Macquarie University and The Open University

mechanical or other means. cm. English language-Study and teaching. 1. 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. Jacaranda Lodge. Wolverhampton Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd. Ann. without permission in writing from the publishers.007 -dc21 ISBN 0-415-24123-5 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-24124-3 (pbk) 00-059194 . Ron and Anne Hall Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street. . including photocopying and recording. New York.A2 I 5 4 2000 428'. individual articles 0their authors Typeset in Perpetua and Bell Gothic by I<eystroke. or in any information storage or retrieval system. PE1128. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic.Foreign speakers.(Teaching English language worldwide) Includes bibliographical references and index. Hewings.Hall. now known or hereafter invented. Cornwall All rights reserved. 111. 194711. Padstow. p. Series. David. NY 1 0 0 0 1 Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group 0 2001 Compilation. original and editorial material Macquarie University and The Open University. I.FOV my parents.

H a l l a n d A n n H e w i n g s INTRODUCTION 1 P A R T ONE Directions i n c u r r i c u l u m change Michael P. Candlin 1 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 IN LANGUAGE TEACHING 9 David Nunan and Clarice Lamb 2 MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 27 Michael Lewis 3 LEXlS I N THE SYLLABUS 46 Michael McCarthy and Ronald Carter 4 DESIGNING THE DISCOURSE SYLLABUS 55 Guy Cook 5 T H E USES OF C O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E CORPORA A R E P L Y TO R O N A L D C A R T E R 64 Ann Hewings and M a r t i n Hewings 6 APPROACHES TO T H E S T U D Y IN ACADEMIC WRITING: DESIGN OF DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR S Y L L A B U S 71 . Breen and Christopher N.Contents List o f illustrations Acknowledgements X xii D a v i d R.


D i c k i n s a n d I<evin G e r m a i n e 20 P U R P O S E S FOR E V A L U A T I O N 253 David R. Carless 2 1 A C A S E 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 IKONG 263 Joan Lesikin 22 DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE: A METHODOLOGY FOR 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 Index 284 . H a l l 18 MATERIALS PRODUCTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE 229 Simon Sergeant 19 CALL INNOVATION I N THE ELT CURRICULUM 240 P A R T 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 .CONTENTS ix Susan Feez 17 CURRICULUM EVOLUTION I N THE AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 208 David R.

1 17.4 18.Illustrations Figures 1.1 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’.3 17.3 12.1 18.1 2.1 11.1 16.2 14.1 10.1 2.2 14.2 19.3 Learner roles in a learner-centered curriculum Learner-centeredness in the experiential content domain Learner-centeredness in the learning process domain 28 30 30 .1 2.‘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 10 37 41 44 101 122 131 132 133 139 147 170 171 172 175 187 198 217 218 219 223 234 235 244 Tables 2.3 14.2 17.2 2.1 17.2 11.1 14.1 12.3 8.4 15.1 11.2 2.

5 2.1 6.5 21.8 2.4 2.9 6.1 8.1 12.4 16.3 16.1 22.ILLUSTRATIONS xi 2.1 16.1 15.2 22.2 12.1 12.2 8.3 12. and areas Approaches t o 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 Writing 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 .6 2.1 16.1 22.7 2.2 9.3 22. procedures.2 16.4 13.4 Changing views on the nature of language and learning Curriculum decision-making in high-structure and low-structure contexts I<ey curriculum questions.

1. 1980. Jacohs (e&) Getting Started: Materialr Writers on Materials Writing. 17: 2 4 . Hall antl G.Ac I< now Ie d ge me nt 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.M. Jones and Multilingual Matters for ‘Bilingual education and syllabus design: towards a workable lilucprint’ in journal of’Multilingual and Multiculttiral Devclopment.Tlourna1 and Oxford University Prcss.Vol. 26. Adrian Holliday for ‘Achieving cultural continuity in curriculum innovation’ in C. Reprintctl by permission of Oxford University l’ress. 1998. Kennedy (cd. for ‘A framework of course development processes’ in K . 12: 1 . with pcrmission from Elsevier Science. Guy Cook for ‘The uses ofrcality: a reply to Ronald Cartcr’ in ELT. David Hall antl SEAMEO Regional Language Centre for ‘Material production: theory and practice’ in A. David Carless for ‘A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong’. Reprinted from System. 1997. Brccn and Christopher N. . Joan Lesikin antl College ESL for ‘Dctermining social prominen a methodology for uncovering gcndcr bias in ESL textbooks’ in Colle‘qe ESL.Vol. Kevin Germaine and Pauline Rca-Dickins for ‘Purposes for cvaluation’ . D. Ronald Carter antl Michael McCarthp for matcrial from Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching ( Longman Group U K Limited 1990.) Innovation and Best Practice (l’carson Education Limited 1999). Cantllin for ‘The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching’ in Applied Linguistics./ourna/. Rcproducetl by permission of Oxford Univcrsity Press from Erulriution by Pauline Kca-Dickins and Kevin Germainc (Oxford University I’ress 1992 . Reprinted by permission of Pcarson Education Limited. Ronald Carter and Taylor & Francis Iiooks Ltd f‘or ‘Politics and knowledge about language’ in fnvestigating English Discourse. 52. 1998.) Kathleen Graves and Cambridge Univcrsity 1 3 . 1998. 1996. Reprintctl by permission o f EI. 1995. Michael P.8. Graves (cd. No. 1 . 1993.Vol.) Rcprintcd by pcrmission o f I’earson Education Limited. Gary M.) Ecichers us Course Developers.C. No. Hidalgo. Vol.Vol. 1996.

Critical readers Professor Vijay K. 1993. UK) Professor Leo van Lier (Educational Linguistics. 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. 1998. They would \celcomc correspondence from individuals or companics thcy have bccn unable to trace. David Nunan for ‘Action research in language education’ in J. 1993. University of Montcrey. as kvell as colleagues within and outsidcThe Open University and Macquaric University \Tho gave advice on the contents. No. USA) . 20. this has not been possil. 1984. 1998. 1996. 12iverpool University. Frances Wilson and the staff of the Rc-source Centrc of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. 1992 with permission from Elsevier Science.T and a Way Forward. reproduced by permission of The Department of Education. 1 990. Special thanks are due to the following people for thcir assistance in the production of this book: Helen Boyce (course manager) Freda Barnfield. 2 . Zakia Shanvar and English Teaching Forum for ‘Adapting intlividualisation techniques for ’ in English Teaching Forum. a n p a g e Euching. I long Kong) Gcoff Thompson (Applied English Language Studies Unit. Kennedy. David Nunan. Reprinted by permission of Macmillan Press Ltd. April 1 99 1 . South Australian Education Department. Edge and K. William Savage and Graeme Storer for ‘An emergent language program framework: actively involving learners in needs analysis’ reprinted from $stem. Kcprinted 11: pcrmission of Macmillan Press Ltd. No. Pam Burns and Libby 13rill (course secretaries) Liz Freeman (Copublishing) Nanette Ileynolds. Krindley Needsilnalysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Mi‘qrant Program. Macquarie University. Includes material from table: ‘Three altcrnative ways of grouping learners’ from E S L Curriculum Guidelines. Clarice Lamb.A C I< N 0 W L E D G E M ENTS x i ii Michael Lewis and LanguageTeaching Publications (LTP) for ‘Lcxis in the syllabus’ in The Lexical Approach:The State of E1. Lloylc and C. Learning S v l e s In Adult Migrant in every case. Goh (cds) Exploring Change in English Language Teaching. 4. 1’ .inguistics. Richards (eds) Teachers Develop Teacher Research Papers on Classroom Research and Teacher Derdopment. 1993. Simon Sergeant for ‘CALL innovation in the ELT curriculum’ in C. 1999. 3 2 . Includes material from table: ‘Three alternative ways of grouping learners’ from K . reproduced hy permission of NSW Adult Migrant Education Scrvice. and Cambridge University Prrss for material from The Se!fl Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Wc \vould likc to thank thc authors who contributed thcir chapters. Numa Markee and Cambridge University Press for ‘The diffusion model of innovation in language teaching’ in Annual Review $Applied /. Willing. While the publishers and editors have made every effort to contact authors and copyright holders of lvorks reprinted in Innovation in English / . Training and Employment (SA).Vol. City University. Vol. Rhatia (L)ept of English. 1 3. Includes table: ‘Types of information required in a lcarner-ccntered system’ from G. reproduced by permission of N CE LTR .

Nottingham Unil ersity. W h r r e wc have had to shorten original material substantially. these chapters arc markcd as adapted. Individual refcrcncing styles have been retained as in the original texts. Ellipses within square brackets indicate where text has bcen omitted from thc original. UK) Developmental testers Ilona C7iraky (Italy) Eladyr Maria Norhcrto da Sil\a ( B r a d ) 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.x iv 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. givcn the inevitable restrictions of space and the nccd to produce a cohcrcnt and readablc collection for rcaders worldwide. .

and The Open University in the UK decided to collaborate on the tlevelopment of new curriculum materials for study at Masters level. and all three terms in this noun phrase are important. but parents. ‘syllabus’ and ‘programmc’ (or ‘program’) arc cvidence that prrcise definitions of these terms are hard to pin down. ‘Directions in curriculum change’.The collection of essays in this book antl the two companion volumes is a result of that collaboration. they stand alone as extensive yct focused collections of essays which address key contemporary issues in English language teaching antl applicd linguistics. The chapters in this volume address issues relating to curriculum change in context. the press. The first part. teacher-trainers. Hence. antl s o on. the partnership brought together the considerable experience and expertise of the two universities in open antl distance learning. as far as possible across the three volumes. H a l l and A n n 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 . They examinc the role o have an intcrcst in what goes on in the and influence of all the stakeholders ~ h might language classroom: not just language teachers and students. raises somc issues underlying . lve have attemptcd to highlight debate. While the edited collections have been designed as one part of an overall study programme. the local community. A major concern in editing these three volumes has been thc desire to prrscnt English language teaching (ELI‘) in a variety of specific institutional.Introduction D a v i d R . politicians. covering all the issues rclating to the planning. Here.Thc different usages in the literaturc of words such as ‘curriculum’. including those where English i s not learnt as a first language. and you will notice diffcrcnt meanings attached to thc tcrminology by different authors in this volume. In doing this we recognise that English language teaching comprises a global community of teachers antl lcarncrs in a range of social contexts. they look at the choices that have to be made ivithin institutional o r cultural constraints when designing curricula and evaluating their success. wc intend the tcrm ‘language curriculum’ in its widest sense. The titles of all four parts of the volume contain the word ‘curriculum’. Australia. geographical and cultural contexts. implemcntation and evaluation of a scrics o f languagclearning events conceived as a coherent whole n i t h a specified purpose. applicd linguistics and language cducation. The cssays deal with the tliffcrc-nt ways in which actual classroom practices change. discussion and illustration of current issues from diffcrcnt parts of the Englishspeaking and English-using world. In some cases the words are differentiated Tvhilc in others they are used almost interchangcahly. whether at an individual o r a system 1 Rccognising that languagc teaching docs not take place in a ncutral o r value-free environment.

Although the \vord ‘task’ is overused in many published textbooks to the extent that it is often little more than a synonjm for ‘exercise’. content and form still constitute a major sitc of struggle hvithin language curriculum tievclopment. to cover all the different ways of specifying a curriculum. This struggle untlerlics much of’ the argument between the Cook essay and that by McCarthy and Carter.and c. I h c n (1 984: 5 3) claims for CLT that its ‘grcatcr concern lvith capacity for communication rather than repertoire of communication. l‘hc observing. context. antl about process writing as opposed to the teaching of scntcnce-grammar. Its influence is such. with the acti\ ity of learning a language itself. All of the authors of essays in part 1 ~ .Thcrc are parallels here with argumcnts that have been used about \vholc-w ord teaching of rcading as opposed to phonics-hased methods. hypothesising and experimenting are all being undertaken by the learner in actually using the target language. some of its underlying principles and practices have lieen contested o r reinterpreted. so gaining conlitlencc antl cxpcricncc in using the target language.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.Thc first chapter liy Breen and Candlin. This docs not attempt. of course. The emphasis is on the learner.omnlunic. o u l d doubt place themselves in the communicative tradition. introduced t o p . The essays by Nunan antl Lamb a n d 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. howwer. although the focus o n the process of learning rather than just the product is consistent with a much older tradition in gencral education. 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. the proponents of‘a task-based syllabus have something more specific in mind. tlespitc frequent talk in the no literature of the ‘communicative method’. covering work done at Lancastcr Univu-sity on communicative language teaching ( C I S ) .Thc differing roles assigned to process. spelling and punctuation.2 DAVID R. as \vi11 be seen in later chapters in this volume. \vas extremely influential in bringing this \-iew into language teaching. antl the teacher’s role changes from ‘presenter’to something more like ‘collaborator’ or ‘facilitator’. although some have seen CLT as a methodology that rejects the teaching of formal aspects of the language altogcthcr. As the name of CLT has hccn invoked as a justification for a process of change taking place in speci tic geographical. and with a focus upon means rather than prctlctcrminctl objectives. all indicate priority of process ovcr content’. and this means that learners’ interaction with texts must take . 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 now argue Lvith that content and classroom practice must be curriculum design ~ o u l d considered togethcr: a curriculum is not simply a list of items t o be taught. and although it i s certainly possible to tlcvisc. cultural and temporal contexts.ation-frcc ‘tasks’ in this sense.l’hc links to Lewis’s proposal to replace thc traditional Prescnt~Practisc~Protlucc teaching procedurc with Ohserve-Ilypothcsisc~Expcrimentarc clear. We cmphasisc that this docs not say ‘process to the exclusion o f content’. HALL AND ANN HEWINGS curriculum design by examining the theoretical underpinnings of a number of reccnt approaches. product. McCarthy antl Carter argue that the curriculum must take account of variation and of context. CLT is not a nionolithic packaged set of procedures. 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. that anyone putting forward an alternative paradigm has to detinc it in relation to CLI’.

The capacity of computers to store large and spccialised corpora of languagt. To an extent. that thc processes of learning antl traching are not coincident with the records of language behaviour evidenced through corpora. whatcvcr we may think of the Cook argumcnt. Particularly when applied to the teaching of English for Specific Purposes. West’s General Servicc List of English Words. Savage and Storer. Language. etc. context. an argument that dates hack many ycars (see. This development has already hatl an influence on tieltls such as lexicography. 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. space. All but one of thc seven chapters in part 2 deal \vith attcmpts to change curricula in spccific contcxts. and the essay h y Cartcr which opens part 2 gives some indication of why it is not. forensic linguistics. In fact. English for academic purposes and curriculum antl syllabus design. Even at a local bel. they underline differences in lexical patterns. purpose. liascd on kvord counts. N o linguist \voulcl dispute the ubiquity and importance of language variation over time. \vith increasing Ic\-cls of research being undertaken around thc world (see. Have the innovations discusscd by Carter. 19YY). Further dcvelopmcnts in thcsc areas may scrve to inform and/or challcnge both learners and teachers in the futurc. 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. beginning to rcvolutionisc the way we see language. as a failure or a success. for example. The essay by Hewings and Hc\vings. Sarwar. As might hc expected from an examination of Markee’s categorics and criteria. The approaches takcn by Hewings and Hclvings and by McCarthy and Carter are illustrative of these last two. at present. Cook argues that language teaching should not br a slave to language description. The argumcnt comcs back. is a particularly emotional issur. lor example. 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.INTRODUCTION 3 account of the ‘dynamism inherent in linguistic contexts’. Where corpora are sufficiently spccialised.The cxccption is the cssay by Markce. thcy may he seen as advocating teaching programmes based o n quantitative data. the essays in Candlin and FIvlantl. word meanings. He dcals with issues such as: A t \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. this is an area which is attracting growing attention. Brown. Jones. large collections of actual texts stored on computer and accessible for quantifiable linguistic analysis. and cui-riculum developers tamper with ‘the hvay things have always been donc around herc’ at their o\vn risk. then. as many times before in the history of language pedagogy. dcals with the variation in language use betwccn academic disciplines. and Li actually hatl any lasting effect? Iiave. as an intimate component of individual and national identity. The incorporation of variation into language curricula is not. for example. which prcsents a framchvork for thc introduction of innovations. which ends part 1 antl provides a link with the first chapter of part 2 . The understanding of the dynamism of language and contextual variation is reinforced in McCarthy and Carter’s own work on language corpora. all of the essays in part 2 deal in one way or another with the political and institutional constraints in curriculum development. none of the projects reported could be judged uncquivocallq. to the role played liy formal language description in helping teachers to teach and learners to learn. Carter’s ideas set o u 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 . a midesprcatl practice. and first published in 1936). as it is actually used is.

as \vc see again antl again in these essays. 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. thcrc arr complex antl sometimes contradictory arguments involved here. Holliday presents a rather differcnt and For Holliday. Hall tlc ribes four tliffercnt curriculumdevelopment projects antl examines thrm in thc light of their capacity for helping the learners to learn.Thc relationships lxtwccn different stakeholtlers between donors and recipients. adopted or rejectcd a communicative approach? These would be interesting questions to follow up. teachers at all levcls have been involvctl in thc various reformulations o f the curriculum. While Holliday assumes a top-clown model (Lvhich he attacks). or transferred what she was doing to the mainstream. for example. official curriculum? Have the needs analysis procedures of Savagc and Storer been extended to other contexts? And have Defeng Li’s Korean teachers adapted. for cxamplc. with those advocating learner-ccntredncss strongly disputing this understanding oftheir approach (see. insiders antl outsiders. the chapters by Graves and liy Nunan 110th look at ways in which innovation can be instigatctl by the teachcr o r by teachers and others working togethcr. then. Although systcmic innovation necessarily in\ olvcs some form of imposition. in which Sergeant analyses the various uses made of computcrs in the language classroom and the motivations attachetl to those uses. continucs the theme of curriculum development in its social and institutional context. cxpcrts antl novicrs arc dclicatc antl involve many more issues than how to tcach language. it will be seen that through consultation and Lrorkshops. and that both need to involve or at least take into consideration all of the stakeholders. Storer and Savage. with both sides claiming to hold the moral high ground. This separation of superficial versus embeddcd.They also raise the question of whether change is always desirable.4 DAVID R. not just CALL. ‘learner-centredncss’ has become provocative view of learner~centrcdness. Savagc. 1999. 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. particularly in cases where successful models from one context arc imported into new contexts. change versus innovation is applicablc to all areas of the curriculum.This teachcr-centred interprctation of learner-centredness is a highly contentious position. however. which is embedded in the curriculum and encourages new ways of teaching and lrarning. Part 3 examines both the planning and the implementation of curriculum change. 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. teachers and learners. but it is clear that the processes involved are circular rather than linear. native and non-native speakers. policy-makers antl practitioners. antl ‘innovation’ using CALL. In the first essay in part 3. This part. All the essays in this part examine the ways in which change is brought about. 1997). 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. for furthrr extensions of their own work) and incrcasingly through internet discussion lists. H A L L AND ANN HEWINGS 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.Thc chapters Iiy Sarwar and Savagc antl Storer in part 2 hoth deal with the introduction o f autonomous approaches. Clcarly. Many curriculum dcvelopment tcxtbooks treat these two aspects separately. and sometimes they can lie pursued through publications in journals (see. 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. ~ .

Oxford: British Council and Pcrgamon Press. In the longer term. System. They make the link between theory and the actual circumstances in which language learning takes place or fails to take place. and Practices. M. and Savage. W. Lesikin’s procedures are \-cry much in thc tradition of critical discourse analysis. His case-study approach. ELT Documents I 18. 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. this section looks in some detail at different kinds of evaluative processes. G. it may not yet havc the academic cachet of quantitative and controllcd research methods. Rea-Dickins and Germainc. Storer. In B.) General English Syllabus Design: Crirriculum and Syllabus Design-for the General English Classroom. Savagc (cds) Language and Development. P. Brumfit (ed. The essays in this collection are designed as a source of thought-provoking ideas for all students of language teaching. Kenny and W. and Hyland. Harlow: 1. Candlin. ‘Language and development’. involving what is sometimes called a ‘thick’ description. The final chapter. 27. it may tie that these stories will constitute the most \-aluablc resource for the teacher and curriculum dewloper. 1984. Harlow: Longman. provide an overview of the different purposes for which evaluation is conducted. References Breen. 283-325. and may not he able to uphold claims to generalisability in the same way as quantitative methods do. teacher-trainers. it provides a series of conccptual frameworks within which such a quest can be undertaken. ‘Extending an emergent frarnc\vork to other contexts’. but it can rcveal much more about why ideas that seem fine in theory work rather differently. W. Using the tools of systemic-functional grammatical analysis shc uncovers systematic gender bias in a published textbook. . in answer to the question of why we might need to evaluate at all.ongman. if at all. Instcad. 1999. As a rcsearch methodology. and it is clear that they could be uspd in contexts other than that outlined here. N. Savage. Writing: E m . K . 3: 421-5. in real life. 1997. provides a framework for evaluating and analysing language-teaching materials. C. in C. curriculum d e d o p e r s and educational administrators. turns a microscope on onc specific cvent in one specific context. by Lcsikin. language teachers. and has no predetermined answers to the problem of finding appropriate ways of putting together language curricula s o that lcarners can learn.INTRODUCTION 5 Part 4 focuscs on evaluating curriculum change. placing this as an integral component of the planning and implementation cycle. (eds) 1999.Procecses. ‘Proccss syllabuses for the language classroom’. While evaluation is an essential element underpinning all the essays in the volumc. The kind of evaluation exemplified in the Carlcss essay is one of a growing number of research projects using qualitative methods. This volumc is not a handbook. as more and more small-scale context-cmtieddcd research projects are reported.


PART ONE Directions in curriculum change .


Breen and Christopher N. and (3) thc initial contributions which learners may bring to the curriculum. 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. 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. ’ . In taking purposes. (2) thc underlying demands on the learner that such a purposc may imply. I t also proposes a set of principles on \vhich particular curriculum designs can be based for implemcntation in particular situations and circumstances. therefore. antl (6) thc role of content within the teaching antl karning. 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 CURRICULUM I N LANGUAGE TEACHING Introduction A 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 to give adequate attention to language use as well as language form. What follows is a consitleration of those minimal requirements on communicative language learning and teaching which. ( 5 ) thc roles of teacher and learncrs. 1 summarises the main areas with w. Figure 1 . the methodology which will be the means towards the achievcment of those purposcs.hich this chapter \vi11 dcal. in our view.Chapter 1 Michael P. in fact. char-actcrised hy intcrtlependcnce and overlap among the components. various ‘notionalfunctional’ or so-called ‘communicative approaches’ to language teaching are lxing advocatcd. must now he taken into account in curriculum design and implcmcntation. methodology. This chapter presents the potential charactcristics of communicative languagc teaching in terms of such a curriculum framework. In discussing the potential methodology of a communicative curriculum. In this context. wc ask readcrs to bcar in mind the actual interdependence between them. we will consider ( 1 ) communication as a general purpow. the present paper is offered as a sct of proposals in an effort to dcfine the nature of communicative language tcaching. antl evaluation in turn. any statement almut the components of the curriculum runs thc risk of pi-csenting in linear form a framettsork which is. \ye \vi11 consider (4) thc proccss of teaching and learning. antl thc evaluation procedurcs \vhich will assess the appropriatencss o f the initial purpo and the ell’cctiveness of the methodology. In discussing the purposes of language teaching.

and such potential meanings are expressed through antl tlerivctl from the formal system of text during the process of communication . B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R THE CURRICULUM 1 Communication \ / The classroom process Teacher / learnei ' roles \ 7 Of learner Figtire 6 Role of content I \ Of curriculum I .To understand the conventions which underlie communication. In communication. interpersonal hehaviour. values and emotions. 1 Thc c. we have to understand how thcse itlcas and this interpersonal bchaviour can be realiscd in languagc in connectcd texts. we not only have to understand a system of ideas or concepts and a system of interpersonal bchaviour. The social o r interpersonal nature of communication guarantees that it is permeated liy personal and socio-cultural attitudes. therefore. 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. thc itleas o r concepts which are communicated about contain differcnt potential meanings. Similarly. interpersonal and textual knowledge allows us to participate in a crcative mcaning-making process and to express o r interprct the potential meanings within spoken or written text (Hallitlay. ~ . central to the process o f languagc learning. The convcntions governing ideas o r concepts.urriculum 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. Mastering this unity ofideational. Just as communication cannot be affectively neutral.These different ufects will determine what we choose to communicate about and how we communicate. They typically exploit a tcnsion between the conventions that are cstahlishcd and the opportunity to modify these conventions for their particular communicative purposes. There is an additional characteristic of this unificd system o f knowletlgc. In any communicative evcnt. It is a convention-creating as well as a convention-follo\ving activity.10 M I C H A E L P. 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. therefore. and their realisation in texts all scrve and create attitudes. participants \ f i l l he modifying that knowlctlgr. Since communication is primarily intcrpersonal. these conventions arc subject to variation \vhilc they are being uscd. Communicating is not merely a mattcr of folloning conventions hut also of negotiating through and ahout thc convcntions thcmselvcs. In cxploring shared knowledge.Thc social convcntions governing languagc form and hehaviour within the group arc. judgements and feelings. 1973).

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.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 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. and also the motivation behind much everyday communication and the inspiration for the recreation of the conventions which govern such communication. [. interpersonal. from a communicative point of view. underlying any selected target repertoire there will be an implicit target competcnce. 1964). These abilities can be distinguished within competence more precisely. The sharing and negotiating of potential meanings in a new language implies the use and refinement of perceptions. and textual knowledge. The ability to negotiate operates between participants in communication and within the mind of the individual participant . we may identify within competence both the knowledge systems and the abilities which call upon and act upon that knowledge. This does not imply that any one curriculum will 11cnecessarily entirely distinctive in the target reprrtoire to which it is devotcd. In learning how to communicate in a new language. Such sharing and negotiating implies the existence of particular communicative abilities as an esscntial part of competence. . such interpretation and expression will most often take place in the context of interpersonal and personal negotiation. and textual knowledge . we have proposed that such communicative knowledge can lie seen as a unified system ofideational. I3ut it is also related to and intcgrated with other forms of human lxhaviour. the individual participant needs to be able to interpret the meanings of others and to express his own meanings.] Therefore. So. 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. concepts and affects. 7 c 2 What underlies the ultimate demands on the learner? A language teaching curriculum. . We have also suggested that communication and learning how to communicate involve the participants in the sharing and negotiating of meanings and conventions. 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\ ~1 op ment. Therefore. learning to communicate is a socialisation process. the learner is not confronted by a task which is easily separable from his other psychological and social experiences. affective involvement is both the driving-force for learning. It is this target competence which we may define as the capacity for actual use of the language in thc target situation.and thc affects which are part of such knowledge. which incorporates a range of affccts. Thus. However. Communication in everyday life synthcsises ideational. A t the surface there will be inevitable overlap among different repertoires. However. A t that point. will specify its purposes in terms of a particular target repertoire (Gumperz. Furthermore. in specifying the purposes of the curriculum. 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. 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. In order to sharc meaning. interpersonal. In addition. 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. So.

The specification ~ v o u l d upon the lcarncr’s communicative aliilitics of intcrprctation. Wc have tended to see the target only in terms of ‘linguistic competence’ o r tcxtual knowledge. LAov. for cxample . in our vie\v. derive from antl depend upon this underlying competence of communicative kno\vledgc antl communicative abilities. In sclecting any target repertoire.e pcrformancc. Speaking. listening. I Iymes. a communicative curriculum also distinguishes antl specifics the target compctcncc o n \vhich the performance of such a rcpertoire depends and through which it is achic\. antl how thc lcarncr needs to bc alilc to use such knowledge.12 - M I C H A E L P. expression antl negotiation. . ~~ ~ ~ 3 What are the learner’s initial contributions? [. More obviously. In this \vay \ve arc suggesting that the skills i-cprcscnt o r realise underlying communicative abilities. Thc ultimatc demands on the learner in terms of some specific target repertoire will. I t is also likely that these three ahilitics continually interrclatc with one another during communicative performance and that they are complex in naturc. and vice vcrsa. . antl by an incomplete view of what the learner has to offer. 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. In the past. it has seemed easier to somchon. 1971.l’hey will involve psychological processes for the handling of rich and variablc (lata thc attcmtion and memory processes. in endeavouring to interpret and express with a new language. B R E E N A N D CHRISTOPHER N. antl ncgotiation arc the essential or ‘primary’ahilitics within any target competence. The use of these communicative abilitics i s manifested in communicative performance through a set of skills. Such a specification \zould account for what thc learner nerds to know. interpersonal and tcxtual conventions and the affective aspccts of such as a related antl underlying tcm of knoLvlcdgc which i s shared and conventions also indicate the demands developed within the target community. which scems to rcquirc us to credit thc kat-ner with a highly relevant initial competcncc. they arc the means through which k n o d e d g c and ahilitics are translated into pcrfoi-mancc. Rut. thc learner will himself negotiate lictwecn the communicative competence he already possesses and that which underlies the new learning. This principle. expression. cxprcssion.] 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.This specification would indicate the ideational. thcrefoi-c. reading antl lvriting skills can lie sccn to scrve and depend upon the untlerlying abilities o f interpretation. separate the learner from the knonletlgc to I x lcarnctl to ‘oljcctily ’ thc targct language as something completely unfamiliar to the learner. 1971. of communicative kno\vletlgc antl aliilitics. participants in communication negotiatc hvith one another. C A N D L I N the latter negotiation is perhaps more conscious during new learning.antl they may contain within them a rangc of sccontlary abilities such as ‘coding’. 1970).’ Wc suggest.ctl. 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. has often been overlooked or only partially applied in language teaching. and negotiation similarly underlying communicative performance in the target community and the range of skills which manifest these abilities. The skills arc the meeting point lict\vccn underlying communicative competence and ot)serval)le communicati1. ‘code substituting’ and ‘style-shifting’ (Ret-nstcin. thcreforc. that the communicative ahilitics of interpretation. and we have limited such knowledge to the level of syntax without reference .

have tended to be overlooked or neutralised. ho\v the learner defines his o\.it is merely the tip of the iceberg. His initial textual knowlcdge is placed in its proper perspective . and. then \ve arc enahled to perceive the learncr in a new light. 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. the curriculum will need to accommotlatc and allow for a heterogeneity of lcarner expectations.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 er. In this way. However. Language teaching need no longer be primarily conccrned with ‘linguistic competence’. Thus. More recently. Two important problems nrctl to be identified h c r r in accounting for learncr expectations. Thesc expectations are inwitably various antl more significant1)-. 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. which continuallv interact with textual knowledge and from which textual knowledge evolves. influencc one another. We can identify several types of learner expectations and these may.are subject to change over time. So.lie in the learner’s previous formal education. What the curriculum abilities. However. We can begin mith the assumption that text is the surface realisation o f communicative knowledge antl abilities antl that text is used and created and learned on the basis of thcm. we haw recognised the significance of ‘ sociolinguistic competence’ and also of the ‘functional’ aspect of language. due to tlevclopmcnts within sociolinguistics. lcarners not only contribute prior kno\vledge antl ‘fluency’ \vith text. It will also ncetl to allow for changes in different learncrs’ perceptions of their needs. what is likely to interest the learner both within the target reprrtoire antl thc learning process. I. we should perhaps be more conccrned with activating that which underlies thc initial repertoire of the learner. in ivhat interests different learncrs.) We can also distinguish between. ideational and interpersonal knowledge. secondly. and in the motivations of differrnt learners. . first. and to evoke and engage what we mav describe as the lcarncr’s ongoing or process compctencc. All 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. they also have expectations about the le must be balanced by what the learner seeks to achicve in terms o f any specified purp personally expects of the language learning ncrds.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 13 to structure above the sentence. 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.j Once we define the object of learning as communication. For this to happen.thc).] Ho ing o f a language. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . there is a second important aspect of learner cxpectations: expectations can tie educated. curriculum purposes should account for initial cxpectations of lcarners and anticipate changes in expectations during the learning teaching process. . \\. of course.hat the learner’s moti\rations are for learning the target rcpertoire. learners need to be enabled to express their own expectations. Rather than just allowing the use of the first language in the classroom. We have often seen the learner primarily in terms of the first language. 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). and how he reacted to that experience. That we should try to account for and anticipate these is a further motivation for a communicative curriculum. third. and we have often assigned to it ‘interference’ value alone again taking a narrow textual knowledge as our criterion. and more particularly for a communicatjvr methodology (scc sections 4ff).

We have rcferrcd to the characteristics of communicating in section 1 of this paper. The communicative classroom can serve as a forum characterised liy the activation of these abilities upon the learners’ new and developing knowledge. Therefore. hearing. ~ ~ . expression and negotiation. joint interpretation. Because communicative abilities permeate each of the skills. language learning may be seen as a process which grows out of the interaction lietween learners. texts and activities. They also need to be enabled to interpret the expectations which the specific purposes of the curriculum make upon them as learners. and vice-versa. and the means b? which thesc two are brought together. Similarly.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. a process of negotiation between the learner’s contributions including expectations and the target repertoirc. Howcver vague a learner’s initial interpretation may be. call upon thc genuine intersubjective rcsponsibility of that learner. BREEN AND CHRISTOPHER N. Thr learner need not be restricted to thc particular skills performance laid down by the target repertoire. They need to interpret at the start of the learning. Classroom procedures and activities can involve participants in 130th communicating and metacommunicating. 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. thereby. so the developmcnt of any single skill may well drpend on the appropriate development of the other skills. a refinement of intcrprctation will contribute to the refinement of expression. monitoring and evaluating those knowledge systems implicit within the various text-types confronting him during learning. will contribute to the refinement of the skill of speaking and viceversa. This communicative interaction is likely to engage the abilities within the learner’s developing competence in an arena of cooperative negotiation. written. just as a refinement of the skill of reading. just as no single communicative ability can really develop independently of thc other abilities.teaching process and throughout this process what the target repertoire and its underlying competence demands of them. The presence of a range of text-types acknowledgcs that the use of communicative abilities is not restricted to any one medium of communication.14 M I C H A E L P.Therefore. they can be scen to underlie speaking. and an account of learner cxpcctations within purposes can enable methodology to involve these subjective contributions of the learner and. and the sharing of rxprcssion. This activation will depend on the provision of a rangc of differcnt text-types in different media spoken. for example. In other words. Curriculum purposes inform and guide methodology. is likely to bc characteristic of a communicative methodology. Such metacommunication occurs within the communicative performance of thc classroom as a sociolinguistic activity in its own right. teachers. C A N D L I N to explore them and the sourccs from which they derive. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 How are the curriculum purposes to be achieved? 4. he is not going to learn anything unless he has an idea of what he is trying to achievc. reading and writing and to be independent of any prcscribcd selcction o r combination of these skills. By metacommunicating we imply the learner’s activity in analysing. visual and audio-visual which the participants can make use of to develop their competencc through a variety of activities and tasks.

learners not only become participants in the procedures and activities.] In particular. and their changing needs. their various expectations about language learning. (b) Routes The emphasis within a communicative curriculum on the communicative process of language learning. the text-types with which they choose to work. in turn. diffcrent lcarners through their changing process competcnce may well adopt different mcans in attempting to achieve such competence. they may also become critically sensitised to the potential and richness of the unified system of knowledge. differentiation is a principle which can be applied t o the participants in the learning. A second principle is that the learner’s process competence needs to be differentiated from the target competence. (c) Media In order to allow for differences in personal interest and ease of access. 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. interests and motivations prior to and throughout the language learning process. Wc can recognisc that. with the consequent emphasis on cooperative learner activities. Such variation in choice of route typically involves selection among alternative skills o r combinations of skills. 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. and hence the choice of alternative media. Different learners need the opportunity of following different routcs to the accomplishment of some individual or common group objective . even in the achievement of some common target conipctcnre. the sharing of expression and cooperative negotiation. 4. the need for a communicative curriculum to be differentiated. Within mcthodology. or to permit the search for alternative perspectives on the content. This sclection among routcs can itself be open t o joint interpretation. . These kinds of distinctions involve differentiation at the curriculum level bctwecn purposes and the methodology adopted to achieve such purposes. and the ways they use their abilities. [. learners should be offered the possibility of working with one or more of a range of media. is likely to exploit the productive rclationship hetwcen using the language and learning the language.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 15 Through this ongoing communication and metacommunication. offers a natural means for differentiation. affects and abilities upon which their communication depends. the involvement of all the participants in a process of communicating through texts and activities. and that different learners may exploit different process competenccs as the means towards some particular target. 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. and metacommunicating about texts. the activities they attempt.2 Methodology as a diflerentiated process The emphasis given in the previous section to the interactive nature of the communicative curriculum suggests. . We mean by this that learners would be .

I t is an environment where a particular social-p hological and cultural reality is constructcd. the accomplishment o f shared objectives through a variety of routcs. and bve may tie asking thc learner to hccomc involved in using and applying knowledge in a distorted \vay. Learning dialogue by reatling. rather than insisting that all learners exploit the samc kinds of strategy. visual ones seen. This uniqueness antl this rcality implies a communicativc potential to be exploited. ~ . all facilitate the conditions for authentic communication among the participants in the learning. The communicative curriculum sceks to exploit the classroom in terms of \vhat it can realistically offer as a resource for learning. Further. rather than constraints lvhich haw to be overcome or compensated for. Just as communication is governed I>yconventions. Thcse four illustrations of the principle of tliffercntiation within a communicative methodology imply morc than merely offering t o individual lcarncrs opportunities For differential communication and learning. so we can see that the different media represent and obey conventions specific to themselves. this obliges us to allow for different interpretations antl differences in holv learners will themselves negotiate with texts. but a communicative methodology would take advantage of this differentiation among learning strategies. or acknowledging differences between pcrformancc repertoires antl the developing compctcnces underlying them. The classroom itself is a unique social environmcnt with its own human activities and its own conventions governing thesc acti\itics. on the other.16 M I C H A E L P. Such heterogeneity is often secn as problematic for the teacher. if ~ v confront e learners kvith texts and text-types lvhich are also authentic. C A N D L I N expected to act upon text-types in the appropriatr medium: written texts would be read. antl \vi11 therefore adopt different learning strategies. for cxample. Whatever the route chosen o r the media antl tcxt-types selected for communicative learning. the ‘formal’ language learning contexts ofthc classroom and. the ‘informal’ learning which takes place at any time. Differentiation also enahlcs the lcarner to authenticate his own learning and thcreby become involved in genuine communication as a means to\vartls it. This would not necessarily mean changing o r disguising the classroom in the hope that it will momentarily servc as sonic kind of ‘communicativc situation’ resembling situations in the outside \vorltl. anywhere. 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 o r authentic environment. Experimcntation Lvithin the prior constraints of any communicativc situation is. while ‘informal’ lcarning undrrtaken beyond the classroom is often an individual commitment. and the opportunities for exploiting different learning strategics. and thc prior constraints of classroom communication need he n o exception. Differentiation demands and authcnticates communication in the classroom. The various perspectives offered by alternative media. typical of the nature of communication itself. The classroom can be charactcrised by the kinds of learning which are best generated in a group context. on the one hand. may neutralise the authentic conventions of spoken discourse. We can make a distinction betwren the different contributions offered to learning by. different learners will have differentiated ways of making use of the abilities xvithin their communicative compctence. B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N . as w c have seen. spoken ones listened to.

thc classroom i and the proccdurcs and activities it allows can serve as the focal point of the learningteaching process. 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. if they indicate that such guidance is necessary. the individual learner’s own process competcnce. It can he a forum where knowledge may be jointly offered and sought. Each of these has sufficiently hctcrogcncous characteristics to makc classroom -based negotiation a necessary undertaking. To cnsurc that the special and differing contributions offered by both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ contexts of learning can be fully exploited. 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. 1. and it can hccomc an observatory of communication as everyday human behaviour. As well as looking outwards. and l i c t u w n these participants and the various activities and texts. The classroom can also crucially serve as the source o f feedback on.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 17 espccially in the contcxt of foreign language learning. Second. ~ . teachers. In adopting a methodology characterised by learning and teaching as a communicative and differentiated process. and refinement of. so the tcacher needs to share it with other learners. Thcsc roles imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher: first. Related to this.The classroom can deal with and explore phenomena which are significant in the cxpericnced ‘outsitlc world’ of the lcarner. The classroom is only one resource in languagc teaching. but it is also the meeting-place of all other resources learners. ~ ~ 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. . It can become the meeting-place for realistically motivated communication-as-learning. This guidance rolc is ongoing and largely unpredictable.] The authenticity of the classroom lies in its dual rolc o f ohscrvatory and laboratory during a communicative learning-teaching process. as an organiser ofresources and as a resource himself. Within the communicativc curriculum. And it can serve as a springboard for the learner’s ‘pcrsonal curriculum’ lvhich may be undertaken and developed ‘informally’outsidc the classroom. 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. 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. rcflectcd upon. As a coparticipant in the classroom group. and texts. . 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. The tirst I-ole is to facilitate the communicative process between all participants in the classroom. A communicative methodology \vi11 therefore exploit the classroom as a resource lvith its own communicative potential. and metacommunication. In this way the teacher will he concentrating on the process compctcnces of the learners. a communicative mcthodology has to try to relate the two. communication about learning. This latter role is closely related to the objective of thc first role and it arises from it. the teacher and other learners can offcr and seck feedback at appropriate moments in learning-teaching activities. and acted upon. as a guide within the classroom procedures and activities. The second role is to act as an interdependent participant within the learning-teaching groups. the classroom no longer needs to bc seen as a pale representation of somc outside communicative reality.

but each individual learner will be required to adapt and continually readapt in the process of relating himself to what is being learned. he must assume that learners are capablc of arriving at a particular objective through tlivcrsc routes. 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. all learners o f a language arc confronted by the task of discovcring how t o learn the language. the learner must be encouraged to communicate to communicate about the learning process. All lcarncrs \vi11 start with differing cxpcctations about the actual learning. in order to learn to communicate within a selected target repertoire.this learning how to learn a public as well as a private undertaking.2 The learner Regardless ofthe curriculum in lvhich they \vork and rcgartllcss of whether o r not they are being taught. for cxamplc. \re have to conclude that knowledge of anything and thc learning of anything is an interpersonal matter. The tcachcr must assume that the performance within any target rcpertoire is separablc from thc means to the achievement of that rcpertoirc. and the gradually revealed object of learning. thcir learning process. thereby. the teacher needs to actively share the responsibility for learning and teaching with the 1carncrs. B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N. A requirement on the teacher must he that he distinguish between learning and t h c performancc of Irhat is being learned. the learner may discover that earlier strategies in the use of his abilities need to be replaced h y other strategies. sometimes. actual and observed experience of the nature of learning. and to communicate about the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abilities. and. socially constructed.18 M I C H A E L P. Within the context of the classroom group. and he needs to bc patiently awarc that somc learners. \vi11 enter periods when it s w m s that little or n o progress is being made and that. C A N D L I N A third rolc for the teacher is that of researcher and lcarner . The knowledge will be redefined as the learner uncovcrs it.The teacher has to accept that different learners learn different things in different bvays at different times. learning is typified by silent refkction. If the object of learning is itself communication. 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. and that there will be differences between ongoing learning processes. Also. then the motivation to enable the learner to adopt an interpersonal means to that learning is doubly justified. The teacher nccds to recognise learning as an interpersonal undertaking over which no single person can have full control. thc teacher has the opportunity to ‘stcp back’ and monitor the communicative pro tcaching.This sharing can provide the basis for joint negotiation which itself releases thc teacher to become a co-participant. and organisational capahilitics. Quite simply. 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. in constructing and reconstructing his own curriculum. this role is shared and. in fact. As an interdrpcndent participant in thc process. A communicative methodology is charactcrised b y making this ncgotiative role . all learners in thcir own w y s have to adopt the role of negotiation bet>vecn thcmselvcs. Also. made interpersonal. Thus. 5. These justifications for a genuinely interpersonal methodology are quite independent of the nature of what is to bc learned. As a participant-observer.

the learner is allowed to dcpend on othcr learners and on the tcacher kvhen the need ariscs. Within a cornmunicativc methodology. an informant to the teacher concerning his own learning progress. a communicative methodology would allow both the teacher and thc learner to bc interdependent participants in a communicative proccss of learning and teaching.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 19 changing object of learning on the basis of accepting that ‘learning ho\v to learn’ is a problem shared. indeed w-c may wonder whether such learning is ever possible. and also enablctl to be independent at appropriate moments of the learning. and cfforts t o negotiate are recognisrd as valid and valuable. of course. the individual learner is potentially reLvardct1 by having his own subjectivc expectations antl decisions informed and guided by others. first. Such a context \vould he typified by the acceptancc of ongoing success andfuilure as necessary prcrcquisites to\vards some ultimate achievement. and the appropriateness of methodology to his own learning experiences and achievemcnts. in fact. h). where it is assumed that lcarners inevitably bring with thcm ‘mixed abilities’ antl that such a ‘mixture’ is. and to decide on different routes and mcans which liecome available during learning. and solved. positively useful to the group as a whole. the rolc of learner as negotiator between the self. In this latter role. or sets of ‘functions’taken from some list of semantic categories. to maintain and dcvclop personal affective motivations for learning. the learning proccss.interprctations. The paradox here.l’hc implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains. The learner can achieve interdependence by recognising responsibility for his own learning and by sharing that responsibility with other learners and the teacher. the learner adopts the dual role of being. the learner can offer the teacher and other learners a source for new directions in the learning-teaching process of thc group. Essentiall?. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 What is the role of content within a communicative methodology? Language teaching curricula have often been traditionally defined by their content. As an intcrdcpendent participant in a cooperative milieu where the lcarner’s contributions arc valued and used. In expression antl negotiation. He can feel free to exploit independent strategies in order to learn. 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. othcr learners. . 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. a potential teacher for other learners and. and thereby learn in an interdependent way. sets of formal items takcn from an analytic grammar of the language. This commitment can be initiated anti supportcd by a milieu in which the learncr’s own contributions . In a context where different contributions and differential learning are positively encouraged. The learner can be a provider of feedback to others concerning his own interpretation of the specific purposcs of‘ the curriculum. 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. exprcssions. 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. Lcarners also have an important monitoring role in addition to the degrec of monitoring which they may apply subjectivcly to their own learning. second. Similarly.

the importance of the curriculum as a means tor the activation and refincmcnt of the process competcnccs of different learners IiresupIioses differentiation.20 M I C H A E L P. the various antl changing routes of the lcarncrs crucially affect any orticring of content. 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. it needs to reflect and support the integration of language hvith other forms of human experience and hehaviour. 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. The communicative curriculum \vould place contcnt within methodology and provide it with the role of servant to the Icarning-tcaching process. on the other hand. Sccond. First. Third.Therefore. so that scqucncing derives from the state f r h e learners rather than from the implicit ‘logic’ of the content itsclf. 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. ’l’hc content o f any curriculum can lie selected and organised on the basis of some adolited criteria. Thus. If content is to bc sensitive to thc process of learning antl to the interpersonal concerns of the group. \vc cannot assume that any stcii-by-stcp or cumulativc sequcnce of content \vi11 ncccssarily be appropriatc. What arc the critcria for the selection and organisation of content within the communicative curriculum? ~ ~ (a) Focus Content within communicative mcthotlology is likely to focus upon knowledge both cognitive and affective \vhich is personally significant to the Icarncr. From this concern with mcans rather than ends 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. antl only short-term prcdictability in \\. . I t may be naive to assume that what may he ‘simple’ for any one learner is likely to be ‘simplc’ for all learners. communicative learning and teaching. B R E E N AND CHRISTOPHER N. Scy1rence If \vc accept that the communicative process requires that \vc deal with dynamic and creativc convcntions.hat may lie appropriatc contcnt. 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. do n o t look exclusively to a selectcd target repertoire as a specifier of curriculum content. 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. In learning. 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. ~ ~ (/I. and defined by. its scqucncc. and its direction (or routing). ongoing change. for a number of reasons. its continuity. its subdivision (or hrcakdo\vn). Communicative curricula. 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 of language items grammatical or ‘functional’ to be learned in some prescribed way. and th criteria will influence five basic aspects of thc content: its focus.

thcrcforc. in the past. 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. continuity can reside bvithin a skills repertoirc or a cycle of skill-use during an activity. Learners need to bc cnaliletl to scck and achic\-c their own continuity and.‘I‘hcsr kinds of continuity offcr two important advantagcs. antl to which they return in a process o f finer analysis and rcfincd synthesis. .Thirt1. the communication lzhich the activity generates. continuity potentially resides within communicativc acts during the learning and teaching: either at the ‘macro’ level in terms of the \\.or examplc. ideational and textual data which they act upon. Fourth. ~ ~ . hut with ‘units’ of activity \vhich gencratc communication and metacommunication. Second. and vice-versa. [. or lvithin the structure of discourse in terms o f t h c ‘macro’ communicati\-c act with its ohvn coherent scqucncv o f uttcrances. for example. ‘l‘he various activities antl tasks would be related liy sharing a holistic ‘core’ of knowledge and abilities. At thc ‘macro’ level the learner may have access to continuity of theme. predict \z ith any certainty thr ‘levels’ of contcnt on which learner5 \vi11 tlecitlc to cvolve their own sequencing in learning. thcre could he a progression from reading t o notr-taking to speaking for the achic\cment of a particular activity. the criteria for their onm progress. rather than cxploit any one alone. the interpersonal. continuity can he identified within at least four areas. we \vould not be concerned with ‘units’ o f contcnt. can imply a rcfinernent of its linguistic cxprcssion. antl on thc skills they nccd to use in thc activity’s achievemcnt. First. continuity can reside in the activities and the tasks within cach activity.] (c) Suhtlrvision Traditionally content has been subdividetl into scrialisrd categories o f structurrs or ‘functions’. antl finally.Thus.hole lesson and its ‘micro’ sequenccs of negotiation. All can l x inherent in a single activity. interpersonal antl textual and all the abilitics involved in using such kno\vlcdge. the progrcssivc refinemcnt of the learner’s om n pro compctcnce can provide an overall lcurning continuity. thcrcfore.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 21 rather than accumulating separalde blocks of ‘static’ knowledge or a sequence of ordcrctl skills. So. Content would he subdivided or broken down in terms of activities and tasks to he undertaken. antl from one activity to another and from one task to another. continuity is provided through the ideational system. ~ ~ ((1) Cont in u I Thc need to providc continuity for the learner has. In thc process of accomplishing some immediate activity. content hccomcs something \vhich lcarncrs move into antl out from. lcarners will impose their o\vn personal and interpersonal order and continuity upon that acti\ it?. 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. 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. bccn liased upon contcnt. Curriculum dcsigntm cannot. Within a communicative methodology. . I. whcrcin both knowledge and abilities would lir engaged in the learners’ communication and mctacommunication. A communicativc mcthotlology would exploit cach of these areas of continuity as clusters of potential continuitics. As a result.‘I‘hcy can servc the full proccss competcnccs of Iearncrs k n o ~ v l t ~ l g systems c antl abilities antl they can allo\v for differentiation.

is most often an intcrsubjccti\-c matter. Choosing directions becomes a part of the curriculum itself. ] 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. will ~ i r o p o s c appropriate content. not nccesrarib. and learners and text. Evaluation ivithin the curriculum can exploit this ‘judging’ clement of everyclay communicative hchaviour in the asscssmcnt of learners’ communication antl mctacommunication. a communicative methodology would not cxxploit contrnt as somc’ lire-drtcrminctl route with specific entry and exit points. It might \vcll be that the teacher. achirvemcnt of the task could be rclatctl to thcsc agreed criteria. and ‘cohcrrncc’in communicative performance o n the basis of shared. In a communicative methodology. . \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. learners and teachers. hom succcssful is it? Each stage \vould lit. Ilo\vcvcr. cvaluation of others. The group’s ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . C A N D L I N (e) Direction Traditionally. From \\. Typically an emphasis o n content led the learner from the beginning. Also. to the end.‘I‘hc highlj evaluative aspect of communication can be atloptcd as thc evaluation proccdurc of thc curriculum. antl degrees o f su o r failure could he themselves further negotiated o n thc tiasis of the original criteria. [. the csscntially intcrsuhjectivc nature of evaluation can be seen as a strong point rather than. Content can be predicted within methodology only to the extent that it serves the communicative learning process of thc participants in the group. negotiated. through the middle. In this xvay. Such *carrier’content can tic as tli\crsc as the different routes learners may take towards a common target: perhaps contcnt can bc more various antl morc varialile. ‘appropriatcncss’. in the adoption of aspects of the target rcpcrtoirc as negotiation with learners. possilily. and evaluation of self‘ b y others is intersuhjcctivc. If so. the teacher \vould recognisc that thc ccntral objective of developing underlying communicative knowledge antl atiilities can lic achi range of alternative content. a Lveakncss. 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. or in the achievement of somc particular task.22 M I C H A E L P. 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. learners have been expected to follow the direction implicit in some prescribed content. How might lve evaluate lcarncr progrc Evaluation of oncsclf. Who or what directs content becomes a justification for communication about the selection and organisation of content with methodology. ‘intelligibility’ . content ceases to become some external control over learning-teaching proerdurw. B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N. and about the various routes to he adoptctll>y thc learners through any agreed content.hat has been indicated so far. Evaluatiyr criteria. antl changing convcntions. 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. and involvcs negotiation bct\vccn lcarncrs and learners. the communicative curriculum ~ v o u l drely on shared and negotiated evaluation. a matter for communication. Wc judge ‘grammaticalit?’ . therefore. Criteria for eventual succcss in some particular task could lie initially ncg ctl. . including aspects of the target repertoire.

Summativc evaluation. with its emphasis ~~ ~ . 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. . In a communicative curriculum we are dealing with an intcrdcpcntlencc of the curriculum components of purposes. . materials writers. we have already proposed that any target repertoire needs to be seen as the tip of an iceberg. Indeed. . it can shape antl guide learning and guide decisions within t h r curriculum process.] This placing of evaluation within the communicative process as a formative activity in itself docs not necessarily invalitlatc thc place of summativc cvaluation. Any shared antl negotiatcd cvaluation within the classroom will generate potentially formative feedback for and Iwtween learners antl between lcarncrs and the teacher. I Therefore. rather than summativc or cntl-of-course e\duation Ivhich may be based on some prcscribetl criteria. it can also indicate new and different directions in which both can m o \ e and dcvclop. antl evaluation. of methodology. That is. Evaluation within and of the curriculum can lie a pokverful and guiding force. in other words. I Iowever. Any curriculum is a personal and social arcna. teachers and learnci-s in a process of relating the three components of purpose’. that it serves the dual role of evaluating lcarncr progress and the ongoing curriculum. [. of teaching and learning. . 1 3 applying the uscrs ofthat curriculum can be brought into the classroom in an immediate and practical sense. It follolvs that any evaluation within the curriculum also involves an evaluation of the curriculum itself. crucially. Therefore.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 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. antl of the agreed criteria of c\-aluation themselves. nicative use of evaluation will lcad towards an emphasis on firmurive or ongoing evaluation. [. and that it is likely to hc formative in the achievement ofthis dual role. 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. Summativc evaluation becomes valuable if it can reveal the learners’ relative achi ment o l a particular target repcrtoirc. Formative evaluation may not only indicate the relative successes and failures of both learner and curriculum. we need to ackno\vlcdgc that any curriculum including a communicati\c curriculum cannot strictly be designed as a whole from the start. Icarning. We can only deduce and propose thc principles on which a varicty of communicative curricula may bc based. 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.mcthodology and evaluation. Even so. communicative evaluation may wcll lcad to adaptation of initial purposes. Any joint negotiation among the various participants within the curriculum may obviously deal with the initial purposes and ongoing methodology which have been adopted. Once within the classroom. As such. methodology. Judgements are a crucial part of kno\vlcdgc. ~ judgements to the curriculum itself. for the sharing of responsibilities during the learning-teaching process. A communicative curriculum in particular. needs to be sensitive to differential competences which may undcrlie some common target. evaluation can be made to scrvc as a basis for new . evaluation by and any educational process. ~ 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.

However. hut - .24 M I C H A E L P. After a number of such intermctliary transactions somconc. 'l'he original statements of the committee will act as stimuli for one set of pcoplc such as sulijcct-matter super\-isors. incorporating much of themselves into thc reaction. will apply some stimuli to the pupil himself. J. Stephens (1 967) idcntificd this process when he is itsclf a communicative p r o c said: - 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. It may Iic the c a w that curriculum dc-signers antl teachers in such a situation nccd t o consider lvhcthcr thc achicv. If adopted lcithin the design and implementation procedure. 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 o r lvhcthcr it may I>covt~rconit~.This is. more likely. Even though thc curriculum dcsigncr may h a w takcn account of the actual language teaching 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. M . Communicative curricula arc essentially the means of capturing variability. (pp. highlights a communicative process whereby the intcrrclating curriculum components arc themselves open to negotiation and change. and a process of negotiation lietcvccn the curriculum antl its users. he clcarlp implies that the translation from principlcs through design to implementation is most oftcn a proc ' ofi-cintcrprctation of the curriculum. and evaluation procedures. then it tnay lie that a gcnuincly communicative curriculum is simply not ialdc. research. in talking about stimuli. docs not cmphasisc transactions as a t\vo-\vay process. Communicative curricula ncctl through timc and according to situation to lie open and suhjcct t o ongoing developments in theory.Thcse pcoplc. methods. Variability \vi11 exist in selected purposes. in the knowledge that such proposals need to Iic translated into action in thc classroom in ortlcr to test their obvn valitlity. \vi11 react to the stimuli.mcnt of language learning as communicution is appropi-iate. hc has t o rccognise that from tlcsign to implementation . in turn. thc tcachcr. possililp mcrclp mirroring \vhat they rcceive. C A N D L I N on the learning and teaching o f communication. 'lh cope cvith this requirement of appropriateness to situation. the conditions or minimal rcquircmcnts on any communicative curriculum must take account o f those situational constraints which arc unchangeable. Such statements must work through a complex chain o f interactions. after all. It i s this set of principles which \vc have tried t o present in this paper. Their reactions will then act as stimuli for a second s c t o f p ~ o p l c \z ho cvill also rcact in their mz-n way. B R E E N A N D CHRISTOPHER N. If a curriculum Inscd upon the principles \vhich \vc havc examined here is not implementalilc \Tithin a particular situation. Any statcmcnts or decisions coming from thc curriculum committee will not lie transportctl intact into the li o f pupils. From this it follows that the communicative curriculum no more than any other can ncvcr bc one uniquelp itlcntifialde language teaching curriculum. 12-1 3) While Stephens. 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 o f t h e actual situation within which the language teaching will take place. the only means by which curriculum theory and practice can develop. antl practical classroom experience.

. A syllabus is thcrcforc only part of thc overall curriculum M ithin which it operates. 1978). The Origins of’lntelligence in the Child. Volume 1 : Theoretical Stutlies tori-urds u Sociolo<qj o/ I a n p i p . 1 972.) Lunguugc Eochiiig und I~ingtii.stic~. Social Change. 13. ‘Error anal! . Gumpcrz. 197 3.Imericcin ’4nfhropologist 6 6 (6 ii): 1964. W. Piagct (1 95 3). L. . Volumr. Codes unci Control. References Bernstein.A COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM 25 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. 1976. A. J.. CoJc.. I). Curriculum Design. 195 3. S.ontlon: Heinemann.senrrh c7nd Development . Corder. Bruner ( 1 9 7 3). (etls. J. (ctl. J. 1964. I. Bruncr.. 1966. 1973.. Neisser. S. R . 1975. NcwYork: John Wile) & Sons. H. Etlucutionul Theory anti Curriculum Pluming. 1970. Grccnwald. J. S. This ncgotiativc interaction u itliin the learner hctwccn prior kno\vlctigc and the ncnlearning has Iwcn a conccrn \vi hology for many years. Olvcr. J.ards the target competence. It is partly I.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. [or rxamplc.4ppIieci Studies iowurds u Sociology ~fI. Srlinkcr.. V. Labov. I . 1 972. Rruner. intcrlanguagc and second language acquisition’ in Kinsclla. antl Grccnticld. 1975. 1971. Cognition untl Reuli5r.. Colby et ul. 1978. (ctls. Clciss.ancqriacqe. Taronc. (cd. See. and West. London: Uniwrsit? o f London Prcss. P. and Hymes. ~ 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. T h c classroom its socialhological reality. I ondon: Routledge antl Kcgan Paul. L. M. U.Harmontls\vorth: Penguin Books. 1’. 1971.alcd through a series of ‘Interlanguagcs’ (Sclinkcr. Stenhouse. ‘The functional basis of language’ in Bcrnstcin. B y o n d the Infirmution Given. J. Corder. I Iymcs.) 1975. ‘Linguistic and social interaction in tux) communities’ in Gumpcrr. 1972. Cam1)ritigc University Prcss. ) .. Sttidies i n Cognitire Growth.. I ondon: Routledge anti Kcgan Paul. Freeman & Co. ‘ O n coniniunicativc competence’ in l’ridc. 1 972. An Introduction to Curriculum Re. London: Gcorgc Allen 8r Unwin. T h e learning-teaching process in the classroom is also thc catalyst for thc dcvclopmcnt and rcfincmcnt of thosc minimal rcquircmcnts which will underlie future curricula. M . Content and its organisation is subsumed n ithin a curriculum as part of methotlolog! (Section 6 of this paper). 1973. R.. K. J. and Nc ’l‘his ‘process competcncc’ is changing antl de\ eloping communicatil c kno\vletigc and abilities as learner moves from initial compctcncc ton. 2: . ( c d s . For interesting discussions of curriculum theory antl ticsign scc.) Sociohngiii. J .5vt.. Stenhouse. I a v t o n . San Fran o:W. Golby. 1 ) . ‘Interlanguage’. . Lawton...) Cluss. and Holmes. 1975. D. 1977. Piagct. IRA[ 1 0: 3. inter ulio. I ondon: Croom I Iclrn in association Tvith the Open University Prcss. J. B.sticx:Sun. its proccdurcs and activities is potentially a communicative cnvironm c n t whcrc the effort to pull together such variability is undcrtakcn. IIalliday. 1973.. ‘The study o f language in its social context’. Srridium ( h e r u l e 23. 1970.ondon: Routletlgc and Kegan Paul.. ant1 Control. J.

1977. J.26 M I C H A E L P. F1. Miami. Paper prescntcd at the 1 1 t h T t S O L Convention. Rinehart &Winston. Tarone. New York: Holt. 1977. ‘Conscious communication stratcgics in inter-language: a progress rcport’ . .y. E. 1967.chological Examination. B R E E N A N D C H R I S T O P H E R N. The Process ?f Schooling: A P... M. C A N D L I N Stephens.

I t is therefore critical for us to considcr thcsc issues before turning to thc management of the learning proccss in the classroom.” “cxperiential learning.” Jimmy said.” “communicative language tcaching. What docs thc tcrm mean? Likc many widely used terms. it probably means rather different things to different people (Nunan antl Brindley 1986).Chapter 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. ‘ 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 instructional proccss are all driven by the nature of the program.” “learning-centeredness.I Learner-centeredness The concept of learner-crnteredness has been invoked with increasing frequency in rcccnt years. I onl) remember what I’ie learnt.I In this chapter we cover the following issucs and concepts: Setting the conreit and cle_f.s key terms defined arc “learnci--ccntci-c-dnC‘ss. . the goals o f instruction. illustration of goals antl objectives.” “humanism. . (Paulo Coelho) Introduction T [.” (Patrick W hitc) You are g l e n the experiences 4ou need to understand thc norld. . . and the necds of the individual learners. lcarner-centcrcd classrooms are those in which learners are actively involved in their o\vn learning processcs.” “high-structure and low-structure teaching” C u r r i c u l u m 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. how clcarly stated goals and objectives provide a sound basis for managing thc lcarning process Setting the context and defining terms I.ningterm. For us. “I forget what I was taught.

not on14 \\ill deciwms about M hat to lcarn antl hov to learn be made n i t h reference to the lcarnci s. If learners are t o lcarn anJthing at all.28 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB The extent t o mhich it 15 possil~lcor tlcsiratilc tor learners t o lie in\ol\cd in their omn lcarning nil1olniouslq \ a r ) trom context to context (and. of ncctls analysis facilitates this process. The! arc also activclv involvrtl in the evaluation antl modification o f tcaching and Icarning during thc course and aftcr it has hccn completed.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. humanistic psychology and task-liasrtl language tcaching. monitoring. learn antl ho\v thcy want t o Implementation 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. in the formcr. implementation (including methodology antl materials dcvclopment) antl evaluation (see for cxamplc Hunkins 1980). planning (including needs analysis. However. the curriculum is a collaborativc cf'fort between tcachcrs and learncrs.ho\zs Tuhlc 2. Init the learner5 themsel\cs will be i n i o h e d in the decision-making pi-oc t a c h clcmcnt i n the curriculum proce5s will inbolkc the learner. (Nunan 1988: 2) . from Icarncr to learner). In particular. intlccd. This change in oricntation has major practical implications for the entire curriculum pro '. In an ideal learning-centcrcd contcxt. it places the liurden for all aspects of curriculum de\ elopmcnt on thc teacher. antl modifying the goals and objccti\ cs of the programs being dcsignctl for thcm.hat thcy Lvaiit to go a h o u t learning. that is. Thcsc links arc evident in the following quotes: [A Icarnci--centered] curriculum \vi11 contain similar clcmcnts to thosc contained in traditional curriculum tlcvclopment. a s l a l i l c 2 1 .c in\ ol\ et1 in their OM n learning. ultimatel! thcy ha\e to do the learning for themsel\ es Thus it 15 a truism to sa! that the> \hould I. l Learner roles in a learner-ccntcrctl curriculum Curriculum ctagc Planning Role qflecirnei I earners arc consultcd o n \\.. since learners arc closcly involved in the decision-making process regarding the content of the curriculum antl how it is taught. Asscs\mcnt antl c\aluation Lcarncrs monitor ant1 a. Thc philosophy of Icarner-ccntcreclncss has strong links \vith experiential Icarning. Lcarncrs arc in\olvctl in setting. the key differrncc lietween learner-ccntrctl antl traditional curriculum tlcvclopment is that. goal and objective setting). ho\zc\cr.

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 hich it has not not al\z a) s done. learners nccd to be s\ sternaticall) taught the skills ncetletl to implement a learner (cntcrcd approach to petlagog) In other words. point that a truly learner-ccmtcrcd curriculum can lie implemented Lcai ning c c n t c 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-ornothing 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. (Lcgutkc andThomas 1991 : 269) Wt. some general educational roots for sustenancc. and arguc that it is just a first step along a path that. In fact. [I]. 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. well-bcing and growth. 12. IIC alerted to goalr and content In collecting data for this book me nere surprised at hom tntrequcntl) this step happened Ho\ze\er. . 2 relates to the experiential contcnt domain It demonstrates that. cooperation -oriented classroom revolves around issues of risk and and competition. . 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. and the motivation which that \. ho\vever. all other things licing equal. 1% language programs seem to ha\ e suffcrcd an “educational 1) pass ” Learning-centeredness Tahlc 2 1 . wc \zould go furthcr. implementation and elaluation. Even if the stimulus comcs from outsidc. terms of personal and interpersonal compctcncc the urity. gi\en the appropriate context and types of lcarncrs. aliout 1% hat thri n a n t to lcarn and ho\z thc! mant to lcarn It is at thi. M hich scts out the role o f the learner in relation to curriculum planning. represents the ideal As tcac hers and course dcsigncrs. modihed and adapted goals and content.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. in thc hrst instancc. 252). see Nunan 19951) ) Ho\z far one .MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 29 The proponents of humanistic education have broadened our concept of lcarning by emphasizing that meaningful learning has to he self-initiated. Icarncrs reach a point \\here the) are ahlc to inakc informed ticcision. created their 0x2 n goals and selected their own cxpericntial content area. the sense of discovery. 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 . 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. We ha\. self-dircct~dnessand other-directedness. could takc the lcarnei 5 through a gradual learning process in mhich the) made selections trom a range of altcrnatii es.rings has to come from inside drivrn hy the basic human dcsirc for self-realization. . antl meaningful and meaningless activities. antl finall! mo\ cd be>ond the classroom itself (kor practical descriptions antl illustrations of thew processes.

4 in relation to a numlicr of key variables within the curriculum. and t h e role of teachers and l c a r n e r s in thc light o f these changing vicws. we see that l e a r n e r .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.s L.n arc matlc aware of the pdagogical goals antl content of the course. Table 2. syllabus.r 1. The contrast lietween what for want o f h e t t c r t e r m s we have called “traditionalism. classroom activities and the roles of learners. Lcarncrs niodif) /adapt tasks Intervention Crcation Transccndcncc 4 5 Lcarncrs crcatc thcir own tasks Lcarncrs \>cconieteachers antl rescarchcrs Communicative language teaching C o m m u n i c a t i w language teaching cmcrgcd from a numlicr of disparatc sources. Tuble 2. D u r i n g t h c 1970s and 1980s applied linguists antl languagc e d u c a t o r s began to re-evaluate pedagogical practice in the light of changrtl views o n the nature o f language and learning.30 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB chooscs to movc along the continuurn d e p e n d s o n onc’s learners and the c o n t e x t and environment of the instructional process.” and communicative language teaching (CLT). The vicws illustrated represent points on a c o n t i n u u m .cve1 1 Lecirner action Gl0s. Lcarncrs arc involved in sclccting thcir o\vn goals and ol>jcctivcsfrom a range of altcrnati\-cs on offcr.carnc. O n c e again.2 Learner-ccntcredncss in the experiential content domain Level Leurner act ion Glo. is shown in Tablc 2. rather than . 1 Abvarcncss 2 3 In\ olvcmcnt Inter\ cntion Lcarncrs arc in\ olvctl in modifying and adapting the qoals and content of the learning program. Tuble 2. b u t can lic implemented in a series of gradual steps.carncrs itlcntify stratcg! implications 01’ pcdagogical tasks antl idcntil) thcir o\vn prctcrrctl learning s t j Ics/stratcgics. A\varcncss 2 3 Involvcnicnt Lcarncrs makc choices among a range o f options. teachers antl materials.3 Lcarncr~ccntcrcdncssin the lcarninc process domain I.c c n t c r c d n w s is n o t an all-or-nothing process. I. 4 5 Crcation Transccntlcncc Lcarncrs crcatc thcir o\vn goals ancl ohjcctivcs. and in relation t o objectives. The table prcscnts contrasts in relation t o theories of language and learning.3 shoxvs how t h e continuum can apply t o the learning process domain.

language lab oftcn used. pattern pi-acticc. Olijcctiws \vi11 reflect thc nccds of the learner. Central antl active. tcachcrdominatctl method. Will includc some or all of the follo\ving: structures. Engage learners in communication. notions. Contrastiw analysis. interactor. process manager. carrying out meaningful tasks antl using language that is meaningful t o the Icarncr promote learning. counselor. ncctl\ analyst.MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 31 cxclusive categories. gi\ ing as nell as taking. the textbook w r i t e r and the curriculum developer is to shobv how the rule-governed structures enable t h e language user t o make meanings. Tapes and visuals. they \z ill include lunctional skills as \vel1 as linguistics objectives. functions. Learner as ncgotiator. Rolc of tcac hcr Rolc of materials Primarily tcachcr oricntctl. goal natil c spcakcr master!. skills arc leal-nctl more effectively if oral precedes \vrittcn. controls tlircction antl pacc. repetition and memorization. task based. Gradctl syllabus of phonology. antl syntax. in\ol\ c proccsscs such as information sharing. h o t h a system of rule-govcrnetl structurcs and a system for the expression of meaning. thcmcs antl tayks. a t one and t h e same t i m e . The challenge for t h e teacher. Learning is a m a t t e r o f habit formation as \vel1 as a proccss of activation through the deployment of' communicative tasks. . Primary role of promoting communicative language use. Table 2. I'ro\ itlcs mo(lcl. Svllahus morphology. Facilitator of the communication process. Ordering \vi11 Iic guided by lcar tier ne et l s . The t r u t h is that language is. Habit formation. and m o s t teachcrs \vi11 m o w back and forth along t h e continuum in response to t h e n e r d s of the students and thc overall contcxt in which they arc teaching. negotiation of meaning and interaction. form and order. Acti] itics Dialogues and drills. master) oicr mhol\ ot the language. ~ Thcor! of learning Acti\ itics inwlving real communication. authcntic matcrials Rolc ol lcarncr Organisms that can he tlircctctl bq skilled training tcchniqucs to produce correct responses. analogy not anal! Language is a s! stem for the expression of meaning: primar) function interaction.3 Changing vic\vs on thc nature of language antl learning: Traditionalism and CLT Teach I ng Traditionalism Commun ica ti re lung uagc Theory of language Language is a svstcm of rulegovcrnctl structures hierarchically arrangctl. Ohjectii e\ Control of' thc structures of sound.

learning process depcntls on teachers knowing kvhere t o locate themselves on the high- . the Ix-cvailing t r c d has hcrn to\vard CLT.ctween points on the continua set out in the tables in the preceding section. Thc difference lies. Somc teachers operatc out of a traditional paradigm. In the ESI. role plays.antl low-structure tcaching. We have borrowd the terms “high-structure” and “lowstructure” from Biggs and Telfcr (1 987). and EFIJ classrooms vvc have worked in and studied in rcccnt !cars. Low-structure tasks are those in which power and control are devolved t o the students. a more Iialanccd \icw prcvailctl. thc status of grammar in the curriculum \vas rather uncertain. although by no means exclusively so. The challenge for curriculum devclopcrs. controlled conversations antl the like. h o u cr. a useful \. Somc linguists maintained that it \vas not ne grammar. They suggest that the successful management of thc. 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 \\. and it now seems t o 1~ widely accepted that there is value in classroom tasks kvhich require lcarncrs t o focus o n form. etc. High. not in the rigid adherence to onc particular ap[iroach rather than another. materials writers and classroom teachers revolved around decisions associated w i t h thc movements 1. Questions such as the follo\ving therefore appeared Ivith increasing frequency in teacher-training kvorkshops: Ho\v do I integrate “traditional” excrcises.ray of viewing this emerging dilemma in language cducation is in terms of high. became indistinguisha1. by definition. It is also accepted that grammar is an essential resource in using languagc communicatively.hat happens in the classroom rather than on the cxclusiw adherencc to one set of views to thc exclusion of an).lc.32 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB We do not Ilclievc that many classrooms can h e defined exclusively in t e r m s of a particular methodology. In most contcxts. require m c 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. tlebatcs. other. (Nunan 1989: 13) In educational terms.and low-structure teaching The insight that communication \vas an intcgratetl process rather than a set o f discrete learning outcomes created a dilcmma for language cducation. In rcccnt ?cars. in some instances (for examplr.ray around. but in the basic orientation. in role plays and simulations). and for others it is the other \.? Ho\v do I manage decision making and the learning pro classroom sessions devoted to communicative tasks Lvhich. eschewing “traditional” solutions to their materials clcvelopmcnt antl language-teaching challenges. this vicw has come under serious challenge. Iligh-structure tasks arc those in which teachers have all the p v c r and control. 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 t o communicatc. Others lvcnt t o the oppositc extreme. For some time after thc rise of CL‘I.. Lvith communicative tasks such as discussions. antl. syllahus designers. It meant that the destination (functioning in another language) and thc routc (attcmpting t o learn thc target language) moved much closer togethcr. making occasional forays into CL2T. such as drills.

’l’hesc changing viclvs are reflected in the objectives and content of language programs. classroom dccisions cannot be made \vithout rcfcrcncc to structures operating outsidc of the classroom. The context and cnvironmcnt of the learning pro including the curriculum plans that should tlri\ e the pedagogical action.This schema will be referred to constantly in the pages that follow. pair and individual Lvork? What arc the implications of affective attitudes (e. Language curriculum development has been greatly influenced by changing vi the naturc of teaching and learning. materials.4. ~ v do structure with non-communicative and Ion-structure with communicativc tasks. which provides exemplary questions relating to highand loM--structure contexts as these apply to key elemcnts at the levels of curriculum planning. Howcvcr. Whereas txvcnty or thirty years ago. 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. What aspects of tcachcr talk (direct instruction. at the level of the curriculum. attitude and aptitude) for the effective managcmcnt of learning? What tools.5. . arc criticall! important hcrc. The influence of these diffcrcnt viovs was made clear in the Table 2. c not equate highstudents haw many options antl maximum autonomy. instructions. feedback. 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 by the degrcc of structure implied. as it is one of the key organizational framcworks underpinning the work as a whole.MANAGING THE LEARNING PROCESS 33 to Ion-structure continuum in relation to a given task.rill vary according to the tlcgrec of structuring called for by the instructional goals guiding the intcraction at that particular time. First. As hve can sec from Table 2. It allows us to deal coherently with the following key managerial questions antl to demonstrate that the answers \. In a low-structure context. This concept is illustrated inTablc 2. as well as acti\ities. 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. and evaluation. curriculum tlcvclopmcnt has hccomc much morc complcx.. 1992). learners have relatively little freedom of maneuver. 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.5. In a high-structure task. ~ v do c believe an association exists bctwecn lolv-structure antl CLT and that the incorporation of communicativc tasks Lvith Ion-structure implications into the classroom increases thtcomplexity of the decision-making process for the teacher. In other \vortls. tcchniques. In ccrtain communicative tasks. communicative language teaching has had a major influence on languagc curriculum dcvclopment. and strategies cxist for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of classroom interaction and acquisition? (All of these questions can be explored through thc investigative procedures suggested in Nunan 1990. and tcachcr/lcarner roles. EIomww-. students are placed in reactive roles and accorded relatively little choice. motivation.g. from teacher-fronted through small group. implemcntation. which contrasted traditionalism n i t h CLT.

It the planning ctage High-structure contexts Lowstructiire contexts Course dc5ign 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? Nectls analysis Ho\v can I identify the learning prcfci-cnccs of m y students? Ho~v can I coopcratc \\-ith collcagucs in Course planning? Ho\\ can 1 get the most out of staff meetings? Holy can staff meetings contributc t o cffccti\ c planning? Ho\\ can I i n \ o l \ c my learners in identifying and articulating thcir o\vn needs? What opportunitics exist hi- Collegial team teaching? Resources HOMd o I manage ujc o f act text? Hmv do I niotlifq/adapt the t e x t ? Ho\v do I crcatc my olvn resources? Holy do I design split information tasks that \vi11 be cffcctirc in mv context? A t the implementation rtagc Talk/interaction What arc cffectiw strategies for direct instruction? W h a t questioning strategies facilitate learner contributions t o low-structure tasks? Hoiv do I give feedback on high-structure tasks? How do I give feedback in lo\\--structurc tasks? W h a t types of teacher questions maximize student output? . J Curriculum decision-making in high-structure and lo\\ -structure contexts Curricular elements .Table 2.

Learner language H ~ do M 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? Learner attitude Group configuration 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 Sclf-cvaluation of the learning process Formal e\ aluation What techniques \vi11 help m e t o asscss the achic\cment of my learners? How can I help my learners de\-clop effective tcchniqucs for sclf-assessmcnt? Ho\\ can l e a r n e n be in\olxcd in proxidlng input to the e\ aluation procc$s? .

Learners should be focused o n the processes through which lcarning takes place as well as on thc target language they arc learning.These relationships are set out schematically inTahlc 2. antl when ~ ’ arc e teaching it.6. include how are \vc arranging the learning environment. it also includes the processes of implementation antl evaluation . not only bvith language content goals. ProceJirrcs . sequencing and grading of content. In this vicw. methodology. Among other things. we must ask how well the learner has done and how well the curriculum has done in serving the necds of the learner.These three phasc-s are captured in Figure 2. when we focus on the lcarner. and about the learning process. which are methodological in character. about the language.. and arcas Question. Wc believe that this vicw is simplistic and nai‘vc. Table 2. we can say that curriculum dcvclopmcnt represents a delicate juggling act involving the incorporation of information about the learner.lrcus Contcnt What? Why? When? I’roccsscs EIO\V? Sclccting Justifying Grading 1 When? Outconics Ho\v \vcll? tnacting Sequencing 1 Methotlolog! Asscssing Asscssmcnt How cffccti\c? E\ aluating k\ aluation O n e vicw of “curriculum” has it that curriculum processes have to do with thc dc\-clopment of tactical plans for action. and assessment and evaluation. I . The final point we wish to makc is that the language curriculum should concern itself.36 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB much more information about and by learncrs came to be incorporated into the curriculum process. which are concerned with determining how well students have done. Learning process qucstions. why are we teaching it. . Language content questions include what are we tcaching. which is concerned with task selection and sequencing.1 .anguage focus cxerciscs \vere developed as a second-order activity. the curriculum specialist’s task ends when the ink is dry on the various documents that have been produced to guide teaching and learning. According to this vie\v. h Kc! curriculum questions. Thc other major modification occurred with the emergence of the communicative task as a central building block within the curriculum. as well as evaluating how well the instructional process has met curricular goals. In summary. that while “curriculum” includes the planning process. phonological or morphosyntactic point. “curriculum” is taken to refcr to statements about what should happen in the teaching and lcarning situation. tasks were designed to reflect learners’ communicative necds. Instead of being designed to teach a particular lexical. p r o w d u r c s . Wc can relate thcsc key qucstions to each other in terms of the central curricular elements of syllabus design. It is our contention that learners cvho h a w developed skills in identifying their own preferred learning skills and strategies \vi11 be more effective language learners. but also with learning pro goals. which has to do Lvith thc selection.

) Sct out course goals Write performance objecti\cs __ Select. a curriculum specialist. situations. action I-cscarch) Phase 11: Phase 111: E\ aluation (assessmcnt. to d e l elop skills in learning hov to lcarn Lcarning process Task Aim To familiarize you \z ith 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.MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 37 Phase I: Planning (initial nccds analysis. a counsclor. monitoring. 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. 2. ctc. thcmcs. antl process) Implcmrntation (ongoing ncrtls analysis. a director of studics. Sclcct those areas for xvhich thc teacher has primary responsibility. etc. 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. self-asscssmrnt. adapt or develop lcarning tasks and material\ Monitor student progrcss ~ _ _ ~ . program cvaluation) h p r c 2. What arc somc of the decisions that need to be made? Exprcss these as questions. Write these down in thc spaces provided. goals antl (hjcctives. to tle\rlop the abilit! to olitain goods and scr\ ices in the target language For cxamplc. Study the activitics and decide kvhich of them. in relation to a context Ivith which you arc familiar. settings. I Thrcc phascc or pcrspccti\cs on the curriculum process Curriculum goals I anguage content For example. 1 ocabular!. notion\) ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -~ Select cxpcriential content (topics. functions. should be carried out by a teacher. contcmt.

A variety of different t y c s of information can be collectctl. In learner-oriented contexts. The thrcc approaches arc differentiated according to their educational rationale. 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. . language context. (It \vould l ~ c unrealistic. it is generally tlesirahlc to collect and interpret (lata about the learners and the institutional context in which they learn. A \vide range of information can hc collected through nccds analysis procedures of various kinds. needs analysis. other than proficiency level. can be used to assign students to groups? Is it possible to have diffcrent configurations at different times during thc. additional limitations and constraints will apply \vith young Icarncrs. teachers will lie rcsponsiblc for all these tasks. during.8). Such information might include biographical information about the learners.38 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB A s e s s learning outcomes ELaluatc language program(s) ~ ~ ~ _________ ~ ~ ___________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In some teaching contexts. In the initial planning stages. data on the types of communicative tasks that learners might want or nccd to carry out in the target language.l’his information may Ile collected formally or informally before the course and once the course has begun.) In attempting to obtain information from learners. He calls thrse the language proficiency orientation.The salient characteristics o f t h c three approaches are set out inTable 2. Within a second. the psychological/humanistic orientation and the specific purposc orientation.s Should these he carried out I d o r c . the method of data collection and the l ~ u r ~ i o sfor e s \vhich the data arc collcctetl. for example. the type of information collected. Rrintllcy (1 989) suggests that there arc basically thrcc different approaches to nccds analysis. or after the course has begun? Should the learners he forced to respond in the target language? HOWdo 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. as will be seen in the sample instruments provided in this section. and assigning students to groups include the follo\ying: ~ ~ ~ Student intervicu. Some of the questions r a i d by teachers in rclation to interviews. the extent to which Icarners’ subjcctive nccds can be canvassed dcpends on the range and extent of lcarncrs’ previous cxpcricnccs. 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. information on the ways in tvhich the learners prcfcr to learn. In others. 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. as well as allout learners.7. to ask learners lvhcthcr they like to learn through rolc play and simulations ifthcy have never expericnccd such activities. Rrindlcy suggests types of information and purposes that are important (scc*Ial~le 2. and so on.teaching day? Needs analysis In the course of designing a teaching program from scratch o r modifying an existing one. rather than foreign. they will have little control.

rmission A major purpose for. Figure 2 . 2 excmplifics some ways in which data can be used for grouping purposes. Goal and objective setting arc important tasks in most educational contexts.MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 39 Table 2. Thc following sample goals have hcen extracted from a variety of second and foreign language programs. P. and plans . lrarning Ttratcgy pretcrcnccu Information o n nativc speakcr Language proficitmcy/languagc tlifficul tics use of language in learners’ target communication situation Method ?f collection Standardized forms/tcsts Stantlartlizetl forms Observation.7 Approaches to needs analysis Lungnage proficicnc). 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. orientation Educational rationale if gi-oupcd according to proficiency. Goals arc broad statements that provide gcncral signposts for course development. because they pro\ ide a rationale for selecting and integrating pedagogical tasks. 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. Used b y pc.ccomr sclf-dirccting b y bring involved in decision making about their learning So motivation will I)c cnhanccd I)? relativeness of language content Source: After Rrindlry 1989: 67 69.conducting needs analyses is to categorize and group lcarners. inter\ icws and I anguagc analysis Surveys of learners’ pattcrns o f language use Obscr\ ation survcys Purpose S o lcarncrs can be placed in So Icarncrs’ individual characteristics as learncrs can bc @\. Learners Icarn morc txffectivcly Lcarners learn more effectively ifini-ol\cci in the learning procchs. opinions. 7 j y of information Attitude$.endue consideration groups of homogeneous language proficiency So tcaclicrs can plan language content relevant to lcarncrs’ proficirncy I c ~ c l S o that lcarncrs \vi11 be prescntctl ivith language data rclcyant to thrir communication goals So Icarncrs can bc hclpd to 1. needs analysis provides a basis for setting goals and objectives. attitudcs. moti\ ation. itleas. They are expressed in the 1)roadest possible terms. feelings.y chological /humanistic orientation Spec$c purpose orientation Learners Icarn morc cffecti\ el\ if content is relevant to their specific arcas of nrrd/intcrcst. Setting goals and objectives In the contcnt domain. as well providing a point of reference for thc decision-making process.

im accordingl! S o that t c x h c i . couched in functional terms.8 T ! pes of information required in a Icarncr-centered yystcm Lcarncrs’ lift. personal rcsourccs (including time) S o Icai-ncrs can 1)c grouped according t o theii t i e t d \ a n d /or intcrc-sts Imguagc.s can gear Ianguagc content antl tiiatci-ids to learners’ stage o f tlcvclopmcnt learners’ communicative strategic.orks antl social roles Language goals. ~ ~ To tlevclop communicati\ kills in ortlcr t o acquirc. attitudc t o \ v x ( l So that tcachcrs ma! adapt learning activities t o Icarning Ytratcgr prclci-cnccs. patterns of language usc. communicative nct\\. The follo\ving h a w been taken from an intcrmcdiate~lcvcltextbook. Most curriculum tlocumcnts Iiasctl on a goal and olijcctivcs approach contain a . antl tcachcrs m a y makc pi-c>lirninary tlccisions alwut coui-cc content a p p r o p r i a t e t o learners’ social r o l e s Olljcctivc nccds. indi\ itlual needs correction Information about I r a r n c r s ’ attainnicnt o f objccti\ cs Inloi-mation almut tlcvclopnicntal p r o u ~ s s c s in second language learning. Sourre: Adapted f r o m Rrintllcy 1984. In this book you will: Make comparisons Ask for and give advicc Express obligation Talk ahout past cxpc. atlccti\ c nccds. including So that t h r tcachcr can m o n i t o r Iicrformancc and inotlitj progr. p a c ~ o f learning. Used liy pc~riiiission.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. proticicncy antl language clifficultics So Icarnci-s can Iw grouped accoi-ding to thcir language proficicne\ Sul>jcctivcncctls including learning stratcg! prcl‘crcnccs.ricnccs Exprcss opinions aliout cntcrtainmcnt. rccnrd and use intwmation from a variety of aural sourccs ‘lh tlcwlop acatlcmic Iistcning skills in order.40 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB Tuhle 2.. (Nunan 1995a) These goal statements arc very general in nature and can encompass numcrous subsidiary . learning a d \ it! prcfci-cncrs. can Ilc found in tcaching matcrials of various sorts. communi( ativc antl social rolcs net\\ orks So lcai-iicrs ilia) Ilc placrd in a g r o u p basctl o n (‘oninion social roles. goals So that tcachcrs have a Iiasis on \vhich to tlctcrminc o r prcdict Icai-ncrs’ language goals.

t o study grammar. ~ ~ ~ Working in pairs. films. but \ I ith re\\ or no literacy skills in 1-1 2 Students \vho belong in a nc\v arrivals program 3 Studrnts \\ ho rcquirc gcncral support in the mainstrcam ncctla 4 Stutlcnts with spccific affrcti\ e .s ne\\ s p a p u s . language antl communication 5 Students \vho arc approximating nativclikc proficirnc! (Atlaptctl lrom S. 4 " . using cassettes. trains. Formal objcctivcs should contain a perfbrmancc (which sets out what learncrs arc to do)..tna~trcii/"learner. Formal pcrformancc objectives specify kvhat learncrs should lie able to do as a result of instruction. 'l'hcsc Icarnrrs like to study grammar. listening to native 3 "Cornrnunicarivc" learners Th sion in h g l i s h . I ~ i t h o r i ~ . and standards.y protilc 1 Students \\ ith oral skills. tudcnts like t o l e a r n b! bvatching. learning nc\v \vortls hy hcaring them and learning I>) con\ crsations. Students m ill extract and record estimated minimum antl maximum tcmperatui e4 from a tapcd radio neather forcca5t Thc) must accuratclj record tour of the ~ I regions Cwercd by the forecast. talking in pairs antl practicing English outside class. they also likr to study alonc. ESI Guitlrlincs) 11 I earning strategy protile 1 "Concrete" learners 'l'hcsc learners tend to like gamcs. learn likr to h a \ c their o\vn tcxtbo 1)~ rratling. vitlro. and rratl 2 ".o r ~ ~ n/eurner. picturcs. talking t o fricnds in English a n d Lvatching t ot'class in shops. While matching a I idcotaped conxerqation bctneen t\zo natixc speaker5. and lcarn ne\? \vortls (Atlaptctl from Willing 1988) 111 Ilcarning purpose 1 Ne\\. conditions (specifying the conditions and circumstances under which the learners should perform) antl standards (setting out how \vel1 they should pcrloi-m). ctc.s t e d " 'I'h learners prclcr the trachcr to explain crything in a notebook.MANAGING T H E LEARNING PROCESS 41 [ Languagc proticicnc. stucly English hooks. anti \vork on problems set b y the tcachcr.2 Three altcrnati\ e w a v s 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.A. The three objcctivcs that follow illustrate the thrcc components o f performance. conditions.5tutlcnts v ill X . learnci s \T ill pro\icle cnough information for their pai-tnrr to drau their famil! trcc The) \z ill pro1 i t l c cnough information for a thrcc gcncration famil! trcc to lie d r a n ~. using tnglish out speakers.arrivals 2 English in t h r \vorkplacc 3 English for further study 4 English lbr professional cmplo! nicnt 5 English for access to \ ocational tl-aining and cmploymcnt Figtire 2. find their own mistakes.

It i s also an essential prerequisite for devising appropriate forms of learner assessment. . They can be particularly useful in the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the learning process. Others argue that such precise specification greatly facilitates other steps in the design process. you can see they arc formulated in terms of what the learners should be able to do as a result of instruction. The latest manifestations of the goals and objective approach to curriculum devrlopmcnt have appcareti in competency statements that attempt to specify what learners should be able to do a t different levels. I t forces the designcr to he realistic about what learners can achieve and helps guide the selection of appropriate materials and classroom activitics. . Can understand the context of further cducation/training in Australia Can utilise a range of learning strategies relevant to further cducationltraining context\ 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 3. 4. the designers of the ALL guidelines chose to move directly from goals to the specification of task o r activity types without elaborating detailed sets of objectives.42 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB identify the various topics discussed and points at which they are changed. 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 d o at the end of a course is somehow undemocratic and neetllr~sslyrestricting on both the student and the teacher. The ALL guidclines take as their point of departure a number of broad goals that are refined into specific goals. 6. All topics and change points arc to l x x idcntificd. We also have employed this procedure in some of our work. You can also see how numerous subsidiary objectivcs could be formulated from each of the goal statements. Interestingly. You can get some idea from this furthcr example of thc breadth of the goal-setting exercise. Although we do not feel it necessary to dcvrlop formal three-part objectives for everything we wish to teach our learners. Englishfor Stti(+ 1. these specifications were intended to be general enough to help materials writers and teachers nm-king in a range of second and foreign languages. as shown i n l i b l c 2. Once again.9. Some years ago. [. Called the Australian Language Levels (ALL) guidclines. The following arc extracts of core competencies designed for an adult immigrant program. 5. an interesting set of specifications was developed in Australia. we do believc that a sample set ofohiectivcs can greatly assist in managing the learning process. 2.I Vocational English 1. Can understand the context of work in Australia .

poem. plans) ~ participate in social interaction rclated to solving a problem. 2. vocational anti lrisurc-based purposes establish and maintain relationships and discuss topics of intcrcst (e. and respond personally to a stimulus (c.enmin~~hon-to-learn Leamcrs \vi11 be able to take a grobving responsibility for the management of their own learning so that they learn how to Irarn. write an essay or a set 01‘ instructions) listen to. Can utilise a rangc of learning strategies relevant to employment contexts 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 4.g. experiences. attitudes and feelings to Iirocc’ss information. making decisions with others. givr a talk. havc direct access to inlorniation and use their language skills for study. . through exchange of information..I ’ English for community access 1.g. song. Can understand the context of wclfarc/community services in Australia . and to think and respond crcativcly) ~ Icarning-ho\\ -to-lcarn skills communication stratcgirs (to enablc them to sustain communication in thc target languagr) Source: Atlaptcd from Scarino ct al. a story. anti hou to lcarn a language To develop: ~ cognitive processing skills (to enahlc them to understand values. 3.. 6. 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.g. and thcn and use the information obtaincd give information in spoken or written form (c. play) ~ ~ 1. fcclings.. and transacting to obtain goods. attitudes.MANAGING THE LEARNING PROCESS Table 2 9 Communi( ation and learning ho\\ -to learn coals Broad goal Communication 43 Spectf. 1. in order that they may widen their nct\vorku of interpersonal relations. ideas. srrviccs. 5. 1988. opinions.c gods To be able to use the targrt language to: ~ By participating in acti) itics organized around use o f the targct language. making arrangements. play film. read or vie\\. learners will acquire communication skills in the targct language. picture.

’ . Key to settings 1 At work 3 Using public transport 2 At home 4 In barkoffee shop 5 On holiday 6 In a store 7 At the market 8 At school 9 At a dinner party 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. functions. 3. [.igurc 2 . 3 .44 DAVID NUNAN AND CLARICE LAMB 2. In Figure 2 . Develop a planning grid.3 can be used to rclatr goal and olijcctivc statements kvith other curricular elements (such as grammar. 4. or topics). 3 the task or pcrformancc elements from a set of olijectives are cross-refercncctl ivith scttings. . Planning grids such as Figure 2.I (NSW Adult Migrant kducation Scri ice Ilraft Competencies) Anothcr useful tool is the curriculum-planning qritl. Can utiliw a I-angc of learning strategies relevant to the local community context Can understand an oral report relevant to the local community context spoken exchanges for personal business and Can negotiate com~)lcx/l~rol~lcmatic community purposcs Can participatc in casual con\w-sation 5. to a course of your choosing.Thc gritl \vas dcvclopcd for a gcnci-al English speaking course. similar to thc one in 1.

c Setting in [he :tdiilt Illigrunt Llocution frogrum. ) It is difficult.l)fcthoJs in I a n g t i q e Leurnlng. Brindle!. I ) . London: I nngman . London: Penguin. 1988. Nunan.hub. Cainbritlgc: Cambi-itlgr University Press. 1988.MANAGING THE LEARNING PROCESS 45 In th15 section \\e haie tried to illustrate a range o f \Ea)\ in \\ hich goals and olijcctiics can be exprcssctl Dcspite tht-ir tlitlercncc\.couchcd. . 1986. Anahrim. 1 . .inclutlc c a detailed description and discussion of t procedures in the chaptcr. Crirriculoin Deielopment: frogrum Improrcmcnt. G.4tistruliun Lmgiiuge L c i d s Guiclelincs.Itloll .). 1995a. Svdncy : NSW Adult Migrant Education Service. ho\z e i (’1. . Columl>us. 1 ) . . Learning Sr. Richards and I ) .. Spring 1995. NcivYork: Cambridge Univcrsity Press. 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. 1990. D. 1988.sis und 0bjcctic. Untlcrhill.r 1987. Sydney: NCELTR. 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. M.4tIclaitle: National Curriculum Rrsourcc Ccntrc. 11. Ohio: Charlcs Mrrrill l’ublishing Co. Second L u n g t i u p Teucher Educarion. P. The Tree ?[. Willing. the goals of instruction antl t h individual learners. G. April 1986. antl G. the! all describe what learners should lit. A . Nunan. Nunan. Brindle!. A . “Action rcscarch in thc language clas. 1989. “Pro in humanistic education. Cambridge: Cambridge. ’ McKay antl J. i ~ .bfun.] References Riggs. 2nd ctln. Reseilrch . TE5OL Q i u r t c r b . D. 1961. Whitc. ions that teachcrs are required to make during the insti-uc nature of the program. Ac. I. Sydney: Prenticc-1 Iall. and R. A7eeds . I q u t k e . Nunan. 1. 1980.” paper prcscntctl at the AnnualTESOI.iiles in . all of these goal5 antl oblccti\es share somcthlng in common. D.4~C‘entcreti Communication. Nunan. if n o t impossible. 43. Flunkins.Tr1ft. D.1Iigrunt Etlncution. able t o do as a result 01 instruction We l>cIie\e that all language programs should take as their point ot tlrparturc goals antl objectii CY.. Convrntion. l’honias 1991. 1 Nunan. Nunan (ctfs. Rrintlley. Scarino. Canberra: Curriculum Devclopmcnt Centre.s. Boston: Hcinlc 8( Heinlc. t o sa). . The Lcurner Centred Curriculum. Ne\vYork: Cani\)ritlgc Univcrsit) Prcss. “The leal-ncr-ccntretl curricdum in theory antl pi-acticr. 1989.4chie~eincntin u Leurner-Centred Curriculum. 1984.sing . 1992. Designing 7b. K . The Process o f l e a r n i n g . F. Clark. Vale. .s f i r the Communicative Clussroom. 199511. Univcr-sity P r e s . 250 256. Closing the gap I)eti\ccn lcarning antl in\truction. Process und Experience in t h e h n g u u g e Classroom. Nunan. 1989.ITL:lS: ~. and H.” In J.” Lnglish Lungiiugc Teuching ]ournul.

syllabuses wcre structural. any grammatical complexity was obligatory as thc language uscr’s meaning became incrcasingly complex. Witldo\vson has olxcrved that a strictly lrxical syllabus would begin Ivith one word texts each complete in itself. ~ S Educational syllabus Language teaching is part of a \vidcr M hole. argue a case. the Communicative Approach introduced functions. I cmphasisc that my own conccrn is to look at thc contribution ivhich lcxical items of different kinds can make in determining content. effective educational experience should increase curiosity. met with widespread acceptancc. Here. take responsibility antl co-operate. the most important of lvhich arc inwlvcd in: lop particular intellectual 1 2 Itlcntifying problem\. and so on to ever more complex tcxts but where. There is in all education a hidtlcn agenda which secks to tlc skills. I am concerned with the contribution lcxis may make to the specification of content. Willis. antl certain re-ordcrings. proceed to two word tcxts. The question naturally arises as to kzhat similar changes are called for by the Lexical Approach. thc attempt by Cobuiltl to ticfine a Icxical syllalx~s around the most frequent words ofthc languagc has not. the education of individuals. in The Lexical S y l l ~ hobserves . and that syllabus and mcthotlology arc not discrete options: indeed. despite its fascinating theoretical base. or other critcria such as l’rabhu’s procedural syllabus. that an approach involves both syllabus specitication and methodology. appreciate. tcacher and studcnt. Although cclucational experiences w i l l differ in the \vay they contributc for every participating in&\ itlual. ti 11rlow. confidence and self-worth. performancc ohjcctiws. In addition it should increase the individual’s ability t o concentrate. and demanded additional grammaticalisation. data antl cvidence. at all timcs. Historically. . Even if such a syllalius were I)ossihlc to devise. Similarly. tolerate. it is difficult to imagine it being pedagogically acccptablc. syllabus may be specified in terms of goals.Chapter 3 Michael Lewis LEXIS I N THE SYLLABUS 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’ sense thc content of the teaching programme. Collecting information. Every learning cxyeriencc should contributc to thc dcwlopment of maturc individuals. Some of the reasons I perceive for this arc discu. The search for a strictly lcxical syllabus is likelv to be frustrating for theorist. wonder and awe.

exclusions and sequencing As all teachers kno\v. Syllahuscs are normally thought of as listing. 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. Inclusions. mastery of structure was rcgarticd as synonymous with language learning. for nothing which happens in the classroom should conflict \vith the educational ideals \vhich the ahove summary expresses. Firstly. produce) paradigm. Evaluating evidence and argument. Taking decisions hasetl on complete or partial data.This is important. ~ Within the I . Iorm a significant component of all coursc5 A halance v 111 he maintaincd bet\\ n (relati\ el! rai e ) I\ ord5 cari jmg considcralilc incaning.LEXIS IN T H E S Y L L A B U S 47 3 4 5 6 7 8 Classifying data. eicn if the! are initiall) unable to grammaticalise it Pragmaticallj useful lcxlc al item\. When the influence of pragmatics \vas felt . course content.en particulaistudcnts. exclusions and sequencing. but relatcs to particular courses. A basic classroom strategy will he helping students to avoid becoming preoccupied hv grammar or vocabulary.The I’-P-P (prcscnt.H . Although a case can lie macle for including any language which is ne\v for the student. or not prioritised.cxical Approach: ~ All lo\\ lexel t o u r w s \ \ i l l gi\c students a large \ocal)ular). Only rarely is this the ca most students \vi11 remain intermediate and this should influence the language selected for inclusion. separating more from less important. courses are invariably too short. Ranking. recognising the importance of co-text.E (obscrl e . b u t also act as a major linguistic resource from \vhich students can extract lexical itcms for study. In tact. Communicating results effectively. concentrating instead on different kinds of lcxical item. Texts play a rolc in introducing interesting content. not valued. and controlled pattern practice arc elements of this kind. 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.principled ways of including only maximally useful itcms. a principal role for the syllabus is to providc. repetition. and recording in appropriate formats. ~ It will he noted that much traditional language teaching is in direct conflict with some o f these otijectivcs. The single most distinctive feature of the Lexical Approach is that it proposes a fundamentally differcnt attitude to the treatment of text. hypothesisc. bv recognising similarity antl difference. so that the plausiliility of an answw may bc ci-aluatctl. and perhaps sequencing. What is maximally useful is n o t intrinsic to the languagc. making hierarchies. experiment) paradigm arc in sympathy with the \vitler educational syllabus. In the days of structural syllabuses. it is suspicious of dccontcxtualiscd languagc. Secondly. the consequent emphasis of structure within syllabuses \vas wholly to lie expected. Too many coursvs are constructed on the implicit assumption that thcy arc intermcdiatc stages on the way to full language comprtcncc. it proposes a range of aivarencss-raising actilitics directing students’ attention to the chunks of which text is compowd. thrcc factors arc important: inclusions. and an O . antl ei. A task-hascd methodology. expansion. Estimating. antl thcreforc preferring extended text o r discourse. practise. partitularl) in\titutionalited uttcrancct.

Nunan ( 1 988: 28) suggests: Learners arc prcscntrtl ivith chunks of language which may include structures of varyin dc recs oftlifficulty. Within the Lexical Approach diffcrcnt kinds of lexical item may lie identified. 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. . much carlier in courses. rather than tlcrived from grammatical competence. remarks that ‘there arc general arguments against grammatical grading of content. \vhile in the latter. language minutely. and that the language can he built up by an accretion of thew items. functions became a familiar term to teachers. It itcmi research into natural language.g system ot the language. resting on a large body of It docs itemisc language. re-identified. O n the basis of this research it makes realistic and economical statements about lvhat is to be Icarned. . liut the communicative purpose for ichich the language is used. of language as communication’.? was re-identified as Ofleering. o r in relation to traditional language teaching. A starting point for syllabus design is not the grammatical b . communicative methotlologj i s holistic in that it relics on the ability of learners to abstract from the language to which thcy arc exposed. but misleadingly. in order to rccrcate a picture of the target languagc. As a result CZbtildyou l i k e . Wilkins distinguishes lict\vecn synthetic antl analytical syllahuscs. tlcscrihing his \\ell documented Bangalore Project. Examples are trcating would as a single \vord lexical item.7’hc lexical syllabus attempts to rcconcile thrse contradictions. its re-identitication allowctl it to bc re-valued. o r the recognition of fully institutionalised utterances which may be introduced and treated as unanalyscd wlmles contributing to.s Design. This comment reflects WitldoLvson’s claim that ‘Dividing language into discrete units of whatever type misrepresents thc naturc. and replaced. But the methodology associated with the lexical syllabus does not depend on itcmisation. 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. Nunan (1988: 34). the former being ‘a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of language has hccm built up’. i n his comprehensive survey 5jllubu. liut rather thc creation of conditions in which learners engage in an effort to cope with communication.48 M I C H A E L L E W I S in language teaching. by ‘accumulating entities’. The tension of syllabus v language and learning Most language syllabuscs still list discrete items. whethcr this grading be based on traditional critcria or on more reccnt critcria stemming from SLA research’. . this listing naturally. And he quotes Widtlowson as observing. 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. rather than part o f ‘the conditional’ (see hclow). suggests that languagc: may be learned in a similar kvay. J Prahhu (1 987: 1 ).

most teachers continue to demand much more specific linguistic objectives for cach lesson.LEXIS I N THE SYLLABUS 49 Pratihu. The lexical content of Icarning. A t the same time. Thc implications are that we should adopt a morc holistic view of language. it has no defining role to play within syllahus design. Widdowson. as Willis ( 1 990: 1 29) observes: A shortcoming oftask-tiascd approaches is that they make it difficult to specify syllabus content. regards vocatiulary. therefore. which attempted to dc-vclop in detail the \vork summarised in A’otional Syllabuses. To a certain. ‘I’here is a fundamental conflict between the teacher’s natural desire to give clearly focuscd and effective lessons. though limited. Willis (1 990: v). Nunan. whilst claiming a primary focus on meaning. we can identify explicitly linguistic changw which arc consistent with the Lexical Approach. While endorsing and encouraging a mcthodology based on tasks and skills. The tacit assumption is that macro-skills are a synthetic assembly of micro-skills. and the non-linear nature of language and learning. ( 1 976: 76) Wilkins’s vicw is. 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. 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. Although therc is substantial theoretical support for task-based goal-orientated syllabus specification. Thesc assumptions arc almost certainly untrue but this raises pedagogical difficulties. dacloping Sinclair’s ideas. lcxical aspects cannot bc entirely excluded since grammatical and lexical tleviccs often interact significantly. and as teachers \IT cannot he sure what has lm-n learned in the course of a given language activity or a given unit. and quite specifically words. and a task-based approach to learning. (1988: 30) Syllabuses tend to isolate. that larger units of discourse are assembled from words and structurcx. rathcr than spccifically linguistic criteria. thus. as the key to syllabus specification: . Somewhat surprisingly. . Content specifying lists One of the most intlucntial attempts to specify contcnt \vas the Threshold Level. that ho\vrver important vocabulary may be. though they arc not less significant for being gencral in character. In contrast.This is probably hettcr approached in terms of subjectmatter and situation. cxtcnt the scmantico-grammatical categories themsclvcs have applications for the lexical content .lhis also explains why no attempt is made in this framework to account for a lexical contcnt of 1earning. . can be largely derived from an analysis of the typical topics which occur in the language use of a given group. divide and sub-dividc. but.

slump. increased vocabulary will play a larger contribution than additional mastery of even the most highly frequent patterns of high frcquency words. The most frequent ‘\vurds’ are lrcquently items previously regarded as structural and.500 ‘words’ which they selected as the basis for Parts 1 .There is an additional. and explicitly recognises word patterns for (relatively) delexical words. Inherent in this intcrpretation are three problems which manifcst themselves in thc coursc tlescrilied in Willis’s The Lexical Syllabus: 1. . collocational power for (relatively) semantically powerful words. . as requiring tlifferrnt. soot. adjectives and vcrbs.This means that from a naive. despite the retercncc to ‘phrases in which they occur’ Sinclair and Willis largely equate the lexical syllalius with a word-based syllabus. Some of these rarer meanings of high frequency words appear as of relatively low utility. Willis observes that ‘profiles hccome lcss complex as one moves down the frequency scale’. 3. and longer multi-\vord items. particularly institutionaliscd sentences.e. 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.This lvould specify \vords. 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. have is considerably more difficult than mastcring a voca1)ulary itrm with highcr meaning content: accident. ‘Learnability’ and communicative power arc at least as important in selecting words for inclusion as frequency.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. (1 990: 15) It \vi11 bc notcd that. 2 . which students almost incvitably make. liut the underlying argument \vas to do with utility and with the po\vcr of thc most frcqucnt lvords of English. and if it is communicative power which is thc primary objective. 2. and a relatively high confusion-factor for elcmcntary studcnts. 3 of their course). student point of vicw the words are easier to learn. antl their pattern profiles are cxtremcly complex. and parallel. each stagc of thc course \vould bc h i l t round a lexical syllabus.Thcsc largely delexicalised words are highly frequent precisely becausc they often have scvcral meanings. extraneous to the most frequent 700. with. The word-based syllabus introduced words with Imth their highly frequcnt and much rarer meanings together. by definition they carry meaning. is more likely to be accurate.set out to achieve the best coverage we could with as little extraneous lexis as possible (i. It is specifically not a lexical syllabus.500 and 2. Although the \vords learned will inevitably he in corpus terms comparatively low-frequency. 1. The Lexical Approach I propose avoids these dangers. pedagogical advantage. Ironically. The old structural syllabuses specifically restricted vocabulary to the level necessary to exemplify structural patterns. In contrast to their urge to restrict vocahulary at low levels. . Willis ( 1990: 74) in his word-based approach explicitly espouses the samc principle: We . \vords of low semantic contcnt. . Multi-word lcxical itcms arc untlcr-valucd antl under-cxploitcd. and any L2 L1 equivalence. Rut words carry more meaning than grammar. Mastcry of wortls like t o . pedagogical treatment. then meanings antl thc common phrases in which thcy were used. ironically. I advocate encouraging the learning of a comparatively large repertoire of high-meaning content nouns.



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, get, p u t , take, make, do represent an important subcategory. Function words, often thought of as prepositions of, w i t h , 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 oneword lcxical item. Interestingly, it is one ofthe items which mcrits fullest discussion in The Lexical . ~ l l a h u s .
~ ~ ~

2. Increased attention to the base form of lexical verbs 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.


De-contextualised teaching of semantically dense items

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, it should he natural to introduce with them verbs and adjectives which form pow.l-erfu1or 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.


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 o f 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

52 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; \vcllchosen 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’ o r ‘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 of 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. Synonyms within the existential paradigm
This is a particular cxamplc of supra-sentential linking. Observations of r e a 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 full support. /ilbsolut+, I’dgo d o n g 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.



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 M O N EY . 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 M O N E Y .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 s m e j ’ o u 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 m o n c j 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

54 M I C H A E L L E W I S
metaphorical usage torrents arc morc likely to be of abuse o r 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 j o w e r i n g . . . . For language tcaching, thc importancc lics in rccognising:
~ ~



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 is t 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.

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 1989 Wilkins, D. Notional S,vllahuses. OUP 1976 Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus. Collins Cobuild 1990

Chapter 4

Michael McCarthy and Ronald Carter

1 Introduction
HE A D E Q U A T E D E S C R I P T I O N OF L A N G U A G E is vital as a precursor of languagc tcaching syllabuses. A t 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. O n e 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

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 t o 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 t o 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 ~ also c 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 systemoriented 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 o f discoursc, and if discourse-level constraints incomplete without a description of the 1 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 t o 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 appropriacy of use with regard t o 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 h e scparatcd from ‘discourse’ and jvhcthcr such notions can cvcr lie vielied as items or entitics ‘to be taught’, if ~ ’ are e faithful to the view that a svllabus i s indeed a list of things to he

has clearly flaggcd features such as turn-taking and closing as ‘skills’. These views have a direct bearing on the second concern.hat sIieakcrs/ writers do and how they manage interaction over extended language cvcnts. ctc) Overt transactional skills in spoken discourse (for example initiating. for example. For instance. This would mean not only telling learners what the synonyms and hyponyms ofa particular word or set of words arc. expanding a text) Rhetorical organization (textual functions such as generalization. that categories A and C seem to be languagc fcaturcs. suggesting a different emphasis from that attached to cohcsion antl reference. that such things as register antl mode are integral to the creation ot’tliscourse. This is no mere hair-splitting. in other \vords. attitudinal features and topics as inseparable from cohcrcncc and its manifestations in surface cohesion. as such. classification. these aspects of linguisticjbrrn create discourse. 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. is cspccially problematic givcn.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). another vie\v might he that lexical cohesion is a language universal. without any need to ‘present it’ as knowlcdgc or fact. Wc haw also sought to demonstrate that isolated lists of spccch acts are insufficient to tlrscribe \\. turn-taking) . not in some \vay ‘parallel’or complementary to it. Even more to the point. How we analyse and classify language for our syllabus necessarily affects our methodology and Lvhat \ve do in thc classroom. linguistic competence cannot be separated from discourse competence. while ‘opcrations on a text’ are unambiguously things . the separation of socio-cultural features from discourse ones. closing. In other Xvords. Wc should note. Thcse categories certainly represcnt innovativc clcmcnts in syllabus specifications and are faithful to \vhat discourse analysts have described as above-sentence features. though.pccch (see McCarthy 1984. but also demonstrating that synonymy and hyponymy in tise are often involved in the creation of wellformed text and interacti . Howcvcr. 1988). while I 3 and D w ~ ~ ~ l d seem to fit bcttcr under the heading of‘ skills or stratcgics. it liecomes more a matter of skill-training. 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. as ~ v have c argued clsewhcrc (McCarth? and Carter 1994). antl is at the heart of thc process of analysis and classification that precedes specification antl itcmization. The first problem. introducing topics. practice and training in an intuitive skill in order to improve one’s proficiency in its use. ~ v e see the realization of rcgistcrs. By the same token. \vc see the chaining together of’functions or speech acts as inseparalile from the creating of largcr pattcrns and gcmres in discourse.This is a crucial decision in the categorizing of syllabus components: Yaldcn ( 1 983). grammar antl \ ocabulary kno\vledge should invol\e ho\\. xvhcther things can he itemized for teaching and given socio-cultural.DESIGNING THE DISCOURSE SYLLABUS 57 taught and goals to lie achieved. strategic or discourse laliels antl thereti? allotted their rightful place in the syllabus inventory or check-list. 3 Analysis and classification Some notable writers on syllabus design follow the view that the analysis of language into is a feasihle hasis for its various levels antl the classification of fcaturcs within those 1 syllabus specifications.

‘Discourse lcvel units’ (Munhy 1978: 27) arc still . extracting salient points. so thcy should be given the opportunity to pcrccive grammatical regularities in scntcn to interpret pragmatic clues for the attachment of value to utterances in discourse. as separate from . enquiring. we \vould hc guilty of dealing bvith (some of> ‘the components of discourse. syllabus tcmplatcs antl check-lists as offered by applied linguists such as Munly ( 1 978) antlYaldcn ( 1 983) have a discourse clement built in. skimming antl scanning the text. This assumption often crcatrs difficulties in that the separation of’componcnts can produce a false picture oftheir role in creating the overall message. Munby (1 978) has a simi . nor just with ‘cognitive convergence’ (achieving shared knowledge and pcrlocutionary effect). promises. and it would fail to show how apologies. as we shall see. though. directing. an inventory of speech-acts o f this kind ‘cannot scrvc any more than sentences as thr direct endpoint of a communicative syllabus’. kvays of implementing the notion of a discourse element in the syllabus vary considerably. etc. etc). though much more tlctailctl. but also with affective convergence (an essentially humanistic notion).58 M I C H A E L McCARTHY A N D RONALD CARTER we ‘do’ with language. with the processes of creating . among man: other things. For Aston (as we havc argued) interactive discourse is concerned not only with illocutionary uptake (the realization of speech acts). A good example of this is the sort of list often found in syllabus specifications of speech acts or functions. ctc) mixed in with textual operations (‘reading between the lines’. 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’. 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. 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. initiating. and discourse is a level or language micro-functions antl grammatical/lcxical rcalizat layer of language rather than integral to its cntirc operation. specification of discourse jiutures (cohcsion. Widdowson and Candlin both come at the problem from the other direction: communicative compctcncc is not a list of learnt items. enquiries. form a continuum from basic phonemic and ler the heading of ‘language graphemic discrimination through to macro-planning. One highly innovative approach to incorporating an integrative view of discourse into thc syllabus is provided hy Aston (1 988). But separating the ‘ivhat’of thc language . and become themselves analysts of discoursc (Candlin 1976). such as promising. lvhich. 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. Although. As Candlin (1 976) points out. O n e 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. thcrc docs seem to I)c witlcspread agreement that the idea of discourse cannot he ignored. d c oping thc tliscoursc. and. and so on arc actually realized in interaction and as part of a . but a set of strategics o r proccdurcs ‘for realizing the value of linguistic elements in contcxts of use’ (Widdowson 1979: 248).sequence o f utterances antl how such realizations depcndcd on higher-order constraints of genre. just as learners may be expected . apologizing. not with discourse itself’ (Widdowson 1979: 248). In other words. all skills’. rather than fcaturcs Lvhich ‘exist’ in the language system. 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.

therefore. For Aston. many of the task-types advocated by task-based syllabus designers fall into the same trap as the information-gap activities of communicative approachcs. hut in which teaching can operate as a guidance.tratcgics that thc lcarner \vi11 this end. In the task-lnscd classroom. Aston. be used later in cxcr Aston. But c n with this pre-syllabus. languagc is tised in the process of solving preordained tasks.DESIGNING THE DISCOURSE SYLLABUS 59 and hvith the global and local strategies negotiated in individual contexts for achieving them. the main syllabus is two-stranded. whcrcin the ovcr-arching pcrspcctivc of languagcas-discourse will affect e r w y part of thc syllabus. observing and cieconstrLrcting how discourse is created. O u r s is also an intcgrativc vicw. or outside in the real world. sensibly. Aston’s final model therefore. these will l x specified in a strategic pre-syllabus. Furthermore. it is not sufticirnt just to specify a set of tasks for learners to undertakc. . in that they cncouragc a transactional vimv of language at the expense of the interactional. 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.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). including any conventional ‘system’ (lexico-grammatical) components and functional/specch-act components. favours a task-liasetl approach that does not shy axvay from specifying the discour. but. which hc sees as a ‘contcntl m d ’ one (Aston 1988: 188). though as a tliscoursr-analyst rather than as the sentence-parser and rule-discoverer of some approaches to traditional grammarbased syllabuses. In this sense. however. both of which arc essential to the creation of coherent discourse. looks like this: contcxt-lmctl syllabus construction tlcconstruction (Aston 1988: 188) Aston’s viem. tasks involving the learnelin creating discourse as the main syllabus are not enough. or indeed a sort of anthropologist (1 988: 184). rather than presented and lcarnt in orticr to . which Clarke (1 991) claims would be unworkable anyvay). and the second strand involves the learner in hecoming a discourse-analyst. For one thing. however they .things are done’ in particular speech communities) as well as the declurutive kno\vledge of‘what is clone’. with nothing preordained and everything open to negotiation among lcarncrs and teachers. simply specifying tasks ignores the fact that lcarncrs can be guided in the procedural knowledge (the ‘ho\. Aston seeks to build a syllalius Xvherein the learning process is not just left to gct on with itsclfin unpredictable ways.r. sees many problcms arising from more extreme views of the taskbased approach (the extremest form of which would be the completely negotiable syllabus. \vith the purpose o f promoting and enhancing uptake antl Icarning. 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). 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 ) .

con\rntions rclatcd to genre)? What degree of crccitiri~. turn-taking. very important in interactional tasks)? 4 Planning strategies W h a t sorts o f anticipator! strategies will he i d u l (c. 2 Coherence-related strategies What aspects of topic managcment. and this is Ivhat we would like hriefly t o consider in this wction. m o o d . W e say ‘likely’ because \ r e cannot always guarantee what thc outcome o f a task will lie. pronoun systems. lirohlem-4olution). whether as a series o f layers of language.g. 1 Genre-related strategies W h a t are the mctlia and modes that the learners \I i l l encounter? W h a t genres arc likclj to be most useful? W h a t patterns of interaction arc most useful (c. 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. m o o d systcms)? Holv important will reciprocity be (c.60 M I C H A E L McCARTHY AND RONALD CARTER arc treated. Each heading is follon. What \z. cataphoric uses o f articles)? Will special conditions for i-efcrcncc apply (c. \vi11 hc involvctl? W h a t types of cohesion (c.g. stronger emphasis o n across-turn lexical cohesion for intcractionally oriented tasks.g.g. 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. tlil’fcrcnt types of ellipsis in tliffcrcnt media)? 3 Politeness strategies What aspects of facc \vi11 need t o Iic atltlrcssctl? What forms of address will I>citnolvctl (c. aspect and voicc arc likely t o 1~ involvcd (c. 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 lie done in different ways and at different levels. anaphora across paragraph tiountlarics in written metli um) ? W h a t scquences o f t m s c . Some syllabuses (for example ICC 19x6) specify a gcncral set of strategies.g. cnuniei-ativc labelling.ctl by example qucstions that arc raised liy each onc and the s o r t of practical issues that arc likely t o l x encountered in the detailed specification of tliscourscfiattrrcs that might bc encountcrcd in the subscquent tasks.g. ctc. antl risk-taking with language is fcasihlc antl appropriate? 5 Convergence strategies Informational or cogniti~e con\crgcntc: and modalit! \I ill be in\ol\ctl? \ I hat aspects o f categories such as theme. or as realizations within general specifications o f discourse strategies.g. narratix e . Thc most gcncral heatlings are as follows.c propose are a sct of strategy-headings that can act as a s o r t o f filter lictn n the learning group antl i t s need and the specification of tasks.

in the real view can still be meaningfully adapted to a languagc~as~tliscourse approach \vithout just atitling discourse as a layer upon the o t h e r layers. . The point is that the conventional syllat. repair strategies may involve politeness. and s o o n . hut also a strategic Icvcl involving politcncss strategies (l’acc). in this way. Ibr example. which in itself involves cultural awareness and the problem of convcrgcncc. agrccmcnt~disagrcemcnt)? What transaction-boundary features are likely (pitch-sequcncing. W h a t one docs with a list o f strategies for a particular learner group dcpcnds o n onc’s philosophy concerning methodology. or m o r c global. The asking of a la. our is thus conceived o f as a genre rather than as a function or spccch-act. 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 .qually. in o u r opinion. planning (opening). ncgotiablc repairs? Stratcgirs invarialily overlap. expressed as discourse goals rathcr than as Iexico-grammatical or notional-functional oncs. 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. and inlolves not only sp h-act realizations at the micro-lc 1.DESIGNING THE DISCOURSE SYLLABUS 61 Affective convergence: \\. t.. thus destroying the basic notion of discourse as engaging Ivith language as process antl meaning as ncgotiatcd and contextual. in o t h e r \\-or&. .\\e might cnvisagc a ‘learners should be able t o . We see n o contradiction het\vecn o u r proposed list of tliscour tratcgics and the sulisequcnt spccification of the syllalius in terms of a set of specific performance goals.c. and should he. in that. markcrs)! What role will repetition play in creating convcrgrncc in diffcrcnt modes and genres? W h a t tlcgrcc o f cultural convcrgcncc w i l l be required? How w i l l ‘knowing almut’ language anti culture a in solving convcrgcncc problems? 6 R e p a i r strategies W h a t arc the risks ol communicational prolilems o r cultural misunderstandings? Is repair likcl! to lie largcly self repair. n-c \vould arguc that thc stratcgic list I-epresents a manageable antl reasonably faithful framework for syllabus and task design. language is not atomized antl treated as product. such an in\-cntory. convergence (reinforciny). w h c r c \ve slur[ with discourse as the overall driving force of our syllalius) lends itself best. At the Icxico-grammatical interface. solidarity routines.h a d approach (i.hat adjacency-pair typcs arc likcly (c. o n c could specify modalitv and (drlirnding on level) use of idioms. Ho\ve\er. Rut given the practical exigencies of dividing the discourse process. The d i s c o u r s e . nor docs it necessarily ~ireclude somc . to a task-liasetl methodology. syllaliuses that say rihar is to lie learnt and in \vhat ordcr.g. only that we start from a different premise: that all such goals can. Iyor example.’ lcaturc including something like the follo\ving: Ask 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 significant favours of othcrs in appropriate secluences in\ olving signals of opening explaining thc problrm asking minimizing reinforcing acccding thanking. antl s o o n . \vc have implied. Ixoblcmsharing.

62 M I C H A E L MCCARTHY A N D R O N A L D C A R T E R sort of proportional syllabus approach such asYalden (1983) advocates. taken from the International Certificate Conference’s teacher-training programme for teachers intending to use their discourse-strategy and taskbased syllabus (ICC 1986). that syllabus designers have most to learn from what discourse analysts can offer. and much useful literature exists which treats with more rigour than space allows us hcrc thc factors which can make o r break tasks (see especially Nunan 1989). convcrgrnce towards acquaintance or friendship. prohlcms of sensitivity.Thcrcforc. 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. If analysis from a discourse point of view is to the pre-syllabus for a task-based one. Designing tasks is no easy matter. and how the ‘pre-syllabus’ might fecd into thc constructional syllabus in a more controlled way. whether such tasks are additional to a more conventional communicatively oriented syllabus o r 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. the stock-in-trade of many prcscnt classroom tasks. that tasks which promote only or mainly transactional uses of languagc (e. An example of an attempt at building into a task interactional constraints demanding politeness and convergence strategies. However. even though cognitive convergence is already prcscnt in the written instructions for the furniture plan. For an interactional view of language to have an input into task dcsign. we have argued. but it shows how task dcsign can attempt to replicate a wider range of discourse conditions. if‘gaps’or ‘problems’ arc the core features of tasks which motivate their completion.This is only one small example. ‘diflicult’ participants. 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. and s o on. how they do so using systcmatic resources such as lexical cohesion and how features such as topic management are realized arc all central. how speakers/writers orient towards rcciprocity and convergence. goals where conversational well-king is morc important than informational transaction. McCarthy 1991 : 1 36--7). Tasks can fulfil some of these interactional criteria by dclibcrately ‘designing in’ unpredictable reactions. Discourse strategies. we feel. gaps in self-image. are concerned with human heings presenting a picture of themselves. trategies. the understanding of how natural conversation works. culminating in leaving instructions for the school caretaker to execute the furniture plan. o r gaps in agrccing on where to spend a Saturday night. problc~ms of face. For us. it is the analysis of‘language needs through a discourse perspective which is most important as a precursor to tasks and activities. 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. if the dcsirc is to follow a task-based approach. all of these will assume as much importance as gaps in placcs on a map. thcn we need to build in much more than just information or ‘opinion’ gaps (see Aston 1988: 192 -9 for a critique of information. It is hcrc.and opinion-gap approachcs). It does seem worth underlining here. Gaps in rapport.g. 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 . not just conveying information to one anothcr. howcvcr. information-gap tasks) are unlikely to engage learners in a full range 01’ discour. Iklton 1988.

Oxford: Oxford Univn-sity Prrss Willis. In Pride.fir Stage 3 I. J. Homes. pp.Washington. 1991 ‘The ncgotiatccl s&hus: what is it and how is it likely to work?’ Applied Linguistics 12 (1): 13 28 Hallitlay. M. J. 1983 ‘From communicative competence to Communicative language pedagogy’. J. 1990 The Lexical Syllabus. 1971 ‘ O n communicative competence’. 1 9 9 1 Discourse . Applied Linguistics 1 : 1 47 Candlin. 1984 ‘A new look at vocabulary in EFI. for ever. 1. J. 1976 Cohesion in English. pp. McCarthy. (eds) Language and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press Prabhu. pp. dialogue-writers. In Carter. McCarthy. Hvmes. task designers. M. the approach we have advocated enablcs us to b e m o r e faithful to what language is and what people use it for. language teaching and testing’. DC: Georgetown University Press. (ed) Georgetonm Universiy Round Table on LungLiuges ant/ Linguistic<. A. J. R. Volume 1. 1986 English Teaching Prof. 1988 Learning C o m i y . N. M . 1984 The Cambridge English Course. Hassan. 1989 Designing Tasks f i r the Communicative Classroom.ingnistics 5 (1): 12-22 McCarthy. Cambridge: Camhridgc Univcrsity Press McCarthq. Bologna: Editrice CLUER Rclton. C. MA: MIT Press Clarke. Above all. M. Cambridge: Cambridge Uniwrsity Press Nunan. 1980 ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to .h‘ala. R. D. In Richards. A . London: Longman.5 Discourse: Perspcctirzsfor LungLmqe Teaching. London: Longman Chomsky. 1976 ‘Communicative language teaching and the debt to pragmatics’. Bonn Frankfurt: Deutscher Volkshochschul~Vcrbandc. A. . 1988 ‘Lexical naturalness in native and non-native discourse’. S\vain. Cambridge.Ana!ysissisfor h n g i i a g e Teuchcrs. 1979 Explorutionv in Applied Linguistics 1 . Cambridge: Cambridgc University Press a Perspective.rIe on . F. 1983 The Communicative Syllabus: Evol[ltion.. 269-93 ICC (Intcrnational Certificate Conference) 1986 Foreign Languages in Adult and Continuing Education: Spec!fications. 11. J. 1994 Lunguage 0. New York: Pergamon . 1978 Communicutive Syllabus Design. A . English Langnugc Research Journal (ns) 2: 7 9 105 British Council 1983. (cds) SociolingLiistics. R. Walter. Ibcahulay und Language Teaching.4spects ofthe T h e o y ofSyntax. London: British Council Canale. M. D. G. McCarthy. usually. materials adaptors and evaluators of everything \ve do and handle in thc classroom. J. 237-56 Carter.. . McCarthy. Harmontlsworth: Penguin. M. Mcli. 1965 . J. K . C. H . pp. 181-200 McCarthy. A . J. 1988 ‘Some vocabulary patterns in conversation’. Applied I. London: Longman. N. M . Design and Implementution. C.’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Widdowson. Thc m o m c n t one starts to think of language as discourse. . 1972. London: Longman. Bibliography Aston. J. 140-60 Swan.. R.. M.v. M. written English of Malay students at preCardiff: University ofWales Munhy. Ibcnhulay and Language Eaching. 1988 ‘A lexical syllabus for language learning’. A.DESIGNING 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 b e t t e r and m o r e efficient syllabus designers. G. M . J. pp. R.ondon: Longman. M.. London: Longman. Schmidt. In Kameh. D. In Carter. 1987 Second Language Ped~~qogy: Sinclair. M. I<. Kenouf.evel of the International Certfj?cate Conference Language Certificate System. 2-27 Canale. London: Collins Yalden. N. Carter. 1988 Ibcahulay and Language Teuching.. J. the entire landscape changes.vsia. C.

The problcm is. hut not slaves to. that in . and t o disagree lvith the CORUILL) slogan that they should lie ‘corpus driven’ (Stuldis 1997).tcmatic descriptions o f occurrcnccs.crsations arc not a l \ v a y accountctl for in traditional grammars. Clearly such solutions to thc study of cductivc p v c r . (In this hc sccms to agree with the view of Summers antl Rundcll (1 995) that pedagogic matcrials should be ‘corpus based not corpus h o u n d ’ . He d o c s not say one should replace the othcr. corpus lintlings. though for that very rcason not particularly radical. Clearly all thcsc findings arc important. the grammatical constructions \ve find in actual con\. Ronald Carter is right to such insights ‘cxciting’. My problem with \vhat Carter says is that he seems a little hcsitant or perhaps unwilling to say \\here he stands. and m o r e a matter o f collocation. antl as though all important insights \vi11 emerge only from automatic scarchcs of their data antl no\\ hci-c clsc.g. grammar and lcxis cannot l i e as casily separated as have Iiccn traditionally. a \vorth\vhilc and interesting eontriliution to language teaching. providing s o m e interesting ‘rcal’ data. antl his paper is.. that thcrc arc grammatically possible utterances hich do not occur. Sinclair 1991. materials should l i e influenced by. and others lvhich occur ivith tlispro1. either in pedagogy o r in linguistics. As his articlc (1 9 9 8 ) illustratcs vcry \vcll. He proc (1s cautiously. antl his o\vn \vork with Michael McCarthv on the CANCOIlE corpus has added t o t h e m . life \vould Iic much siinplcr. They have sho\vn us. for that rcason. that somc corpus linguists (c.)This is eminently rcasonalilc. If the tratlitional concern complex human phenomena cxcrt a good deal ological complexity could be replaced of linguistics language in all its cultural and 11 hy a neat computer hank o f data.Chapter 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 s o m c of the m o s t important insights in rcccnt linguistics. howcvcr. Yet thc leap from linguistics t o pcdagogv is as Carter realizes far from straightforward. In his view. Stubbs 1996) ovcrrcach thcmsclvcs. Ilocs he reject the fundamentalist views ofthose linguists and languagc tcaching theorists for \z h o m corpus findings arc the only source of truth? ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ C . that actual language us(’ is less a matter of coml)ining alistract grammar rules v i t h individual lexical items. for example. antl pointing out significant diffcrcnccs Ixt\vccn actual antl texthook English.ortionatc f r c q w n c y .Thcy talk as though thc cntirc study of languagc can I x replaced by the study o f t h c i r collcctions. and thcy d o have implications for language teaching. He is not one o f t h c extremists.

The same is true o f a whole host of aspects of language use: metaphors. \voultl do \cell to consider more precisely \vhether \z e think corpus tindings mcrcly add a new dimension to earlier approachcs. distrihution.Thcy say nothing about how many people have read or heard a text or utterance. This applics to whole tcxts. such saliency can n inclutletl in a corpus. Some phrases pass unnoticed preciscly because of thcir frequency. representation. And becausc tliffcrcnt intlividuals noticc tlil’ferent things. They arc not ‘facts’ but matters ol‘ is a truism to obscrvc that there is no straightfor\vartl correlation tictv use. which is not only often repeated but also deeply valued. So are people’s emotional lielirfs that one type ~ . and that \vc all. and use of language. in other \vords. there would be no disputes ovcr the mcaning of what people say. Uses and abuses of corpora A number 01’ Ialse conclusions can lie reached about corpora. such as a prayer or poem. the same as a description of language in the mind.than a contribution to our understanding o f cffcctivc languagc teaching. speech acts such as apologies or compliments. But whcrc pcdagogy is concerned. are not the same. Linguists’ analyses ol’thcse data are not ne arily users’ analyses. o r how language is best systcmatized for teaching. It is often assumed. including Carter. ~ Corpus a s f a c t Evcn as a rccord of‘facts’ computer corpora are incomplete. by appcaring to offer yet another easy ‘scientific’ solution. for example. syllaliuscs. and the interpretations which other pcoplc put upon thcm.Thei-e is much in computerized corpus analysis to makc us reconsider received ideas about the learning. or the diversity of traditions from which thcy comc. Occurrencc. Corpus as record Corpora are records of language lichaviour. corpus statistics say nothing about immcasurablc but crucial factors such as students’ and teachers’ attitudes and expectations. or how many times. or replace them. antl dictionaries are also facts about language. My argument is that there is an important difference bet\\ een the hard antl soft linc approachcs. I shall also consider some of the more extreme applications of corpus findings to language teaching. or thosc ivhich arr most useful to teachers and Icarncrs. othcrs strikc and stay in the mind. The ways in \vhic. hut also to shorter units. interactive cvcnts such as intcrruption or Is o f formality.THE USES O F C O M P U T E R I Z E D L A N G U A G E CORPORA 65 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.They contain information aliout production but not about reception. 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. thcy arc the only valid source of facts about language. though they may occur only once. and importancc.’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. the personal relationships lxt\\ their o\cn wishes. can do immense damage.o\vn use.h b nrainmarians antl pcdagogucs ha\ c organizctl thcir matcrial in grammars. the intentions thcy had in thcm. that as a description of language brhaviour. that the former. If this were not so. Thcy arc just one kind o f fact. provide a goal and a route for language 1carning. Conscqucntly computer corpora cchile impressive antl interesting records of crrtain aspects of language use can ncvcr bc mort.

For thc answ-er to the question is (as Cartcr scctns painfullv awarc) that corpora arc primarily records o f native speakers’ languagc Iichaviour. arc not they are obviously well knoum by ~icoplc merely a quantitative issue. For example.) In the terms of Hymes’s (1 972) four parameters of communicative competence. and ignores o r villainizes t\vo othcrs: introspection and elicitation. but as sources o f prcscription for TESOL. For there arc aspccts o f language which arc knolvn but not used. The cumulative languagc experience of an individual. To his crcdit. But the proposed addition of ‘a wider variety of international Englishcs’ will not solve the problem. though (Aston 1995). 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. is more rarely used in the sense of‘wagcr’. ‘I bet’. And then a second question arises to which Cartcr explicitly refers.of language use is better than another-. they cannot lie rcmcdicd simply by making corpora larger and larger. Such omissions. (And indeed.Thc English which is used by one or more nativespeaker communities. This will only add other standard Englishes as spoken by their o\vn native speakers. They arc inrvitalilc in an approach lvhich accepts only one o f the three sources o f fact about language: observation. and intends to remedy it. corpus-driven ~~ ~ ~ . hobvevcr. and most often in the sense of ‘suppose’ (Sinclair 1987: xi i). though lcss amenable to systematic ac remains far larger anti richer.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. 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. This is why our intuition (in cffwt o u r random antl incomplctc. it is implied. (This is why attempts to teach set phrases arc likely to he as tragicomically disastrous in lexical syllabuses as they \vere in functional ones. hut does not anskvcr. Even a three hundred million word corpus is cqui\ alent to only around thrcc thousand books. that they do catalogue antl I-cwal all the important ‘facts’ahout the language. We should not promote some kinds of facts at the expense of othcrs. 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. 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. Corpora are only partial authorities. 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. ought to lie the English learned for international communication. for example. in cffcct making the former into the latter. Corpus linguists are fond ofobscrving that thc commonest uses of words are not the same as their standard definitions. thc foreign speaker is very likely to produce corpus-attested but contextually inappropriate language. 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).) 1. must it also lw used by the Japanese o r the Mexicans? This is where lve encounter an easy slippage from description to prcscription. or perhaps the language experience o f a teenager. Carter confronts this issue. ‘Kcal’ languagc in cffcct means nativespeaker English. the canonical forms of sayings antl provcrI)s occur 1 cry rarely in corpora. In deploying such units.

the likelihood is. represent.fuit accompli. that they arc often produced and understood holistically. It may be learnt morc quickly. either by native spcakers or foreign learners.ildering refusal to teach grammar. it \voultl still not follo\v that frequency and tlcsirability arc the same. the most frequent or.ithin the native-speaker community it is often the infrequcnt \vortl or expression which is most p o n . above all. and inexpressive. they may not aspire to or nccd native-like English. Many foreign language students have strong feelings about this too. as adults with conscious learning strategies available to them. 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. To be corpus driven. It is that e\en \i. Nativc speakers acquire. antl original language. Carter seems to agree. antl therefore most sought after. Inevitably. t b t h for native and non-native speakers there is an altcrnati\e goal to seeking the most usual. which arc the inevitable consequences of an overemphasis on ‘lexical chunks’. . They tlo not Lvant to learn just any English because it occurs in a corpus. and in itself excellent. 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. And \vhy should th choosr to continue vicwing the language as grammar structures and slot-filling word may not lead to native-like English. deprives cvcryone (native antl non-native spcaker alike) of the opportunity for choice antl to make their own impact on the language.They prcscnt us with a. A good dcal of actual language use is inarticulate. Pedagogical issues In an extensively quoted. and process language in lexicalizcd chunks as \\ell as grammar rulcs and single \vords. And it will avoid the tedious rote learning of mundane phrases. It is the goal of rich.Thcy may not \rant to study language in this way. Something is not a good model simply liecause it occurs frequcntly. essay liy Pa\vlcv and Syder (1 983) on nativclike sclcction and fluency. and in his recognition that one of the topics in his authentic data (‘straggly hair’) may have a limited topic life in many classrooms. impoverished. a fixed product rather than an open process. Though many of these units can be analysed grammatically. they can choose. in short. in short. and it is patronising to overrule them. or the bc\z. This is also \\ hy foreigners’ speech is often expressive and striking. varied. corpus-liascd language teaching finds a source o f inspiration. thcy may not have as much time available as native-speaker children. Thcre is a hidtlcn irony in the dogma that frequcnt native-likc collocations are the best model to imitate. Corpora are inevitably records of what has happened rather than what is happcning. Yet it h y no means follows that foreign lcarners must do the same. they may live within culturally tli\ ersc pedagogic traditions not compatilile with this approach. Yet cvcn if appearing native-likc were accepted as the goal of languagc learning. because onc cannot teach cvcrything.c d d antl most communicatively effective. providing a potential link lietwccn the facts of language Iieliaviour antl a theory of how language is acquired and processed in the mind.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 67 language teaching always risks stressing what is actually done at the expense of what is appropriate in a particular context. in the use of literary rather than transcribed dialogues. the most clichktl exprcssion.ish their students to emulate. but it may lead to communicative and expressive English. so the argumcnt goes. part of the job o f teachcrs and coursc designers is to sclcct the languagc use which they \4. In advocating selection and modelling of corpus data.

or appropriate for some pedagogic reason. with an ominously authoritarian definite articlc: his o\vn lexical approach. Herc is the belief that what is perceived as a linguistic revolution necessarily constitutes a pedagogic one.68 G U Y Cool< Means and ends So corpora do not neccssarily provide a goal for languagc learners. Yet even if they did. all thcir owm antl thcir students’ intuitions. idealizc. 196). it would not follow that the liest route t o this goal is t o present rcal language usc. and simplify thc language t o make it more acccssihlc? Intlectl. and linguistic contexts) is dauntingly complcx antl particular. and siniplification should he. ‘\voolly mindedncss in this mattcr leads t o I d practice which has ncgatilc long tcrm cffccts’ (p. anti informed t o the more extreme. antl people who think other ‘are wrong’ (p. b u t unfortunately associated. taking it illogically to be sufficient t o change I u n g u q c tcaching. 74). in a Ivay tvhich will enablc thcm t o comc gradually closer t o native speaker usc (if that is their goal). I Icrc thcrc is already a wcalth of long standing ideas (dating back at least t o 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. 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. For cxamplc. this s w m s to l x Cartcr’s view too. But this description cannot h e prcscntctl t o students all at once. ‘Abstract. is usually more complex than that of language learners. Surely the point of grammars antl textbooks is that they select. Carter does show himself awarc of such considerations in his conclusions. The issue still remains how to simplify and stagc the language prcscntctl t o Icarncrs. and to try t o persuade them to emulate it straight allay. ~~ ~ .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. Hardly surprisingly. O f course expert-spcakcr use of the language. The hard line This Iirings m e from Cartcr’s views moclcratc. social groups. there would lie nothing to learn. sc-nsil. 167). Or it may lie infrequent h i t very useful. Thcy invoke corpus linguistics as an unassailable antl over-confidence arc potcntially damaging t o good teaching practice. I lcre there is a certain oddity in the corpus argument.T. views o f language teaching based o n corpus linguistics. seem unaware. absolute kno\vlctlge of a system has had its day’. For language tcachcrs the issue remains as t o \\. Such approachcs arc firmly in the tradition of using linguistics theory to dictate to language teaching practicc. an item may hc frequent but limited in rangc. Their gross over. idealization. anti cannot take on board the kind ofrcscrvations cxpresscd hy Carter. in their haste t o atlvcrtise thcmselves as promulgating a totally ne\\’ approach to language. t o be rcplacetl by ‘the \Yay lorward’ (p. side-step all serious cngagcmcnt in debate. or infrequent hut useful in a wide rangc of contexts. Very often \vritcrs arc carricd a v a y I)? a single insight into language. If it were not. Unlike many corpus linguists. But that leaves m e wondcring whether his approach is such a break from tradition as he suggests. invoking the latest linguistics theory t o intimidate tcachcrs into Iiclicving that all prcvious practicc. and the rulcs which generate it. Such corpus-driven pedagogy is a vain attempt to resuscitate a patriarchal attitude to EI. These are factors lieyond mere description.hat thc principles for selection. a n d t o simplify the rulcs used t o cxplain it.

. the morc extreme versions h t h of corpus linguistics antl of corpus-driven language teaching. 199 3. ‘T~vo puzzlcs for linguistic theory: nativclikc selection and nati\rlike fluency’ in J. 1 . W. Schader (etls. H.lppliecl Linguistics 18/2: 240 3 . and Carter. assuming that a little of the latest linguistics theory is all that is needcd t o changc. ELY’journcil. Sydcr. C o r p u . Rut it is b : no means clear whether he d o c s so. Colloccltjon.. Stubbs. Berlin: Scriptor. Principle cind Prcictic-e i n Applied I. 1995. I Ivmex. edited b? K. ‘Prol)lcms of asscmhling and computerising largc corpora’ in H. In thc one. Sinclair. ‘Corpora in language pdagogy: matching theory antl practice’ in G. 198 3. J. as I do. 192 1 . ~ ~ Notes 1 This point has bcrn made hy corpus linguists thcmsclves (Francis 1979.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 69 all the culturally various pedagogic traditions in hvhich they \vork antl study. he too \vould explicitly reject. 1994. 4 3 56. But this is not a necessary componcnt of the notion that literary. Palmer. Review of Il. Cook and B. Holmes (cds. 1979. Text cind C o r p s . ~ 2 3 References Aston. D.qc Re. This issue is clouded by snolhish and chauvinistic claims that a particdar national o r sociolcct is l x t t c r than anothcr.ondon: Longman. McCarthv. 1997. Concordance. M. ‘hvrong’. Empiri. et ul.. R. Stul)lw 1996: 1 I ) . antl dismissive of tradition. Scitllhofcr (cd. C I\ have the wicc of moderation urging a limited application ‘modclling’ as Carter calls it ivhich b y \ii-tuc of its very reasonableness does n o t amount to anything very radical. LanguageTeaching Publications. London: Flarrap (Republished 1)) Oxford Univcrsit) Press. M. authoritarian.imm. ‘On communicative competence’ in J. Mackin). A. Cat-trr. arc. \vc have thc stronger view: cvangclical./& /-anguci.).the coursc of languagcteaching.$nci@s. 1991 . Stulhs. Francis. ‘deep patterning’ rcvcalrd by corpuh anal! ‘bcyond human ol)servation antl memory’. and F. antl culture’. Harmonds\vorth: Penguin. B. sociolinguistic^. Bergcnholtz anti I$. either in corpus construction or analysis. Oxford: Oxford University I’rms. M. or simpl\ eloquent and elegant one^ arc morc crrtain usages desirable models than others. N.Oxti)rd: Oxfo~-tl Uni\ c r h i t y Press. as I x w i s \vould put it. h v l c y . E. In the other.>. Stubbs (1996: 2 1 ) tells us that thr.sinfl Corpora. 1987.inguittic. 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. 1996. ‘Orders of reality: CANCODE.). Schmidt (ctis. Language as Discourse: Persprctivcs for 1-anguagc Teaching. hut the point is not adequately taken on board. 1964. The Lexical A p p r o c ~ h Hove: . I believe that if Carter lvcrc t o follo\v his arguments through to their conclusion. Oxford: Rlack\vell. London: Collins. 5 2 . G. London: Longman. communication.ychczft.scarch.. 1972. M. I . h n g u u g e cind Coinmunitation. I<. 7’hc Principles c?f Language StucG.). 1998. Collins Cohuilcl English l anguuge Dictionar). Sinclair.. xvrittcn. M. J.sche Textn. Richards anti J. . Lchvis.). l’ridc and J.

London: Collins. West. Grccn.$llabns. Alatis (etl).angnup Acq~iisition. D. 1926. 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. NcwYork: Longmans. D. P. . 1990. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. E. London: Longman. Widdowson. G. Linguistics. Learning to Read a Foreign Language. M.70 G U Y C O O K Summers. The Lexical .). Willis. 1990. ‘Discourses of enquiry and conditions of relevance’in J. and M. Language Teaching and I. H. Rundell (etls.

19959. and varv from discipline to discipline (Berkenkottcr and Huckin. but also within genres. More specifically. Prior. expcrimental rcscarch reports and other research papers (for example Wcissberg and Buker. 1990). we find published material on laboratory and technical reports (for example Dudley-Evans. First. S Y L LA B U S E S for academic writing in higher education have increasingly focused on teaching students about the features of differing written genres. 1994) and essays (for example Roberts. students arc taught about thc textual features. in particular those which have explored variation in thc academic rmcarch I . 1990. While this represents a valuablc development from earlier approaches which treated ‘academic writing’ as an undifferentiated. 1988.Chapter 6 Ann Hewings and Martin Hewings A P P R O A C H E S TO T H E S T U D Y OF DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC 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 DESIGN 1 Introduction N R E C E N T Y E A R S . thc methods that have been adopted for the study of disciplinary variation and the implications of findings to date for syllabus design. Evidcncc is accumulating that single genres vary over time (Bazerman. Knowledge of disciplinary variation is liccoming especially important with the growing trend towards inter. 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. for instance. vary from one cultural context to another (Taylor and Chcn. in particular. 1995. we present Swales’s approach to genre a n a h i s and discuss studies of disciplinary variation based on this approach. 1998). 1991). Dudley-Evans and Henderson. This essay is primarily concrrncd with the third of these and. homogeneous entity. 1985). 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. both tcxt structural and sentence-level. that are characteristic of‘ each gcnrc. Selager-Meyer. 1997). S o .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. it is important to recognisc that variation is found not only from genre to genre. theses and dissertations (for example Anderson and Poole.

an attempt to explain how thcv relate t o the tlisrource cornmnniy (Hcrzbcrg. they are likely t o be o f a tliffcrcnt genrc. c d u a t e and react to the propositional contcnt (Vandc Kopplc. technical reports. Second. and grant proposals. i \ c r e p o r t studies o f one clause-level feature of t e x t .72 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. The analysis of a genre for pedagogical purposes involves the identification o f thcsc regularities in tcxt organisation and Icxico-grammatical features antl. and ‘steps’ within t h e m . Bizzcll. Such analysis can thcn bc converted into syllabuses and materials that aim t o teach students aliout tcxt organisation antl relevant language forms. b y \vhich tcxts arc consitlcrctl to lie o f tht. This approach considers a non-fictional gcnrc t o be: ’ a rccognizahlc communicati\ c cvcnt charactcrizctl b y 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. working papers. such as conference papcv-s. 1al)oratot-y and case study reports. t h r ~qrammatical siihjcct. If tcxts have tliffcrcnt communicative purposes. research articles. dissertations and thcscs.ritcrs reprcscnt data. thcn. our attention is primarily o n gcm-es Ix-oduccd within an academic context. I Genre Within the context of English for Spccific I’urposcs. monographs. such as essays. we outline lvork \vhich has cxamincd metadiscourre in academic \vriting that is. 1985) and the \ l a y this varies in texts taken from different disciplines. 1990) pionccring lvork itlcntifictl a set of ‘movcs’. samc g e n r e is communicative purpose. in addition. 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. that have tlcmonstratcd its significance in reflccting how m. S\valcs. 1986. Throughout. 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 . 1993: 13) The primary critcrion. the part o f a tcxt Lvhich helps thc rcadcr organisc. positioning. 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 s h t o communicate. classify. 1990). either clussroom genres those produced IIV students for purposes of asscssmcnt. 1990. Third. 1992) Tvithin \vhich the genre is produced. which were rccurrcntly found in the introductions t o research articles in o r d e r t o contcxtualise an author’s o\vn research. 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. form and functional valuc. 1984. S\valcs’s ( 1 9 8 1 . 1998: 89).ssional p r e s thc tcxts by which scientists antl scholars communicate \vith o t h e r scientists antl scholars. \vhilc a stcp is a component o f a move which is a morc tlctailcd option availaldc to the kvritcr in setting o u t a move (DudlcyEvans and St John. Swales proposed ( 1 990: 141) a three-movc model for articlc introductions (modifictl from four in his 198 1 lvork): . and litcraturc reviews or prof. (Bhatia. ~ 2 Approaches t o the study of disciplinary variation 2. previous research antl thcmsclvcs in the tcxt. Most often it is highly structured and conventionalized with constraints o n allo\vahlc contributions in t e r m s o f their intent.

narrow the focus tlo\vn to a specific area of interest Lvhich is then expcrimentcd on in somc way. through the particular phcnomcna to explain. how the tcxtual forms and communicative functions arc related to the expectations of the academic community to which they belong. antl professional academic writing is seen as adding to the body of kno\vlcdge Lvhich is at thc core of the discipline. To hecome ‘good academic xvl-iters’. He examines results sections in research articles from sociology and observes certain communicative categories within them. academic discoursc communities are bound togcther by subject matter. thcv argue.DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 73 Move 1 Move 2 Move 3 Establishing a territory Step 1 Claiming centrality unti/or Step 2 Making topic gencralisations clnti/or Step 3 IievicLving items of previous research Establishing a niche Step 1A Counter-claiming 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 Indicating research article structure.roadcr issues relcnnt to the ficltl. is that hvhile thc hourglass is a satisfactory rcprcsentation of reports of cxperimcntal studies.Thc typical sections of research articles arc an introduction. astrophysics attends to suliject matter \vhich cannot lie cxpcrimentcd on. students need to become a\varc ofthesc conventions. so that papers in the discipline prescnt logical arguments rather than expcrimcnts.Thc reason. in the prcliminarics to an invcstigation of active and passive vcrb forms in t\vo astrophyics journal articles. to have an ‘inverted pyramid’ construction in which the focus of‘ the paper is gradually narro\\ccl down.s’s ( 1 990) overview of the organisation ofthc rcsearch article as having an ‘hourglass’ shapc is not applicable to articles in astrophysics. to a specific solution. 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. not prcviousl) . a mcthods section which explains the procedures undertaken (often experimental procedurcs in the casc of scientific research articles). thc specific physics of relevance. spccific equations. Step 3 Typically. and conclude w i t h a widening-out of the discussion to rclatc findings to t. such as his Substuntiation of Findings antl .Yon-vu/itlation of’ Findings. For example. Iiut also to compare texts of the same genre but from different disciplines. however. ‘ I Iourglass’ articles hegin with a broad overview of the ficltl. beginning with general physics. Swalcs’s movc and step approach has been used not only to identify the characteristics o f particular genres. A number of studics have examined how scctions of rcscarch articles vary across tlisciplines. In addition to disciplinary knowledge. antl finally a discussion of these results antl their significance. a report ofthc results ofthc procedurcs.Astrophysics papers. ( 1 998) notc that S\valc. laronc et a1. the way subject matter is discussed the genrc conventions used is also of importancc. are consitlcretl hy‘l-arone et (11. that is.

He relates thcsc to the methods of quantitati . (Iln)expectcd outcome. considerable spacc and attention is given over to comparison of present rcsults with previous findings reported in the literature. Dudley-Evans ( 1993) notes particular diffcrences in the discussion sections. Not only are the effccts on the dependent variahle of the most significant indcpcndcnt variables tliscussetl. as represented bv political scicnce and sociology. Dudley-Evans. collaborative authorship and external financial support’ (ibid. These data arc then manipulated using accepted statistical techniques. I3rctt found. Brctt suggests that thc suliject matter and the mcthotlologics deployctl intluencc the constitution of written text within the tlisciplinc.sation. employing a restricted repertoire of moves. Gi\cn the rclative lack ofconscnsus on goals and methods of research in the social scicnccs. with less attention to the relationship betwern present results antl previous research in the field. In highway engineering. 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. are less complex. Weissberg and Kukcr. In plant biology. sociology and history using a Sudcs-typc m o w analysis. In a comparison of master’s-lcvel dissertations written in highway engineering and plant biology. O n the basis of such cvidencc. the least burcaucratiscd discipline of the three studied. social science introductions have ticcn found to display ‘qreatcr complexity than those in the hard sciences (Crookcs.ociological research in which ahstract concepts such as ‘ethnic identification’ or ‘satisfaction’ arc prcscnted as numcrical data. Thus. Hopkins antl I>utllcy-Evans. 1986. A number of explanations for such differences might be put forward.’s work. As in Taronc et al. there may tic greater need to establish more overtly and in greater detail the parameters of research in the field. 1995). 1989. 1982. The second o f thcsc. then. claims about present rcsults antl explanations of unexpected outcomes are supported with refcrcnce to previous work.This view is supported by the observation that discussion sections in history. Evidence of generic variation across disciplines is also found in ‘classroom genres’ in the writing of students in higher education. 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. 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.). and Outlining parallel or subsequent derdopmcnts). From his reading of thc dissertations. emphasis is on stating present results antl making recommrndations based on thrsc results. but so are the effects of other variables.74 ANN H E W I N G S AND M A R T I N H E W I N G S documented as appearing in rcsults o r discussion sections (for example in Relanger. 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. Morc generally. j e t arc less predictable. In comparison with similar \vmk on articles in the natural or hard sciences (Pcng. . Rcfirence to previous research. Recommendation. 1987) Holmes (1997: 3 3 2 ) finds that discussion sections in the social sciences. measured ‘by reference to quantitative data. kvhilc thc effects of secondary variables arc assessed as either supporting (Substantiation (rf Fintiings) or lcssening the validity o f ( AJonvalidation o_f‘Fzntfings) the main findings. Explanation of unsatisfactoy result. O n the other hand. He identifics a total of eight moves (Background information. 1990). took up more space than the discussion of the most significant findings. in contrast. and the resulting statistics intcrprcted to produce deductions about human tiehaviour. Holmcs. Statement OJresult. have less in common with those in the hard sciences and are the least prcdictablc. Gcnerali. 1988.

. therefore. and metadiscourse. the sections of the research article may be useful as a prcliminary. Studies of metadiscourse in academic text have looked at cultural antl gender variation (Crismorc et a]. 1993. suggest that the nature of a particular discipline. and a relationship to thcir subject matter and thcir readers. 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. applied linguistics. In a study of fifty. that the characteristics of that community can bc explored. and this is achicvcd mainly in thc metadiscoursc in text. 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. antl what to cxclude within each scction for their own particular disciplinc. the level of consensus on agrerd knowlcdgc. what to cmphasisc. classify. Hcwings. mechanical engineering. as indicated in its subjcct matter.six research articles takcn from eight disciplines (microbiology. marketing. While information on. (19991-3: 101) . involvement. and the degree of bureaucratization in the discipline may he reflected in its generic convcntions.This has direct implications for syllabus design. The elemrnts of metadiscourse have heen divided (scc. philosophy. the amount of previous research in the ficld. that part of the text which helps the reatlcr organisc. serve a textual function and those hvhich scrvc an interpersonal function. Hyland 1999a) into those which. thcrefore. Mctadiscoursc. A distinction can be made bctlveen the propositional content of a text. for example. 2. credibility. Academic disciplines have conventional ways in which writers are allowed both to present thcir arguments and to reprcscnt themselvcs. and forms of interaction and social interplay with other participants in the communication situation on the other hand.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. evaluate and react to the propositional content (Vantle Kopplc. in the terminology of systemic functional grammar. Hyland considers variation in the writers’ stance. 1993) and the use of metadiscourse in particular academic genres (Hyland. 1985). sociology. 1999). its methods of investigation. 1999a. Halliday (1 973: 66) descrilxs the textual function as an enabling function. I t is through the study of metadiscourse in the texts of a particular disciplinary community. but also from homogeneous genres. Mauranen.DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 75 Such studies. students also need to be made aware of the specifics of what to include. its information o r subject matter. 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. for example. Howc\w. . it is Hyland’s (1 99911) work on metadiscourse and disciplinary variation that is of main concern here and reported below. 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. thcn. I t reinforces the need to move away not only from academic writing as a homogeneous entity. that of creating text . physics. and electrical engineering). .

c). Simply. attituck markers. hopefiil!ir). .hat is said and signalled bv such devices as uttitutle r~erhs(c. that pro not in^ (c. For example. Hpland found a greatcr use of hedges in general in the soft knowledge arcas. some fields permit greater authorial presence than othe c s.g. .g. r v e j n t l here. This.76 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 It considered to hale f i ~ c main components: iy hedges (c. approximat+.g. . but also to differcnces in \-dues antl hclic+ about knowledge and kno\ving across disciplines. 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. perhaps. concerned \\ ith the \vr-itcr’s attitutlc to \\. it is ohriotis. might. through which the Ivritcr Ivithholds full commitment to a proposition.11.g. note thot).g. according to Hyland. used to restrict the scope of the accompanying statemcnt. . and he attributes this not only to disciplinary prcfercn in style. let its now t t ~ r i i to) antl imperatives (c. conccrncd \vith the Ivriter’s attempt to invoke reader participation antl signalled hv such devices as first per. chfinitclv. person markers. I ci<qrec. l’his kind of ‘weaker hedging’ is used. tmjirttinateb.. recall. (1999b: 1 2 1 ) 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. when the writer m-ishcs to indicate how far results diverge from a position which the disciplinary community conceives as reality. affective and interpersonal information. through \vhich the writer cmphasises the force of a proposition. Hyland concludes by arguing that : Rather than thinking of acadcmic tliscourse as impcrsonal . rry tina]l. po. .g. tlcviccs such as ahout. rve helierz. o/‘cotir.c prejer) and sentence adverbs (c. is hccause in thew arcas prol)lcms are I c s s clearly defined antl thus explanations arc likrly to be less assured. have to ‘Lvork harder to engage their audience and shape their arguments t o the shared perspectives of the disciplinc’ (1 999b: 1 1 1 ).. (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. he suggests.’. partialb. as he puts gencralb and so on. Students nced to be helped to explore patterns of occurrence and characteristics of the disciplinc to which these patterns are related. consiclcr. Writers therefore. relational markers. we nced to think of it as reflecting the different social practices of the disciplinary communities in constructing knowledge. conccrnctl with the use of first p u s o n pronouns and possessive atljcctives (c. emphutic. I t is used less in the softcr knowledge arcas Iiccausc there arc fewer instances of agreed reality.siniolr~ccl)to present propositional. Overall. 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 . belicr.g. Hyland found some 30 per ccnt morc features of stance in the soft discipline research articlcs.ssib/e.~ (c.

’ are clearly liuiltling on a foundation constructctl for thc discipline h y those within it. for examplc.ct (G$). has all? a)\ been rccogniwd a4 a signhcant component o f English in both ti aditional and functional grammars. . and where thcsc \?-or& occur as the GS thcrc is said to be a phenomenal focus. lor example Su7anne Sirhlect playcd T‘erh her I iolin Object and the subject is an obligatory clement in all sentences with the exccption of inipcrativcxs. (Quirk et ill.d u e of this \vork for the study of disciplinary variation becomes apparent if \vc compare findings from psychology. the consolidation o f knowledge is of such importance that it is reflcctcd not only at text level hut also in scntcncelevel choices.2 show the percentagc average distribution of cach of thc seven classcs of GSs in the texts. o r grammatical suhlt. 1985: 79) ~ Thus the GS is important for determining \\. Thc \ . . Analysis of the GS is used to demonstrate the rhetorical practices of such disciplines. conservation biology and legislative history (Samraj . On this basis. the huilding of knowledge o n foundations laid h y other rcscarchcrs. The t! pica1 English sentence pattern I S 5ul1~ect Vcrli O b l c c t .’ or ‘Experimental cvitlencc . For example. 1994) on the p ~ ~ m m a t i c iruhlect ll Thc subject. In her invcstigation into disciplinary differences in professional \vriting in the humanities and social sciences. Disciplines such as those in the humanities are more concerned with specific ~icople. \vhile Samraj analysetl six student papers from thrcc different courses which formed part of a US Mastcr’s programmc in environmental studies. contriliutc to the content of a text o r hvhethcr they are more concerncd lvith consolidating knowledge construction in a discipline that is.1 . 1995). . a modified version of tvhich is summarised inTable 6. ~ .. \ariation has de\elopcd from the v o r k of MacDonald ( 1 992. whereas those in. 1992) antl wildlife hchaviour. MacDonald developed a mcthod of classifying GSs o n the h i s of Ivhether the). placcs and events. MacDonald (1992) has developed a classification system for GSs. MacDonaltl rccognises a further disciplinary characteristic. the people. Within this Iiroad two-fold division. history and literature (from Macl)onald. things antl events that constitute the phenomena or content that arc studied arc foregroundcd.The GSs can thus l i e said to have an epistemic focus. MacDonaldk rationale for focusing o n 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. the social sciences rely more on gencralisations and abstractions.3 The grammatical subject A third approach to the stud! o f tlisciplinar. b o r other disciplines. The figures inTablc 6. Macnonald’s (lata are hascd on an analysis offour journal-length articles in cach discipline. ‘Shakespeare’s plays’ might \vel1 lic the content o r subject that is being ivrittcn about. one which is concerned \vith methods of study and the validity of knowlctlge claims. with a cline existing hetlveen those GSs Lvhich represent phcnomena at their most specific and individualistic through to those which are most abstract. previous research and themselves in their texts.hat a \vriter is writing ohorit antl ho\v they represent data. This is again reflected in the choice of G S . For example. .DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 77 2. acadcmic texts with sentences beginning ‘Work 1 :. in literature studies. For some disciplines. Jamcs .

Disciplines with more epistemic subjects (classcs 4-7) foreground research methods. psychology uses less than 1 per ccnt of class 1 GSs. the USA. cithrr in whole or in part. least material nouns in the phenomenal category. They arc nouns cxprcssing properties. /YY2. usually named (e. inferences and findings rather than the phenomena that are being studied o r written about (classes 1-3). Class 2 (Non-Spcxcific Groups) contains gcncralisctl or grouprd nouns gullies. Class 3 GSs are frequent in all disciplines except psychology. downland soils. has a total of 62 per cent epistenlic grammatical subjccts. this cssoy.g. Class 7 (Discoursal) contains suhjccts which refer to the text itsclf. placcs.I ) . catcgorics. At the levcl of individual classes. Epi. places and objects.g. and rhctorical questions used to organisc the discourse popular uith pensionen?). Psychology. the tsetsepy poptilotion). Instead. the eyoations. Why are mobile homes 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. Class 3 (Attributes) contains the most abstract. Stalin.g. but especially the two histories. Figure 2 . Class 6 (Audience) contains suhjccts like thr gcncraliscd w e (hut not thc actual we which refers to authors) and one oryou. the storm). Some disciplines are clearly more phenomenal in their focus and some more epistemic. They arc nouns which express properties.. places or things. (c.e.Fnal hypothesis. large ureas o f t h e country. planning). actions o r motivations of the people or things in 1 and 2 (e. or ohjrcts. for example. 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.g. the. it favours non-specific.stemic Epistcmic grammatical subjects rcprcscnt thr concepts. In contrast. rainfall intensities. have fairly high numbers of non-specific groups of people. attributes. actions o r motivations of thc people o r things in classes 1 and 2. more generalised referenccs to phenomena as found in class 2 . Pinch and S t o r y . . agricultural practices. Hewings (1 999) has used MacDonald’s techniques to examine writing development among undergraduate students within the discipline of geography at a British university. attributes. whereas literature has 84 per ccnt phenomenal.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 . abstractions or methodological tools the researcher uses to reason ahout the subject.g. Class 1 (Particulars) contains nouns rcfcrring to spccitic people. Europe. gcnrrating itlcas and comparing and contrasting tiitfcrcnt theories (c. This undcrlines thcir conccrn with specific pcople. Most disciplines. it has been argued t h a t ) . Class 5 (Researchers antl Studies) contains rcfercnccs to published research and to writers in the field (e. Class 4 (Research Matters) contains rctrrcnccs to the constitucnts of rcsrarch and the activities of researchers such as data collection and analysis. legislative history and literature usc more class 1 (particulars) than the other disciplines. except literature. (.

while the proportion of epistcmic GSs was higher in final-year essays (56 per cent phenomenal and 44 per ccnt epistrmic). thcsc were oftcn displaccd from thc subject position b y cpistemic GSs. . underlined in the following examplc: ExDerimcnts by Morpan et al. on the other hand is much more expensive but has a higher capacity and takes travcl away from the roads. then. the model is uscful for indicating certain disciplinary trends within writing. 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. but even with designated bus lanes it still adds to thc problem of congestion antl has a lower capacity. all phenomenal. Similar experiments were done on potato crops with similar findings.DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 79 Tuble 6. . Firstvear essays showcd a greatcr focus on the real-world phenomena that geography invcstigatrs. as in the following example in which GSs. Bv this . but erosion increased if the canopy cover increased any more antl at 50% cover the erosion rate equalled that of bare soil' (Morgan 1986). she found a substantially higher proportion of phcnomenal to epistcmic GSs in first-ycx essays (76 per ccnt and 24 per ccnt respectively). (1982) on 'detachment of soil particlcs from a sandy soil by raindrop impact in storms of 50mm/hr and 61 m m / h r 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%. While third-year essays were also concerned with rcal-\vorltf phenomena. There arc a m highly c number of examples of mass transit systems around the world. Othrr cxiieriments such as bv De Ploev et al. (1 976. It provides a way o f focusing o n a particular linguistic fcature and uses it to tease out aspects of the disciplinary culture which would otherwise be obscure.)recorded an increase in soil erosion with an incrrasc in grass cover. O n a gcneral lc\cl. are underlined: Bus and rail are the obvious components of a mass transit system. These clearly foreground the phenomena that are bring studied and indicate a priority of content over rhctorical motivations. The 1x1s is t h c cheaper of the two options. 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. ~ ~ are successful others arr not.2 Average distribution (Yo) of GSs in tliffcrcnt disciplines antl sub-disciplincs (data from MacDonald 1992 and Samraj 1995) GS class 1 Psychology History Litcraturr Wildlife hchaviour' Conservation hiology I egislati\ c history 01 6 44 2 3 4 5 27 I1 49 12 1 26 15 6 / 6 3 30 10 44 7 5 1 30 29 7 28 35 3 0 28 I 2 ~ 4 4 9 18 18 8 4 Comparing essays written by students in the first and final (third) years of their programme. .

h u t rather that the student must understand and rethink the rhetorical choiccs embedded in each generic haliit to master thc genre. 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 t o producr writing that reflccts the predilections of a particular disciplinary community. the amount of prc-vious research that it is convrntional to ackno\vlcdge. Indccd. First. advice on writing can he tlircctctl morc specifically to those features which reflect the underlying culture of a particular disciplinary community. undifferentiated across genrcs. Common-core teaching. 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. initially using their own criteria antl later using the I)roatl phenomenal/cpistcmic classification given aliovc. i t is important to guard against teaching gcnres as a set o f templates to lie copictl unsxvervingly. it is ncccssary to dcvelop students’ sensitit ity to the fact that gcnres vary. and the cohesiveness of the hody of agreed kno\vlcdgc within the discipline. Third. 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 o r when asked to write argumentative prose. we need a reassessment of ‘common-core’ and ‘discipline-specific’components of academic writing programmes (see also Rhatia. (l3azcrman 1988: SO) Second. For the design of syllabuses for academic writing programmes. Too close a familiarity with the lvays that textbooks address readers. 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. focusing .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. 1 999). 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. Such Ilcxibility is unlikely to he achieved simply by learning the prcfcrred conventions of a discipline. in current thinking o n tertiary academic literacy it is now taken almost as axiomatic that an understanding o f generic comcntions. particularly across disciplines. (Hylantl. 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. particularly in terms of moves but also steps and their lcxicogrammatical rcalisations. 1999a: 2 1-2) Ho\\-c-ver. is essential in achicving academic succcss. 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. 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. GSs in successful and less successful student writing could lie coniliared and stuclcnts encouraged to classify the GSs. that \vc must give students an appropriate s c t of cookie cutters for their anticipatctl careers.

(1994) T ~ C S I and S ignment Il’riting. Dudlcy. Whilc helping students develop an awareness of the general significance of certain of thc characteristics o f writing in particular genres text organisational patterns. which is not included here. Perhaps o u r goal is that of c o m m o n . (1 985) Writing Laborator// Reports. Discipline-specific components providc this sensitivity but usually have the disadvantages of addressing smaller numbers of stutlcnts. has the advantage of being addressctl to studcnts from across tlisciplines and is thercfore efficient both in t e r m s of thc n u m h c r of students taught and. metadiscoursal features. J. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press. Bhatia. ( 1 993) ‘Mctadiscoursc in persuasive writing: a study of tcxts written Iy American antl Finnish university students’. V. M. it has the disadvantage o f h c i n g relatively insensitive to thc pi-c~t‘crrctlwavs of writing in particular disciplines. Ilcnce the figures (lo not add up to 1 00Yo. and will often h a w t h e atltlitional complexity of requiring the input at some stage of a subjcct specialist. P. other perspectives exist. (1 994) ‘A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles’. In M. and Steffenscn. ( 1 992) Academic Discourse antl Critical Consciousness. Samraj had a further category. London: 1. grammatical subjects. ( 1995) Genre Knowletige in Disciplinuy Communication. Brett. C. Bazcrman. ~ Note 1 2 Whilc the ESP approach to genre analysis has been particularly influential in pedagogical applications. ‘miscellaneous’. and Poolc. R. K. P. Rcrkcnkotter. IWritten Communication 10: 39 71. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1999) ‘Disciplinary variation in husiness English’. Queenslantl: Jacaranda Wiley. (1 986) ‘Towards a valiciatcd analysis of scirntific text structure’. M. financially.c o r e tcaching mediated through a disciplinary filtcr. C. Applied Linguistics 7:57-70.( 1 993) Ana!y. Crismore. Kizzell. €Io\z. Harlow: Longman. for example at the same time we need to provide them with the strategies for examining how thcse operate and why this should be s o ti? reflecting on the subject matter. English. M.. K . Bhatia.DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 81 on the ‘language and conventions related t o the general requirements of the academic community’ (Ihdlcy-Evans. often.Evans. and Huckin. References Anderson.T. (1 988) Shaping I1~’rirtenKnorvletlge: The Genre and ActiviLy $ [ h e Experimental ’4rticle in Science. Brisbane. 2nd edn. T.fbr Specific Purposes 1 3 : 47 59. 1 995). Bclanger. (1989) ‘Genre analysis: an invcstigation of the introduction antl discussion . working practices. Melbourne: Nclson. Dudley-Evans. G. Hewings antl C.V. needing specially focused research antl being less cost-efficient. (1982) ‘ A preliminary analysis of the structure of thc discussion sections in tcn neuroscicnce journal articles’ (mimeo).ever. valucs and idcologies of the discipline or disciplines within which they are working. Nickerson (ctls) Business English: Research into Practice. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.T. 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 2000). Hillsdale. Crookes.sjng Genre: Longt~agcUse in fr&-sional Settings. A. 1 2 9 4 3 . Markkanrn.ongman.

( 1 998) Dei. 1992. Mahwah. I Icwings. T. Frankfurt-amMain: Peter Lang. J. ( 1992) ‘A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making’. (1 995) ‘Common-core antl specific approaches to thc teaching of academic writing’. .4no!p. T. antl Svartvik. Mauranen.anguuge. background sections antl discussion sections of research articlcs in history. (1 973) Explorations in t h e Functions of’l. T. K. political science antl sociology’. A. In D.) Language. MacDonald.’. W. S . Inndon: Macmillan. In G. and Dudley-Evans. (2001) ‘Tcchnicality and ahtraction: language for the creation of specialised texts’. London: Etlward Arnold.) Talking about Ext. Peng.WesleyLongman. M. A . Camhritlgc: Cambritlgc University Press. Hvland. In C. (1 996) ‘Genrc in thrcc traditions: implications for ESL. In M . Hopkins. Leech. (1 9S6) ‘The politics of discourse communities’ . P. Carbondale: Southcrn Illinois University Press. . In A. Herzherg.ssiona1 Acarlemic Writing i n the Numanitier. Learning and Siiccess: Stiit+ing through English. ( 1987) ‘Organisational featurcs in chcmical cngineering research’. . I)udlcy-Evans. Rrainc (ctls) ilcatlcmic CVriting in il Sccontl Language: E. A. S. ( 199 3) ‘Variation in communication pattcrns bctlveen discourse communities: the case o f Highway Engincct-ing and Plant Biology’. Quarter(v 30: 693 -722. T. ( 1990) ‘The organization of article introductions: evidence of changc in economics lvriting’ . Engli. 99-1 2 1. M. (1 999) ‘Disciplinary cngagemcnt in untlcrgraduatc writing: an investigation of clause-initial elements in geography cssavs’ .4 Multirlisciplinay ‘4pprouch. Nor\\-ood. I Iarlow: Addison. Grecnbaum. Coffin (eds) Analysing English in a Global Contexr. P. (1 998) M/riting/Disciplinaritl~/I Sociohistoric h c o u n t of Literate Activity in the Academy. K .ses and Practices.11. Birmingham. Halliday. K. MacDonald. Prior.elopments in English for Specific Purposes: . 1986. London: Modern English Publications/ British Council. J. P a p presented at Conference o n College Composition and Communication. Unpublishctl MA dissertation. R . (1 997) ‘Genre analysis antl thc social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in thrcc disciplines’ . UK. and St John.. R. 67--78. Quirk. K . Cited in Bizzcll. A. Dudley-EI ans. N]: Ahlex. Dutllcy-Evans. Bclchcr and G. thcsis. Holmcx. Martin. London: Longman. English Language of Birmingham. 141-7. R.s c$’ Lconomics Discourse. (1 994) Pr~fe. English for Spec!$c Purposes 18: 3-26. (1 999a) ‘Talking t o students: metatliscoursc in introductory courscbooks’ . Hylantl (eds) Il’riting: Exts. ( 1 99911) ‘Disciplinary discourses: writer stancc in rescarch articles’. G. ( I 988) ‘A genre-based investigation of thc discussion sections in articles and tlisscrtations’. UK. P. Unpu1)lished Ph. English Language Research Journal 1 : 7 9 1 1 6. and Henderson. Coulthard (etl.82 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 rtations’ . Procc. English-fir Specjfific Purposes 7 : I I 3 22. Univcrsity of Surrey. L. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.s. London: Routlcdge.says on Research and Pctlagogj. (1 985) A Comprehensive Grammar of’the English Language. S. S. UK. Ifyon. (1995) ‘Genre analysis antl thc social scienc an investigation of the introductions. Candlin and K . Hylantl. I n T Dudley-Evans antl W. TESOI. Holmcs. B.The University of Birmingham. IVritten Communication 9: 533 -69.s.for Specific Prirposes 16: 321 37. New Orleans. Burns and C. Dudley-Evans. ’I. Henderson (eds) The Lungiia‘qe qf’ Economics: The . Blue (ctl. 128 45. ( 1 993) Cultural Differences i n Academic Rhctoric:/l Textlinguistic Stu+.

Anu!ysis. Kirkman (ctls) Coinrnon Ground: Shilretl Interests in ESP a n d Communicution Sttidies.4rticle Introductions. ( 1 98 5) ‘Somc exploratory discourse on metadiscourse’ . S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. Language Studies Unit. cultural antl subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific. T. (1 990) lVriting u p Research. Applied I inguistics 1 2 : 319 36. B. Vande Kopple. Gillettr. texts’. J. Unpuldishetl Ph. Williams. EIT Documents 1 17: 77-86. R. Swales. In R. T. W. Swales. Englishfbr Spec. thc . College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93.iiting Essuys. London: Kogan Page. (1995) ‘The nature of academic Lvriting in an interdisciplinary field’. Samraj. (1 990) Genre . Englishfbr Speczpc Purposes 18: 279-705. Sclager-Meyer. antl Chcn. Engle\vood Cliffs. Tavlor. N J : 1’1-cnticc-Hall. ( 1 997) The Student s : Gt~ide to I?. J. and Buker. University of Michigan. Weissbcrg. F.i/. G. S.DISCIPLINARY VARIATION I N ACADEMIC WRITING 83 Roberts. S\vales. ( 1 991) ‘Linguistic. S.. (1 998) ‘On the usc o f t h e passhe antl active voice in Astrophvsics journal papers: with cxtcnsions t o other languages antl other ficltls’ . E. . Dwyer. Swales antl J.. Tal-one. Birmingham:The University ofAston. (1 981) :Ispects pf. ( 1 984) ‘Research into the structure of introductions t o journal articles antl its application t o the teaching of academic writing’.V. R. J.c Purposes 17: 1 1 3 32. ( 1 999) ‘Kcfercntial bchaviour in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810-1995)’. D. antl Ickc. J. I).


P A R T TWO Political and institutional constraints in curriculum deve Iop me nt .


Give the grammatical description of thc clauscs and show their connection with each other: In that year (1 85 1 ) when the Great Exhibition spread its hospitable glass roof high over the elms of Hydc Park. T 1 . some research and developmcnt questions for teaching school students about language. 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. 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.Chapter 7 Ronald Carter P O L I T I C S A N D I<NOWLEDGE ABOUT 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 is both comprehrnsive and complex. 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) Analyse into clauses the following passage. English and education. 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. The debate is characteriscd by different political positions antl. (13) State the grammatical features o f t h c words italicized in (a). antl all the world came to admire England’s wealth. by strenuous efforts by the British government . thc place of grnre theory in relation to such an initiative. in particular. progress and enlightenment.

English teachers antl 1) : linguist5 mal be lx-oatll! wmmarisctl under three hcatlings ( 1 ) go\crnmcnt 1 IC\$ 5 . Such practiccs w i l l help to guarantee corrcct grammar antl standard English. in the . 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.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 of language teaching illustrated by this cxamination paper.2 Views of language and language teaching The different \ i e w s o f language and language tcac hing in rcspcct of this reprcscntati\c examination paper held ti) go\ crnmcnt. teachers’ views have bccn rcgularlv dominated by what are described as ‘romantic’ conceptions of h g l i s h as a subjcct (. 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. The learning \vhich cnsucs is tlisciplincd antl takes places nithin a clear framework. There is a particular stress on the primacy of speech. 1989. the capacity o f thc individual for originality and creativity. 1988). on thc above grounds. restrict thcir capacitirs for using the language. Romanticism in English teaching involves a classroom emphasis on languagc use \vhich is . 2. 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. . Christie. to aching practiccs and pedagogics which arc ncc .aril! transmissive and narrolvly kno\vletlgc-bascd. 3. Answers are either right o r wrong. to the tlccontcxtualised study of language. ( 2 ) teachers’ l i e n s . lvhich str and a concern that strict rulcs and conventions may be inhibiting to pupils anti. and teachers can even be assessed lw ho\v \vel1 they teach it. but also hccamc the centre of contesting iic\vs almut languagc and education. person-centred. LINC) project \vert not only rcfuscd puldication by the British government. even in writing where indivitluals arc cncouragctl by thc teacher to find their olvn personal voice. and (3) linguists’ \ I C W S GOT ernment il e i i 7 1. 1. 7iacherc’ rreris Until recently. the liody of knowlctlgc taught is dcfinite and measurable. and which allow little or no scope for an emergence of the pupil’s owm ‘voice’. During the coui-sc of thc LINC project shifts in tcachcrs’ perception of’formal language study were recorded. learned b y pupils and thcn tested. Carter. The examination papcr illustrates a manifest conccrn with measurable knoMledge. but strong rc tance remains. A bocly of linguistic facts can hc taught.

[ . based on a variety of texts.I l>cIiatcs surrounding thc LINC ban ccntrc o n certain key\vortls. They are tht. ral international puhlishcrs in publishing the complete training package.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. and that discussion of context is often necessarily social. Most take the follohving main viclvs of grammar-haset1 tcaching and testing of linguistic knowlcdgc: 1 2 3 They point out ho\v examination papers from the 1940s and 1950s are prc(~ccupietl with the written rather than the spoken language. in school-based follow-up and (ti and in sclf-stud! sessions.POLITICS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LANGUAGE 89 Linguists have taken a prominent role in the shaping ofthe National Curriculum for English in England and Wales. I t contains many linguistically hascd tasks with accompanying commentarics so that teachers can work on the material in a range of‘contexts. includes discussion of language in context. Such an orientation served only to rcinforcc for the g o x r n m e n t the desiraliilitv of dccontcxtualiscd drills and exercises. such dccisions amounted to an effective ban on \videspread publication and dissemination of LINC materials. . . the text here is genuinely incidental. The resulting training package is therefore activity-lnscd antl open-entletl. 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. based on a wider range of analysis than grammar. Neither would it allow commercial publication in spite of interest on the part o f .] clearly rooted in theories of language variation. both spoken and written. ’ . They point out that the analysis is invariably decontcxtualisetl since the dcfinitions required of pupils arc formalistic. 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. In fact. .] In basic outline the main projcct team \vas asked to produce study units for tcachcrs which were to be used in in-service courses. They point out that such examinations arc concerned lvith scntcnccs rather than texts. But they did not reject a formal study of language. 2. The focus is on a bottom-up analysis of the smallest units of language with little o r no interest in eliciting from pupils how such units might combine to form larger functional mcanings and effects. they strongly advocated programmes of study for pupils in knowledge about languagc (KAL). Although the projcct \vas a l l o w d to continue anti although the LINC training package could be made available in photocopied form for purposes of in-service training courses. The government \vas quick to rccognise that knowledgc about language. Instead. . antl to assist them with thc language components ol’the National Curriculum lor English. and [. Accordingly. Examinations such as thosc above arc exercises in the naming of parts. . [. 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.

90 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 o n 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 t h r 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). It 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


In the LlNC training materials therc is no advocacy o f a 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? What other verb forms work, in particular, to establish a relationship between the Water Company and the customcrs to whom it has distrilmted this notice? 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



Notice of interruption to supply
We are w r r y 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 n o safety or hcalth risks involved for its customers s o 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 w r b s can signal possibility ant1 control, depending o n the other words which s u r r o u n d 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).

92 R O N A L D C A R T E R
‘Control’ 15 also established through an cxtensne u w of imperatne forms of the \.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 Ac tivi tv

Do not uw )our

1% ashing machine Please remember neighbours

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 find? u 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 activitybased 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 kcyword 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 t o 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 t o 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 o r as a failure to correct pupils’



\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 h g l i s h 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 of 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 s u n 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 r v r n small crocodiles. (Jenny, aged 1 0)
(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 ‘relational’; for example, I S , hurt, belong phenomenon. Many of thc \-crlx used are t o , consist ofsupport a tlefining stylc o f pr The vocabulary used i s neutral rather than cmoti\ e o r attitudinal antl this

94 R O N A L D C A R T E R
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
LINC tcams have lieen convinced b y the strcngth and depth of arguments for making the language structure of texts tnorr visililc o n the grounds that genuine intervention by thc teacher and c o n s c y c n t tlevclopnient in pupils’ language use arc n o 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 i s but one of the ncncst of a long line of discursive devices which serve to entrench 11-oriented theories o f writing in schools.’ Although personalist, individualist, SIJ 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 o n lzhicli LINC has built. LINC’s introduction o f a m o r c gcnrc-liasctl approach t o lvriting has provoked some hostility on the I n r 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 o f \vork is intcrprctcd as a narrow vocationalism. W h a t 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 t o 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 t o 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) b u t also 1 w others. Taking such strong, clear argumentative lines cnablcs others t o ai-guc with or argue against in a systematic \lay.



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 o f these problcm~ arc alread) being explored in a numlx,r o f action-rewarch projects in UK schools and teacher-training collcgcs. 1 he main points of concern arc stated belo\r



Existing descriptions o fgenre 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 o n lexical patterning, cohesion, coherence antl textual macrostructure. 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.


[. .I 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 n o t 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 n o t wholly construed as



\vrittcn texts. Early examples lvithin Australian \vork of teachcrs modelling gcnrcs to a \vholc class ~ T T Cpcrc.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 o n modelling in relation to joint and individual construction which operates successfully to show writing to he both processand 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 t o thc school .Thcrc is little attempt to identify the gcnrcs of Lvriting commonly required in

Future LINC materials ) must also cnablc teachers Iictter t o analysc the linguistic tliffcrcnccs between real books and hooks from gr-adctl reatling schcmcs. . of learning t o read. First. I. advertising.l’hcy will continue t o make linguistic processes invisildc antl regard language only in so far as it provides a \vindo\v o n .o f different cucs and cluc-s. thc language o f jokes. a gcncral classroom climatr needs t o he established in which talking and writing almut language leads to [. Morc action rescarch \voultl illustrate when t o mix vhcn t o concentrate o n a xinglc teaching ptwccdurc. the workplace. t o different styles and purposes of language use. syntactic antl semantic. ] language airureness that is. first. and many of’thcrn have been advanced by genre theorists themselves. ~ Several of these observations arc hardly ncw. phonic and visual. The main negative factors arc. and investigations of’the continua I>ct\vccn different accents and dialects. It is important that the lessons of both succcss and failure arc i x ~ o t .o u l d illustratc how readers use a rangc. cxamplc. gcncral scnsiti\ it\.I 4 Conclusions: the lessons of LINC A project of the scale antl complexity o f LlNC cannot escape criticism. inorc cxxaniplcs arc nccdctl t o show how literary texts can stimulate enhanced kno\vlcdgc about language. especially the history of the language. LINC materials ncctl t o he further adapted in three main ways. . Instead. Sccontl. For example a rcport gcnrc in a junior school is markedly different from a rcport genre in industrial o r business work settings. materials o n 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. purpose and context in which particular genres operate. . 1 4. particularly in relation t o the teaching of punctuation. Text-intrinsic accounts o f genre need t o take fullcr cognisance of the audiencc. that some teachers will continue to pcmist with the worst cxccsscs of romanticism in their view of language learning and tcaching. ary habit-forming prelude including standard English. for all their S U C C ~ S S C S \vith tcachers. Thcsc observations should I>c vicwwl in a correspondingly positive light.96 R O N A L D C A R T E R 6. Such cxplorations arc a nc to looking m o r e closely antl analytically at the linguistic patterns \vhich make u p different genres. Third.1 Negative conclusions Even if the gcncral tlcvclopmcnts outlined ahovc take placc. . These include tliffcrcnces l x t m w n spoken antl written language. pop fiction. which depends crucially on the relationship Iiet\vccn grammatical structure and the rhythms and contours of spccch. 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. and political rhetorics. antl how greater linguistic kno\vlcdgc underpins literary appreciation. Analysis is not al\vays best fostcrcd by practising analysis of and reflection o n language solely within the context of individual genres. More examples arc also nccdcd o f how standard English varies across spoken and written modcs hvhile still remaining standard English.d c d 1:or . Encouragement to pupils t o rcllcct o n language has tendcd t o lie restrictcd to the patterns of IanguagcT in the gcnrc in focus. supplements to existing units arc ncccletl o n diffcrenccs bct\vccn spoken and Lvrittcn English. they \vi11 take placc against a cultural background in lvhich both positive antl negative factors arc at w o r k . cxplorations of the languagc of literature. Morc examples antl case studies ~ .

In a project inspired by thc work of Michael Halliday. . Finally. governments may want to intervene more directly in the shaping of the English curriculum. can be easily assessed and measured.POLITICS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LANGUAGE 97 to content. If so. 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. the hierarchical statuses that are accorded to different groups \vithin society .. and those who have the knowledge but not the power. the kvorltl of ideas. Increasing attention to language on the part of teachers. a morc positi\e view of applicd linguistics emerges from projects such as thc LINC project. linguists begin to address problems identified by teachers. Thcy may exert their powers to impose a language study which is ‘neutraliscd’b y being more decontextualisctl. . complex and ultimately dangerous language and language study arc. recognising it as both medium and mcssagc. will lead to pupils being progrcssi\-cly interested in language.2 Positive conclusions It is a positive factor that governments are drawing attention to language. Although the battles will continue to be bet\\ n those who have thc power but not the knowlcdgc. rathcr than only those problems itlentifietl by linguists themselves. As long as xve keep linguists at bay ~ v can c go on believing \\.] Incrcasingly. As a result. and \vhich. It is a view in which teacher and linguist work more collaborati\ely ton.. and Lyhatevcr their political persuasion. the expression of the individual self. 1982): . tcachcrs become more a\varc of the problems of linguistic description and. They will continuc to refuse to see forms of language as a powerful resource for creating significant domains of meaning. When we study language sjrstcmatically . ClSC~’S . and it’s subversive. above all. More than any other human phenomenon. all concerned with language have come to appreciate how notoriously fascinating. They are likely to continue to be especially disturbed by classroom K A L work which encourages childrcn to investigate such rclationships indcpcndently. coupled with high degrees of enthusiasm and conviction. governments may not want to endorse classroom language study which explores relationships between language and society. . It’s uncomfortable because it strips us of thc fortifications that protect and surround some of our dccpcst prcju . in turn. language reflects and reveals the inequalities that arc cnshrinctl in the social process. . 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. 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. both our own and .ant e to hcli >outlanguage. . attacking the positions adopted by those with a profwsional interest in language. . and which subjccts those relationships to interrogation.hat ~ v \\. the final word must be left to Halliday (Halliday. we see into the power structure that lies behind our ever). formalist rather than functionalist in orientation. [. there is a real sense in kvhich linguistics is threatening. it’s uncomfortable. Second. 4. .day social relationships. . mounting arguments in relation to the ‘proper’ study of English.ards common agendas.

. (cd. Gilbert. K. A. Krcss. I. Oxford). J. Christie. Victoria). (1988) ‘Some Imvns for Kingman: language education and English teaching’. ( 1990) ‘Authori7ing disadvantage: authorship and crcativity in the language classroom’. 54-78. in Christic.) . Oxford). P. Halliday. (1 989) I unguugc Edricirtion (Oxford University Press. M. K . London) pp. in Cartcr.Ipplied Linguistics in S o c i c : ~ 3 . Halvthorn. Oxford). ( 1 989) Fuctuul IVriting (Oxford Univcrsity Press. 339 75.stics (CIIT. G. (1 996) ‘Literacy and linguistics: a func. British Studies in Applied Linpi. . (1 989) Liniqtiistic P r o c e w s in Sociocultural fructicc (Oxford University Prcss. Martin. pp. in Sociecl. Halliday. R. R. (1982) ‘Linguistics in teachcr cducation’. (Longman. R. Lnndon).) Literuy fi)r a Chunging Cihrld (Australian Council for Educational Research. pp. and Williams. pp. G.) Linguistics a n d the Zucher (Routledge. P. 5 1-66. London). in Grun\vell.. (etl. 10 16. (etl. F. in Hasan.tional pcrspectivc’. (eds) Literacj.98 R O N A L D C A R T E R Bibliography Carter. M. A.

Jones B I L I N G U A L EDUCATION AND SYLLABUS DESIGN: TOWARDS A WORI<ABLE BLUEPRINT Introduction R U N E I D A R U S S A L A M (henceforth Brunei) has a hilingual education system in which two languages. are used. B [.. This is a most demanding and difficult change for pupils and tcachcrs alike. Mathcmatics. the first and most important of the transitional stcps is taken.1 . 1991 : 40) . Rahasa hlelayu and English. shifts in three stcps from a predominantly Malay-medium to a predominantly English-medium system. (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. as sho\vn inTable 8. how are abrupt rather than gradual. when the pupils arc eight ycars old. but as k i n g highly intcr-dcpcndent and complementary. In a bilingual system. Science. As this paper will suggest. ho\\ ever. 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. the final school leaving examination (the GCE ‘0’ lewl) has determined the syllabuses of the individual school subjects.I The current curriculum The present school syllabus. the two languages should not lie regarded as indcpcntlcnt variables or in any way as competing with one another. History antl Geography are introduced antl taught through English. 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. These stage shifts. .Chapter 8 Gary M. (Ramirez et al. such subject-centred planning makes little pro1 ision for the tlevclopmcnt of t\vo languages as intcrlocking variables. A t this time. Ramirez et al. with the result that subject syllabuses have been planned in isolation and then joined to create the school curriculum. in addition to English Language as a subjcct. . At Primary 4. In Brunei.

c ltlevclopcd processes of the classroom. Once acquired in one language it can tic transferred to any other language.1 . subjccts which Cummins (1 984) would characterise as precisely those that require a well-tlcvclopcd L2 proficiency. In Cummins's ( 1 984: 143) opinion. . at Primary 4 thcrc is an abrupt change. This proficicncy could be tlevcloped in either of the tiilingual child's languages o r in both simultaneously.lctlge Physical Education Arts and Handicraft Civics 1 . I Compulsory and cxaminablc suhjccts in Rrunri priniarv antl sccontlarv schools English Language Englith Language Mathematic5 Mictor) Science Gcograph: English I. 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). CALP involvcs some universal undcrlying proficicncy which is shared across languages.100 G A R Y M . proticicncy of this sort acquired in Malay could hc transferred to English-medium classes antl vice versa. antl this occurs at a time when the pupils have only a limited proficiency in English.le. Not only is the number of English-medium hours greatly increased. J O N E S Tcihle 8. but the incrcasc is in some of' the most cognitivcly demanding subjects. Cummins develops thc concept of RICS antl CALI' in the four quadrant model which is reproduccd as Figure 8. 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 l to cope with the curricular language-cognitive abilitics nccd to be sufficiently ~ .anguagc Mathematics Science I oii cr PrimoLy (age 5 8 ) Mala! I anguagc Mathematics General Studies Islamic Rcligious Kno\z.tlgc Physical Education Arts antl Handicraft Civics llppcr Primor) (ugc 9 I I ) Malay Languagc Islamic Religious Kno\z. Thus. o cr ~ Seconduy (uge 12 I J) Malay Languagr Islamic Kcligious Knowlcclgc Historv Geography English I anguagc Mathematics Scicncc/Art/T'echnical Subjccts (clcpcntling o n stream) Although some Malay continues to be usctl in the RI-uncian system.

but from fivr to years to accluirr context-reduced case. 198 1 In the Brunei context. . cspccially a t thc primary lc\-cl. Nevertheless. cogniti\rl!.BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND SYLLABUS DESIGN 101 Cogillti\ cl) undcmantling (RICS) H ConCcxt-cmbctltlctl B Contcxt rctluc c d c I) (CAI P) C‘ogniti\ cl\ tlcinantling Flgtrre 8. I t is ccrtainly the case that not all subjects can be simply and easily placed in their rrspcctivc quadrants. subjects such as Mathematics and Science. Cummins’s motlcl does provide insight into Lvhy pupils \vorking in a sccond language may struggle in some subjects hut do wrll in othcrs. . but it could be taught in a context-cmbcdded as \vel1 as a contcxt-rcduccd style. Many . . [.] This present division of Malay-medium/English-medium subjects.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. while it might he difficult to neatly place all school subjects into one of‘ the four quadrants.] Cummins’s concept o f BlCS and CALP has been criticiscd for being too simplistic. is putting an unncccssary strain on pupils and the education system. contcxtreduced subjects that the). would be placed in the fourth quadrant (D). .’l’he same is true of most subjects: much dcixnds upon the style and skill of the teacher. Subjects that arc eventually examined in Malay are therefore taught through the medium of Malay throughout. . Bruncian children arc unlikely to haw thc rcquired English proticicncy to study the type of cognitivel! demanding.] If kno\\lctlgc is transferable across languages. [. 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 language that might IK d context-eml~edde~l second language fluency (the typ in Art or Physical Education classes). which arc cognitively demanding and often context-retlucrd (based on abstract rather than concrete examples). which arc cognitively undemanding and generally context-embeddetl. 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. arc currcntl). . . 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.-demantling communication capaliility develops intlependcntly and can be promoted by either or both languages. 1. I RICS ant1 CALI’ Sorrrcc: Curnmins. Science will allvays be cognitively demanding. Most important is that Cummins hcli context-reduccd. then after only three years fluency (working with more abstract subjects). introduced to in Primary 4. If thi of English 1. xvould be placed in the first quadrant (A). whilc those such as Art and Physical Education. [.anguagr as a subject at lower primary school.

may only be reached at the point these pupils rcach upper secondary. 35 to 40 \vccks a w a r over two t o three years. These arc condition5 \vhich must surely crcatc greater language studying difficulties than for their European peers. The result is that many pupils arc failing to acquire either sufficient subject knowledge o r to imlx-ove thcir language skills.] Although language thresholds \vert not discussed as such hack in the 1950s. 1.c a v c r v supportive learning c n \ ironmcnt outside school. 1. He found that at Primary 6. . 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. rcccnt clarification of what they involve helps to licttci. J O N E S pupils have an insufficient command of English to prolxrly follo\v their new subjects. Ho\\ er.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. . the Same is not true today of large mixed ahilitj classcs ofchiltlrcn. rcflccting the nccds of Europcan stutlents. Hruneian pupils receive approximately 262 hours teaching in and on the English language (two and a half hours per week.] 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). As a result of problems ticginning at primary school.] . . has oliservetl). A minimum o f 140 hours of teaching and a maximum of 360 hours. Van Ek andTrim ( I 991) d c rilie the threshold level in terms of the type of functions that a young European learner should be alilc t o pcrfoi-m in the target language. . ] In 195 1 . only 7% of thcsc same pupils \ \ w e hclow grade level in Malay reading comprchcnsion (Larking. which require an cvcn higher language Ic\cl. . [.vidcncc for this has been gathcrcd b j Lewis Larking. at \vhich time thcv should really be functioning at an intermediary level hcyontl the sccond threshold. In Bruneian lower primary schools. 1994: 58).clarify the situation in Brunei and relate language levels there to those attained elsc\vhci-e. minimum proficiency levels \z-crc presumahlv consitlercd attainable. 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. 38% two or more years Iiclow antl 4% three or more years hclow gradc level). Interestingly. lwing able to report and discuss prolilcms relating to teaching. with selected pupils following intcnsivc personal tuition. in turn. This level. as Singlcton. I . cspecially Mathematics antl Science. prior to transfer to Primary 4 and the teaching of acadcmically demanding subjects through the medium of English. w h o tested the reading comprehension ability of Bruncian pupils in of pupils were helow their nativePrimary 5 and 6. These functions are incvitalily Euroccntric.102 G A R Y M. 700/0 speaker equivalent grade level in English reading comprehension ( 2 8% were one year below grade Icvcl. 1 989. It should also Iic rcmcmbcrcd that these Bruneian children arc very young (oltlcr Icarncrs may n o t ncccssarily lie Iwttcr learners but they d o understand the educational Iiroccss and a r c thcrcforc faster Icarncrs. antl that English is unrelated to any of their other languages. . 35 weeks a year over three years). at which timc the pupils have t o take their ‘0’ levels. social conditions and accommodation and also how t o follow admission procedures t o cntcr teaching institutions. Sornc c. 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. This assumes that pupils have attained some miniinurn languagc aliility or threshold. especially for the tlcvclopnient o f Lnglish. . that they may not ha1.

. .] A r t and Physical Education arc not literacy but oracy and participatory activitics that should not endanger the acquisition of first language literacy. 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. [. . [. ‘contcxt-cmbeclded’ subjects in Malay. Thus Mathematics and Science would rcmain Malay. ‘contrxt-rcduccd’ subjects in English and the cognitively undemanding. c.BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND SYLLABUS DESIGN 103 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. Most of the research supporting the ‘younger is better’ position does so with reference to phonological advantages. delayed immersion. 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. To avoid the sudden incrcasc in English-medium subjects at Primary 4. lvithout harming thtx pupils’ ability to first become literate in Malay. noting the peculiaritics of each study. . . . early total immersion generally yiclds higher lcvcls of second language pruficicncy than carlp partial immcrsion. o r late immersion. (1 991) where it is noted that students Ivho were abruptly moved into almost exclusive instruction in English ‘. together with English Language. .medium subjects (at lcast.xpcrirnce of the target language begins in their childhood yrarr.] 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. with . Singleton concludes that: there is a fair amount of cvidcncc suggcstivr of a long-term adbantagc for learners whoa(. . 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. 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. . 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 al. Instead of teaching the cognitivcly demanding. 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. 1991 : 33). while that supporting the ‘older is better’ stand is on the basis of syntax antl morphological measures of ability. morc Englishmedium subjects could be introduced at lower primary level. the easiest proposal would be to switch subjects. . until Lower Secondary) whilc Art and Physical Training would be taught as English-mcdium subjects at the primary Icvcl. experienced a marked dccrcasc in growth in mathematics skills over timc’ (Ramircz et a ] . (Genesee. Thus these two subjects could be introduccd in English-medium at lower primary. Thus. though for different stated reasons.

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. The majority o f Bruncians u. Some of thcsc pcoplc continued their education in the mission schools ivhilc others \vent on t o government schools. citing Cummins’s o\vn proposals: the older learners. \vhosc‘ CALP i s Iwttcr tlcvelopcd.ihuhusci!’ in a national attitude questionnaire that \\-as concluded rccrntly suggested that more English should introduced at an earlier age. (Cummins. an ability with English \voultl also he tlcpcndent upon factors outsidr school. L2 BICS). 1989: 138) (2) Although Singleton docs not favour cithcr an carl! o r late start. comments thatyou u d d like t o make ahout Dri. he does suggest that Cuinmins’s RICS/CALI’ distinction rcconcilcs contradictions in the cviclcncc aliout agerelated differences among second language learners.2skills more rapidly than youngcr learners. my own imprrssion fi-om oliscrvations in Brunei is that as \vcll as phonological atlvantagcs. an advantage seems t o have Iiccn tlcrivctl from early cxposurc. this \vould not necessarily he the case for those aspccts of L2 proficicncp unrclatccl to CAI.P ( English. (Singleton.c. the picture is more confused. The English language a b 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.’l‘hcrr can bc little doubt. Singleton remains undecided about the benefits of one approach over thr other: (1) The a\ailablc e\ idcncc doc5 not consistcntl: \upport the hJpothcsis that youngcr second language learner? arc gloliall~m o r e cfhcicnt and ruccc5sful than oldcr learners. b u t I think that this \vould bc \\rang and a misjudgcnicnt of‘ the rcspontlcnts. 1979. especially languages iisetl in the home. 1989: 1 1 3) This lcntls support t o the type of sul3jcct division rccommcndctl earlier for Brunei. J O N E S regard to short-term attainment. 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. ~lc‘tl preceding with the study of cognitivcly untlcmantling. In either case.104 G A R Y M. \voultl acquire cognitive/ academic I . however. Although research \voultl obviously h a w t o lie undertaken to provc the point. Rruncians havc hcen exposed t o a varicty 01’ school tcms. ho\vevcr. c o n t ~ ~ x t . and it can I>cassumed that many parents \vho sent their children to English-medium mission schools \z oultl themselves very prohalily usc English at home. It \voultl lie \cry cas! t o dismiss such suggestions as Iicing uninformed and subjective. Of course. Nor 15 it possililc t o conclude f r o m t h e (x\itlcnce that o l d c r second language learners arc glol)all! more cfhc lent and 5ucccssfuI than Joungcr learners (Singleton.This conclusion ma! bc subjective. 1989: 122) Dcspite his extensive research o n the sulijcct.c r n l ~ c ~ l suhjccts cognitively demanding. In Singleton.ho voluntccrcd a reply to the question’ Are there anj. Hobvcvcr. 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. context-rcduccd subjects. early exposure t o English also appears to result in a greater cor$dencc among learners in actually h c . But this would n o t havc been the case for all familics.

(4) History. 1993). 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. Bilingual Gymnasium (‘grammar’) schools in Germany make a gradual transition from German to a second language. A physical education lecturer at the Univcrsitv of Brunei Darussalam has noted the link l x t w e r n his suhjcct and language acquisition in Brunei. (2) Geography. Geography is also recognised as pcrforming a second hut crucially important role in bilingual education in Germany. and from the application of mcthodological skills through its work with figures. information giving function and provides a relatively simplc start to description. 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. the Bruneians who haw acquired English early at mission schools are gencrally more confident. Art is considered to provide a concrete situational base from which to develop language skills (as well as subject ability). the study of politics does include a recognisablc languagc function: [. this subject docs lend itself particularly to communicatiw activities because it emphasises n language and physical movement.] The most noticeable change in students’ attitude o r lxhaviour \vas a readily discernible increase in confidence . He maintains that physical education creates a language rich cnvironmcnt : [. . A t its simplest. Nevertheless. 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.] In sequence. . However. 1993: 163). . 1993: 1 6 3 4 ) Physical Education Physical Education is not mentioned in Masch’s dcscription ofthe German Model. 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). (Austin. (3) Politics (Civics). 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. Such confidrncc results in fewer inhihitions antl a willingness to experiment with thc language. . statistics. ‘Geography alone sufficiently covers virtually all the necessary elements from thc natural sciences through physical geography and geophysical phenomena. graphs and sketches’ (Masch. and therefore more at case with the language antl thus likcly to use antl experiment with the language. .BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND SYLLABUS DESIGN 105 using thc language. the subjects chosen as 1-ehiclesfor bilingualism in The German Model arc: (1) Art. [. (Masch. . than their peers who went to government schools. .]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. 1992: 25 -6) . . Geography performs a refcrcntial.

c las I would suggest that compulsory and examinable sulijects in Bruneian primary and secondary schools might be more appropriately distributed as shocvn inTalile 8. Mowcvcr. rather than tax the pupils with too many English-medium subjects at once. In this revisctl system. Table 8. . one year at a time? Is there any advantage to lie gained in switching History from Malay to English-medium? Ideally.2 An altcrnatiLc distribution of subjects in the Kruncian education 9ystcm English medium . this would takr time and may not tic feasible because of the common national examinations that have . givcn the expcricncc of the German Model. and with due l RICS/CALP and the threshold levels. History would remain a Malay. . Geography. For instance. I. would also seem an appropriate subject to introduce at thc primary level.2. a number o f permutations might be triallcd until the most appropriate model for Brunei is arrived at.] The system described above is open to a number of permutations. Of course.106 G A R Y M. the introduction of Geography might best lie postponed until upper primary. English Language Mathematics Science/Art/TcchnicaI Sulijccts (depending on stream) Malay Languagc Physical Training and Art Mould join English Language as English-medium subjccts in the lower primary curriculum. JONES Revised syllabus As an alternative to the present distribution o f suhjects and language media. consideration to language acquisition antl age as ~ .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. should three subjects bc introduced simultaneously from Primary 1 or would it be bcttcr to introduce them consccutivcly.WO/UJ medium English Language Arts (antl I Iantlicraft) Physical Education I ower P r i r n q Malay Languagc Mathematics General Studies Civics Islamic Religious Kno\\ lctlgc llpper Priniar) English Languagc Arts (and Handicraft) Physical Education Malay Languagc Mathematics Civics Scicncc Grography 1 Iistory Islamic Rcligious Kno\vlctlge Luiwr Seconclucv English Language Mathematics Geography Science Malay Language f Iistory Islamic Rcligious Kno\vlctlgc [Jppcr Scconday.

S. Ilbrking Papers on BilingLiulism 19. (1989) Bilinguals and Bilingualism. However. there arc a number of practical considerations which would impede the implementation of this proposal. Ractcns Rcardsmorc (cd.) Reatling and Research in Writing. J. Ramirez. In The California State Department of Education (ed. J. Van Ek. and Blanc.. Hamcrs. Clcvcdon: Multilingual Matters.$ ?f Bilingual Education. History and Science teachers may not be able to teach in Malay. in the short term at least. and Trim. S. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton. Cambritlgc. (1 989) Bilingualism. Singaporc: Rcgional Language Centre. Harley. Tickoo (ed. the introduction and redistribution of school subjects at thc primary level is an issue that should eventually be addressed. A. would seem more appropriate than that currently employed. D. Lenneberg.BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND SYLLABUS DESIGN 107 to be taken at the end of primary school. Los Angeles: California Statc Department of Education. ~ . (1991) Threshold 1-eve/ 1990. Mountain View. B. further compound this problem. F. (1 994) ‘Reading comprehension ability of Primary 5 & 6 children in Malay and English in Brunci Darussalam’. L. N. in one form or another. linguistic inter-dependence. the optimum age question and some other matters’. (1 993) ‘The German Model of bilingual education: An administrator’s pcrspcctivc’. Ncvcrthclcss.) Compendium on Bilingual-Bicultural Education. cognitivcly demanding/cognitively undcrnanding subjects. While I bcliew that the above \vould he a better system than the present distribution of subjects. E. J. (1 989) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. L. In M. New York: Wiley. (1 986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Givcn that providing a sufficient number of properly qualificd teachers has always been a problem in Brunei. Larking. ( 1 992) ‘Languagc development through education’. there would also be the huge task of supplying o r retraining teachers for new media of instruction. Malay-medium Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press. ___~ (1 98 1 ) ‘Thc role of primary language developmcnt in promoting educational succcss for language minority students’. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. as well as considerations of contcxt-embedded /context-reduced. (1 979) ‘Cognitixe/academic language proficiency. December 1992. Paper presented at a seminar in thc University of Brunei Darussalam. J. (1 967) Biological Foundations $Language. H. CA: SRA Technologies.) European Model. H.for Language M i n o r i y Children. Ckvedon: Multilingual Matters. Masch. Englishmedium Mathematics. J. F. References Austin. Romaine. (1 987) Learning Through E o Languages. Cummins. MA: Ncwbury I Iouse. A. givcn the research that has been conducted into threshold levels and the timing of their acquisition. Geography and Physical Education teachers may not be willing or able to teach in English. changing the language-medium of some subjects would. In H. L. Yuen and Ramey (1 991) Longitudinal Study of Immersion Earlj-exit and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs . 198 203. Genescc. As well as the problem of new examinations and syllabuscs. (1 984) Bilingualism and Special Education: lssues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Oxford: Basil Blackwcll. M. then this revised model for the introduction of subjects in the Brunei education syytem. D.

1988)thatitistimeforaparadigmshit‘t which takes into account the changing roles antl functions of English around thc world in linguistic research antl in languagc pcdagogj.Chapter 9 Kimberley Brown WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL P R O G R A M S : A N I N F U S I O N M O D E L OF CURRICULAR INNOVATION Introduction T H A S B E E N S U G G E S T E D (c. . Kachru’s perspective on the role and functions o f English as an international language remains a minority perspective. 1991a). The World Englishes paradigm (hereaftcr referred to as the WE paradigm) may lie charactcrizcd by three elements (Kachru. i.d c f i n r d calls for applied and theoretical research in the languagc education community. In an attempt to find a \ v a j to incorporate thc World Englishes paradigm intoTESO1. 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. Even though t\vo gcncrations of scholars have been rcfining the elements of what has comc to Iic termed thc World Englishes paradigm (Kachru. programs. 1992a). theories about theories. A paradigm refcrs to a particular thcorctic framcmvork o r perspcctivc.) preparatory programs (Vavrus. 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. 1988: 1 ) : I 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’. Kachru. Paradigm shifting and diffusion o f innovation Within meta-theory research. I IC statcs: ‘. This paper examines possiblr explanations for the lack o f incorporation of this paradigm in TESOL preparatory programs. I kvill draw upon Hamnctt et al.’s (1 984) threepronged approach to what they term ‘thc intligenization of social science research’ (78). In spite of clearly articulated arguments and n d .e. there is little evidence of its infusion intoTcaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOI. paradigms are deeply embedded . .g.

The remaining elements in Rogers’ pcrccivetl attributes of innovations arc rclatiw advantage. any process of shifting paradigms cannot be a simple proccss. it \vi11 not lie atlopted.To avoid confusion.WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL PROGRAMS 109 in the socialization of adherents and practitioners telling them \\hat is important. the WE paradigm docs not clearly po compatibility. and ob \-ability. complcxity. they are more likcly A t the present time. the first step must be to recognize and name the paradigm to which one has bccn intellcctuallp socialized. One is o f particular relevance to this discussion if the WE paradigm can be considercd an innovation. Finally. the term ‘perspective’ will be used instead of paradigm. I do not bclicve the WE pcrspcctiv . 199 111) calls the ‘Dynamic’ perspective. Neither the Deficit nor Ileviational perspectives arc compatible with the Dynamic pcrspcctive. But much of the early work in World Englishcs is not in a userthan other perspccti friendly format for c room teacher educators. 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. (1984) discuss thrcc elements that have a direct connection to nce of the WE perspective in TESOL prcparatory programs. trialability. Rogers terms this variable ‘perceived attributes of [an] innovation’ (1 983: 233).Trialaliility rcfcrs to ‘the tlegrec to which a nnovation may be experimented with on a limited liasis’ (1 983: 231). (. nor as inferior cxamples of incorrect speech. i.Tollcfson (1 991 ) suggests that the intellcctual belief system an individual may adhere to is often not seen as a particular s e t of lenses.] It is possible to see the introduction of a new paradigm into the intellectual arena as similar to thc diffusion o f an innovation into a particular setting. Thus before any shift in ideologics can comc about. If individuals arc quite familiar with an idca.c. Relative advantage refers to a pcrception that the new idea is better than prcvious ones. Rogers (1 983) examines variahles affecting the rate a t kvhich innovations are adopted. The five facets of this variablc are compatibility. they may resist this innovation. In thc social sciencc literature that explores attributes of innovations. what is legitimate. antl obscrvahility. Until cducators hccomc more aware of the reasons for adopting a WE paradigm or of thc conse‘quenccs of not adopting it.] Hamnctt et a / . The Deviational perspective supports the notions that all errors arc due to fossilization or to learners being at various stages of interlanguage transfer. The lack of compatibility tictwccn these thi-ec pcrspecti\es thus affccts the rate at which thcWE paradigm may tic adopted. ohscruability refers to how visible an innovation is. and ohscrvability. . 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. what is reasonable’ ( 1 975: 9). h o cr. relative advantage. individuals may hold to particular ideologies without evcn recognizing that there is something subjective about these idcologies. By implication then. . This does affect the trialability factor.Thc Deficit perspective supports the notion that errors occur because learners arc deficient in their command of English. complexity. . . . Much of the underlying theory in the WE paradigm belongs to what Vavrus ( 1 99 1 a . Research suggests that if individuals can work with a new idea on a trial basis. Rogers suggests that if an idea is n as being too complex. Complexity is sclf-explanatory. [. they may lie more likcly to adopt it. a framemnrk in which non-native varieties of English arc sccn neither as fossil-ridden examplcs of interlanguagcs. trialaliility. 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’ . She suggests that most language teaching fraine\vorks may lie characterired as belonging to one of t\vo perspectives.

would hclp Inner Circle teachers learn from O u t e r and Expanding Circle colleagues. who will return home to promote structural changes in how English is taught. large classes and a standardized Ministry of Education curriculum which prepares students for college-level entrance exams are common. 1992a).e. This promotion process may involve contributing to the development of WE .. with some definitions of problems morc acceptable than others with avenues to funding and support clcarly discriminatory’ ( 1 990: 70). the cooperative small group antl pair work in communicative language settings is a standard concept promoted in most TESOL Methods courses. 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. i. 1984: 78). 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). defined ‘with rcfcrence to national institutional and organizational capabilities for social science knowledge [including capabilities for] educational and research institutions. Another aspect of the theoretical dimension of the WE perspective is also presented by Lincoln. and the development of locally produced WE literature and empirical o r qualitative studies. Australia. the structural challenge is to support the development of young scholars from Outer Circle and also Expanding Circle countries (Kachru. Within the WE perspective. and locally produced social science literature’ (Hamnrtt et a l .theoretic indigenization would involve the crcation and refinement of thcory. the USA. Individuals who have completed their own profcssional preparation under one paradigm may not see a reason to shift. i. the development o f scholars committed to working within the WE paradigm. 1988). o r Canada (Kachru. those countries in which English has been taught as a foreign language. these parameters arc well developed (scc Kachru.Therc does appear. Shifting paradigms in TESOL programs is a difficult task. 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. The third element in Hamnett et al. antl to support Inner Circle scholars developing collaborative frameworks with Outcr and Expanding Circle colleagues for their teaching. however.c. to be a problem with access to antl availability ofinformation. those countrirs once colonized by England o r the USA and who use o r have used English for intra-country purposes (Kachru. In Inner Circle countries. A t thc present time.Within the WE perspective. 1988). UK. 1 988). New Zcaland. i. For cxample. In many O u t e r and Expanding Circle countries. which could then he infused into current Methods c o w .e.’s text involvx substantive indigenization. Small group o r pair work may be proscribed. The second is structural indigenization. substantive indigenization would call for the development in Outer and Expanding Circle countries of’ their own research and teaching focus. Having successful teachers from these large classroom settings prepare lcssons on how to teach large classes. 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. . . a community of indigenous scholars. 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. structural indigenization would involve thc development of institutions which sponsor a particular type of research.This problem will be discussed more thoroughly in a later section of the paper. in Outer Circle countries.

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. e.g. They may not have been trained in identifying their underlying assumptions cultural and paradigmatic. and empirical or qualitatkc studies. it has only been recently that master’s students in language education have been encouraged to conduct their research from hzithin the WE perspective. By extension. Methodology courses taught in these centers are likely to incorporate the WE perspective. 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. structural-functionalist and systems theories as contrasted with theories in the ‘conflict paradigm’. Freirian. [.] In addition to the overall difficulties with respect to any paradigm shift or curricular innovation. 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. many Inner Circle bookstores balk at filling orders because of currcncy exchange difficulties and policies which prohibit them from ordering materials from other countries. When multiple copies of texts arc requested from halfway around the world. For example. e. 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. Marxist. 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. o r nco-Marxist theories. One explanation for this is that much of the writing students cncountcr is heavily centered in what R. The rhetoric in structural-functionalist and systems theories is less readily ~ .. student and instructor background schemata. text availability and level of difficulty. 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. 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. Time for diffusion of scholarship There are currently two major centers in the USA \\here scholars are conducting extensive research in World Englishcs. supporting material availability. and workshop and short-term courscwork availability for Methods instructors. Robert Raumgardner. Paulston (1 976) calls the ‘equilibrium paradigm’. literature. . . there arc at least five other possible impediments: amount of time necessary for truc diffusion of scholarship. pedagogical.WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL PROGRAMS 111 theory and collaborating with colleagues in Outer and Expanding Circle countries to support the tlevelopmcnt of indigenous institutions. though. scholars. the first master’s degree paper to look at a WE issue was presented in 1985 (personal communication). Even in Outer Circle countries. writes that in Pakistan. Research being conducted around the world may not make its way into mainstream journals for three to five years after its coniplction.g. an cxpcrt in thc ficld of Pakistani English. Further. o r personal. Student and instructor background schemata Many stutlcnts cntcring TESOL programs havc not had any prior cxpcricnccs identifying paradigms and ideologies.

c. 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. International students in TESOL programs may sometimes possess low self-esteem regarding thcir o\vn language proficiency and. Brown (1987). as Canadian colleagues have long practiced. . 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).rite in Filipino English or Malaysian English to express certain \vays of being and knolving arc not cxamined in traditional Methods texts. Nigeria. E X countries like India. Most introductory M<>thocls texthooks cover instrumental and integrative reasons for learning a language (Gardner and Lambert. and the institutionalized vcrsus performance varieties of English. Text availability and level of difficulty Three of the most popular Methods texts. lie they ‘English as an International Language’ or. or any of the points highlightctl by Kachru ( 1 992a) as bcing central to WE theory.c. 1979) function of language. In Brown (1 987). the presentation of interlanguage continuum inlormation and its relationship to sociolinguistic continuum information. In Celce-Murcia.112 K I M B E R L E Y B R O W N identifiable. ] In units on second languagc acquisition. 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. it may also lie difficult for their teachers. is part of the Deviational perspective is usually not presented in conjunction with information \vhich is part of the Dynamic perspective. thc role ofnative spcakcrs in instruction in the Outer Circle (i. There is no chapter dealing specifically with the concept of institutionalized versus performance varieties of English. Cclcc-Murcia (1991). the interlanguage continuum concept which. the role of native and non-native speakers of English. antl Brazil). Paradigm shifts cannot be made when people do not overtly idcntify paradigms which currently dominate the field. . terminology used to refer to the teaching we do. ‘English as an Additional Language’ . [. Choosing to learn a language for the purpose of expressing one’s identity or choosing to \\. and Expanding Circle varieties of . devote one chaptvr or less to the concept of World Englishes. In Long and Richards (1 987). 1972). To ask students to consider making a paradigm shift when they cannot yet identify paradigms is problematic. one chapter by Judd defines the term ‘English as an International and Intranational’ language. Outer Circle. and Ghana) antl the Expanding Circle (i. EFL countries like Japan. Just as it may lie difficult for students to name the ideologies and planning frameworks they work under. the total number of words is less than 200. as Ihxtcr (1 980) points out. Germany. Both Tollefson ( 1 991) and f’hillipson ( 1 992) deal extensively with this issue in their texts. Malaysia. 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. as Vavrus ( I 991 a) noted. there is no mcntion at all ofanything related toworld Englishes. attitudes toward Inner Circle. while there is rcfermce made to Kachru. Until the time when more inclusive alternative terms are used. antl Long and Richards (1 987).

A cursory comparison of US library holdings via an on-line search through the Online Computer Library Ccnter (OCLC) and Research Library Information Network ( R U N ) of eight journals. Platt et a/. 1984-1 988 is published by John Benjamin. The next portion of thc paper documents \vhy it is critically important to \vork to infuse a WE perspective in the Methods sequence. 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).’s The New Englishes (1 984) as m.Teacher educators attending a key meeting in their lield would thus not have access to this text to even peruse for potential course adoption. ’ s 1985 Dictionaiy $Applied Linguistics. although with stud: questions and referral to Richards et d . and the Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics (sccTablc 9. when such assignments have been made in our Mcthods classes. r als significant diffcrcnccs in the number of journals availahlc throughout the USA. The Alchemy $ English (1 986). Kegarding materials xvhich focus exclusively on World Englishes. The Indianiyation ofEnglish (1 983). the other journals include English Toduy. students can manage. six of which routinely publish articlcs reflecting the WE perspective antl t\vo of which sometimes publish articles in this arca (TESOI. 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. English I~/orldivicic.Yct one ofthc Kachru texts. the RELC j o u r n a l . 1992b). This portion of the paper has examined structural impediments to infusing a WE pcrspcctivc in current TESOL programs. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures was out of print until just recently. at least one or two students per quarter have decided to research topics such as the ‘Non-native English speaking teacher’.cll as Pride’s 1982 New Englishes arc out of print.1 illustrates.1). ed. Journals which consistently carry WE perspective articlcs are much lcss availahlc to teachers and students inTESOL programs than arc other journals. instructors mill assign research papers o r annotated bibliographies on World Englishes topic. Difficulty in obtaining articles reflecting a WE perspective deters students from pursuing these topics. 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. the Indian Journal of Lingtiisrics. meetings as it is not Lvorth their financial while. is too difficult for most undergraduate Methods students. As Table 9. Gorlach’s 1991 volume Englishes: Studies in Varieties pf English. Over the past three years. 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. Supporting material availability Often. Resources such as ERIC list few references on WE.. Quarterk and journal $Applied Linguistics).WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL PROGRAMS 113 English are not likely to change. there is a very evident accessibility prohlcm. World Englishes. QuarterbJ antl the journal ofApplied Linguistics. Another Kachru text. In addition to the TESOI. and Kachru (ed. and a revised cdition with substantial changes has just been published (see Kachru. .). would not be ordered as a class text by some US collcgc bookstores because the text is published outside the USA. currently also out of print. Finally.

TEFL materials oricntcd toward native English speakers will help thcm to give clear explanations of what they already know.114 KIMBERLEY BROWN Table 9. I Journals publishing articlcs on World Englishcc topics ]ournu/ A'wnhcr ofstates . teachers should themselves be non-nativcs [i. more EFI.Ytirnhcr ofinytitutions TESOL Qiarterly Journal of'. then more TEFLspccific materials in English \voultl be tlemandcd and produced. non-native speakers o f English] with the result being that thc majority of tcaching matcrials are in the teachers' native languagcs. the English of the last learner may lie far removed in quality from that of a native. 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.4pplicd Linguistic5 English Today Ilbrld Englishrs English Ilbrldwidc REI C Journal lndian Jotirnal of Linpisrics Indian Journal ?f. especially when interacting with the teacher outside the classroom. [Sample B] As a result of the reading and thought involved in doing this paper. 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. 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 . whereas practice with a native English-spcaking teacher outside of a stressful classroom. . cr. giving thc quality of EFL tcaching more of a chance to improve . Another lienefit from having a nativc speaker teach English is that students get more exposure to English. But i f a person who has learned English from a non-native then teaches EFL to yet someonc else. However. the student was exposed to less than four hours of information rclatctl to World Englishrs in ninety hours of Methods courses. not English. . [SampleA ] The lack of TEFL-specific materials may lie a result o f a hclicf that most EFI. . can be most helpful. . Also. . 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.c. the matcrials might bc of better quality. teachers kvcre native speakers.lppliecl I inguistict 46 42 44 32 26 26 11 9 384 I23 64 68 57 55 13 14 Student responses in coursework The following excerpt is from aTESL certificate student paper. where performance will not be graded. this is hest achieved if the textbook is written \vith the cxpcctation that the user will be a native.

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. and practices n hich are used t o Icgitimatc. more properly. Both individuals are leaving the same TESL certificate program. . I have too heavily emphasized U. charactcrixed by structures which promote inequality. Much work remains to be (lone at thc structural and substantive levels. In the first case. We nccd to extend learncrs’ knowledge of literacy antl reading rather than changc it.hat I found prohlrmatic in many ofthc statements and lines of argument of thc paper. \ve need to shift or perhaps. expand our views of reading. I have also come to realize that in my own teaching o f reading. focused on Inner Circle countries’ English. .WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL PROGRAMS 115 native or very proficient speakers from countries whcrc English is learncd as a first languagc. the TESOL journal. Professional language education organizations and their respective journals must continue to provide a forum for oral and \vrittcn dialoguc. . ] [. i. In like manner forums should be provided with IATEFL: International Association ofTcachrrs of English as a Foreign Languagc. . We must activcly comllat linguicisrn and gcocentrism. and reproduce an unequal c l i i ~ m n of pomer and resources (both material and immaterial) liet\\ ccn groups \\ hich are tlcfincd on the basis of language. particularly institutional linguicism. e. The comments made in the first papcr are geocentric. The folloxving recommendations arc also key elements in promoting the diffusion of this perspective within Methods courses and ivithout. . necessary resources to facilitate such shifts ncctl to find their way into Methods textbooks and Methods courses. The comments in thc second papci. and the TESOL summer institute. As a result of this paper.S. mainstream reading styles antl strategies lvhich may lie of littlc usc to students learning English as a world or international language. antl rcflcct an attitude o f linguicism. and NAFSA: Association of Intcrnational Educators. lvhich I believe lve often implicitly if not explicitly attempt to do through our methodology antl ethnocentric view as middle-class.g.] It is possible for a paradigm shift to occur.are much less ethnocentric and reflect an attitudc of tolerance antl respect for multiple varieties of English. A n infusion model o f curricular revision is the most practical means to diffusc the innovation inherent in the World Englishes paradigm. effectuate. Recommendations Languagc education preparatory programs must name the paradigmatic frameworks lve work under.. . gcncrally white educators for a post industrial countrj. within TESOL: the TESOL Quarterh:. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson in I’hillipson (1 922: 47) dcfinc linguicism as: idcologier. . the TESOL international conference. [. Wc must help promotc a diversity of perspcctives.e. structures. not only a perspective which suggests that the native speaker of an Inncr Circle variety of English is the most appropriate professional language educator. 1 lielicw the confcrcnce was useful. . and who arc most likely to read knglish written by writcrs not using discourse or newspaper styles Ivhich are predominant in the U. However. I held an cxtensivc conference with the student to indicate \\.S.

January 1992: 1 14. In 7he Purudi‘qm Oiulog. Michacl antl Richards. Braj R.i.116 K I M B E R L E Y B R O W N 5 6 7 8 Professional language education organizations should work t o crcatc a resource bank of World Englishcs scholars antl materials. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.s. Krishna ( 1 984) Ethics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin. Rmvley. Michael. ant/ lnternotionul Socrcil Science Rcceurch: From Critiyue t o Pruxis. Cambridge Universit? Press.Ycri. Rcrns. N civ Yor k : Plcnum .s. ant1 Models ?f Non-l\ative Englirher. M. NJ: Prenticc-Hall Kcgcnts. Weber. Rraj B. (1988) E R l C / C L L . Nc\v York: Newbury I Iousc. Kachru. NC\VDclhi: Oxtord Univcrsity I’rcss..Grand Forks. Gai-dncr. H . Douglas. ( 1 984) The . Singh. I .ondon: Oxford Univcrsity Press. HroTvn.ung~icycin India. ?f’English: T h e Spread.s Eullelin. Lungua<qeTeaching: The lnternationa/ A hstracting ]ournu/. Puldishing houses and authors of kc? texts in English language education programs should liroadcn thcir rcpcrtoirc of citations. Porter. Marianne. Wallacc ( 1 972) . Amai-jit and Kurnar. I’hillipson. ( 1 992a) ‘World Englishcs: approaches. ( 1 98 3) T h e Inditini/ution o/’En!ylish:T h c English I. PA: University Ccntci. .’ Englirh.4crors Culture. or internationally!’ ]. Etlitctl b y Egon Guln. I’ittslm-gh. Braj K. (1 99213) The Other Tongrie: English . Function. ctl. MA: N c d i u r y HOLISC.Ibr International Studies. issucs and resources’ .Ilcthotlol0~7.: Univcrsity of Illinois Press. Englishes.\en./l $pological Review. Kichartl and Lambert. 4.) Kacht-u. 2 ~ x 1 edition. Japanese-ly. John.4 Book ?f’Reatlings. NenYork: N c d u r y House. Englewood Cliffs. ( 1987) . Manfrctl ( 1 991 ) Encq/i. ( 1 975) .shes: StriJicr in I. Gijrlach. I L : University of Illinois Prcss. Margic ( 1 990) Conlexts of Competence: Sociill anti Culrurul Consitlerirtion. Rollantl ( 1976) C o ? f l i c t i n ~ Theories ~ ofSociul ‘inti kdiicc7tional Change:. 3 .4/chcn. Politics. Douglas (1 987) Principlec clf’Lungticigc I. Long. ( 1 991) Teuching English us u Second or Foreign lunguuge. 11. Heidi and Lian.lrJe~ie. 2nd edition. cti. Oxford: I’ergamon Press. References Raxtcr. I’aulston. Urbana. Hamnctt. Rraj B. Yvonnc ( 1 990) ‘The making of a constructivist: a rcnicmbrancc oi‘ transforinations past’. Jarncs ( 1 980) ‘Ho\v shoul(l I s p k English! American-I!.Ipp/ied linguistics. I .ILTjournul. Scptcmhcr. Jack. I’rofcssional language education organizations should support activities which hclp lireak down structural Imrricrs t o promoting an infusion model of curricular reform. Patton. Braj 13. Lincoln. H. London: Routledge. 1 Y81 1988. Neiv York: Sage I’ublications. Platt. ( 1 986) T h e . Cclcc-Murcia. 67-87. Kachi-u. c d s .~ in Communicative L ang tiuge Euc h ing . (I<cprintcd 1990. 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.r. 3 1-61 . 12(1).Ilotirotion in Second Lungtiage learning.iltcrnutir~eEinlticition Rcsecirch Pcirc~c1rgm.fbr Langnugc Tcuchers ant/ . Ut-lmia. Robert ( 1 992) Lingriistic Imperiulism. 2.. N D : University oi‘ North Dakota Prcss.v in TESOL: .il/itridcs antl . 1111. Honolulu. Kachru.ccirning and Teciching. Kachru.

Plannin<qInequality. John and Wehcr. Heidi (1 985) Longman Dictionmy cfApplied I i n p i c t i c s . John. New York: Longman Inc. Pride.s.knglishcs. Varrus. Etlitcd by Jack Richards. MA: Nc\lbury House. Tollefson. 33 72. 181-1 96. Jack. Eierctt (1 983) Diffusion oflnnovations. NewYork. annual confcrencr of Teachers of English to Speakcrs of Other Languages. John ( 1 979) ‘Communicatirc needs in the usc and learning of English’. Esscx. Papcr prescntctl at World Englishes colloquium. . Singapore: SkAMEO Rcgional I.anguagc Centre.s. NcwYork: The Free Prcss. Vavrus. Frances (1 991 b) ‘Stantlards and models: an African perspective’. Jamcs (1 991) Planning L u n g u a p . England: Longman Group Limited. ed. Rogcrs. 3rd edn.she. Platt. l<o~rlc)i. Richards. Frances ( 1 991 a) ‘When paradigms clash: the rolc of institutionalized varicties in language teacher education’. In . ( 1 982) New . 10(2).s.YewVarieriec ?f English: I.sucs and i1pproachc. I b r l d Engli. pp.WORLD ENGLISHES I N TESOL PROGRAMS 117 Pride.

Thus. it supplies evaluators with critcria for retrospcctive evaluations of the extent to which thesc innovations have actually been implemcnted. and a number of other hvritcrs. Henrichsen (1 989). the process syllabus. Rut it is onl? rather rcccntly that applied linguists have hrgun to investigate the problcms associated n i t h implcmcnting thcsc innovations. Kudduck 1991). In contrast to applied linguistics. Nicholls 1983. education alrcady po c s a well-cstablished tradition of innovation rcsearch and practice (Fullan 1982. as do such disciplines as sociology (Rogers 1983). the Natural Approach. as Kenncdy (1 988) and Beretta (1 990) demonstrate. the procedural syllabus. addresses concerns that arc central to all language tcaching specialists. Furthermore. not many language tcaching spccialists h a w developed any familiarity with the voluminous literaturc that already exists in a number of disciplines on how and why innovations tliffuse. although the terminology used may at first sound cxotic and unfamiliar. In other words. and tcachcrs mith a coherent set of guiding principles for the development and implemcntation of language teaching innovations. a ‘tliffusion~of~innovations’ perspective on syllabus design provides curriculum spccialists. a diffusion-of-innovations pcrspectivc on syllabus design. where. w h y and how?” (Cooper 1989). All of these proposals have contributed in important ways to an understanding of theorctical issues related to designing innovative language syllabuses. Miles 1964.This is unfortunate Iwcausc. with the exception of such pionecrs as White (1 988).7’hus. Indeed. with responses to each individual componcnt o f the question.Chapter 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 LANGUAGE TEACHING Introduction H E LAST T W O D E C A D E S I N A P P L I E D L I N G U I S T I C S -whichroughlv coincide with thc evolution of the communicative approach in language teaching have seen the tlevelopmcnt of a numhcr of languagc tcaching innovations. this perspective provides a unified framework for conceptualizing both the development and evaluation of innovations in language teaching. urban planning (Lambright and Flynn 1980). for example. The framework for this discussion consists of the following composite qucstion: “Who adopts what. and task-based languagc teaching. and language planning (Cooper 1989). In this w y . materials dewlopcrs. when. inspired particularly by Cooper’s work on innovation in language planning. the basic issues T . including the notional/ functional syllabus. a rcviekv o f t h c issues that define innovation in thc specific contcxt of language teaching nil1 draw on these academic specializations to dcvelop a multi-disciplinary framework.

curriculum and materials designers are suppliers. other individuals will also be involved in the innovation process (Fullan 1982). teachers are implementcrs. As Kennedy points out. 4) implementing their decision to adopt. furthermore.T H E D I F F U S I O N OF I N N O V A T I O N 119 that are of intcrcst to practitioners may be defined. Lack of space precludes detailed discussion of Keretta’s rcsults. somctimes simultaneously. Indeed. uses this notion to evaluate thc extent to which tcachers actually implemented thr task-based methodology associated with that syllabus. . Berctta (1 990). Lamhright and Flynn ( 1 980). deans. in some cultures. 3) making a preliminary decision to adopt the innovation. 2) bcing persuaded of its d u e . The urban planners. Thus. The actual participants who become involved in deciding whcthcr an innovation will be adopted vary from context to context. participants tend to assumc certain social roles which define their rclationships with othcr participants. ministry of education officials. in thc context o f a materials project inTunisia. implementers. suggests that there are five steps in this decision-making process. students are clients. and outcome. they may take on the roles of change agents and suppliers. At thc same time.This result shows how difficult it is to promotc innovation at a fundamental level. adoption may also be conceptualized in terms of“leve1s of implementation. o r entrepreneurs (also known as change agents). The educator Fullan (1 982) proposes a slightly different sequence of four steps which he calls initiation. “Adopts” Adoption has been conceptualized in terms of individuals o r institutions engaging in a decision-making process which may be divided into a number of different phases. it is quite likely that the samc person will play different roles. Thus. On defining innovation: “who” Teachers arc kcy playcrs in any attempt to promote innovations in syllabus design. somctimes at varying times during the course of a project. a broad range of people playing out different social roles is always involved in the design and implementation of any innovation. Rogers (1 983). With the exception of thc change agent. heads of dcpartmcnt. only 1 3 percent reachrtl what m “expert” levcl of implementation. implementation. teachers may at times also be regarded as adopters. hut it is noteworthy that only 4 7 percent of the teachers involved in implementing the procedural syllabus reached what Beretta catcgorizied as a ! I)r considered an an “adcquate” level of implementation. in his evaluation of the procedural syllabus (Prahhu 1987). and the expatriate curriculum cxpcrt acts as the change agent. a rural sociologist who is onc of the leading authorities on the diffusion of innovations. have suggested that individuals relate to each othcr as adopters.Thesc involvc potential adopters 1 ) gaining knowledge about an innovation. continuation. supplicrs. either because they arc never fully adopted or else do not survive the confirmation stage posited by Rogers (1 98 3). in practice these roles arc not mutually exclusive. for examplc. however. This framework should be sufficiently encompassing to account for practitioners who wish to engage in any innovation related to language education.” a measurc which specifics thc depth to which any changes have occurred. clients. Whatever the specific context of implcmcntation. From an evaluator’s perspective. Kcnncdy (1 988) suggests that. 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 ) . any of these individuals may also adopt thc role o f resisters who oppose an innovation. and others play the role of adoptcrs. and 5) confirming their decision to continue using thc innovation.

2 ) the fundamental naturc of innovations. While Krashen and Terrell’s asscssmcnt of the absolute innovativeness of their proposals is accurate.120 N U M A M A R K E E “What” Innovation itself. which is fundamental in naturc and which is planned and deliberate (1983: 4). the Natural Approach. and values that arc perceived as new by individuals who comprise a formal (language) education system. r. in terms o f the ti\ c examples of language teaching innovations \vc have alrcady idcntiticd in the introduction (the notional /functional syllabus. Nicholls’ idea of“ncwncss”bcing a subjcxctivc matter of users’ perceptions is important in languagc teaching contexts. her definition is somewhat problematic. Nicholls states: An innovation is an idea. it is only through a modification of pedagogical values that innovation can be said to involve “funtlamental” change. the alternative definition given above is more appropriate to language teaching contexts. innovation \vi11 be defined as proposals for qualitative change in pedagogical materials. Clearly. and 4) the cxxtcnt to which antl planned for. approaches. the fact that a procedural syllabus u a s 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. 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. and task-based language teaching). However. in language teaching contexts. the remaining components of Nicholls’ definition arc either too restrictive o r clsc omit defining criteria that are important for languagc teaching situations. the proceclural syllabus. as a concept. teachers can adopt ncw practices with littlc or n o undcrstanding of why they arc using these new materials antl approaches which hardly counts as a fundamental ~ . By omitting any specific mention of the systemic contcxt of innovations. object or practice perceived as ne\v by an individual o r individuals. 3) thc cxtcnt to which innovations actually improve o n the status quo. Nicholls lays herself open to bcing interpreted as saying that individuals are frcc to innovate as they wish. This observation suggests that the relationship lietween individuals antl systems must be considered in a dctinition of innovation. the proccss syllabus. there is no doubt that from a user’s perspective. Synthesizing what she claims are basic characteristics of innovations. which is intended to bring about improvement in relation to desired objectives. Second.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. Therefore. is central to the implementation and/or evaluation of n c w ideas and ne\v procedures. individuals do not enjoy such a degree of freedom. For the purposes o f this paper. 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.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. At the less complex levels of using new materials and approaches. As Prabhu (1 987) points out. inno\-ations are necessarily dc~libc-rate First.

] “Where” T h e question of where an innovation is implemented is conceived in sociocultural t c r m s (Cooper 1989). grammatical structures. the “inno\. and finally. and sociolinguistic factors that affected the implementation o f an aitl-f‘undctl project in the Sudan. That is. Iior example. [ . it is not the casc that thev al\vavs do constitutc an improvement o n previous practicc ( I d l a n 1982). . Second. it is liettcr t o dctinc innovations in t c r m s o f qualitative change. n o t lvhat is to he learned (Urumfit 198411).irst. He argues that ivhcn thc syllabuscs arc uncritically implemented. historical. Ho\\. ‘I‘hird. r t c .c. For example. a t e r m ivhich conveniently covers all three lei-cls of innovative Iiehavior (materials. \vhicli Bruintit indispensable resource for learning. . [. ivhich \vas achieved through a process of trial antl error (Prabhu 1987). 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. Urumfit ( 1 98 1 . notions. functions. institutional. it is difficult to argue that the re-orientation implied by notional/functional syllahuscs is fundamental in any meaningful sense of this w-ord. ] In addition. wcabular!. implcmcntation. .THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION 121 alteration in behavior. although innovations arc certainly intentled to improve on the status quo. 1984a) has sharply criticized notional/functiorial syllaliuses as bcing in some instances an untlcsirahlc innovation. administrative. Indccd. some attempts have becm made t o address thc issuc of when thosc sociocultural constraints should lie considered in thc Cooke 1982. Practitioncrs w h o \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. 1986b) identifies cultural.c\cr. rather. ) are still linguistic (Long and Crookes 1992). the concrrn is lvith specifying t h c sociocultural contcxt of an innovation rather than its geographical location. linear fashion. notional/functional syllabuses wcrc initially claimcd to be 1Lintlamrntally diff‘crcnt from structural syllabuses bccause languagc contcnt was organized in semantic rather than syntactic tcrms. . I. ] Expcrience suggests that these constraints cannot Iic accounted h r in a discrete. Fourth. approaches. they dcprivc learners of the generative potential of grammar (i. and values). although the notional/functional syllabus is indeed a product ofcxtensive planning. Markee ( 1 986a. [. although notional /functional syllabuses arc indccd qualitatii ely different from structural syllabuses. Consequently.ativencss” of an innovation decreases o\ er time as it lieconics institutionalixtl antl more familiar t o u s c ~ s . and evaluation.‘l‘hus. For example. . This criticism suggests that improvcmcnt rily a defining characteristic of innovations in actual practice. in some cases. the only aspect ol‘a project that can hc planned is \vhat is to be taught or tcstcd. it \vas soon recognized that. they \vi11 impinge on all aspects of innovati Ilalius design. the notion of “delihcratc planning” is problematic for languagc teaching in t \ v o \Yay. Furthermore. . it is doubtful that the articulation of the principles of t h c procrdural syllabus. . can rcally count as an rxamplc of tlclibcr-ate planning. innovations should be rcsistctl rathcr than promoted because their adoption may lie m o r e harmful than bcncticial.. Munbv 1978. the ability t o use sjntactic rules to crcatc nciv sentences). economic.e. The relati\e imI anct’ of thesc constraints \vi11 \ a r v from one contcxt of implementation to another. all the criteria for organizing the contcnt o f instruction in both types of syllabus (i. 1984). ideological. . political.

% of adoption Figure 10. either because every potential adopter has adopted or else I~ecausc the innovation stalls. Diffusion may be expressed as the perccntagc of adopters who implement an innovation over a g i w n period of time (Kogers 1 98 3).. 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.1 shows a typically S-shaped diffusion curvc. . as already noted in thc scction cntitlcd “Who. At this point. it may take off. there arc individual psychological factors with respect to the persons involved. In terms ofthe S-shaped diffusion curve shown in Figure 10. such data allow evaluators to determine how successfully and how quickly an innovation has sprcad among a group of potential adopters. the curve plateaus as diffusion slo\vs down and cvcntually tapers off. C. or D adopt the same innmation.Thc lazy slope of the toe of the curve sho\vs that adoption at first occurs very slowly. and laggards. Figure 10. Laggards occupy the last part of the curve as it flattens out to form a plateau. Second. Rogers 1983). Early antl late majority occupy the steepest portion of the curve. First. I An S-shapctl diffusion curvc With respect to diffusion ratc.” Finally. recognition of early adoptcrs would hc important to the innovation process. This information has at least two kinds of potential applications. “Why” The reasons 1% hy innovations are adopted or rcjectctl arc many and varied. and innovations themselves possess various attributes that influence adoption. fivc catcgorics of adopters h a w been idcntified (Huberman 1973. innovators antl early adopters occupy the first 25 percent ofthe curve. early majority.122 N U M A M A R K E E “When” While some adopters will implement a given innovation relatively quickly. others will nred more time to carry out the same innovation.c. late majority.1. the slope in the midsection of the curvc bccomcs stccpcr (i. it a l l o w program designers who introduce an innovative syllabus to focus on those teachers most receptive to the innovation.” people who never adopt a particular innovation are known as resisters. The section entitled “Where” already addressed a number of the sociocultural constraints that come into play.These include innovators. In addition. if a critical mass of approximatel: 2 5 percent of potential adopters accept the innovation.Thus. if one knows whcnA adopts an innovation and when B. the ratc of adoption accelerates) as people “jump on the band\vagon. Since each category of adopter tends to be associated with personal characteristics bvhich are either conducive o r not conducive to innovation. early adopters.

the co or benefits). antl they are usually able to tolerate high levels of uncertainty.. thc complexity of the innovation (i. rise and fall theory. These models antl strategies “pair up” and haw lieen used. Planning hcgins with basic research. A number of writers (Bricknrll 1969. attributes which tend to promote or inhibit their Finally.Their contacts with other people are often extensive. the compatibility o f the innovation \vith previous practice (i. evolutionary theory. systematic. A good example of this combination is the initial development of notional/ functional syllahu. He laliels these three the Research.c. “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.T H E D I F F U S I O N OF I N N O V A T I O N 123 Rogers (1 98 3) notes that individuals with particular psychological profilrs tend to display specific adoption behaviors. the trialability of the innomtion (i. antl power-coercive strategies of innovation.e.e\ ine 1980.. conflict theory. though rational. 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.. mostly unconsciously. Zaltman and Duncan 1977) havc proposed different sets of attributes of innovations. antl the observability of thc innovation (i. from Lzhich hc synthcsizcs a hybrid linkuge model. Similarly.normutive-reeciucutirz. I t depends vcry heavily on longterm planning and involvcs a division of labor among teams of highly trained specialists \\ ho 1vot-k on separate phases of an overall project. how difficult the inno\ation is t o understand or usr). Such stratcgics tend to be used by pcople who subscribe to an RD and D model of innovation.. tlcrdopment and tlifjiusion (RD anti D) model. Kelly 1980.500 empirical and/or theoretical studics on innovations across disciplines antl also because they are the most well-knolvn. These include equililirium thcory. how different o r similar the innovation is to \\. The attributes proposed by Rogers ( I 987) arc usctl here because they are derived from some 1.. For example. he notes that scveral difrercnt theories exist bvhich seck to account for how change occurs. ho\v easy it is to try out in stages). the cducator I lavelock ( 1971 ) distinguishes bct\reen three basic models of innovation. .c. tend to display diametrically opposite characteristics while the pcoplc in between exhibit intermediary traits. and diffusion theory.c. 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.c. innovations themselves po adoption. This model is rational. by developers o f various language teaching innovations. Only the last of these is directly relevant to language teaching. hou visible the inno\-ation is). Thcse attributes include the following: the relative advantage to potential adoptccs of adopting an innovation (i. on the other hand. Within a diffusion-of-innovations perspective. consumer. Henrichsen 1989. and theory-based.hat the potential adoptcr already uses). they tend to seek out and be open to ne\v idcas. by scholars associated \vith the Council of Europe (Wilkins 1976). and t h r social interaction model rcspcctivcly. Laggards. I. the problem-solving model. and they tend to have a high degree of exposure to mass met1ia. the social scientists Chin antl Benne (1 976) idcntifv t h r r r familics of innovation strategies which they respecti\ ely call empirical-r~itionul. individuals who adopt early tend to travel widely and are usually \vcll-cducatcd antl upwardly mobile.

Henrichsen points out that: ~ ~~ while a [linkage perspective] allows for research and dcvclopmcnt of an innovation. or “linkage” models. 3) the importance of group membership and referencrgroup identification as predictors o f individual adoption. this is the most faorctl model of innovation in liy phases of applied research. antl finally. certain elements of which underlie Kennedy’s (1 988) work in7unisia. More specifically. a process of adaptation. making it appropriate for explaining directed contact change even across cultural boundaries.c. A power-coercive innovation strategy which involves the application of political. . development and testing of prototypes.This model emphasizes the importance of social relationships as a key variahle in adoption. at least hy writers in the United States antl Britain. Finally. These stratcgics tcnd to bc uscd by intlividuals who lielie\ c in a problem-solving model of innovation.. 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. and 4) the typically S-shaped pattern-of-diffusion curve [ . . l’hc major insight offered liy this model in an educational context is the important role played by communication in promoting or inhibiting the diffusion o f innovative curricula (I Iavclock 1971 ). Rather. sociocultural and personal value systems arc held to be equally important determinants of behavior. If the users judge that the innovation is deficient or unsatisfactory in any way. Normative-re-educative strategies arc based on the assumption that uscrs’ decisions arc not exclusively based on rational criteria. a linkage model allows for the ‘dynamic’ of change to lie an outside force. 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. mass dissemination to potcntial users. Social interaction models of innovation oftcn employ normative-re-educative strategies. After identifying the innovation. Furthermore. 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. 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.124 N U M A MARI<EE which is then follon. 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 ). thc process liegins again until a satisfactory solution is found (Havelock 1971). it docs not assume that KL) and L )is all that is recpired for successful implementation of an innovation. A good example of this comhination in language teaching is the process syllabus. there are hybrid. As Havelock (1 971 ) remarks. antl evaluation follows. trial. Other factors that are stresscd arc noted as follo\vs: 1 ) the position of potcntial atlopters in their social network (i. mass production and packaging o f the product. This occurs when a ministry of education decides to develop and disseminate a new syllabus countrywide. administrati\e. During this timc. (1 989: 68) . uscrs assess whether the solution they have devised really solves the problem that sct thc whole pro into motion in the first place. 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. users employ action to articulate a problem and diagnose ho\v thcy n a n t to solve it.

Cooke. antl C.ations course design pcrspcctivc is or will be their focus o n t\ro issues: 1 ) the e x t r n t to \z hich teachers actually use new materials and approaches. Brumfit (ed. ‘General strategies for effecting changes in human systems’. K. L. Bcnnis. and K.cle plunning and social change.) General English yllahus desi<qn. The most important characteristic of emerging “post communicative” approaches t o approaches which are explicitly based o n a diffusion-of-inno\. R. a ctelinition of innovation in the context of language teaching. Kcnnc.) Gcnerul English y. R.?” This framchvork providcs an appropriate set of criteria for analysis: 1 2 3 4 5 6 a profile of participants’ socially defined roles and their adoption behaviors. Chcn. (1 989). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.4pplietl Linguistics. Rinehart and Winston. an account of the sociocultural factors which constrain innovations. and how. Chicago. G. This shift of cmphasis from design to implcmcntation antl evaluation is both dcsirable and also long ovcrduc.sues in ~~ . 90 92.s design.. 198 1 . rvhj. . The meaning oJed~c~7r1onal chonge.) Educutionul evaltiotion: XCM. when. Brumfit (cd . In C. and D. K . Havclock. 2 . 1982. Kcrctta.adoption. NenYork:Tcachcrs College Prcas. In A . K. C. Corcy (cds. Dijfiision !finnovations In English language teaching: The ELEC effort in Japan. 1989.1 Chin. 1982.T. Oxford: Pcrgamon. ‘Implrmcntation of the Bangalore projcct’.llabu. Brickcll. In K. 1990. Benne. W. M . ‘Notional syllabuses revisited: A response’ . In W. 1-4. 1969. H. 1 1 . Fullan.’Ijler (cd. 1976. E. 198 1 . E. 32 1-37. M . R. ‘Appraising thc cffccts of innovation in local schools’. 2.T H E D I F F U S I O N OF I N N O V A T I O N 125 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. 2 2 45. ~~ Bibliography Atlama. London: Kogan Page in association with the UNESCO Press. Cooper. 1971. antl 2) the dcgrce to which they actually reconstruct thrir pedagogical values. new means. Introduction. innovation has been analyzed in t e r m s of Cooper’s (1 989) question: “Il’ho udopts what. Henrichscn. Applied Linguistics. Holliday.84 97. ‘An ecological approach to ESP’. 3rd etl. [ELT Documents 1 18.) The plunning of’changc. New York: Grecnwood Press. an overview of the prrsonal factors which constrain innovations. Ne\vYork: Ilolt. as \vel1 as the attributes of innovations which either promote or inhibit thcii.c. Waters (etl.1 19841). L. I>.spcctir. IL: National Society for thc Stud) of Education. and a synopsis of various innovation models and stratcgics which ma). I ungna.‘Function and structure o f a state school syllalms for learners of second or fweign languages with hetcrogcncous needs’. a definition of diffusion. A . Oxford: Pcrganion. Chin and K . R r u m k . 75-82. where. British journal ?f Educational Echnologj. ‘Thc utilization of educational research and tlcvclopmrnt’. 1984a.) /. The process of’ educational ~nnovation: An internutionul pcr. 1956-f 968. Such a point o f \ ie\\ provides a unified framework for conceptualizing both the dcvclopmcnt and evaluation of innovations in languagc teaching. 284-304. D. In C. [ELT Documents 118. lie used to promote change in language education. G. In ordrr to illustratc Ivhat issucs arc relevant to understanding a diffusion-of-inno\ ations pcrspcctivc on language teaching.

‘Educational innovation: The naturc of the problem'. In J. P. W. 1978.C. Lambright. Galton (etl. S.evine. M. A .‘1~. 1973.c ~i. Stratcgie. N.^.ylluhuse. Munhy. Communication ! / innoi. Ne\\ York: Teachers College Press.3. Second lanpu<qcpcdugoc70. 3rd cd. Wilkins. and P. Carnhritlge: Caml)ritlge University Press. Oxford: Pcrgamon Press. QiiarterLv. In 1. S . 5. A. I onclon: Allcn & Un\vin.) Trends in language . 65--80. Agile\\ (ed. LIyhy innorrrtion fiiils. 1984. Nc\vYork: Pergamon. Kennedy. 1984. In British Council (ctl. 1991. S. 198611 ‘Toward an appropriate technology model o f communicative course design’.llcihustlcsign. A . 1989. Applied linguistic. Xotionul . Kelly. 1980.ifir planned chun<qe. ‘Three approaches t o task-liasctl syllabus design’. Rudduck. The importancc of sociopolitical factors to communicative course design. Innowtion and chongc. 5 5 67. Syracuse. A. Crookes. 243---282. [Syracuse Geographical Series No. 1. Milcs (cd. H.27-56 . A. M. 1980. innormion and managcment. Duncan.Terrell.) The second langiiu<gecurriculum. D. 329-42.. 79 90. A . 1987. Markee. 1983.) Curriculum change: Thc lessons of a ticcade. 1980. 5 . ‘Evaluation of thc management of change in LLT projects’. 1964. and R. 9(4). Singapore: approach. M. 1988. C. I24 143. 2nd ctl. J. 197 1 . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.) Trentls in language . Krashen.) Innovution in education. NY: Syracusc University Press. A . Read (cd. In M. ‘ T h c rolc o f local burcaucracy-centered coalitions in technology transfcr to the city’. J. G. Cambritlgc: Cambritlgc University Press. M. EnglishJor SpccJfic Purposes. NcwYork: F r w Press. 1 4 8 . S. 7he ncirurcil approach. ‘Communicative ~ v l l a l i u sdesign: I’rinciplcs antl prohlcms’ . R. In M.r//ahos design. White. Zaltman. Male?.s. E. [ Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education 5. 1988.NclvYork: John Wilry antl Sons. Lontion:The British Council.1 l.) Innovation research and public p o l i y . Manc7ging eJucationul innoimions. 3 16. N. Milcs. - . K. Paris: OECD. The ELT curriculum: design.s: ‘4 cro. M. and G.126 N U M A M A R K E E ~ ~ ESP. 61-70. A . and F.1 Huberman. Oxford: Oxford University l’rcss. ‘The educational cnvironmcnt antl its relevance to ESP programme design’. 1976. 26. Coinmunicutii. B. Singapore: SEAMEO-RF1. ‘Scrl-ice Englixh programme tlcsign antl opportunity cost’. 1980. E. The ESP Journal. The diffusion of’innoimions. 1986. Rogers. 1 6 1 1 72. I I.ution. Shoemaker. 1983.yllahns design. Nicholls.sip. Read (et!. 1992. 198 3. Izicester: Leicester Univcrsity Press. Johnson (cd. R. Alhany. NY: State Llnivcrsity of NclzYork Press. In J. S\valcs. Long. J. ‘Constraints-bascd syllabuscs’. 90 1 1 I .) ELT clocuments spccicil: Pro/ccts in mcitcrialr cle. 5 . Rogcrs. Flynn. llndersranding change in cducation:iin introtluction. Ne\\ York: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss. Oxford: Blackwell. In R. ‘From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of curriculum tlrvelopmcnt’ .ondon: Macmillan/Frcc Prcss. Pralihu. and T. TESOI. 1977.

relying on group/pair \vork. h o m e study. Senegal. I want to clarifj my t e r m s of rcfcrcncc for thc conccpt of individualization. covers “such s c ~ m i n g l y tlivcrse topics as one-to-one colourcd by their “second language self-image” and the teachcr/lcarner roles prevalent in thcir sociolinguistic sphere (Riley 1988). The uinbrclla title. large classes pose disciplinary antl classtnanagement proldems. First.There are also certain underlying basic assumptions regarding learning whcn \vc talk of“individua1ization . I)ccausc thcy all focus o n the learner as an individual” (Geddcs and Sturtritlgc 1982). Japan. sclf-a self-directed learning. Communicative techniques \voultl naturally include the Ixoad conccpt of individualization. in which the autonomous rolc of the learner. nervous. antl uncomlortalde. and autonomy. Thirdly. I 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 Thc conccpt of individualization Before outlining my r arch and describing the tasks antl actilities that encouraged individualization in my rners. n e 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 o f l o o + . Coleman ( 1 989) lists four prol)lcms faced by teachers of large classes (1 OOf). teachers feel that liccausc intlivitlual attention cannot lie given.ogan ( 1 980): . thcy feel self-conscious. teachers of large classes seem to lie Iiuried under an endless pile of hoinc\vork. it is indeed tiring t o lie the constant focus of 1 00+ pairs o f eyes for three to four periods a day. very little learning takcs place. Secondly. From 1983 to 1985. intlivitlualized instruction. Finding effective techniques for large class concern in o r d e r to cxaniinc the teachers’ popular belief that in large cl nominal and the interactive approach. I dcsigncd and cxccutcd a r rch project cntitlcd “li~aching English as a Forrign Language with Limited Resources. in ivhich the noise level must be kept down so as n o t t o disturb others. It also encompasses a learner-centred approach t o language and takes special n o t e of ethnolinguistic aspects of language lcarning. Nigeria. indirriduulizution. And lastly. as a part of my studies for a master’s degree at Sydncy Unhcrsity (Sarwar 1983 85).Chapter 1 1 Zakia Sarwar ADAPTING INDIVIDUALIZATION T E C H N I Q U E S FOR L A R G E C L A S S E S English from Indonesia. is n o t possiblc. antl South Africa.” According to 1. it is difficult to evaluate the oral or \vrittcn \fork of so many learners.

it is only one of many possible expericnccs which mcans that a tcachcr can be a facilitator instead of a preacher. . and lor the sclf-learning programme in particular. ( h ) activities for confidcncc learners needed (u)exposure to language learning. and interests of cach lcarncr personalized goals. a tailor-made syllabus antl teaching methodology for cach learner was out of the question for my large classes of 1 OO+. and Relevance” (Williams and Williams 1979) but mith thc addition of one more R . the learners \vcrc still considered to be the focal point of the all Ihllow their own pace of learning programme. In the context of my research. signifying Rapport. The four Rs of individualization The \\. ~ Reeducation This means reconstructing thc role of the teacher as facilitator and the lcarncr as the active agent in the process of learning. I t was also accepted that if Logan’s five assumptions lvcrc applicable in small classes. mcans. they could very well be applied to large classes. This rapport is difficult. who clcarl) talks of three liasic tenets that charactcri7c Individuali/ctl language teaching: a syllabus that meets the nccds. Obviously. 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.128 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). cvcn i f the final goals arc thc same implying that the instructional matcrials can vary. which can lie taken for granted in one-to-one instruction or in a small class.orking definition that emerged from these deliberations was the acceptance of Altman’s “Thrcc Rs of Individualization: Reeducation. Pcoplc may have a variety of goals o r objectives lor learning a second language implying that learners learn lor tliftcrcnt reasons. In the Pakistani context. People can lcarn from a varicty of sour . aliilitics. to achieve in a large class. so long as thc lcarning programme offered thc learners a variety of optional actil ities. 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. All the same. and ( c ) a lcarner-centred approach to build rapport bctween the tcachcr and the learners. with realistic appraisal that they \nm~ld learning and reach achicvcmcnt levels congrucnt with the goals they set for thcmsclvcs. to dctcrmine how the conccpt of individualization could be exploited for lar-gc classes. Responsibility. the meaning of thcse four lis of indivitlualization arc as follows. A variety of learning activities can take place simultaneously referring to integrative language-learning activities. this change nccds to be emphasized all the more. \\. Direct teaching liy a tcachcr is not essential for lcarning. ~ ~ ~ ~ Another pcrspcctive is addctl I>\ Altman ( 1 98O). though just as (if not more) essential.

The learners (1 04 volunteers. having studied it For approximately n ycars. the learners ~vould supplement their bvork by following a self-monitored learning programme that included listening. Thesr students \vere false beginners of English. 1 ) . ~ Individualization in the classroom This section deals with the last R of individualization: rapport. The response performance as \vel1 as feedback from the project group \vas very encouraging. Rapport A class of 100+ is a class-managcmcnt chalknge for any teacher. Also. It is only through the proper rapport that an atmosphere conducive to learning can bc built up. and (3) their proficiency level in English. Alw. 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. who 1vei-e selected on a first-comc. and ( b ) individualizing learning tasks (see Figure 1 1 . I t focuscs on activities that “humanized” this largc class for me by helping me familiarize mysclf with the learners as persons. first-scrved basis) agreed to stay after their regular classes for this course. The research programme I devised a 50-hour rclmcdial English course that focused on reading comprchcnsion and writing skills. “humanizing”a lai-gc class is perhaps thc only way to motivate learning. Thc four Rs were taken as a rcfcrcncc point in a two-pronged thrust: ( u ) individualization in largc classcs. I t was a voluntary. r r l r \ a n w means finding contexts o f learning that arc mcaningful for our lcarncrs. Whilc discussing thc lcarncrs’ expectations for the programmc o n thc first day.Thcy were young fcmalc adults between 16 antl 20 years of age. we need matcrials rclclant to our learners. (2) thcir attitude towards learning English. reading. I shall only focus on the steps uscd for putting the concept of individualization into practice. I t also helped to a great extent in class management.ADAPTING INDIVIDUALIZATION TECHNIQUES 129 Responsibility This implies that learners take charge of thcir own learning. . Relevance A? most o f the glossy and readil) a\ailalde material 1 5 tleiisctl for the nonnati\e lcarncr stud)ing EFL in the West. it \vas mutually agreed that since 50 hours of class work would not he sufficient for any tangiblc improvement. For the purposes of this article. non-credit course. For the Pakistani learner this is a conceptual leap as they are used to rote learning and lack confidence in their own cognitive capabilities. the majority coming from a middle-class background. and writing skills. The questionnaire was devised to find out (1) thc Icarncrs’ background. taught for two hours three times a week. Learners ivere given a three-part qucstionnairc hcforr and at the end of the project to cvaluatc thcir progress. and lasting approximatcly right and a half weeks. through a readingcomprchcnsion check and paragraph writing. They had little o r no exposure to English in their day-today lives except for studying it as a “subject”in the Faculty of Humanities. hom r.

It also clariticd thcir course expectations.This put a name to a face. The magic of the first namc also I)rought a m o r e congenial atmosphere t o the classroom. complete ith thcir photograph antl t h r tlctail\ listed on the ldackhoard. It \\as announced that thrcc pri/cs \zoultl be g n c n t o prohlc cards \\ ith good handwriting. as \vel1 as their proficiency level. Forming thcir o\vn groups also ga\e the learners more responsilility in sharing the class-managcmcnt issues. Learning about their background. \\e figured that it \vouId I)c casicr for Irarncrs t o do their group tasks together in their free time in friendly groups. correct spclling. P r o j l e cards Crcating profile cards pro\ctl t o IK a ici-4 intci-c sting 1% a ! to get t o knoxz the learners lxttei F ~ r s t the . Grouping O n the \-cry t i n t clay. Groups of four \\ere then given a numhcr to identify their group. \ve had pcrmancnt groups xvith a pcrmancnt scating arrangcmcnt. thew points mere catcgorved antl put in an o r d e r acceptable to r)onc.Thcy wcre to wear them as part of the class uniform throughout the duration of the coui-se. attitudes. points that \ I ere consitlerctl M o r t h kno\\ ing alwut an) o n c \T crc clicitcd in a brainstorming session and put o n the I~lacklioartl 5ccontllj. 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) \vcrc also askctl to sit togcthcr in class so they could sharc thcir g r o u p activitics. Instcad of moving ai-ountl. and pcrcci\wl ncctls. I hen students wcrc askctl t o prepare their own prohlc cards. as classmates liecame m o r e familiar with each othci-. N a m e tags On thc second day Icarncrs ci-c rcclucstcd t o make namc tags for thcmsclvcs by \vriting their name antl g r o u p n u m b e r with a thick marker. and a neat.Thcrc \\as definitely a better rapport tict\vccn \ arious groups as well as with mc. As a numlwr o f activities \\ere t o use u p time outside the class. The responses gave m e information about the socioeconomic antl ethnolinguistic community o f the learnel-s. In the lollo\\ ing >cars I h a c used the concept o f \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.on a card mcasuring 3" X 4". antl that they \ ~ o u l d be taught skills rather than prescribed textbook4 The\ were under n o pressure to p i n the course especial$ as it \%a\a non crdit"unollic ial"course. .130 Z A K I A S A R W A R Voluntary learning T h e 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!. helped m e a great deal in undcrstanding m y learners. attract11 e prcseritation. carricd out a? part o f a research projcct. after introducing thc co~irsc. I askctl the learners to form groups of three or four \vith their friends. Lvhich proved uscf~ilin organizing their group activities and outside class projccts.

on the profile cards certainl) helped me tamiliari/c m ! self \\ ith their fates The students cnjo!ed making thew cards. more important. so 1 presume a number of students did use these hooks antl magazines. work can he supervised 137 the teacher.Making reading cards . glossy magazines. I did not check to see if all the students used these. The responsibility of keeping track of these magazines gave the learners a sensc of importance. and mcak points. As a ~ Readinglwriting cloze exercise Radio news questionnaire learning tasks Writing picture storieslpeer correction Letters to: -Visitors -Teacher .. simple stoi-y books. strong points. Students \\ere given guidelines to ( u ) monitor their o\vn scoring. all the three Rs of individualization mentioned by Altman \vcrc considered.1’ learners did not have access to English hooks. My purpose \vas siinply to provide materials for extensive rcading. magazines. and (c) Lvork independently o n group projccts. hut they \vcre film.T\vo or threc o f these \vcrc tlistributed to each group. and ha\ ing their photograph. lvho Lvere to he ( u ) responsiblc for rotating antl exchanging them \\ ith different groups. fashion. I sa\v a brisk exchange before and after the class.ADAPTING INDIVIDUALIZATION TECHNIQUES 131 I learnt a lot ahout m! learncrs’ aspirations. too Another ad\antage o f 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. generally liked by tccnage groups.Each other Group projects: . For the SLI’. and the magazine section of daily nc\vspapcrs. 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. but in a large class this is virtually impossiblc. and ( h ) returning thcm to me a t the end of the course. and nebvspapcrs. Hence. bccause in a small class. ( h ) do pcer correction. Training learners to monitor their o\vn learning is as important in a large class as in a small one in fact. thc best chance that a lcarncr in a large class has is to take responsibility for his o\vn learning.Tableaus/songs Voluntary learning in class Profile cards Responsibility class library Grouping with friends . antl sports magazines. I gathered from my f‘riends and brought to the class used.

. it \vas a self-monitorcd learning task in which they were able to gauge thc-ir own progress. Most of the activities mentioncd are familiar to language teachcrs and arc used extensively in EFL classes in one form or another..g.Thirtlly.). I have picked out only a few to show how they were adapted to become Icarncr-centrctl for SLP Radio news Students were g i w n a sample worksheet with instructions for listening to the local radio news and filling in a grid (see Figure 1 1. As an exercise for this they were asked . Step 3 Put your ivorkbook face t1on. Tape only the headlines \vhilr listening to it. 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 \\ill improve your listening skills. 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. I was not involvcd in the SLP after initiating it. margin. (2) instructions to give special attention to indentation and \vriting format (e.n. paragraph. Look at a neivspapcr to check spcllings/comparc facts. Figure I I . Therefore.sctl in the tirst listcning. S r c cxamplc a h o v c . Play back the rccordctl nc\vs. ctc. It also helped them improve their gcneral knowledge. Plav back thc rccortlcd n c n s again. Fill in the portions yo11 mi. Except for an occasional consultation. without peer and classroom pressurc. the learners could work at a time convenient to them and at thcir own pace.2). Moreover. Bcginning to listen “1xttcr”also improved thcir self-confidence. kill in the grid as y o u listen to the nc\vs. .This was an activity that provided exposure to real-world listening for the learners. It \ \ i l l also improve your note-taking skills I Makr the folloiving grid in your E l P \\oi-khook Stq1 Y estcrday f’rirnc Ministcr Inauguratctl conliwncc Karachi Step 2 Listen t o the radio n c n s at a time con\cnicnt t o y o u .. Chcck your rcsponscs and complete the grid as y o u play the rccordctl ncivs. 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.132 Z A I < I A S A R W A R teacher in SLP I devised matcrials/activities and prepared guidelines for the tasks.

3 Worksheet 2: self-created clozc Thc usual practice is to give an unseen passagc for clozc to teach/test comprehension or itcmizctl grammar. antl then checking with the textbook again (see Figurc 1 1 . Fill in the hlanks. they got training in proofreading thcir own work. comparing their writing with thc prcscribcd text. Figure 1 1 . .ADAPTING INDIVIDUALIZATION TECHNIQUES 133 to copy a paragraph a day from their prescrihed textbooks. rr! ~ 5th \\ ortl Step 2 Check your \vork: Havc you put in J margin? H a v c you put in thr tlatr? Havc you indrntrd t h c paragraph? L h c s thc writing look ncat and tidy? O p r n your tcxtbook a n d chcck if you punctuatcd your work corrcctly. Copying from familiar texts made the cxcrcisc easier for them. the I)ook. 3 ) . Rut in the pilot testing of materials I discovered that my learners faced great difficulty if they wcrc unfamiliar with the text. (Wccks 3 antl 4) I ea\ e out c\ cr) 6th (Wcck 5 onuards) \\ ortl in Ctcp 1 u Lea\ c out r . instead. Chcck thc numl)cr of blank. T h e aim o l t h i s cxcrcisc is to i m p r o \ c your ~ Handwriting ~ ~ Punctuation ~ Reading comprchcnsion Grammar ~ Proofrcaciing skills Step I (Week\ 1 anti 2 ) u Eclcct a paragraph from )our Fnglish tcxtlmok h Mark or undrrlinc c\ cr\ 7th \\ ortl. h y i n g out words. The feedback confirms that a number of' thcm improved in their scores with practice ofthis adapted version of clozc. Please usc your prcscrihetl English tcxtlxiok tor the cxcrcisc T r \ to \\rite at least one paragraph cvcry day. which highlighted thcir omissions and careless mistakes. filling them in later. 'l'akr a I)rrak.Thcy also Iiccamc more confident when they attempted regular cloze cxcrciscs. Icaving out the markc. Furthcr... a n t l give yoursclf onc mark lor cach correct ans\vrr. Chcck your I-csponscs in the hlanks. c Copy the passage in your best handwriting. $5 ords ka\v a blank linc d e Cloar. Use the attached handout as a m o d e l tor your hantlxlriting.

thus satisfying Icai-nrrs’ hasic nccd t o I. Using the broad concept o f individualization manifested a n u m b e r of advantages in thcsc activities.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. 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 u p a position of responsibility. while organizing the jirogrammc.s Iihmy provided i-eal-\vorltl English to lcarncrs gavc them further rcsponsiliility. Their application seems t o have mitigatcd some problems that occur liccausc of swelling numbers o f curds gale a name to a face.\ume rugs/prof. and narration).I ‘ . Lvhich later resulted in conlitlence in themselves as independent rcatlcrs/listcncrs built u p managerial skills. 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 t h e language o f instruction. . ‘lo encourage participation.s. unskilled l e a r n u s who lack exposure to rcal-\vorld English. 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 adlantagr in a large clays cnsurcd learning for at least those n h o mere moti\ate(l to learn OM n goals a great I. Advantages of the individualized activities The activities tlescribctl above take into consideration the underlying principles that Logan ( 1980) considers essential for individualization. thus making learners m o w motivated and positive about thcir learning tasks Rudio ncivssIc1u. description. Responsibility. antl Rapport arc also retlected in the tasks and activities described aliovc. t h e four Ks signifying ~~ Reeducation.134 ZAI<IA S A R W A R Group projects A number of g r o u p projects \vcrc also initiated. ( 2 ) reading cards from ncivspapcrs antl magazines with comprehension questions o n the back ofthc cards. Relevance. \\hich 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 o n projects in a nonthreatening atmosphere made it possible lor the n c a k students t o lcai-n ti-om thcir peer\ . Grouping /groiip proIcctt gale learners a chancc t o make thcir o n n groups. Morcovcr.

Again I started with thc assumption that direct tcaching or lecture is only one form of learning experience (Logan 1980).1 The broad concept of individualization and the whole structurc of the project dcmantletl a drastic change in the tcachcr/lcarner roles.This assumption led me to seek out new ways of managing the class and individualized activities.ADAPTING INDIVIDUALIZATION TECHNIQUES 135 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. For a teacher used to complete control of the class. this \vas initially not an easy task.I ’ Conclusion By incorporating individualization tcchniqucs my classroom rcscarch addressed three major ELT prohlcms: large classes. and the focus uld lie effective in large classes. solutions have to be realistic. In contemplating such research. [.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. organizations. In the last stages. given the Icarning conditions that prevail in large classes? A teacher obviously cannot meticulously correct a huntlred papers every day. which had a reinforcing effect on the tcachcr and learners. but thc students’ responses antl enthusiasm l e n t a lot of support. and that adult students are capable of taking their learning into their own hands. ~ I.] . The hasic materials and outline of the rcscarch done s o far should be picked up. y t it is a condition faced by more than half the world’s population of teachers antl learners. their increased output and productivity liecame a rc\vard in itself. the follolving suggestions should be kept in view. . the initial targct was fluency rather than accuracy. . Hence. the dependent learner. I t moved them to\z. of the rcscarch should he on activities and techniques tha Abovc all.artls relying on their own judgements and conclusions.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.gradually indcpcndcnt. providing learners with an occasion to “use” the languagc in real life. In thc same m y . ’ . a lc-arncr cannot learn flahvless English with limited exposure to the languagc. The rationale behind the hroad concept of individualization should he atloptcd as the basis of thc approach used in handling large classes. within the limited constraints of the present teaching/lcarning situation. this replication should be done in Pakistan as well as in countries whcrc similar teaching/learning conditions pre\ ail. and drvelopers of syllabi and materials. But the skill-based approach tlemantling cognitive interplay \vas a challcngc to a numhcr of students. ptancc of reality also led to setting up rcalistic. and lack of exposure to real-\vorld English. What and how much can a teacher/learner achieve. more classroom-based resrarch in large cl involving practicing teachers should h e encouraged by institutions. mcasurablc. Therefore. 1. Hcncc it is of vital importance that action rcscarch involving large classes hc givcn high priority. Now what is needed most is its replication so as to e\aluate the variables involved. as a teacher. short-term achievable goals. s o that they bccamc. N o doubt the picture of a large class of loo+ appears sad to those who have never had this experience. relegating learning tasks and responsibilities to studcnts involved an clement of risk and ensuing frustrations. with adaptations and changes suitable for the age and 1 1 as well as thc socio~cthnolinguistic background of the learners. O n the othcr hand. . Ideally.

Syllalms tlcsign: Theory and practice. 10.V. The relationship bct\vccn largc class research antl largc class teaching. NcivYork: Pergamon. NcivYork: Pcrgamon. Islamabatl. Mumtaz. H. 1983. Khamisani. cd. SPE1. P. M. and British Council. H. 3 .V. E. 3 .7 Seminar Report. Pakistan. Riley. cd. Teaching English as a loreign language ivith limited rcsourccs. Sarwar. Paper prcscntcd at University Grants Commission Conference onTcaching English as a Forrign/Sccontl Language. In Indii itluulimtion unci antonom)’ in language lcurning (ELT Documents 131).C. Sarivar. 1982. and Z. A. 1986. Getltles. M. Ethnography autonomy. Coleman. 1989. Altman and C. SPEL7’ Kcwletter. R. Oxford: Motlcrn English Pub. Oxford: Modern English Pul). C. . 1979. James.136 Z A I < I A S A R W A R Refercnces Altman. Williams. 1989. I I.1. 1980. F. pp. Altman and C. Individualized foreign language instruction: American patterns for accommodating learner differences in the classroom. 17. In Languuge teaching: Meeting individual neetlx. Karachi.G. ctls. Karachi.. I I . antl C. The use of English in government ( ces. 1983 85. andT. . C. p. Pakistan. Forrign language tcaching: Focus on the learner. L. English language tcaching. In~liritluuli/ation. Brooks and P. 1980. and Z. Unl?ul)lishcd M. Keynote paper prcscntcd at SPEUI‘ International Conference. Williams. Dealing with largc classes: A course in individualized instruction. English Eaching Forum. Grundy. James. A. Paper prcwnted at the International Confcrcnce on “Varietics of English in South Asia. In Languuge teaching: Meeting indiridnal nee&. ELT sccnc in Pakistan: rJrohlcms and prospects.” U. A. Pakistan. Australia. Hussain. Sturtridgc. 44 45. research project. E d . cd. Islamahad. R. 1988. R. Sarivar. Logan. Pakistan. Sptln University. Z. 1989.

Then we discuss our initial framc\vork for developing the program and elaborate on its three phases.C h a p t e r 12 William Savage and Graeme Stover AN EMERGENT LANGUAGE PROGRAM F R A M E W O RI<: A C T I V E L Y IN V O L V I N G LEARNERS I N NEEDS ANALYSIS 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 of an aquaculture outreach project in thc northeast ofThailand. reporting back. 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. people who had specific purposes for learning English which did n o t seem to consist of the sorts of information generated by needs analysis as it has come to be debated in the ESP litcraturc. . 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. 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. antl evaluating. but \yere unsure about how hest to do so. despite our more than tcn ycars’ cxpericncc in ESP. Wc wanted to actively involve the learncrs in the nccds analysis and program design. Next. Finally. we will discuss implications for other learning situations and further development. The approach which \vc developed evolved through a process o f meeting the learncrs and planning and participating with thcm in the language program. lve describe the Lvork situation of our learners. I I1 Ill IV V First. What this paper tlescrilxs is o u r experience working togcthcr with the learners in an emcrgcnt program. As such. expanding. I .

not only to its given. Thcsc reasons established the motivation tor a language program but did not give much information about lvhat needed to lie learned.w ~ e k intensive workshop. ive have avoidctl usink" 7 course" in our terminology as. A delicate aspect of the project concerns the manner in which farmers are recruited and participate in the project. was to gct the participants to a point where they would bc aldc to continue to develop thcir English ability That is. We also feel that a coursc he same form each time it is regularly implies a set of content which is presented in hasi bed here is unique. it seems likely that the project will be extended to other countries in the region. two-clay planning workshop and two\vcck intensive workshop. Finally. Therefore. using inputs (feed. Seven representatives of the staff carried out work-rclatccl tasks alongside scvcn counterparts who had participated in language programs at the AIT campus. I'hc funding agency is from an English-speaking country and the project often receives visitors from that agency and others. 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. highlighted several general reasons to learn English. the Aquaculture Outreach Project ofthe Asian Institute ofTcchnology (AIT) is liasetl in Udornthani. a native English spcakcr. 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. We vimv thc program and its development as threr-phase: the one-day site visit.view-cd as an end point. but as another starting point in itsclf. 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. it strongly suggests a discrete end point. information was built up from the site visit through thr planning \vorkshop to provide the content for the 2 .138 W I L L I A M S A V A G E A N D G R A E M E STORER I The AIT aquaculture outreach project Funded by the Overseas Development Agency of the United Kingdom. hut for a different group of learners. for us. 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. Thus. \vc will refer to the two-week phase as a workshop o r simply as the two-\\ k intensive. To that end. itlcally drawing on the cxpertise of the Thai staff. I1 The language program framework O n e of the aims of the language program. as stated liy the project manager. k i n g from the northeast region themselves. The content of the language program 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. a major city in the resource-poor northeast. For this reason. In this \Yay. nutrients and matcrials) which arc readily available. . the project's main objective is to dctcrmine aquaculture strategies which are sustainalile.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. the conclusion ofthc program \vas not to I>(. Taking an interdisciplinary research approach to freshwater aquaculture for small-scale farmers. as \vel1 as English-spcaking rescarchcrs who often stay for weeks o r months at a time. 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. Iiroject staff. the content would be quite different. O u r initial contact with the project's manager.

The role of the teacher was pcrccivcd as observing. 1 .v site visit (Udornthani) During the site visit.odd not lie confined to one phase. assisting and understanding the learning needs as the participants were working. one of the teachers met with the project staff.> planning workshop // --. ----. The rolc of the participant in this initial framework was to work on tasks.--> intensive workshop /\ I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I1 I1 I1 Participant: working on tasks reporting back expanding evaluating discussions to identify work-related needs I I Teacher: observing assisting understanding learning needs ______ Figure 12. . (Should we now offer a course callrd “Writing Office Memos”?) It did not tcll us what the learners could already do in English and what language learning concerns they thought needed to be addressed. the teachers began \vith the framework illustrated in Figure 1 2 . but would occur throughout the program. The one-da.1 ‘I‘hc initial languagc program framcwork In approaching the language program.AN EMERGENT LANGUAGE PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 139 site visit /\ I . rcport back. expand and e\ aluate. 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 2 3 DESCRIBING experiment results and analyzing data REPORTING from farmer (lata collection forms SPEAKING and LISTENING WRITING (a) Monthly reports of work progrcss (b) Summaries of the monthly reports (c) Subproject reports 4 5 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. Identification of needs \\. This led us to the two-day planning workshop.

during n hich cach participant clatmi-atctl o n areas thcv thought ncwlecl tlcvclopmcnt. thc participants \\ere lorming their ov n groups antl dchning ai cas o f intci-est t o n o r k on for the final poster session The tcac hci s m e t . Because thc partners’ work also rclatcd t o aquaculture. pi-eparing captions for project extension media.ant t o use English c ryday. The tasks concerned writing (monthly reports.This widening o f focus in the i-cportlmcks meant that the tcachcrs hegan t o rethink their initial program framcw. it was their first occasion t o use English t o discuss their 1vol-k. the participants themselves wcrc better ablc t o discuss their lcarning ncctls. O n c c again. 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.needs. there \vas a gi-cat deal of support and sharing of ideas. finishctl his reportback by announcing “Wc want t o write (thc farmer report forms) in English. thv focus of the discussions moved from simply talking about work-related nectls to m o r e specific learning concerns. suinmarirs of monthly reports antl translating reports from Thai t o English). 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 o f tr! ing to use English. the AIT campus staff spokc of lvork they hatl d o n e while studying English. T h e first task had hccn dccitlctl on I>\ t h r tcachci s and the groups had bccn prc lormetl In the second task. Mr Pirat said: “I \\. including photographs of a farmer’s fish ponds. Thc final afternoon \vas devoted to a spoken evaluation of the tLvo-tfay planning \vorkshop. thc tcachcrs \vcrc ahlc to olxcrvc the participants using English antl placed t o comment on thcii. though. he \vent on to explain about strategies he had tlcvrlopetl for learning vocabulary. 110 you have this problcm?”Mr Supong. onc of the AIT partners.example. expanding on language learning conccrns cxIircsscd h y the project staff the previous afternoon.ork. For some. for example. and descrihing office I>roccdurcs. Foi. but I [am] shy. tlescrihing antl presenting information ahout field w. Lvith the partners stepping in to help out \vhcn necessary. The two-week intensive workshop (Udornthani) \z ith thc scicn I cpr hctorc thc intcnsi\ c u (11kshop to diwuss thcir plans tor thc trio n e c k s and to t in the oi icntation O n the Iii-st morning. he I q a n clarifving his nccds for himself antl Ihr us. he began to talk about his limited vocabulary and his lack of’cxpcricncc in constructing sentences. On the second morning. the! spokc ahout deleloping the technical tcrms tlictionar! (an idea \I hich hatl come u p during the planning workshop). M r Vorapong. ’l‘hat is. During the ion.ork as the tcachcr and participant roles as originally perceived xz-crc no longer distinct. the! talked about keeping a loghook.The i-cliortliack sa\v cach staff mcmlwr speaking t o the whole group about the task.”Whcn asked \z hy he did not do so. ot asking tor help \\ hen “stucY antl the use of the tirst language. ans\vcrctl by talking aliout ho\v he hatl ovci-conic his shyness when he first hegan to learn English. the participants \zcic asked t o select an aica f i o m the ofhcc’s meekl) suli-projcct sheet to talk allout and the) n c r c encouraged to form their O M n interest groups 1 his mol e m e n t 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.140 W I L L I A M SAVAGE AND G R A E M E STORER 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. thcrcln inti oducing thc othcr statt incmlicrs to the itlea of orki king on tasks and reporting hack.

58). describing and discussing. the participants made it clcar that Participant 1 : Participant 2 : The quantitative data on the forms are n o t translated into English but arc coded antl then entered into the data basc. (B) langtiage use represents mcchanical language abilities. thry move beyond the cattlgorizing of linguistic features lvhich results from instruments such as Munby 's Communicative Needs Processor (1 978). Hutchinson antl Waters distinguish target needs from learning needs (1 987: 53 ~ 6 3 )In . In their approach to ESI' language ncccls analysis. it is apparent that \ I T have dealt in practical tcrms with these questions. in fact. rather than as people who bring their own cxpcrience and expectations to a language program. the participants. antl learning needs ohscr\ ctl b> the teachers as the participants were using English The learning needs tell into four groups (A) interacting includes such acts as explaining. After the two-week intensilc. ones still being discu. the participants and teachers \T ci e able to clarif! and elaborate o n the nerds that hatl been identified during the one-tla! site \isit 5ome need5 had been immaturcl: defined.xd in the t\\o-\\clrk intensire appear inTableq 1 2 1 4 IV Rethinking needs analysis At the beginning of the paper. antl. a tlail:. doing so. n o t complete sentences. 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. Looking hack on our approach. or lacking (1 987: p. ~ ~ ~ ~ Ihc learning needs in each ot thcie groups and ho\\ the! \\ere rcali. The qualitative data on the forms can be in notr form. both teachers had kept tletailcd notes The sesiions hatl also been \idco-tapetl In the two-meek intensiTc. the reading and mriting of farmer report forms While the teacher5 underitood that the report form5 hatl to be written in English. But what they describe as learning needs can. tor cxample. background of the learners. 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. and location and time of the course. Jacobson (1 986: p. 173) approached ncctls analysis"in terms ofthc strategic competcncc that students . the \ideo record and the dail) log s e n et1 as data In re\ i e ing ~ the data.AN EMERGENT LANGUAGE PROGRAM FRAMEWORI< 141 I11 Identified needs and their realization in the program During thc planning M orkshop. (D) rnetacognitive refers to commcnts about managing thc learning process itself. types of instructional resources. When Hutchinson antl Waters focus on targct needs. hvc asked se\eral questions kvhich \ve consider to be basic t o the work done in ncctls analysis. they view lcarncrs as being short of the mark. (C) writing and reading contains all references to materials to be \vritten and read. as \\-ell as the frequently mentioned listening and speaking. d in the literaturc. the teachers looked for learning needs directl! exprcsscd b : . lie stxcn as instructional logistics needs. log n a s kept which dctailcd each (la) 's acti\ ities Thc notes. For examplc. the learning needs rclatc to questions of thc purpose of the course.

Interacting on the telephone 5. vitlcos I istening posts 2 Describing (a) Physical features o1’pontl systems I’ostcr session I’ostcr session: tish fry transfer. poster session: ( e ) Project recommendations (d) Connections b c t \ z ccn various staff duties (e) Figures antl graphs “Horv to get farmc’rs to grokv fat tish” Reporthack: discussion about Khmer and Souay dialects. 2 1). farmcr visit forms 4. “muscov! duck” video (I)) Concepts antl ohjcctivcs in projcct mctlia licportl>ack o n 1st 8( 2nd tasks Interacting \vith L isitors. discussions of meek I evaluation to set up Lveck 2 . we nccd to devise way5 to engage learners in “procedural work” which will convert items of knowledge about language into “actualized .1 Interacting 1 Explaining (a) Extension matrrial dcvclopmcnt Interacting \vith visitors. need in order to successfully carry out the work required in the [university physics] lab. evaluation o f extension mctlia. 1978: p. In order to do this.” His task-based approach primarily involved direct observations in the lab environment in which the students were working. 85). student vitlcos. listening posts. he argues. But in the end. what ensued was the delivery o f a prescribed syllahus whose purpose was to fill in the gaps identified. 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. \vas not atltlrcsscd t)ccause of a lack of time. Discussing Lvork duties licporthac. student vitlcos. \\ cckly meetings held in English. defining antl clarifying tasks * Thesc procedures arose during the 2-1zcck intcnsivc. and interviews with the lab instructors. Speaking antl li5tcning I-ocus o f all reporting Imck. \vcckly meetings. h o w to deal with I (1)) I’rocedurcs* isitors reportback: new criteria tor villagc~ sclcction 3. rqmrtback: tlcscription of radio station survey for vxtcnsion.k: recruitment antl follo\v-up in one suh-officc. related to ofticc procedure. with questionnaires antl interviews (Mackay.142 W I L L I A M SAVAGE AND GRAEME STORER Table 12. for example. onc othcr. 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.

Writing was addressctl in othcr areas. larmrr visit \\ orkshects 2 SIntax (a) Connwting ideas (b) I inking ivithin paragraphs (c) Consti-ucting sentences '1 cachcr input olconncctors Writing needs 1 Writing (a) Farmer \isit l'orms (I)) Intcrnal memos (c) Mcmos to report unusual Hon reu/i/ed ciiiring 2-n cek intensive Farmer \ isit \\ orkshccts Manager reported an increase in thr number of internal memos \\ rittcn in English. r e c o r d e r s in mccting. c. video scripts. 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.AN EMERGENT LANGUAGE PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 143 Table 12. contcxtualizing \vords for dictionary.meeting antl video scripts 3 'l'cnnc As abo\ c Preparing for reporting back. teachers askctl to chcc k I>id not arise data (d) Monthly reports* ( c ) Monthly report summaries* (t) Report outlines (g) Abstracts o f books and articlcs 1)iscussctl ivith manager b u t not follo\vctl through 2 Reading (a) Incoming memos Mrmo from sub-oftice in tnglish: discussed antl re\\ rittcn at Meekly mccting Informed second task Prcparation and rollo\v-up for \vcckly mccting (b) New sub-projcct tasks * Note that \\e had intcndcd to hold a tvriting \vorkshop in the second \vcck. .dictionary and for setting up listening posts 4 Introducing a topic in \vriting 5 Writing clcai-1) 6 Gi\ ing details Focus of "cxpantling" Tohle 12. though this \vas only at the scntencc/paragral'll Icvcl. contcxtualizing vocabulary. cxplanations foi. This plan \vas abantlonctl as it was felt that there \vas just too much else going on. needs How r e o / i / c d clnring 2-week intensii e I Vocabulary (a) Improper choice (c. minutes of \\ cckl?.3 Writing antl reading 1dentlf. \ ideo scripts Preparing for \vcckly mcctings. memos antl mccting minutes.g.g.2 Language usc Idenr!f.

as lcarners arc cngaged in Widdowson’s “proccdural work. dissect and discuss. 91)? and mcthotlology is central to the approach presented This concert of needs anal in this paper. 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 1) applying the procedures they have used in learning to the continuation of learning through language usc” (Widdowson. A methodology which fosters learner autonomy sustains momentum to continue learning. by engaging the lcarners in these conccrns of program design.144 W I L L I A M SAVAGE AND G R A E M E STORER Table 12. 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.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. it becomes “a catalyst for learning” (Folev.teacher request\ lor hrlp 2 Lrarncrs assisting each other Participanta used t o jvorking as a team (a l’cature o f \vay the projcct is set up) Moat apparcnt in preparing lor reporting hack. .”At the same time. Nccds analyzctl concurrcmtly with the program and embedtled in the methodology must tie o f immcdiatc relevance. and the communication we share. \ve arc forced to consider methodological issues as bcing at one with finding out Lvhat learners know and what they need to know. The selected discourse becomes in the lesson the ohjcct we respond to. 1983: p. 87). mcctings antl postrr session 3 Overcoming shyncss t o spcak (conliticncc) This \z as commcntctl o n by 6 of thc participants in their Ivrittcn evaluations 4 U\ing L 1 to explain L2 Scrn in larnicr visit lorms and tcchnical terms dictionary “Muscovy duck” video * All spoken t o in the orientation by the participants from the planning workshop communicatile behavior” (1 983: p. the learning experience is readily accessible to the participants in terms of the content and their ability to participate. 177) Inherent in these questions is negotiation and through such a process an understanding of learners’ language needs can bcgin.The validity of any approach to identify antl addrcss the language needs . 1991 : p. 69). 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 will point us in the direction of thc required tliscoursc . .

his partncr had also explained aquaculture concepts to him. Let us now turn to placing the program’s aspects into a hackground. Expanding An increased abilit! to deal mith the content of the task at a more challenging leiel using f abilit) comcs allout through expanding what the languagc lust bc!ond the cui rent lelel o learner has to sa) during a rcportliack Thc participants’ current knov lctlgc of language use tl in the accomplishmcmt ot the task. bccausc Icarners are dealing with work-based tasks. a sharing of information and reciprocal curiosity allout what others arc doing or h a w donc. In fact. we gave cxamplcs of needs identified by the learners and how these \\-ere realized as content. it follows that thc topic is already of interest as it is dcfined h y the learner antl involves the attainment o f a work goal. the work content can scrvc as the language lcarning content. As one of the AIT partners observed in thc planning workshop. In our approach. 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. this \vas achieved by pairing the participants \\ith counterparts \\ ho could advise and assist them. 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. tcms and categories he is working with” (Corder. 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. 41). 1991 : p. 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. A reporthack a focus on mcthod. It is important that thc first task bc apIiropriatcly sct up s o that. 1988: lip. they were helping each other. Working on tasks We depart from the types of‘tasks discussed in /. First. in Im-sen-Freeman and I. In the previous section.Talkbasc.AN EMERGENT LANGUAGE PROGRAM FRAMEWORI< 145 of learners is ultimately cstahlishctl : 1 “how effectively it achieves its declared purposc of defining the content of purpose-specific language programs” (Widdowson. to locate his starting point. 1988 . The “narrowing down”1ircoines a process of managing the topic within the learners’ current ability Ic\~cl.‘livo rclatctl points need to be emphasizrd hrrc. on reporting liack. In the case of the planning workshop. not on11 lrom the tcachcrs hut also from other learners. Or put another \\a!.earning Tusks (Cantllin and Murph!. MrTanin. 85 86). language antl content arc generated to allokv the participants to procccd. an AIT partncr. the mcthod for doing thc task during the language program antl for doing the task for work arc one and the same.angnage /. thus expanding the scope of the learner’\ task. commented that although he had helped his partner with vocabulary. 198 3: pp. 1981. mcthod is takcn to mcan thc lvay in lvhich the task \vas accomplished. 21 -22). “student5 [ h a c ] a plan tor further action u hich might iniollc exploration o f further sources ot data.The advantage for the learner is that it allows him to focus on what he can do. Workrclatctl 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 . a rcdchnition oi refinement of topic a r a or a search for mol e detailed information” (Hall antl Kenn).

For example. \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. Certainly. Participatory evaluation highlights the jobs to lie done in thc ESP classroom and the best means of carrying them out (Watcrs. 1987: pp. l h e k e j characteristic of such cvaluation is that it is integral to lcarning antl teaching. this means that the language program participants (learners and teachers) arc explicitly aware that whatever is going on is ultimately open to evaluation. throughout which the learners were invol\ed in defining the content antl how it \vould he addressed. In practice. However. As Watcrs points out. such improvements might concern the need to develop a greater ability to talk aliout a certain task during a reportback session. the outcomc of that particular evaluation can lie acted upon immctliatclj. 165).and continuing process” (Rea. 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. Some will argue that the \vay in which \ye have proceeded here is singular to the situation and not transfcrralile. 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. generuli/ution + clarification + elaboration + cxempl$cution (Widdon son. Second. they question how a givcn task \vas accomplished and how it could tic improved. First. . 7-8).Thcn the language nccdcd can be input to the learner. An area which could hc developed is team teaching in an emergent program. 1978: p. Evaluating Evaluating is seen as “a rcgulai. I. the participants were at widely different levels of ability in English. Third. 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. 2 ) . four portable cassette playcrs antl one video camera. V Concluding remarks What we have tlcscribcd hcrc is the design o f an cmcrgcnt language program. from beginners to those who were reading (and writing) research papers in aquaculture. from the teacher o r from other learners. 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. 1987: p. we conducted the program with a limited amount of media technology two snappy 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 1 2 .146 W I L L I A M SAVAGE AND GRAEME STORER p 2 2 ) 1 his pointing tonartl an cxpandctl. that the tlvo-week intensive took placc on-site. 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. we wish to make explicit certain situational constraints. work demands meant that some participants were called away during the two-wcek intensive. antl.

\Till lie means rathcr than ends drivcn insofar as the ends cannot in fact he accuratelj prcdictctl.. N. Oxford: Oxford University Press. H.’’ English f i r Specrf. 13-28. Folcy.AN E M E R G E N T LANGUAGE PROGRAM FRAMEWORI< 147 site visit . 14) - References Cantllin. Iicing itsclf part o f the learning process. S.c Purposes: r l Lcurning-Centred . Hall.” English f o r Xpecipc Purposes 5 . and Kcnny. ( 2 986) “An assessment of the communication needs of non-native speakers of English in an undergraduate physics lab. London: Prcnticc-Hall. (1 987) I-anguage Learning Tusks. and Murphv.. I).. 19. R. C.. ( I 986) “An approach to a truly comrnunicativc methodology: the AIT pre-sessional course.3 2 .-> intensive workshop .4pproach. I>. thc irnplemcntation of the syllabus and in fact becomes its most essential pedagogical component.. J.c Purposes 7. (1991) “The negotiated syllabus: what is it and hohv is it likrly to work?” iipplicd Linpistics 12. . W. and Waters. A . . or prior to. Cambridge: Cambridgc University Prcss. Ilutchinson.-> planning workshop . Corder. wc cite a particularly challenging passage from Clarkc’s discussion of the ncgotiatcd svllabus which sums u p the targct \ye \vould likc to sce reached in language programs: The syllabus as derivcd from and generated by specific groups oflcarncrs .. Clarke. D.. (1 987) English. 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 m e e t with the teacher in a particular cn\ ironmcnt in order to cstablish its parametcrs. 62-75.” Applied L i n p i s t m 12.fbr Spectf._ -> I I I I working on tasks I I I observing I I I I I reporting back I clarifying and re-defining I I I I I assisting I I I I I I . 1991 : 1’. . (Clarkc.- ---- expanding I I I I I I I understanding learning needs I I -------- evaluating In concluding. Jacollson. (1 981) Error Anulysis u n d Intcrlanpqge. T. (1 991 ) “A psycholinguistic framework for task-bascd approaches to language teaching. F. 173-87. Dcsign is therefore n o longer extcrnal t o .

and Mountford. (1 978) Cornrnunicatir~eS j / l u h ~ Design. London: Longman. (1 983) I. Munby. (1 985) “RcvieLv: learning purposc and languagc use.eurning Purpose ant/ Languuge Ure. (1 987) “Participatory coursc evaluation in ESP. J. B. N. . Oxford University Press. A.son. London: Prentice-Hall.148 W I L L I A M SAVAGE AND G R A E M E STORER Kenny. 147 65. A. Kea. Mackay. C. ant1 Long. Widdowson. M .fbr Spec!$c Purposer 7. D. Ncw York: Longman. H. Waters. R. ~ Camhridgc Univcrsity Prcss. D. (1 978) Teaching Langiiacqe us Communication. Widdow.arscn-Freeman. 3-1 2. F. 1.171-9. P. (1 987) “Communicati\e curriculum \alidation: a task-based approach. ( 1 978) “Itlcntifying the nature of the learner’s necds. (cds) Englishhfbr Specijic Purposes. (cds) Language Learning Tasks pp. (1 99 1 ) An introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.” Englirh. R. and Murphy.” In Candlin.’’ The E S P Journal 4. 11.” In Mackay. Oxford University Press.

this study has witlcspread implications.Chapter 13 Defeng Li TEACHERS’ PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES I N INTRODUCING THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH I N SOUTH KOREA E C E N T L Y . The most significant differcnce l)ct\veen the two moticls . many EFI. 1996. and implcmenting CUI’ uw-lchziclc has often pro\. Freeman and Cazden.ed difficult (Anderson. 1987). Markcc. and its goal is to develop learners’ communicative competcnce. Chick. 1992). 1997. 1987.identified four dimensions: grammatical. such innovations havc had a low ratc of success (Urindley antl Hood. Takahashi. perhaps bcst captured in Bachman’s (1 990) schcmatization of \vhat he calls lungtiage competence. classrooms? How appropriatc is CUI’ for EFI. 199 1 ). for cxamplc. 1 990). sociolinguistic. 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. Gonzalcx. and the process of innomtion that occurs in tcachcr tlcvchpmcnt contexts (Bailcy. 1992. Valdcs and Jhoncs. 1997). The). 1996. 1985. and strategic compctcncc. discourse. antl Yoneyama. 1980. 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 received consitlcrable attention (Bailey. Shamin. 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 ’ o r failure o f that innovation (Kc. countrics arc still striving to introducc CI -1‘ in the hopc that it will improve English teaching there. 1993. 1994. As many EFL countries sharc somc of the characteristics of English tcaching in South Korea. 1988. 1984. 1990. Difficult as it is.1996. Markee. Canalc and Swain’s (1 980) definition of communicativc competence is probahly the bcst kno\z n . Ellis. This definition has untlergonc soinc modifications over thc years.L countrics’ ohvn initiativcs and through international aid projects haw prompted man! innovations in 1. Kcmncd\. traditional tcaching methods antl large classes. Kirkpatrick. Why has CLT Ixcn so difficult to implcnicnt in EFI.Ily.The literature on this topic includes studies of language curriculum d e d o p m c n t . 1984. language tcaching methodology.White. l’ing. In general. Attempts to introtlucc communicative languagc teaching (CLT) into EFL contcxts on EI. Sano.2 education. R CLT: one definition CLT starts Lvith a throry of language as communication.

Sampson. class sizes and schedules. p.X Burnaby and Sun (1 989) report that teachers in China found it difficult to use CLT. students collaborate for the purpose of helping each other solve language problems rather than for the purpose of communicating with each other. Another dimension o f CLTF is “its learner-centered antl experience-based view of second language tcaching“ (Richards and Kodgcrs. thc most obvious characteristic of CLT is that “almost everything that is (lone is done lvith a communicative intent” (p. others have strongly advocated the adoption of CLT in EFL countries (Li. nonthreatening atmospherc. 1997). According to Holliday. from-life materials. language use rather than in the merely mcchanical practicc of language patterns.The constraints cited include the context of the wider curriculum. 1986. \vhat they arc doing is communicative. However. As long as students are communicating with rich text and producing uscful hypotheses about the language. the majority of accounts have recognized the difficulties EFL countries lace in adopting CL. antl in fact activities do not have to be carried out in groups or pairs. 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. the use of group acti\-ities. the use of authentic. CLT in EFL contexts A number of reports in thc literature deal with CLT innovations in EFL contexts. a focus on meaningful tasks rather than on language per se (e.12 of thc role of strategies than Canalc antl S\vain do and separates strategic compctcnce completely from \vhat he calls language competencies (Bachman. 1986. and the attcmpt to create a secure. 4 5 6 I stress that thc description abovc reflects just one definition of CLT. efforts to make tasks antl language rclcvant to a target group of learners through an analysis of genuine. 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. 1 99 1 ). Teachers select learning activities according to how well they engage the students in meaningful and authentic. individual learners possess unique interests. According to CUI theory. styles. the strong version is actually quite differcnt:The focus is not on language practicc but on Icarning ahout how language works in discourse. In CLT.. thc low status of tcachers who teach communicative rather than analytical skills. traditional teaching methods. 69). grammar or vocabulary study) . according to Holliday (pp.150 DEFENG LI is that Bachman takes a far broader vic.7. and communicative relates more to the \lay in \vhich the student communicatcs \vith the text. 1990). Also.The Icsson input is language data in the form of text. According to Larsen-l:recman (1 986). and goals that should he reflected in the design o f instructional mcthods (Savignon. 132). 1984. teachers do not need to monitor group and pair work closely. 171. resources antl equipment. realistic situations. what Holliday (1 994) terms the weak version of C1. meaning is paramount.172).g. CLT is characterized by 1 2 3 a focus on communicative functions. 1990. Prabhu. 1987). North. Because the aim is not to practice language forms. 1984. necds. antl English teachers’ drficiencics in oral English .

In the ne\v curricula. 1994). and lack of exposurc to authentic language as constraints on using CI T (Ellis. studcnts’ not being accustomed to CLT. and the need to adapt textbooks to meet the needs of communicativc classes. Although these studies highlight many of the principal prohlems in instituting curricular innovations prompted by CLT. 11. 66). In studies of CLT outside Asia. 1992. 180). carly in 1994 the g o x r n m c n t 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. thc need to redesign the evaluation system. as people there seldom uscd English. Anderson’s ( 1 993) studv of CLT in China reported such obstacles as a lack of properly trained teachers. such as ncwspapers. 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 goal of English teaching is “to develop communicative competence in English through meaningful drills and communicative activities. according to Kirkpatrick’s (1 984) study of CLT in secondary schools in Singapore. 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. many of the studies takc the researcher’s pcrspcctive. found that English instruction there was irrelevant to the population’s ncctls. with the aid of audio-visual equipment” (Dc lopment Committee. 1 992. Students are to learn by means of authentic materials. met with pervasive reluctance on the part of teachers and students to adopt the more egalitarian. among other problems.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<OREA 151 and sociolinguistic and strategic competence. rcalizing that “the grammatical syllabus does not help much to develop learners’ communicativc competence” (Development Committee. ‘reachers’ perceptions of innovations related to CLT remain largely unexplored. (1 984) point out that the Japancsc students they studied generally (lid not feel a pressing need to use English. A study conducted in Vietnam identified class size. Efforts to foster a communicative approach to the teaching of English in KwaZulu. Shamin (1 996) identifies learners’ resistance. The study Thc study reported hcrc used a case stud! approach to inLcstigatc Korean teachers’ pcrceptions of the implcmentation of CUI. . the lack of authentic materials in a non-English-spcaking environment. grammar-liasetl examinations. decentralized ways of interacting associated with CLT (Chick. such as games. First. antl difficulties in evaluating students taught via CLT. their traditional attitudes tolvard languagc teaching. Gonzalcz (1985). a lack of appropriate texts antl materials. so that the goal of communicativc competence seemed too distant for them. The South Korean Ministry of Education recently published a scrics of new policies regarding English learning and tcaching. Chau and Chung (1 987) report that teachers usctl C I T only sparingly because it required too much preparation time. the government decided to introduce CLT into English teaching at the secondar. Valdcs and Jhones ( 1 99 1 ) report difficulties such as teachers’ lack of‘proficicncy in English. 1996). Based on a study that assessed the attitudes of I Iong Kong educators tokvard using CLT in the local context. who studied CLT in Philippine rural areas. p. South Africa. teachers. Sano et al. In addition.

. with an avcragc of over 1 1 ycars.The new textbooks incorporate a communicative perspective and more listening and speaking materials and activities relative to the older ones. I distributed the questionnaires at the end of a class. I made certain that they u e r e ablc to cxprcss their itleas fully ti) prcpariiig anti sending a n u m l x r of questions t o them ahratl of time. 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. Thc curricula reflect the belief that “CLT is characterized l ~ y learner-ccntrcdncss” (p. their understanding of English teaching in South Korea.sullicicnt frccdom t o digress and probe far beyond the annvers to thc prrpared antl stantlartlizctl qucstions (Berg. 1 S l ) . 17). O v e r 10 sets of English textbooks arc now a\-ailahle to secondary school English teachers. Although I was n ~ l a\varc l that the teachers’ imperfect English might limit thc information they provided. Many had taught at both middle and high schools. 8 participants were teaching in mitltllc schools. Design The analvsis consisted of a pilot study. in s u m m e r 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. [ . I conducted in-depth inter\. All 1 8 questionnaires distributed \vcrc handed hack. . Education Program (KTEP) at English teachers w h o \vert‘ studying in the Korcan l i ~ a c h c r a Canadian university in the summer. I Participants Surv5r partrcipunts The participants in the formal qucstionnairc survey \vcrc 18 South Korean. . thc avcragc age \vas 36. 1989. and 10 were teaching in high schools. who arc free to choosc any set provitlctl that the \vholc school adopts it. The participants were urged to read the clucstionnairc. . 1 investigated Korean teachers’ perceptions o f the difficulties in using CLT. Accompanying the release of the nc\v curricula \vas the publication of a series of new textbooks. p.To ensure that the participants fully understood the questions. Following the survey. antl they asked questions for clarification. antl teachers arc cncouraged to organize materials based on students’ needs. T h e interviews xvcrc conducted in English.I The 9 inale and 9 female participants ranged from 30 t o 5 0 years in age. 1. \vith the majority in their 30s. the questionnaire \vas administered t o 18 South Korean secondary school EFL teachers studying at thc same Canadian univcrsity.’fhcir experience in teaching English varied from 5 to 25 years. as secondary school teachers in South Korea must transfcr schools .iews with 10 o f t h c participants t o explore further the teachers’ back-ground. English nchvs o n the radio. A t the time o f the study. a \vrittcn questionnaire. antl their tlillicultics in using CLT. The interviews \vcrc scmistructurctl.o f 1995. 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).152 D E F E N G L I magazines. contluctcd in a systematic antl consistent order b u t allowing m e as the intervic\z et. In s u m m e r 1995.5. antl interviews. To develop an appropriatc survey instrument for this study. antl English TV programs.

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.1). .T itself. [. Tuhle 13. (b) by the students. almost twice or three times as much as those in thc other three categories (seeTablc 13.c~ilt. However. The difficulties reported liy the Korean tcachcrs fall into four categories: those caused (a) by the teacher. Teacher Deficiency in spokcn English Deficiency in stratcgic anti sociolinguistic coinpctcncc Lack of training in C1. 1992).1 Krportrd difficulties in implcmcnting CLT Source und (liff.T before attending thc tcacher education program in Canada and having encountered difficulties in such attempts. (c) liy the educational systcm.7’ Fc~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. All reported that the grammar-translation mcthod.i.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. A representative 10 ofthe 18 survey participants ww-e also given an in-depth intervicw. the audiolingual method. Among them.THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH I N SOUTH KOREA 153 every 5 years.] Results The South Korean tcachcrs \vcrc interested in the methods thcy used in teaching English. of’rnentionc” 99 18 18 18 16 15 14 50 18 17 15 61 18 18 13 12 34 18 16 The number of timer the rcscarch subjects referred to a thcmc in either the qucstionnairc or the intervie\. Fourteen of the 18 participants rcportrd that they were w r y concerned.\. and the other 4 reported that they bvere fairly conccrncd. Thr maximum number of mentions possible for each ofthc themrs included Lvithin thc four major categories i s 18. 1987). and (d) by CI. 1 2 rcportcd having tried CI.Yo. Half of the participants were teaching in rural secondary schools and half in urban settings. as a constraint in using the CLT in their o n n contcxt. . difficulties falling into the first category were mentioned most often. high school teachers quite commonly transfcr to middle schools antl \ ice versa. or a combination of the two characterized their teaching. .ack of support CLT lnadcquatc account of LFL traching I ack of rffrctivc and cfticicnt assrssmcnt instruments “ .

July 17. 1995) The fear of losing face hccausc of not Iwing ablc to answer students’ questions all the time discouraged teachers from using CLT. you arc going to lose thcir respect antl finally lose them.The kids enjoyed it. when you can’t answer all of the students’ questions right a n y . In tact I cnjoyctl it too.s caused b y 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.154 DEFENG L I Dificu1tie. Although the tcachcrs gcncrally felt that they were highly proficient in English grammar. As rcportccl by thc Korean teachers. and lvriting. you can’t be a teacher.They kvere interesting questions. and some of them I could not. In our culture. the South Korean governmcnt wanted CLT implemented I)ecausc o f disappointment about students’ oral proficiency in English. Rut those questions that are related to thc sociolinguistic aspccts of English arc really hard for me. 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. and writing. 3. July 17. Deficiency in spoken English apparently prevented some teachers from applying CIrr. I am good at English grammar. cxccpt they asked so many questions related to the English culture. July 3 1 . In Korea. 1 . (Young-Chcol.The governmcnt as \vel1 as the teachers hopcd that CLT would help students develop lxtter oral English. I was happy when they asked m e questions related to the English grammar. how can I teach it to my students? (Dong-Soon. rcatling. . but for others lack o f confidencc was more likely to have been the reason. they all reported that their abilities in English speaking and listening were not adequate to conduct the communicative classes necessarily involved in CLT. Some of them I could answer. . . July 26. . 1995) . . 1995) Surprisingly. reading. Studcnts askcd more qucstions in the class. I once tried communicative activities with my Grade 10 kids. Rut my oral English is very poor. As teachers’ sociolinguistic antl strategic competence must lie much greater in a communicative classroom than in a traditional grammar-focused classroom. ’l’he following comment was typical. even respondents who spoke English fluently and communicated well thought thcir English was “too poor to use communicative language teachings” (Jin-Kyu. (Jin-Kyu. That made me very much embarrassed. If your kids find that you cannot always answer their questions very confidently. . Since 1 can’t speak English \vcll. teachers are supposed to know everything and be always correct. 1995). the participants gcncrally felt incompetent to conduct a communicative class. 2.

7. I did not . 1995) 5. ~ ~ 4. 6. It took me 18 years to gct such an opportunity. Before attending this tcachcr education program. ( M w n g Sook. teachers “chose to stick to the traditional grammar-centred. 1995). English teaching confcrcnccs. (f. Like many of us. though I did try it a f e ~timcs . 1995) Even after the publication of the government’s ncw communicatiw curricula. July 28.THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH I N SOUTH KOREA 155 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 I Icarncd CLT when I \vas studying at uni\-crsitv. July 25. teachers will inevitably misunderstand some elements o f CLT. Most o f the respondents hac1 not had such opportunitics t)cfore the teacher education program thcy \vert attcnding at that time. But it \vas taught as a piece of knowlcdgc for us to remember. A typical misconception was that by concentrating on appropriateness antl fluency. I thought that communicati1 e language tcaching does not teach grammar antl only teaches speaking. 1995). I did not quite understand hov it norks. Julv 30. 1995) This lack of systcmatic training led to a sketchy antl usually fragmented understanding of CI. To be honcst. As reported by the teachers. 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 . Misconceptions about CLT Fifteen respondcnts referred to teachers’ misconceptions about CLT as one of the principal obstacles.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. This i s the first time I participatc in an in-service teacher cducation program. Without proper retraining. Fc\v opportunitics for rctraining in CLT Sixteen teachers reported that fe\v in-scrvicc opportunities for retraining in CL‘I’ lvere available. I did not practice using it while at university.. thcy had learned about CLT in different hvays university methods courses. CLT docs not teach form at all and thus totally neglects accuracy. (Mi-Ju. July 20. I ack of training in CLT All 18 participants named lack oftraining as one ofthc main obstacles they faced in applying in CLT. feiv inservice tcachcr education programs offered training in CLT. I learned the term CLT at a teachers’ conference. antl English teaching journals but thcy all agreed that they had not practiced it much. latcr when I became a teacher. not to use. Mi-Ju cxpressed her frustration whcn asked about her in-service education.

1. [.156 D E F E N G L I think that \\as a good ma> to teach our kids Engli5h. Because m j husband teaches ana) from our home in Seoul. thcy ha\e to pass a lot o f exam4 antl there i \ a lot of grammar in them (Myong-Sook. . 1995) . Gradually they lose interest in trying to speak English and liecome too discouraged to spcak English any morc. at least for our kitis After all. 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. I think grammar should be part of it. For that reason. . 8. . I ’ L o n tngli\h proficiency All 18 respondents reported that one important difficulty preventing them from using CLT \vas their students’ low English proficiency. When I go homc. I hale to take care of my tmo kidr. (In-Ran. (In-Ran. making progress slow. 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 grammartranslation and audiolingual mrthods. I really do not h a l e time for an> extra work. Korean students do not start to learn English until after thcy cntcr middle school (Gradc 7). July 24. I haic to hc at school from 8:00 in the morning to 6:3O in the afternoon. Littlc time tor antl cxpcrtiw i n material tlc\clopment Fourteen tcachcrs reported that lack of time for and lack of cxpcrtisc in tlcveloping communicative materials had been constraints for them. the teachers found it hard to do any oral communicative activities with them. Recause students did not have the necessary proficiency in English. ] This prohlcm was particularly serious for female teachers liecause they also hatl to deal with housework. the teachers refused to accept CLT. 9. July 24. I hale to take my kids there at \Teekends to see him. I teach in a high school.Thcy usually have a small English vocabulary and a limited command of English structures. so teachers had hatl to write their own materials and design thcir oxvn activities if they wanted to use C1. antl thcy haw only four 1 -hour English classes each week. So thcy haw great difficulty to express themselves in English when they are assigned to do communicative activities. Thc avcragc secondary school students have a very small English vocabulary. 1995) Lack of expertise in designing communicati! c actii itics \vas also a concern among the tcachcrs. They know limited number of English structures. July 30.T.

in which thcy sit motionlcss. July 25. 28/07/95). only to make each other more confuscd. Especially when English class is thc only place whcrc participation is encouraged. I do not know whether I am doing thc right thing with thc kids. they haw become accustomed to the traditional classroom structure. the Korean teachers believed that CLT necessarily involved speaking activities. 1 1 . 1995) Little motivation for communicativc compctencc Seventeen participants identified students’ lack of motivation to work on their communicative comprtence as a great limitation. 1995) To play it safe. making it very difficult to get thc students to participate in class activities. 1995). students usually chose to behave traditionally in English class. After so many years of schooling in traditional settings. “tcachcrs who teach communicativc competence arc not liked as well as thosc who tcach grammar” (Mi-Ju. As students have already been in school for at least 6 years by the time they enter middle school. (Jin-Kyu. and speak only when they arc spoken to. 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. take notes while the teacher lectures. 1 2 . Rcsistancc to class participation Fifteen respondents cited the students’ resistancc to class participation as a primary constraint in trying CLT. In such activities. . 1995) Because grammar still plays a dccisive role in all English examinations in South Korca. Lvhcn oral activities were not possible or appeared to he difficult. not saying encourage class participation. When students were not willing to participate in class activities. students rely o n the teacher to give them information directly. rendering it pointless to adopt CLT in their class. My students know it is wry important to learn to use English for communication. . the teachers became frustrated with CLT and in most cases galc it up. (Joon-Suk. But since their goal is to enter the university. . . July 17. The inconsistencies among teachcrs in their expcctations of studcnts also discouraged students from participating in class activities. Students complained that “they [were] not learning anything if they [did] not learn nebv words and grammar in a class” (Na-Yun. it can bring about confusion for the students as most tcachcrs of other subjects will probably ncvcr toleratc. I prcfcr to use the method I am l‘amiliar \vith to help the kids icarn. students in secondary schools still care much morc about grammar. July 26. teachers saw little chance of fulfilling their goal of using CLT. To be safe. 10. they prefer to work on English grammar because thc National University Entrance Exam is grammar based.THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH I N SOUTH KOREA 157 As pointed out earlier. I often see the kids struggling to express themselves in English. Therefore. July 26. (Eom-Mi.

if not entirely impossible. both students and tcachcrs are interested in grammar and rcading in English classes.Tcachers and students in nearby classrooms will complain ahout the noise in the English class. . when everyone starts to talk. 1 3 . For example. it is very difficult for class management if UT use the communicativc method. the National University Entrance Examination (the English section) is thc most important one because other formal and informal English cxaminations are motlcled on it. a sccontlary school class usually contains 48-50 students. As soon as students start middle school. Thirdly. rcading comprehension. July 17. they have a clear goal in mind to pass the National University Entrance Examination. first of all.” Iiut its grammar-hased nature has remained unchangcd. under pressure to make their students do well on such tests.The teachers found it very difficult. As Savignon (1991) observes. many curricular innovations have been undone by a failure to make corresponcling changes in evaluation.T. there is not even enough space for the students and the teacher to move around to carry out the communicativc activities. often devote valuable class time to teaching test-taking skills and drilling students on multiple-choice grammar items. (Jin-Kvu. it is not possible for the tcachcr to give cach o f them [individualized] attention as required by the communicativc method.Teachcrs also have a clear goal in mind to help students succeed in the Examination. you cannot even move them. Now it has an additional part called “Listening Comprehension. Because it only tests students’ grammar knowledge and reading ability. 14. July 26. Among the many English cxaminations in South Korea. and translation items. 1995) - Such an attitude leaves little room for CLT for 110th tcachcrs and students. Teachers. Especially when the desks and stools arc fixed to the floor. This exam [the National University Entrance Examination] has had tremendous influence on the English teaching in South Korea. Until 1994 it consisted mainly of grammar. 1995) Grammar-basctl cxaminations Grammar-based examinations were namctl Iiy all 18 rcspondents as another important constraint. 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. (Young-Cheol. Secondly. In South Korea. \vith so many students in one regular classroom.158 DEFENG L I D@culties caused t y the educational ystern Largc classcs All 18 respondents referred to large classes as one of the principal constraints on their attempts to use C1. With that number of students in one class. the class can be very noisy.

15. hc still carcs mostly about the students’ scores. 1995) Teachers generally found this lack of professional. He \vas only interested in the scores my students got in exams. kven now after the publication of the new curriculums. 1995) Teachers also found lack of support from administration frustrating. antl collegial support in discouraging. Jul) 26. 1 9 This [lack of support] 1 % as extremel) diScouraging It M as 40 hard when e\ cr) thing was on your shoultler. 16. Particularly before the new curriculums \vcre published the principal in my school didn’t carc about the method I used. 1995) . for some reasons. Although some of the teachers had learned aliout CLT in univcrsity mcthods courscs. I talked with mj fcllov teachers.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<OREA 1 5 9 lnsufficicnt funding Thirteen rcspondcnts mentioned insufficient funding as a constraint. When I had qucstions about mhat I was doing. certain equipment and facilities must be in place. (In-Ran. using CLT is hard. Jul) 31. hoping to get help from them Often t h q could not help m e Horn I n ished therc v a s a CLI expert for questions and support (Joon fuk. It’s difficult to get help from our administrators. we will need a photocopier to copy materials for students. For example. “applying it was yet another thing” (Dong-Soon. July 24. 18. 1995) Lack of support Lack of support \vas cited by 1 2 respondents as a constraint. Finally I had to gixe up CI T antl return to the peaceful and easy traditional method of teaching English (Dong-Soon. but. they showed little intcrcst in what I was doing. sometimes 1 needed cooperation from teachers of other subjects. Also. (Eom-Mi. 1995). (In-Ran. Extra funding is nerdcd to obtain resource books and materials for communicative activities. When the funding is not there. 1995) The respondents also intlicatctl that they scldom got support from fcllow instructors teaching other subjects in the samc schools. July 31. 17.That means we need extra money which is not always there. It’s ahvays more difficult than you plan and imagine. Often they lost interest in coping with the challenges of introducing CIAT their classes. Julv 25. July 24.To use CLT in tcaching English. administrativc.

Resides. July 26. which can reinforce VI hat they learn in class. in ESL situations. and there was nobody to supervise the other students while the teacher was conducting the tests. For cxamplc. Thcy expressed frustration at the fact that the research community.160 DEFENG 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. and the a\-ailability of authentic English materials. July 28. 20. situations. In general. I think that’s why w c EFL teachers usually find Western language teaching methods difficult to use. it would take me dozcns of days to finish just one round. 1995) The significant differences that thc teachers saw bctwccn EFL and ESL included the purposes of learning English. . the teachers found it disconcerting that there \vcrc no prescrilied. 1995) Resides. the classroom is the only place hvhcrc studcnts can hear and speak English. [. When you teach four classes and each has nearly 50 students. has rarelv differentiated EFL from ESL. studcnts usually h a w a very supportive learning environment outside school. In my opinion. Finishing even one round of individual oral tests would take a long time. 1995) Lack of effective and cllicicnt assessment instrunicnts Used to traditional discrete-point tcsting o f grammatical knowledge. Thcy have many chances to hear and speak English outside class.I 2 1 . ready-made assessment tools for communicative competence and that they would have to design their own. learning environments. they have the motivation to work on oral English txcausc they need it in their lives. cspccially many Western language education rcscarchers. (Jin-Kyu. . In our situation. 22. EFL is very tlilfci-ent from ESL. teachers’ English proficiency. The Korean teachers believed that one ofthe liest \vays to test students’ communicative competence was to give the studcnts oral tests. July 17.Thcy d o not nccd to usc the language in their livcs but only in pretended situations. (Mi-ju. you are dealing with 200 students.The teachers saw important differences bctwccn teaching EFL and teaching ESL. they each taught four classes of approximately 48 students. (Joon-Suk. But many people tend to confuse them and often ignorc the special clcmcnts of EFL. . the Korean teachers generally did not support these sulijectivc tests. If I have to do oral examinations to assess their communicative competence.

The following discussion. besides the writtcn tcst. The predominance of text-centered and grammar-centered practices in Korea does not provide a hasis for the student-centered. I knew that I used different criteria. 1995) The teachers also found it difficult to balance content and languagc when scoring oral exams. administrators and other stakeholders must shift their conceptions of what constitutes good English teaching (Enright and McCloskey. teaching in South Korca.T is common to many parts of the world. allows. 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. If CLT is to be implemcntcd in a previously traditional classroom. 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. Even before I finished the test. Even I myself probably cannot use the same criteria all thc time. flucncy-focused. I did not like the results of the test because they were not reliable. Penner. such as South Korea. 1997. such a fundamental change takes time. students. As Price (1 988) points out. To resolve the conflict. A conflict apparentlv exists between what CLT demands and what the EFL situation in many countries. “Changes in the \vay pcople think usually lag behind changes in social structure” (Ting. Markee. My biggest problem was how much I should assign to the content of their talk and how much to the language they used. This conflict must hc rrsolved before EFL teaching in these countries can hcnefit from CLT. Rather than simply jumping onto the CLT bandwagon by mandating its use. July 26. (Myong-Sook. Far-reaching curriculum innovation involves funtlamental shifts in the values and beliefs of the individuals concerned (Brindlcy and Hood. I did an oral cxam for thc students in one o f t h c classes I taught. July 30. However. About a year ago. thus extends to other EFL countries as well.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<OREA 161 23. 1985. teachus. attention should be givcn to the following areas. (Joon-Suk. 1996). p. Educational values and attitudes The fundamental approach to cducation in Korea needs to change before CUI‘ can hc successful there. 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. although it particularly addresses EFI. Therefore South Korea and other EFL countries with similar situations should adapt rather than adopt CLT into their English teaching. . I would probably use different criteria when I am tired after long time of testing. 49). and problemsolving activities required by CLT. Giving them a score \vas so difficult compared with grading the written tests. 1987. Burns. 1995). 1990. There is no way that my collcagucs and I would use the same criteria in the test. for the final cxam. parents. 24.

tcachcrs must also hear in mind that the purposc of teaching grammar is to help students lcarn the language. a better cconomy. Howcvcr. 36). and technical documents written in English. 13. 20). teachers arc likely to encounter some initial reservations. . 1990. English classes should include listening and speaking activities. smaller classes. Thus. Korcan teachers should continue their emphasis on developing students’ rcxding ahilitics. and more compctcnt tcachcrs.p. More importantly. 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. a lietter undcrstanding antl acceptance o f the philosophical underpinnings of the CLT arc possible. Grammar Contrary to a common misconception. With globalization. teachers will need to consciously reorient students to “the basic function of the classroom. Thc litcraturc abounds with arguments for including grammar instruction in L2 teaching. . the role of the student and the nature of language” (Dcckcrt. . considering the dynamic nature of EFL teaching. better still. [. 1987. such as extensive reading and reading for meaning. lop their o\vn “locally appropriate vcrsion of the communicative approach” (Tomlinson.] Preservice teacher education The tleli\cry of EFL methods courses in preservice teacher education programs should change. instead of spending much precious time on intensive reading and grammatical analysis. medical. teachers might introduce some ideas from CLT. CLT docs not exclude the tcaching of grammar. [. Oral skills Recause the demand for people \vho can communicate orally in English has increased as the result of international tratlc and globalization. antl teachers must be \vary of making grammar the end of their teaching. 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. South Korea and other EFL countries may thcn hc aldr to use morc CLT or.162 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.] Students’ attitudes In introducing CLT to students \vho have previously studied foreign language in a traditional fashion. However. . preservicc teacher education should focus on dcvcloping student tcachers’ autonomy and their decision-making . Continuing support for teachers who may need further help \vith CLT along the hvay is also important. Teachers’ attitudes Teachers should have assistance antl cncouragcmcnt in trying out nc\v ideas and materials.

Flo\vertle\v. (1 989). teachers arc ccntral t o long-lasting changcs (Frymier. Sydney. 18). J. Fullan.” TESOL QrarterLc. G. Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Hsia (Eds. Boston: Allyn and Racon. 41 ). F. S. 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. \vhy antl hobv teachers changc. (1993). and Sun. Phillipson. and materials controlled and dispenscd by Western ESL countries. its success is affected by ethical and tcmic constraints. M . Brindlcy (bd. 1997. Ftrndamental considerations i n language tcsling. L. Qualitative rctearch f i r educution:An introduction t o theoiy crnd methods.. Bogdan. (1 996). p. 1994.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<OREA 163 and problem-solving ahilitics as well as their ability to be reflectivc practitioners (Richards and Lockhart. References Anderson. R . Brindlcy. “Thc proccss of innovation in language teacher education: What. methodology. antl Biklen. Q d i t a t i r z reseurch method. 30. 23. 25 3-282). April). In an! attempt t o improve education. Bcrg. B.’’ System. Schon. Hong Kong: City Polytcchnic of Hong Kong. their colleagues and thcir societies” (Edgc. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 59 1-598. 1992). Hhargava. 1996..for the socid sciences. (1989). 2 1. 1996. (1 990). “Chinese teachcrs’ vicivs of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigm. 1983). social. antl cultural factors and. “Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. Burnah?. 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. “Collaborative research and curriculum changc in t h r Australian Migrant English Program. A. in thc long run EFL countries may b e better off developing methods in their oivn contexts.” In G. In this way. ( I 992). and I Iood. “As a socially situated activity. most important o f all. 1987. Brock antl S. 1996). Bachnian. Rather than relying on expertise. Communicative language teaching: 11 cote (If‘much ado about nothing. B. (1 990).). Conclusion Curriculum innovation involvcs multiple and interrelated factors that may influence it at different stagcs and at different lcvcls (Shamin. 1993). . p. Brighton. Paper presented at thc 20th Annual Meeting of thc Intcrnational Association ofTeachcrs of English as a Foreign Language. B.). the personal charactcristics of potential adopters. 232-248).” TESOL QrurterLi. 21 9 238. L. Burns.t. the attributes of innovations antl the stratcgics that are used to managc change in particular contexts”(Markre. M. thcy will he able to d e teaching methods “appropriate to thcir lcarncrs. 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. K. (1 986. (1 992). England. K . economic. the EFL situations in their countrics (Daoutl. Bailey. “Curriculum innovation in adult ESL. 471 --4HO. Y. London: Allyn and Bacon.” In J. S. Thc second langtruge curriculum in action (pp. Perspectives on second lunguu‘qe teuchcr etlucation (pp.

(1 987). f a decade (pp. 1 . 1 4 7 .’’ TESOI. antl Cazdcn. Coleman (Ed. La Trobe University. 323 35 1. (1 987). London: Falmer Press. (1 997). C.” TESOI Quarterly.). 17-20. Ellis. (1985). Lee. (1 996). Holliday. 65-80). 15(2). Das (Ed. S. ( 1 992). Australia. “Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousncss~raising tasks.” Language Zaching. (1 994). culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?” ELTjournal.” Prugmcitics and Lungtiage Learning. ( 1 984). ( 1 988).). ELT j o u r n a l .sons . Collusion in apartheid etiucation.”In H.” Phi Delta Kappan. ( 1 987). Harvard University. Chau. 1 9. Society and the language classroom (pp. C.” Applied Linguistics. (1 984). Chick. Gonzalcz. K. C. 25(3). 30(2). 2 . “HOW 2 13-2 18. J. K . Seoul. P. A. The report on the revision ofthe English curriculum /or high school. M. (1 994). Appropriate methodology and social conlest. antl Chung.).s. ~ ~ . Ellis. C.T. (1 996). ( 1 980). “Sat‘-talk. ( 1 980). 38. Larsen-Freeman. (1 996).” English Teaching Forum.” TESOI Qiarterly. New York: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Development Committee of the Sixth Curriculum for High School English. Kclly. 45 5 1 .” In R. 598-605. and McCloskcy.” Unpublished master’s thesis. M . 2-1 3. (1993). Korea: Author. Techniyries and principles in language teaching. “From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of curriculum development. G. Goetz. “The communicative approach: Helping students adjust. J. €3. 30. J. talking! Organizing the classroom to promote second language acquisition. and Swain. 39. “The appropriateness of the communicative approach in Vietnam: An interview study in intcrcultural communication. 91 4. (1985). “English language development inTunisia.” TESOL Quarterk. “Korean high school seniors’ oral antl literate comprehension and production skills in English. 93-100. K Llas (Ed. Communicative l a n p a p teaching (pp. “Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. NelvYork: Academic Press. 9. Change forces: Probing rhc depths ?f etiucational y f o r m . A . Quarterly. P. Frymier. (1 984). Deckert. Freeman. Bundoora. 84-1 05). Singapore: Singaporc University Prcss. “The role of communicative language teaching in sccondary schools: With special reference to teaching in Singapore. “Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence. Galton (Ed. 225-245. Enright. 30. M. J.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J. Boston. A lesson to be learncd: Chinese approaches to language learning. Daoud. Kirkpatrick. Edge.164 D E F E N G L I Canale.’’ Applied Linguistics. (1 990). Curriculum change:The Ic. D. S. M. “Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language learning antl testing. Fotos. England: Leicester Univcrsity Press. 183 186. G. Fullan. 329-342. (1 994). G. “Communicative language teaching in the rural areas: How docs one make the irrelevant relevant?” In R. L. Singapore: Singapore University Press. New York: Cambridge University Press. 171 191 ). 43 1 4 5 3. Harvey. P. Communicative language teaching (pp. “In defense ofthe communicative appruach.” In M.). 28. Ethnography and qualitatire design i n educational research. 2 1 39). antl LcCompte. “Bureaucracy and the neutering of teachers. Leicester. L. A. “Yes. Li. “Diploma in education graduates’ attitude toward communicative languagc teaching.” Chinese Universiy Education journal. D. 69. 9-30. Camlx-itlge: Cambridge University Press. I ) . S. (1 990).”EL?‘/ournal. Kennedy. (1 986). “Evaluation of thc management o f change in ELT projects. North. 50. D. M. X. €3. (1985). M. “Learning to talk like a profcssional: Somc pragmatics of foreign languagc teacher training. (1 996).

Wilkins. 1. 1 ( l ) . Socict. South Korean Ministry of Education.” Canadian and International Education. R. (1 984). Richards. England. “Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. A. Price. P..fbr high .’’ In H . Making the Juturc: Politics and educational rfform in the IJnited States. S. and Lockhart. “Communicative language teaching and local needs. London: Temple Smith.y. G. Sampson. Linguistic imperialism. Savignon. lilleman. 2 5-37.” ELT]ournal. (1987). Interviewing in educational re.17. P. the Soviet Union.Y. 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1988).schools. (1 991). (1 99 1 ). “Managing innovation. 25. 38. The linguistic and situational content ?f the common core in a mit/credit . D. (1 984).” TESOL Quarter!. Powney. 48--61. Reading. The sixth curriculum. (1 987). (1 994). 26 1-277. Initiatives in commtinicarive language teaching: A hook readings. F. M..” TESL Canadojournal. D. M. (1984). . A . Korea: Author.s. and Watts. B.” TESL CunudaJournal. Schiin. C. Ting. Coleman (Ed. (1 996). Seoul. I. White.”ELTlotirnal. Training and professional expertise: Bridging the gap bctween ne\+ information and pre-existing bzliefs of teachcrs. R. Sampson. (1990).). M. B. The sixth curriculum. 1. (1 987). 12(2). M. 16. Phillipson.~tcm. Seoul. (1 990). France: Council of Europe. Euching and ‘leacher Educution. (1 983).search. 57 63. “Introduction of communicative language tcaching in tourism in Cuba. Korea: Author. K . A.fir middle schoo1. Gumbcrt (Ed.V. (1 972). (1 987). “Communicativc language teaching: State of the art. J. H. “Changc antl conflict: Introduction of thc communicative approach in China. N. “Forcign language teaching in China: I’roblcms antl perspectives. Valdes. S. G. Strasbourg.~and the language classroom (pp. and Yoneyama.. C. A . Second language pedagogj. 41. 8(2). “Managing changc in Indonesian high schools. S. Atlanta: Georgia State University. Shamin. A.” In E. “Exporting language teaching methods from Canada to China. (1 992a). (1 994). pr$ssionals think in action.THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH IN SOUTH KOREA 165 Penncr. ( 1 995). 99-1 14). C. “Teaching English literacy using Chinese strategies. 19-32.” TESL Talk. 105 121). South Korran Ministry of Education.” ELTjournal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. H. The rejlective practitioner: How. Savignon. Sano.).ondon: Routledge. 170-1 77. and Jhones. MA: Addison-Wesley. China. and Rcrns.” TESL Canada Journal. J. Tomlinson. 20( l ) . Takahashi. F. (1 992). Rejlective teaching in second languugc classrooms. Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. 21 1-218. “The politics of contemporary cducational rcform in China. 126-1 38. 10. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity Press. (1 992b). R. and Cuba (pp. Prabhu. 601 615.

Appendix: questionnaire Please complete the following question\ as appropriate. 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 hvritc communicative materials? Students’ low English proficiency? Students’ passive style of learning? Lack of authentic tcaching matcrials! Grammar-hased examinations! UYES 1 2 3 O N 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Large classes? ‘l’he differences hctwccn EFL and ESL? . 1 Age sex How many years have you lieen a tcachcr of English? 2 3 4 Are you teaching in a middle school o r high school? 0 Middle School 5 6 0High School Which grade(s) are you tcaching? Are you teaching in an urban or rural middlc/high school? 0Urban 7 DYES Rural Are you concerned about the methods you use in tcaching English? 0N O 8 9 What methods are you using now? H a w you tried Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)? DYES 10 0NO Why did you o r why didn’t you try CLT? 11 12 Hoiv did you like using CLT in your classroom? The following are some difficulties that other EFL teachers had in adopting CLT.

PART T H R E E Planning and implementing curriculum change .


The plea for more attcntion to the sociopolitical environment of TESOL. The notion of ‘cultural continuity’ is taken from Jacob (1 996). whcther they bc students or tcachcrs encountcring new tcaching methodologies. My major point will be that a major obstacle to true cultural continuity is our own professional discour. 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. and how this might tie avoided. 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. as is recent critical thinking about how the paradigms of TESOL profcssionalism h a w been ~ . Homever. ‘appropriate methodology’ was introduced into TESOL by Rowers many years ago (Rowers and Widdowson. The now influential phrase.C h a p t e v 14 Adrian Holliday ACHIEVING CULTURAL CONTINUITY I N CURRICULUM INNOVATION 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 in curriculum innovation. I The principle of cultural continuity Cultural continuity is achieved when meaningful liridges are built bctwcen the culture of‘ the innovation and the traditional expectations of the people with whom w-c work. 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. I shall thcn demonstrate how professional discourses create obstacles to cultural continuity. Phillipson (1 992) antl Pennycook (1 994) havc drawn our attcntion to the dangers of cultural o r 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). 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. which prevent us from seeing the real worlds of the people we work with. Coleman’s (1 996) work on the influencc of socicty on what happens in the classroom is a more recent part of this movement. w-as made by Swales several years earlier ( 1 980). or stakeholders in curriculum projects. 1986).

The breaking down of skills into compctcncies was instrumental in this. inioli. following thc critical sociology of Foucault. .Usher and Edwards (ibid. Hence. here.) argue that in swing the student in terms of a set o f pre-defined. act ion rcsenrch. 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’ . she or he is reduccd t o a learning automaton. . 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. apparently ~ ~ . Second. The 1970s and 1980s brought an increased need for accountability. tcachcrs or othcr stakeholdrrs) Figure 14. First.1). INNOVATION a t t c m p t o fit ho\t ~ t i l t i i r c c. what claims to bc a sensitivity to the ‘learner’ learner-centredness has liecome a lircaking up of the student into teachable skills. sincc the 1960s. and a skills-based education lent itself well to the measurement of stutlcnt progress through the achievement of discrete learning objectives. The outcome is a bureaucratisation of ‘insiders’. Thus.g. .170 A D R I A N H O L L I D A Y socially constructed (Beaumont and Wright. which involves the prolhmatic nature of learner-ccntredncss and skills-based education. However. but a product of mcasurablc educational technology. such as Usher and Edwards (1 994). Indeed. the terminology with which education speaks about the ‘learner’ has become highly technical. various kvritcrs in education. [.] suggests a set of neutral technologies or techniques that are somehow separate and separable from the social context. are Ileginning to argue that Iearncrcentredncss and skills-based education might lie having the opposite effect. with deeper analysis. needs muL\ms./ Cultural continuit! The dominant discourses of teaching There is a strange iron). T\vo things are going on here. 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. stucicnts. but of a particular professional group. cthnogruphj. to allow students a more interactive. participant role in the classroom. mcasurablc compctcncies anti skills. CI alriulion f 1 0 S T ENVIRONMENT (classroom or institution. the ‘learner’ at the centre of learncrcentredness is no longer a real person. lcarnercentredncss reprcsents an admirable attcmpt in cducation. At first sight. 1998). . A t t h r 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 o r he \vas to operate. Clark antl Ivanic assert that: ‘ “Skills” [.] I t has led to the vieiving of language and language activities as consisting of discrete. It is a two-way process in that the innovation needs to be informed by data from the host environment.

in which the ‘learner’ becomes an accessory for the purpose of accountablc professionalism. This has resulted in what has been called a more person-sensitive process approach to curriculum project management. Stakeholders can be broadly defined as all the people who have a stake in the innovation. Learning needs and objectives.2. 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. Raxter (in process) has noted that in teacher training programmes. If the innovation is a new classroom rncthodology claiming ‘learnerccntrcdness’ . I t implies a normative and prescriptive view of communication’ (1 997: 84). skill\. the tcchnologised professional discourse of learner-centredncss takes attention away from the real student. Several examples of this can be seen in Hayes (1 99711). the real concern is with the technology of teaching.2 Profcssionally constructrtl imagc of ‘the learner’ Hence. And in what might be called a stakeholder-centred approach. This perception is bcing confirmcd in research into the ideological basis for TESOL professionalism . and so appears to facilitate teaching and learning. although we might claim learner-ccntrcdness. accommodated and managed. and strategies arc dcveloped to satisfy their intcrcsts and maintain their ownership of thc innovation. cornpetencec and u c c o u n t a b i l i ~ ~ tcchnologisrtl someit here else profcssional discoursc Figure 14. technical discourse of professionalism. the surface implication is that there will therefore be a concern with thc needs of ‘the learner’.A C H I E V I N G CU L T U R A L C O N T I N U I T Y 171 manageable and “teachable” components. we construct an image of ‘the learner’ within our own powerful.This is illustrated in Figure 14. which is presentcd as ideologically neutral. In projects in Indonesia andThailand. despite the liberal rhetoric of learner-centredness. Thc problem here concerns the way in which the so-called recipients of curriculum innovation are perceived. The process project claims adaptation to situational needs. skills and competencies serve the accountability required by the discourse rather than the real student. serving thc technical needs of the discourse rather than the rcal student. groups of local people arc quite rightly identified as representatives of these needs. . However. There has been much rcccnt concern that curriculum innovation should hc scnsitive to the local setting. again. ~ concern IZ ith learning need5 ant1 o b ~ e c t i ~ c s . The outcome is a control of ‘learning’ through planned tasks.

Martin antl Ralahanis (1 995) describe how in Egypt. Similarly. ‘1’ antl ‘you’ over pronouns such as ‘they’ or ‘he’ or ‘shc’. for cxamplc. ‘working parties’ are set up to involve senior rqx-escntativcs from USAID. . er a problcm \vith this stakeholder-centred approach. there is a strange irony. thcy are very control ol‘ participation nc\v curriculum itcm through plans and documcnts I I attempts to bc ‘stakcholtlcr~ccntretl’~’ concern with institutional needs. the Ministry of Education and the language centre where the innovation \vas to take place. Also.] To pcrsonalise the materials and to cstalilish rapport ivith the teachcrs.3 Professionally constructed image 01‘ ‘the stakrholticr’ . the technologiscd discoursc of stakeholdcr~centredness has an emphasis on control (right hand bubble). it takes on the role of quality control. intended as the product of ‘agreement’ with key stakeholders. [.Weir and Roberts (1 994) tlcscribc ho\v ‘insitlcrs’ Iiecomc involved in the evaluation of the innovation process. it falls in line with the growing dominant ideology of late modern society in which everything has to be accountable to the client. (1 997: 89-90) In Malta. As with the technologised discourse of learncr~ccntredness. Here the control is situated in a prolifcration of highly technical project documrnts. Jarvis and Cameron ( 1 997) monitor the changing roles of teachcrs as they adopt and interpret innovation. the cstahlishmcnt of ‘liasclinc’ data. quite rightly. similar to thc arncr-centred approach which I have already described. and how formative evaluation liecomcs integratcd with self-directed tcachrr development. oiimmhip. Thus. passive language was generally avoided and there was also deliberate choice of pronouns such as ‘we’. As with the classroom.3). at the centre of which are the current log-frame and time-lines for resource input.172 A D R I A N H O L L I D A Y Amlirosc-Yeoh reports how eighty-scvcn secondary school teachers a r r consultcd ‘in a fcasibility study’. As bvith learner-centrcdness. 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). management ckr /Is undo c a rin t u h i /i<v I I I I I I I I I I tcchnologiscd profcssional tliscoursr wmewhere elte Figure 14. and ncgotiate conscnsus. Although these documcnts are. Indeed. in. Weir and Roberts ( 1 994) rightly note that as the concept of formative evaluation inTESOL maturcs. antl in the resulting training: A generally friendly and interactive style \vas adoptcd to counter any sense of isolation. we have a professionally constructed image o f t h c ‘stakeholder’. as lvc d o of the ‘learner’ (Figure 14. a tcchnologised professional discourse has bccn created. .

analysis. . manage. . The hyperrational project discourse takes this as evidence that there is real agreement. This also corresponds \vith the ‘insider-outsider’ distinction. eslxcially as the tliscoursc takes on the appearance of’lnr’ltlng us to participate in our o\vn cvay. a political. where I describe the operation of informal ordcrs and deep action within the host environment. In my experience. antl insiders arr local not onl! to the innovation scenario but to thc country within which it takes place. The following hvarning by Taylor against naive notions of mutuality rings true: Establishment and maintenance of sustained dialogue between all those involved [.]There arc barriers antl inequalities of language. According to Fairclough (1 995).] [is] not casy [. I do not somehow think that the local participants in many curriculum projects are taken in in this way. Thrrc is often the appearance of’ n the various parties with regard to project documentation. If this consensus is only apparent. though tacit antl pcrhaps unconscious motivc.r-centretlness is the equally technologiscd discourse of evaluation. tables. there is a tacit polver distinction n those parties who somehow instigate. . design. and be prepared to go through the motions of agreement for their o\vn ulterior motives. antl those who do not. therc is an interesting puzzle here.ACHIEVING CULTURAL CONTINUITY 173 much the product of the technologised discourse itself. As we try to get our hcads around the discourse of quality control \ve find ourselves more and more taking part in it. . where cxpatriatc agencies antl pel-sonncl comc from outside in every sensr of the kvord. and possess the technology of innovation. ‘generalisation’ and ‘objective’ \vert constructed differently by different parties in educational innontion in a numhcr of scenarios. fund. ‘nati pcakcr’ ‘experts’on the one hand. They haw other tliscour of their o\vn to get on with. An important extension of the discourse of stakchO1dc. Stakeholders coming from different discourses of their own might see the situation differently. In much o f the literature on stakeholtlrrs. ‘predictability’. which constructs the reality of inno\-ation . which have stakeholders pursuing their o\vn ends in their own ways. culture and education. and frequently even the need for such dialogue is not recogniscd by either sidc.This type of phenomenon is \vel1 documented in Holliday ( 1 994). then the technology of evaluation cannot be as sound as it appears. \vhich bases itself very much on the carefully measurcd and verified consensus of stakeholders. 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. w h o noted that notions o f ‘control’. This is w r y clear whcn stakeholders who do not belong to this discourse find them incomprehensible. and ‘local’ personnel on the other. (1997: 116-17) Something similar was found by Smith ( 1 991 ). There is unfamiliarity on both sides with the use of common management tools for the sharing and analysis of information (from project frameworks. 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 stakcholdcrccntrctlness. grids and diagrams to statistical methods and computrr programmes). InTESOL projects this distinction can be expressed easily in terms of expatriate. It is important to stress that I am talking here about perccptlons created within the discotirse of a particular innovation methodology.

[. and really do try to understand the viewpoints antl predicament of other partics in innoyation contexts. . . 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.Thus. ] Othcrs have noted the ‘cultural nature of management’ [. the insistence that ‘empowerment’ of the ‘local’ is the answer.] granted to (or assumed by) the foreign gucst’ which enable access to budgets. (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. 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. . it is the discourse. Here. . o r too ethnocentric to thc discourse ofscukeholder~cencredness 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. as in so much of this literature. Smith suggests that it cannot lie denied that there may lie a pohver diftercnce in many developing world locations. He thus alludes to the model of cultural thinking seen in Hoftstetle. Discussion of whether or not this is altvays thc case involvcs looking more deeply at the whole rclationship between insiders and outsiders. . but of the nature of the technology which the counterpart is expected to carry on. rather than the r e a l i v . Such a struggle can be seen in the way in wrhich Smith (1 995) lvritcs about a kcy stakeholdcr group Lvhich falls into the localinsider 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.This will tie difficult where culturally one defers to and is not assertive towards someone higher in the hierarchy. .174 A D R I A N H O L L I D A Y scenarios in a particular way. rathcr than individual actors within it. 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. there is a concerted e@rt to get to grips with and understand the viewpoint of the ‘local’. key locations. 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.: 7 4 citing Leach). \vhen thc expatriatc ‘expert’ has lhe ‘privileges [ . 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. but here one can suspect that thc problem might not so much be one of power per se. events and people. but the outcome. Although analysts do try to get under the surfacc at the deeper social issues. Hence. hut something which she or he might ‘refuse to accept’ ( 1 995: 67).8). they tend to consider large cultural factors as the overriding issuc. which reveals an ‘us’-‘them’distinction found in the litvraturc. and is then expected ‘to sustain project impact after the aid has been withdrawm’ on ‘ U S $ 2 5 pcr month’ (1995: 67. in which ‘they’ ‘don’t know the technology’ antl are ‘easily dominated’ . 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). and the counterpart docs not.I antl the ‘differing cultural concepts as to the appropriate roles for professionals employed in the public sector’. is still deeply rooted in the ‘us’-‘them’perception. . Might it bc that what thc ‘expert’ is considered to be expert in is not from the sufficiently compatible.

c u i Icctivist . trcatcci srnsitivcly. on the other hand. nativc spcakrrs.A C H I E V I N G CU L T U R A L C O N T I N U I T Y 175 The rational.c. 3 evaluate. such as management. Again. untlrrstood. plan. train’ 4 ‘hayc the po\vrr’ ‘ncctl to be: trainccl. Overall. which begins to do this. as it does with many activitics. the literature on stakrholders seems to crcate the ‘us’-‘them’distinction in a very particular way (Figure 14. given ojvncrship. but the power of the tcchnologiscd discourse. they arc classified as such vcry much in the same way. Perhaps it is not just Indians. Thus: ~ . which seek to commodify human difference efficiently. casil!. O n thc other hand.rcnt: c. One Lvondcrs. O n r implication here is that the major agent of difference is not the national culture at all. perhaps regartllcss of their so-called national culture. mainly in tcrms ofthe technologised discourse itself. 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. hicrarchical. but anyone who docs not conform to thc discoursc. undrmocratic’ 5 ‘all Indians togcthcr’ F i p r e I-! 4 ‘U\’ . one would not nowadays recommend a professional exchange of virws on the hasis of a sharing of gender or racial difference.g. insiders. em pori rrcti ’ 4 ‘culturallv clill. Follohving this line of thinking. ‘they’ are deficient.d’ cxpcrts’ ‘prohcicnt in thc tcchnolog: ’ ‘<. Hayes attempts to do this as he rccords personal accounts of what it is like to be a teacher. organi. O n the one hand. managc. 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). nun-nativc speakers’ ‘don’t kno\v thc technolog!. an important implication here is what does it all mean if the ‘Indians’ do not really want to conform to thc project after all? S’I‘A K E H 0 L1)k J<S 1 ‘ ‘US’ 1 2 ‘cxpatriatrs. systematic nature ofthis national culture model fits \vel1 with the technical needs o f the discourse of stakcholtler-ccntretlness. the headings ‘training’ and ‘empowerment’ under which the exchange takes place seem to indicate the ideology of only one side..‘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. Flew sees ‘counterpart training’ as essentially an ‘interpersonal interaction across cultures’.4). O n the onc hand. however. (1ominatc. rcscarch. A colleague of mine in a project in India commented that the project created thc notion of ‘all Indians together’. in\ olvcd. ‘TI IEM’ 1 2 3 ‘local.

Bolvers. the Dunf. . . Barmada. (1994: 175) Understanding ourselves Something else ~ v need e t o do is t o liccomc aware ofthc fact that what we do as profossionals is n o t ideologically ncutral. 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’. unpublished paper. Wv must c o m e t o t r r m s with the fact that thc l. and may not ticlong t o the differently constructed worlds of those we wish to reach. . (1998) ‘ELT and paradigm shifts: in from the cold or out on a limb’. We thus need t o look tlccply and critically at our ohvn discourses beforc judging those of others. b u t that it is p a r t of a pomuful. Manchester. University of Lectls. Beaumont. [. antl not in thcirs. (et]. D. Hcmel I Icmpsteatl: Prcntice Hall antl thc British Council 141-5. A . Baxter. M. We m u s t not be naive to assume that technologies of investigation. antl Beaumont. (1 986) ‘A tlcbatc on appropriate methodology’ in Alhott. A . ideological technologised discourse. ‘When you spcak English everybody will (say to you) “What language you do?”O t h e r teachers (will say) “You arc strange . M. unpublished PhL) thesis.anguagc Studies.) ( 1996) Sociey m d the Ionpage classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997a: 80) Similarly. We must come t o tcrms mith the fact that o u r discourse makes us see o t h c r s in o u r o w n t e r m s . R. Canterbury Christ Church University Collcgc. (1994) ‘Ikveloping an institutional self-cvaluation scheme in an ESP Centre in the Arab world: rationale. Clark.176 A D R I A N H O L L I D A Y One teacher recorded hcr experience. experimentation and evaluation’ . you try t o show off like this” ’. Barmada. (Hayes.T.ird Seniinur. R. and Widdo\vson. T h e concepts of Icarncr--ccntre(lncss and stakeholtler-centi-edness arc products of o u r o w n discourses. Coleman. (1 997) The pollrics ofwriting London: Koutlcdgc. (ctls) The Jcrrlopmenr ELT. H. This made my [sic] very nervous.) 86 89. Bibliography Ambrose-Yeoh.. ] It is in relation t o their position in society. unpul. R . revisiting the curriculum project at Damascus University in which I was involved in the carly 1980s. (In process) ‘The reproduction o f professional culture through teachcr education for ELT’. . I should pay attention t o what I say in the classroom.~I978 I993. Department o f Linguistics. H. dangerous.] ‘unpaid soldiers of the West’. antl Wright. W. . in Hayes. . . ELT Kcviebv.i-idgcs \ve build t o rcach other cultures might only Iic meaningful t o o u r culturc. ( 1997) ‘LXstance education and in-scrvice language teachcr devclopment’. (etl. reveals an insight unnoticed by m e in five years of projectmotivated investigation: But sometimes I feel as i f 1 represent the West in the classroom and as if1 were telling my students that o u r methods of learning and thinking are not good and should lie replaced by those o f the West I. Department of I. cvaluation. G. and Ivanic. quality control and management created within o u r o w n discourses arc equally meaningful t o other people.lishcd paper prcscntctl at thc IATEFL conference.

Swales. Holliday.) 1 1 6-1 27. Hayes. London:The British Council. India. J. G. J. W. (1 994) Evaluation in ELT Oxford: Rlackwell. Taylor. A. and Crcwes. R. G. and Edwards. Smith.) 74. (1 995) ‘Counterpart training and sustainability: effecting an exchange of skills’ in Crooks. 6 1 70. (1 994) PostmoJernism and etlucation: djifcrent voices. Smith. (cds) 65-75. . (ctls) 16 30.F. ( 1 996) ‘The CDS co-ordinator’. ( 1 997) ‘Kole shifting in INSET: an exploration of a primary English project’ in Hayes. (eds) 76-82. (1 995) ‘Power antl sustainability in language-related development projects’ in Crooks. djffcrent worlds London: Routledge. G. (1997a) ‘Articulating the context’ in Hayes (ed. R. (1 9 9 1 ) Cultures and organisatlons: s. ( 1 991) ‘Evaluation rcflections: the context of investigations in cross-cultural evaluations’ in Studies in Educational Evaluation. (cds) ( 1 995) Language and deidoprnent Bali: 1AI. unpublished paper. and Roberts.ACHIEVING CULTURAL CONTINUITY 177 Crooks.T. ELT Documents Special. Pennycook. Phillipson. and Crewcs. Weir. T. 17.ftivare oj‘thc mind Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. L.projects: a caxe study’ in Crooks. J. antl Crewes. (1 994) Appropriate methodology und social conrext Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss. R.T. C.T. (1 980) ‘The educational environment and its relevance to ESP programmc tlcsign’ in Projects in Materials Design. P. M. ( 1 994) The cultural politics of English as an international language London: Addison Wesley Longman. G. (cd.) (1 99713) In-rervice teacher development: international perspectives ELT Revielz London: Prenticc Hall. ( 1 992) Linguistic imperialism Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jarvis. D. G. University of Punc. L. R. L. Hofstctle. Department of English. ( 1 995) Critical discourse anab. D. (1997) ‘Management issues in INSET: a practical perspective’ in Hayes. J. D. Usher. 3-2 1 . D.sis: the critical stu+ ?flanguage London: Atltlison Wesley Longman. N. G.85. H . Martin. Fairclough. G. (ctl. A. N. and Camcron. (cd. and Balabanis. and Crcwes. (1 995) ‘Team dcvclopment in ELI. Jacob.) 37 4 9 . Flclv. IHayrs. A.

’ and whv does a teacher undertake it? At its most basic. 1988h. Johnson 1989. It is not a framework of equal parts: Each individual’s context clctermincs which processes need the most time and attention. C Needs assessment What are my students’ needs? HOM. Dubin and Olshtain 1986.Thus nccds assessment involves seeking and interprcting information about onc’s students’ nceds so that the course will address them effectively. and rcplanning stages ol‘course development. nccds assessment involves finding out what the Icarners know and can do and what they need to learn o r do so that the course can bridge the gap (or some part ofit).Chapter 15 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 PROCESSES 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 that break down the process of curriculum and course development into components and subprocesses (see. I . White 1988). is cast in terms ol’my own work with teachers. in that each componcnt puts forth ideas as well as raises issues for thc teacher to pursue. Hutchinson andwaters 1987.Thc fi-amcwork described hcre. for example. how one defines a student’s needs is a complex issue open to interpretation. InTalile 15. Furthermore. learners’ wants and expectations . 1988a. confidence. 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. can I assess them so that I can address them? What is nccds assessment. Nunan 1985. attitudes. the proc cs are not necessarily secjucntial hut may be carried on in the planning. liichards 1990. A framework of components is useful for several reasons: I t provides an organized way of conceiving of a complex process. However. while drawing on the work ofothcrs. tcaching. each componcnt is identified and rephrased in question form to clarify its meaning. One \vay o f conceptualizing needs is to distinguish bet\veen “ohjectivc” and “subjective” needs (Richterich 1980). it sets forth domains of inquiry for the teacher. Rrindley (1 989: 70) defines objective needs as “derivable from different kinds of factual information about learners. 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.

for example. and so on. and writing English. parcnts. such as teachcrs. students’ abilities or proficiency in speaking. ctlucation. antl students’ preferences \vith rcspcct to how thcy will Irarn. Subjective needs arc often as important as objective needs.” In assessing objective nccds. understanding. students’ underlying purposes or lack thereof. In a univcrsity FSL sctting. 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. Teachcrs may find that unless subjective needs arc taken into account. their lewl of sclfconfidcncc. In assessing subjective nccds.‘Ikachcrs ~ - . For example. students who xvish to attend universities in knglish-speaking countries will have needs related to academic tasks antl academic discourse. profession. research. and toward themsclws as learncrs. students’ expectations of themselves and of thc course. see also Hewings and Hewings. administration. and thcir field of study can contribute to the teacher’s decisions about her course. their level of English. age. one can include information about students’ attitudes toward the target languagc and culture. and present can help the teacher shape her course (Tarone andYule 1989. and the information gathered through needs assessment can help a teacher make choices as to what to teach antl how to teach it. family. and students’ nccds with respect to how the> will usc o r deal with English outside of the classroom. toward studying English. antl employcrs. objective nccds may not IK met. reading. Different students have diffrrent needs. funders. Objective information about their prior experience in academic settings. p. or their expcctations regarding what and how they will bc taught. languages spoken. one can include information about students’ backgrounds country and culture. What \I i l l I inclutlc in m\ llal)u<? \\ Selecting and developing materials and activities: Ho\\ antl courw) What I\ ith \\hat \\ill I teach the m\ iolc’ What a i ( m\ \tutlcnt\’ roles? \I i l l : 9 Organization of content and activities: Ho\\ $tern\ 111 I (le\ clop’ Evaluation: Ho\v \vi11 I course? assess \\hat students I oigani/c thc contcnt and act11IticQ What have Icarnctl? Hoiv \vi11 1 ~ S S C S Sthe 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.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 179 Table 1 i 1 brame\\ ork component\ Needs assessment: What arc in) stutlcnts’ nectls? I lo\\ can I them? asscss them s o that I can adtlrcsa Determining god5 and objectives: What are thc p u r p o w and intcntlctl outcoinc< of coiirw’ What \\illin! students ncctl to do or lcarn to athic\c thew goal\/ Conceptualizing content: What 13 111 l x the backhone \\ thc ot hat I tcac h.Their suhjcctive needs may lie related to concerns about adjusting to the univcrsity setting and to a new culture. information from the studrnts’ future professors regarding what thc studcnts mpill be cxpccted to read. 71 this volumc).

They can bc written in English or.] How docs onc conduct a ncctls ssmcnt? Teachers use a variety of methods. such as manuals or tcxtlmoks. O n e of the challenges in tlcsigning a questionnaire is choosing qucstions that will t)c interpreted correctly and will provide the information sought. Questionnaires are a common needs a when appropriate and feasililc. however. precourse asscssmcnt is simply not f m d i l c l x ~ a u s the with the students until the first day of class. Interviews with students antl others (such as employers or professors) arc another common way o f finding out students’ needs. a formal prccoursc ncctls asscssincnt is neither necessary nor appropriatc. When does one conduct a nccds assessment? I k p c n d i n g on one’s context. Many teachers see it as an ongoing part o f teaching. languagc nccds and a context for using thc languagc skills gained in class. Other means include observation o f or. Stern ( 1 992) cautions against gathcring so much data that one cannot analyze and put it to use. 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. students studying o r planning to \vho use English in thcir work. in thc native languagc of thc students. because they view it as a teaching tool that enables thcm t o \vork in partnership mith thcir students t o determine ncctls antl ensure that the course mccts thosc nccds.ray. but not only. o n the one hand.rmincd by their institution or other party and conduct their assessment accordinglv. especially if one is seeking subjective data. the planning stagc. as for immigrants t o an English-spcaking country. the \vortl rvritrng) antl student-generated questionnaircs (Grant and Shank 1993).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. EFL contcxts teachers face a different ~ ~ ~ . participation in the situations in kvhich students will use English. [ . In many cases. 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. However. mcnt tool. lcachcrs who use nccds assessment as an ongoing part of their classes develop activities that help students clarify and focus their needs.180 KATHLEEN GRAVES may have to work with a conccption of nccds dctc. needs asscssmcnt can lie conducted in stagc 1 . 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. xvriting. Teachers ma? also design in-class activities for the first days of class that mcasurc stutlcnts’ proficiency in reading. thc teaching stage. o r listening. Many institutions administer proficiency tests for placement purposes. Hutchinson antl Waters (1 987: 54) make a distinction hctivccn target needs (“what the learner needs to do in the target situation”) antl /earnin<yneedy (“what the learner nccds t o do in order t o learn”). on the other. because it may take time to establish the kind of rapport with students that allo\vs fbr a clcar understanding of needs and. In many c ~ tcachcr d o c s not have contact cases. even study in English-spcaking schools. for cxxamplc. that students will have to use. as \vith immigrants learning to function in a n r w culture. in some cases. if one determines that the assessment must be modified in some \. Teachers may obtain samples of written materials. 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. in stagc 2 . . Nccds assessment is clearly a sensible undertaking when studcnts ha\c target needs real-lift. Teachers \vho have contact with their students prior to teaching the coursc can undertake a precourse nectls assessment. . speaking. Such activities can include mindmapping (crcating \vortl maps liascd o n . or p c ~ p l c \Then nccds arc clcar. the rcplanning stagc. and also in stage 3.

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. Objccti\es express the specific \. . Those tools should not he viewed as “one time only” pro ’es. How does one choose appropriate goals and olijecti There is no simple ans1vc-r to this question. the various points that chart the course to\vartl the destination. as knowing thcir nceds is presumably the responsibility of the teacher o r institution. The teacher’s view of the students’ needs may conflict with those of the institution. Breaking goals down into objectives is very much like making a map ofthc territory to be explored.rays in xvhich thc goals \vi11 be achieved. and they may ha\-c difficulty articulating their purposes or nerds. Another teacher might ask the same students to articulate o r enact problems they face in adjusting to the nmv culture. For many students. For example. some more circuitous than others.ill m.Thc goals of’a coursc rcpresent the dcstination. \vith the aim of helping thcm exert control over the acculturation process. needs assessment is an unfamiliar procedure. and thc students’ perceptions of what is being asked o f them. The focus of the needs assessment shifts to the learning needs o r 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. with the aim of providing instruction in the language and behavior necessary to deal Lvith those situations. n o clearly anticipated use for the skills gained through study. They also provide a framelvork for evaluation o f the effectiveness or worth of an activity : Did it help students achieve o r make progress to\vard the goals and objectives? Clearly. For these students. It may ral tries to dcvc>lopef‘fectivc needs assessment tools. and the length antl nature of the route will depend on one’s departure point.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. Clear goals and ohjcctives give the teacher a basis for determining which content antl activities are appropriate lor her course. I t is a Lvay for the teacher to conceptualize her coursc in terms of teachable chunks. o r it may be a social undertaking like the study of music. both in its development antl in its use. ] 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. Needs asscssment should he 1. The process itself may cngrnder uncertainty in the students.the coiirxe?IVhat n. It is influenced by the teacher’s view of what the course is about. one asks the question. Studcnts’ perceptions of needs may not match those of the teacher. the objectives. . one teacher of immigrants might ask thcm to list situations in which they us? o r expect to use English. To arrive at the goals. It may lie viewed as a subject like math o r science. thc notion of needs outside the classroom is tenuous. Questions may be interpreted differently by different students or may not elicit the anticipated answers. one must pass each of these points.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 181 problem because many of their students have no target needs. thc: institutional constraints. long-tcrm purposes of the course. [.icwctl as an ongoing process.To arri\-c at thc destination. “What are the p u r p o s t ~ and . Determining goals and objectives 1Vhat arc the purposes and intentled outcomes of. thcre are many routes (objcctives) to a givcn destination. For example. English may be a requirement for an exit o r entrance cxam. Issues Needs assessment is not a value-free process. 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.

182 I<ATHLEEN GRAVES intended outcomes ofthe course?’ Thr ans\vcr may he influenced by an analysis of students’ nccds.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. Proficiency goals include general competency.. . antl transfer goals. Content as knowlcdgc might lie stated as “Students will know .ill brainstorm lists of interesting topics to write about. . .” or “Students \ \ i l l learn that . “Olijectives are really nothing more than a particular Lvay of formulating or stating content and activities. antl the \vay the teacher conccptualizcs content. . . . Richards (1 990: 3) gives the example of a goal stated as “Students will tlcvclop favorable attitudes to\vartl the program. Students Li. write. 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. .hich paragruphs they like best.’“‘Students will develop an attitudc of . the last two. “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. 1 Coverage objectives articulate what will be cowrctl.” “Students will learn the . it should appear as a program goal only if it is to be atltlrcsscd concretely in the program.” Hci gocs on to point out. affective goals. reading.” The formulation of objectives provides the chcck as to whether the goals will be addrcssctl.ill do paragraph derzlopment exercises. listen antl speak effectively (Richards 1990). Content as attitudc antl a\varencss \voultl be stated as “Students \vi11 be axvarc that . mastery of the four skills (speaking..” Objectives stated in this way can help teachcrs address affectil e aspects of learning. Affective goals include achieving positive attitudes and feelings about the target language. Students i2. all interrelated.To arrive at objectives. or be aware of as a result of the coursc. what they will have mastered. Transfer goals involve learning how to learn so that one can call upon learning skills gained in one situation to meet future learning challcnges. The examples given suggest what students will know. achieving confitlcncc as a user o f the language. . one asks. . Involvement objectives articulate how to maximize student involvement antl interest.Thc first three concern what students will do. this rcprcscnts a narrolv view as they specify terminal behavior rather than the development of skills. while this goal might represent a sincere wish on the part oftcachers.: 60) has pointed out. .” or “Students will cxplorc their attitudes towards . listening. . /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. hokvevcr.” Thus how one conceptualizes and states objectives dcpentls on how one conceptualizes the content of the course. .""Students will develop an awareness o f . “However. . or mastery of specific language behaviors. Objcctivcs may also be statcd in terms of what students will do in the course.. . . 2 3 4 .” I’erformancc or behavioral objectives arc most often associated with content as skill. antl achieving confidence in oneself as a learner. Stern (1 992) pi-oposes four types of goals for language learners: proficiency goals. .”“StucJents will know how to .” Content as skill might be stated as “Students will hc able to . Example tudents will write six d e t kinds ofparagraphs. Cognitive goals inclutic master). cognitive goals. such as those nccclcd to read.”or “Students will develop the ability to . and writing). tudents will engage in discussions about n.. . among other factors. . know how to do. . of linguistic knowledge and mastery of cultural knowledge... . the policies of the institution. Saphier and Gowcr (1 987) list five kinds of objectives.

and integrate in her course. 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. their goals and expectations in learning English. Now the choices a teacher makes are much more contcxt-dependent antl so involve a number of factors such as who the students are. college students. teacher could use the same textbook and the samc drills or pattern practice for factory workers. she is figuring out which aspects o f language and language learning she will include. Richards 1990.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 goals of the coursc may shift and be redefined as thc course progresses. for example. There \vas not much question about content: It was grammatical structures and vocabulary.They feel that they must first be clcar about what they arc teaching and how they vicw thc content. and the institutional curriculum. This is not ’ it once mras. Studies on teacher planning undcrscore this fact (Clark and Peterson 1986). Much has changed in rcccnt w a r s in the ficlds of applied linguistics antl language acquisition and in approaches to language teaching.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. the concept and various modcls of comrnunicativc competence. goals and objcctives are a statement of intent.) Thus for many teachers. an EFI.the proliferation of methods of language teaching. 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. language tcaching was still heavily the relatively simplc pro influcnccd by a structural vicw of language (Richards and Kodgers 1986).Yaldcn 1987). It is easier to set goals in situations where these needs are clcar. the advent of ESP (English for specific purposes)). Omaggio Hadlev 1993. Conceptualizing content Izl’hhat will he the backbone ofwhat I teach? What will I include in my yllahris? When a teacher conceptualizes content.say w h y the). otherwise. A course for . Finally. (Returning to the map analogy. the teacher’s own conception of what language is and what will best meet the students’ needs. Savignon 1983. subject to reexamination and change once the course is under way. emphasize.Two dccatlcs ago. meaning that. this is n o t thc entry point into the process of course d Another issue involves clarity with respect to students’ nccds. the nature of the course. 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. The tension can also put tcachcrs at odds with their students o r the institution if thc teacher believes that success is achieved through demonstrated mastery but the studcnts cxpect coverage to mean mastery. and housewives. Issues The main issue is that many teachers do not formulate goals and objcctives at all o r do so only after having thought about what they will teach and how. This influcnce resulted in a“one size fits al1”approach to content and methods. think a paragraph is good. Examplc: Sttidents will he able to determine characteristics of u good paragraph and .COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 183 5 Critical thinking objectives articulate which lc-arning skills students 1% ill develop. one cannot map a route until onc has traveled it. Hutchinson and Waters 1987. The proficiency movement.

non-verbal behavior. tcmatic and rulc-govcrncd and arc often the basis of content found in tcxthooks.184 K A T H L E E N GRAVES immigrants in an English-speaking country will 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 teacher’s challenge is to figure out \vhich ones are appropriate for her course antl how she will integrate thcm. The traditional w y of conceptualizing content. Learners must use the language and have pui-poses for using it. on the other. They \vi11 he described and then outlined in a syllabus grid. Thus \. extending an invitation t o a social cvcnt. Th includc rules of word formation nology). Language was sccn as being used for communicative purposes in situations lvith other people. In my experience. kvhich form a continuum 1rom general concepts such as time. stvle. From the point of view of‘conceptualizing content. which call on the learner to pay attention to both the content o f the languagc and its appropriatcncss tvith respect t o formality. and vocabulary. antl about the purposes 01‘ languagc learning. they ovcrlap conceptually antl are not exclusive of each other. buying stamps at the post office. For somc teachers. register. these skills arc a g i v m . is as grammar structures. 1975) antl of applied linguists such as Wilkins ( 1 976) and Van Ek ( 1 975) has helped reorient thinking about the nature of language. I t also atltlcd the dimension of t o persuade. space. Language is used in a context. the possibilities for \vhat t o include in a syllabus opened up cvith the advent of what has come t o I)c called the communicative approach (Larsen-Freeman 1986). . approach is liased on ideas about language. hvhich clctcrmincs and constrains the choices that language users make with respect t o purpose. on the one hand. lvhich \vi11 be adtlctl to with each successive component. antl personal identification (Van Ek 1975). teachers do not usually use syllabus grids t o l a ! out the content of a coursc but a grid is a graphic way to illustrate possible can add these catcgorics t o our syllabus grid: I bunctions Grammar I Notions antl topics Pronunciation I Communicative situations Vocabulary 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 ( C h a g g i o Hadley 1993). \veather. First. antl topic. to con\ notions. which many teachers have experienced in thcir own learning o f languagc. and relationship t o specific topic-related notions such as house and home. it adtlctl the dimension o f language functions.Thc work of sociolinguists such as Hymcs ( 1 972) antl Hallitlay ( 1973. antl grammatical structures and (morphology). These aspects of language arc relatively .‘l’he communicativt. such as to apologi information. rules of pronunciation (1’ relationships among \vortls at the sentence IC 1 (syntax). The boundaries lietween categories arc permcablc. sentence patterns. the communicative approach added s ral dimensions. tone. as studcnts have to use some combination ofspeaking. Communicative situations might include ortlcring food in a restaurant. antl so on. A syllahus grid that includes these aspects of language might look likc this: Grammar Pronunciation Vocabulary For language teachers.

” such as deciding on an itinerary based on train timctablrs or composing a telegram to send to soincone. who have immediate ncctls with respect t o functioning in English in thc community and in the workplacc. to become proficicnt in writing. Those related to jobs have been called r m m i o n c d skills. something.i z o r l d tasks at one end and pedagogic tasks at the othcr. tasks might include giving a business presentation or lvriting a report. o r using a train schedule. For example. Pedagogic tasks arc ones that \vould not occur outside ofthc classroom hut help stutlcnts tl lop skills necessary t o function in that world. For liusiness personnel. Thc competency-bascd approach t o syllabus design was dc lopcd in the Unitctl States in response to thc influx 01’ immigrants in the 1970s antl 1980s. We can add t \ v o othcr categories to our spllahus grid: Tasks and activitics Compctcncies I Listening skills I Speaking skills I 1.inguistics 1983: 9). Competencies related to living in thc community h a w also been called ljfi-skilf.7. Thus bvc can add thc f o l h v i n g categories t o o u r syllabus grid: Listening skills Functions Speaking skills Reading skills I Writing skills Notions and topics Communicative situations I Grammar I Pronunciation I Vocal>ular! I The emphasis o n communicative competence as based on antl brought almut by interaction has prompted a vielv of language as not just something one lcarns hut something o n e tlocs. Nunan (1 9 8 9 ) proposes a task continuum.Tasks ha\e been \ariously defined. a student must l e a r n ho\v to structurc paragraphs.Thcy arc the language antl Ixhavior nc x . Competencies are “task-oriented goals written in terms of behavioral objecti\ es that inclutlc langu Ixhavior” (Center for Applied 1.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 185 listening. Real-world tasks ask students to use languagc in ways that they might outside thc classroom.llal)us in terms of what thc students will do in the classroom as activities or tasks. such as information gap actiyitics. editing techniques antl s o o n . tasks can 1)c gcarcd to one’s spccific g r o u p of learners. Tasks have also been defined as projccts in which learners Lvo1-k together to ~-)roducc. reading the ncn.) However one dcfincs them. lvith r e a l . holv to use cohesi\e &\ices. such as a putting together a ncLvspapcr or conducting a survey (Hutchinson 1984). It is a comlination of the communicative and task-lmctl approaches antl has bccn used in courses for teaching immigrants.spapcr. and \vriting in class.unctions Grammar I Reading skills I Writing skills I I Notions and topics Pronunciation I Communicative situations 1 Vocabu 1ai. reading.) .Thus teachers may conceive o f t h e i r s). 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. such as listening to thc radio. for university students. Prabhu ( 1 987: 24) defines a task as an activity that requires learners “to a r r i \ e at an o u t c o m e from givcn information through some process of thought. the California ESL Model Stantlards for adult cducation 1993. the rhetorical styles o f w r i t t e n English.y to function in situations related to living in the community antl lintling and maintaining a job. tasks might include \vriting a rcscarch paper or preparing a report from notes takrn at a lecture. However. (See.

A content-based course may teach the subject matter directly o r use subject mattcr as the basis for language-learning lessons.” 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 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. as may activities that help learners become aware of their strengths and ovcrcomc thcir weaknesses as 1earners. self-confidence. Culture provides a broader antl deeper context h r hob\ one knows or tlctcrmincs what is valued. 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. which includes both uncierstanding and developing one’s learning skills. and motivation. economics.186 I < A T H L E E N G R A V E S The role of culture in language learning i s receiving increasing attention. Content-based approaches play a critical role in bilingual programs for childrcn as well as in ESP courses and. We can add culturc antl content to our syllabus grid: Content Culture Tasks and ac ti\ ities Competencies 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. 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. and the learner’s approach to learning. 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.o r work-related for example. Thus the target language can be both a means for and a by-product of learning the subjrct matter. Snow. The completed grid i s shown in Figurc 15.The development of definitions. Auerbach antl Wallerstein 1987). Oxford 1990). in EAP courses. o r computer technology. or cvcn feasible and why. Damcn (1 986) calls culture the “fifth dimension of language teaching. The learning of language through or in conjunction with suhjcct matter can also lie the focus of a language course. For somc tcachcrs. appropriate. taxonomies. . antl the development of skills in behaving antl responding in culturally appropriate ways in addition to knowledge of the target culture. and Wesche 1989). not just language. history. Such courses h a w hccn called content-based because they integrate “particular content with language teaching aims” (Brinton. which includes attitudes. learning strategies and participatory processes. increasingly. The emphasis on the learner has introduced other important elements into a teacher’s conception of what she will teach: the learner’s affect. HOWto improve learners’ self-confidence or helping learners become aware of thcir attitude toward the target culturc may lie cxplicitly included in a syllabus. We can now add two more categories to the syllabus grid.1 . Such content may lie school. how to understand and interpret the cultural aspccts of language antl behavior.

pronouns). Teachers of courses whosc content has already hcen specified will face different issues. pronunciation is an important part of speaking skills. 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. renting an apartment Listening skills Examples: listening for gist. suprasegmentals (stress. coui \c dc\ clopment \tarts not with determining objccti\ e\ o r . They may find that thr breadth of content is unrealistic for the amount of time they have t o teach it o r that the way content has been defined is inappropriate. lexical sets Grammar Examples: structures (tense. The ovcrlapping nature of the categories may be an aid in finding ways to adapt the existing content to their vision of the coursc. experiential learning techniques Culture Examples: c uIture awareness. prefixes). skills or topic-oriented tasks such as giving a speech or making a presentation Content Examples: academic subjects. 1 ’l’hc complctctl syllabus grid Issues Teaching involves making choices. skimming for gist. For example. choosing appropriate reponse Speaking skills Examples: turn-taking. Selecting and developing materials and activities Hopi ant1 crith nhut w i l l I tcuch the coiirrc~LYhuti r mj ro1eiVVhat lire my \tutlent\’rolec~ For many teacher\. projects. Some of the categories arc vast and can lie divided into several subcategories. syllables). disagreeing. listening for specific information. understanding rhetorical devices Writing skills Examples: using appropriate rhetorical style. buying stamps at the post office Vocabulary Examples: word formation (suffixes. Vocabulary development is a part of notions antl topics. both conceptually antl in the classroom. quantity. The categories also overlap. culture behaviour. health. intonation) F~pre I:. personal identification Communicative situations Examples: ordering in a restaurant. inferring topic. patterns (questions) Pronunciation Examples: segmentals (phonemes.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 187 Participatory processes Examples: problem posing. using cohesive devices Reading skills Examples: scanning for information. rhythm. persuading I Notions and topics Examples: ti me. compensating for misunderstandings. problem identification. some teachers conceptualize content thcinatically. using cohesive devices. in their view. For example. Many rcatlcrs will find that they ~ v o u l dlabel or define the categories differently o r that certain categories are missing. technical subjects Competencies Examples: applying for a job. culture knowledge Learning strategies Examples: self-monitoring. Ixarning strategies can bc linked to specific skills. for the purposes of the coursc. structuring paragraphs Functions Examples: apologizing. collocation. note taking Tasks and activities Examples: information gap activities.

They think about the Ivay thcy want their students to lcarn and their own role in the classroom. and it provides a focus for the class. techniqucs thcy \vi11 cmploy. teachers arc often constraincd or prefer to adapt existing mattw-ids. choosing.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). I t is somcthing concrete that students use. depending o n the target skills or competencies. and by whom. determining the content ol’the course.T\vo of the most important arc their cffvctivencss in achicving the purposes of the course and their antl t h r teacher. Some teachers incorporate instruction in ho\v to use unfamiliar materials as part of their course design. ncwslxipcr articles can he used as a basis for developing reading skills. Pictures can be used as a focus for learning grammar or as a starting point for a writing assignment. How much initiative will the students be expected to take. Das (1 988: viii) points out that matcrials should not “pre-specify learning outcomcs or attempt to control o r substantially guide learning: their function is primarily to provide opportunities for learning through interaction. 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. rather. materials antl activitirs are integrated into a mcthod. Developing new materials and activities for using them rcquires time and a clcar smse ofwhy thcy will he used. 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. For many teachers. course development i s thc adaptation of the text. Appropriatcnrss includes student appropriateness for the students comfort antl familiarity with the material. or adapting matcrials. for the contrnt o f the text determines the content o f the course. such as the “language expericncc”approach (Rigg 1 989) . For example. Textlmoks arc tools that can be figuratively cut up into component pieces and then rearranged to suit the needs. expanding vocabulary. For contcnt-Inset1 courses. Teachers design courses with activities and materials that have the students take a more active role in reflecting on their learning. 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. Choosing material may mean development o f new material when teaching a course for which there arc no suitable materials. Because ofthc lack of time. For teachers who arc required to use a certain text.Thc-y think about material they will usc. However. Feasibility and availability arc also important to consider. and relevance.Teachcrs consider a variety of factors in developing. kvhat the teacher and studcnts do with the text constitutes the coursc. abilities. or discussing culture. For some teachers.” The question “How will I teach?” also encompasses a teachcr’s approach and how she iievvs her role and that of the learners. A teacher may have a repertoire of activities for teaching pronunciation or for. language level. antl pursuing projects of interest to them. activities their students will do.The materials themselves are flexible and can lie used in a number of ways. collecting a variety ofmatcrials.having students lcarn to understand cultural differences. authentic matcrial is the foundation. the text is not thc coursc. ho\v. the rnatcrial thcy use forms the lmckbone of the course. Core activities are related to the way the teacher conceptualizes the content. intercst. ~~ . or adapting existing materials. Experienced teachers often devclop a set of core materials antl activities that they adapt each time thcy teach a course.188 I<ATHLEEN GRAVES conceptualizing content but with ideas about the course in action. antl interests of the students in the course.

one considers h i l t l i n g from the simple to the complex. o ~ 1989: 145).with the material provides a challenge to students. Evcntually. .I Two complementary ways to approach thc overall organization of a course arc as a cycle or as a matrix. students predict the content from pictures or headings that accompany the tcxt before actually reading thc tcxt. it may mean learning the nurnlicrs 1 to 9 to use telephone numbers antl then learning the numlxrs 10 to 60 to tell time. The principle of recycling matcrial means that studcnts encounter previous matci-ial in ne\\ w y s : in a new skill area. all materials arc adapted or modified in some \vay. For example. using. complcmentary principles of sequencing are building and re deciding ho\v to sequence material. Even materials that have been d r v e l o p d h y teachers for specific courses \vi11 be modified o \ e r time. antl modifying them. to adapt unsuitahle materials and to what extent. In an introductory language course. ~ 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. in a reading unit. and aftcxr the course for preparing. Two general. for others. 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. Recycling has the effect of integrating material and thus augments students’ ability to use or understand it. material encountered in a listening activity may lie recycled in a 1% riting exercise. therely maintaining thcir interest and motivation. during. 1. rcspcctivcly. Other aspccts of course ment antl objective setting. may help thc tcachcr .1 (thc ovcrall organization of the course). Matcrial encountered in an individual reading acti\ity may be rccyclcd in a role play with other students. students learn mcnu itcms antl the language for ordering f(~od.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 189 Issues For some teachers. or the second exercise could not be donc unless thc first had already heen completed” ( 1 . Material about the target culturc may be recycled in an activity about one’s o\vn culture. from more concrete to morc open-ended or so that unit or activity A prepares stutlcnts for unit or activity B. 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. 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. . Systems can focus on the lesson level (the organization o f each lesson) antl on the course Icw. the lack of materials is a challenge. 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. or with a new focus. This approach to recycling material assumes that each n e w encountci. For example. . devclopmcnt. part of course de\elopmcnt is figuring out tems lor organizing the course. Or prior to a rcstaurant role-playing activity. 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 . We will look first at specific considerations in sequencing inatcrial and then at eonsiderations of the overall organization o f the course. . such as needs a. it is an opportunity. Both approaches suggest a core of material to be learned and activities to be . loping materials requires time before. in a differcnt type o f activity. In an introductory language coursc.

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. Ho cr. Evaluation in course development also includes evaluation of the course itself'. ranging from mcnts. In a matrix approach. Icw-iied to I'unction in English in the workplace? Teachers liuild in some form o f studcnt evaluation when developing a coursc. in which she compiles a list of possible activities and materials and then tlccidcs which to use. Rather. thcTOEFL test is used by graduate programs in the United States as a proficicncy test. in which students put togcthcr a portfolio of their work (Fingeret 1993). iv711 I assess the $fictivcnc. to place students in a course or program. involve their students in deciding what should be assessed and how (Hull 1991). Tcachcrs may structure their classroom activities so that they can assess their students whilc the students participate. For cxamplc. Ho\v proficient arc students in listening?Arc students improving their \\. All of thcsc methods of organization permit a teacher to g i \ c a s h a p to her course. antl to assess their achicvvment in a course o r program. or achie\ the teacher xvorks with a set o f possible activities for a givcn time frame and. They may use a portfolio approach. is prcfcralile. assessing students' proticiency.more than one purpose. The cyclc and the matrix arc not mutually exclusive. evaluation tncans evaluation ivithin the course. depending o n onc's students. For some teachers.Thc same testing instrument may be used for. dcpcnding on the ithat stiitlents have learned? Him. inany teachers use elements of both. In such c a ~ . tests are not the only means teachers have to assess their students. although student evaluation and test results . I3lyth ( 1 996) dcscrilm such a situation. but it is sometimes used as an achievement test ifstutlcnts show a gain on a7'OEFL posttcst. the sequence is not dctcrminetl beforehand. such as that in a textbook. to ose specific strengths antl w csscs. it ma! also bc dctcrniinctl antl modified as the coursc progresses. a regular cyclc of activities f'ollo\vs a consistent sequrncc.190 KATHLEEN GRAVES conducted within a givcn time frame. augmented b y other elements drawn fi-om a matrix.They ma).riting skills? Have the). Issues Although thc order in \vhich thc content and materials arc taught may hc determined prior to teaching the course. Adapting material oftcn means approaching it as a matrix from which to select. Many teachers also set u p certain tlaily or weekly rituals. For example. as thc course progresses. 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 the cyclical approach.s. progress. 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. dccides which activities to lvork with. depending on her studcnts' interests as \vcll as the availability of the materials. in which teacher antl students decide togcthcr what they will learn. In such a course. Certain features in a course ma! lie predictable. Evaluation How will I u. Teachers who work with a fixed syllabus. a negotiated syllabus.s of'the course? For most teachers. 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. For an E A P course. may nevertheless follow a cjclc in thc way they lvork with the material. Hughes (1 989) tliscu ' four purposcs for testing: to formal tests to informal measure proficicncy.s. achicving flexibility is an issue. Whet-c a syllabus is provided.

If’students ha\? great difficulty performing certain tasks. and others h a w students write in journals. and clients may h a c a role in cxvaluation. A tcachcr’s most important means is close observation of’what students do in class and how they do it. courses are also evaluated to provide documentation for policy reasons. This in turn may influence the development of the course. the effectiveness of the course may be questioned. antl thcir role may influence the shape or existence of the course. In such cases. parents. student participation. which takes place after thc curriculum has heen implemented. However. Informal chats hvith students can often pro\ idc as much information as responses to formal questionnaires. a course is evaluated to promote and improve its effectiveness.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 191 can provide feedback on the effectiveness of the course. R u t if students do not make progress or do not demonstrate a certain level of achievement. \vhy not?Wcrc the goals and objectives appropriate and achievable? Should they be changed? Did students find the material appropriately challenging. Issues Teachers tend to avoid extensive evaluation because they feel inadequate to a task in what they considcr is thc domain of“cxperts. Teachers can also provide time for students to give written or oral input regarding specific aspects of the course. Was the needs assessment cffcctivc? Did I seck the right input. and the tcachcr’s role. goals antl ohjcctivcs. Why docs one evaluate? Gcncrally speaking. For example. evaluation is an external matter. after it is over.This may be an internal 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. I f the students do \vel1 on tests or arc judged to have made progrcss. materials and activities. for purposes o f evaluating its success antl improving it for future implementation (Brown 1989). means of ing students’ pi-ogress. student roles. funtlers. presumably the course has been effective. in \vhich case the evaluation is done largely for the Ixncfit of the students and the tcachcr. including thc assumptions about antl analysis of students’ needs or backgrounds.” for which special training in sytematic analysis is .uluotion. such as continued funding or retention in the curriculum. antl did it enable m e to make appropriate decisions about the course? If not. or was it too easy or too difficult? Wcrc t h 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. The teacher’s own reflection and self-questioning play an important role in evaluation. What can be evaluated? Any part ofthe process of course development can lie evaluatcd. A teacher \vho is involved in each stage of coursc design can think o f cvaluation as an ongoing part of the entire proccss. 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. antl summutire evaluation. somc tcachcrs hold rcgular oral fccdhack scssions with thcir stutlcnts. How does one evaluate? A variety of ways arc available.’l‘hus evaluation can occur in the planning and teaching stagcs of the course. as when the teacher is concerned with developing the best course possible. which takes place during the development antl implementation of thc curriculum for purposes of modifying it as it is Iieing developcd. a distinction is usually made bctwcrn fbrmcitivc ei. administrators. the teacher a n d thr students are the principal r. each element of the frame\vork is itself subject to evaluation. W h o evaluates? A t the course IC\ el. on<’might lie \ to question the appropriatrncss of thc objectives or the acti\ itics. and \vhcn it is replanned and rctaught.

Consideration of resources and constraints What are the girwx ofmy 70. Were thc tcachcr to go through a similar process. others approached needs analysis as an aid in developing her owm. but thcy must also tlevisc their own systems and arcas of inquiry. Or perhaps I could ask other teachers what has worked for them in this situation. A class of fe\ver than ten students may be a rcsource lor one tcachcr antl a constraint for another. brit there are 140 students in u . how students arc graded. I also ncctl to think almut thc types of monitoring antl evaluation mechanisms I will u s r in the class. 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 nccd to focus on the kind of prqm-ation and foundation work necessary for conversations to take place. Why did they gc) wcII?Wliat can I takr from thosc succcsscs and huild into this coursc! Thcsc arc questions that I propose. teachers must experiment kvith different methods ol’evaluation and monitor the success of each so as t o maximize the effectiveness of thcir courses. this was an example o f a tcachcr seeking answcrs from outside without having first specifically defined the challcngcs of her o\vn situation. a teacher may seck to graft solutions appropriate t o another unique situation onto her situation. 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. and attendance patterns \vould all influence the kinds of . I need to look at available matrrials \vith carefully structured activities as a means of classroom management. How cc7n I get them to work together ro hare these conversations? Classroom managcment is an issue. How can I monitor their u c t i r q ? I nccd to examine my rolc in the classroom. whether there is a required text. haiz coniw-sations about?). A required coursc liook may bc a constraint for one tcachci. In the absence of prohlcmatizing. 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. Teachers must become familiar with thc various purposes and types of tcsting. Hci-c is a skctch o f one Ivay of prolilematizing this teacher’s situation: This is a coni-ersation class. Il’hut kinds o_f‘coniwsationscan 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).and a resource for another.192 K A T H L E E N GRAVES necessary. Though these givens may seem secondary to the processes just descrihcd. 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. 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. Such prolilematizing could eventually result in an examination o f hou. As with needs assessment. She felt that having examples o f nccds analysis questionnaires \vould lie a key t o drveloping her coursc.To thnt. 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.? Resources and constraints arc thvo \ y a y of looking at the same thing. For cxample. 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.

The type of administrative antl clerical support provided by the institution affects a teacher’s choices. The kinds of activities she designs may bc affectcd by the amount of timc shc has. and belicfs play a significant role in the choices she makes. while another will ignore the same content. how long. A multile\d class may influence the teacher’s selection of material or activities. and curriculum are important givens. 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. For example. technology. is not a neatly organized process t a complex one in which teachers arc constantly considering multiple factors and pro ding on many fronts. like teaching. The lack o f physical rcsourccs may cncouragc a teacher to use available resources in creative ways. The“If only . Effecting change rcquircs both recognizing what can be changcd and accepting what cannot. policy. I inclutletl the question about past succcsscs because tcachcrs carry their experiencc ovcr from one context to the next. levels. The availability of technology may allow a teacher to have groups of students work indcpcntlcntly. A teacher who usually devclops hcr own materials may choose to use published materials whcn teaching a course' whosc contcnt is new to her. 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. some tangible. “How can I keep my students motivatcd in a rcquircd course?” Course development. cannot lie ignored. . The institutional philosophy. ‘The constraints and rcsourccs of one’s situation take many forms. The numbers. whcrcas for a high school EFL teacher. For cxamplc. Issues The givens of one’s teaching situation. lack of clerical support will suggest streamlining paperwork and materials. For example. . The teacher herself is the most important given. both tangible antl intangibly. may need to investigate the background antl proficiency of her students. and being able to understand what has been successful antl why can provide a foundation for planning a coursc. whosc students change from one program to the next. if only our students were more motivatcd) can obstruct change as firmly as the “Yes. Support from the administration for innovation will encourage experimentation. if only we had quieter classrooms. experience. so is ha\ ing to devise one’s o w n syllabus. . an ESL teacher hvho teaches in an intensive English program. and furniturc. this may be a given because she knows the students. For example. hoth in class and before class. a large class may cause a teacher to focus on classroom management.”syntlromc (if only \ve had the technology. one teacher will focus on certain content becausc she dccms it csscntial to successful language learning. Time is another important consideration in designing a course. Teachers plan antl teach courses not in the abstract but in the concrete of their constraints and rcsourccs.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 193 questions she would ask. In the context under discussion. antl cultural backgrounds of the students are both a constraint antl a resource. Her background. say. Having to work within existing curricular guidelines is both a constraint antl a resource. a classroom. How often. and o \ e r 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 givens of a situation cover a broad range of factors and affect teacher makes. Teachers work with or without physical antl material resources such as lmoks. others not.

NecvYork: Cambritlgc University Press. pp. Rrindley. 1989.) Problemati/ing enables a teacher to tlecidc \that shc can changc. Lungmqe ~7ntlCommunicntion.” In K. Brinton. Mass. 1988. K .. and E. K . Snon. Durham.. Johnson. Content-based Seconcl lungriagc Instruction. Thus whcrcvcr o n e starts in t h r Ixocess. Camhritlgc: Cambridge University Press. Reading. antl cc hcrc to start Conclusion The components discussctl in this chapter and summarim-d in Table 1 5. 255-297. \vhercas analysis involves assigning value to those data. one \vay of\vorking with the whole. Teuchers as Course Derdopers. \ I hat she can’t. and N. 1986. Auerbach. thcy rcfcr to separate processcx: Asscssmcnt involves obtaining data. Carnhritlgc: Cambridge University Press. in many respects. Canale. Das. E. “The rolc ofncccls analysis in adult ESL program tlesign.”’l’ESOL Qiurterb. Note 1 The tcrms needs tina$. 1989. For cxample. L. pp. . 198 3. ctl. F..s f o r L u n p q e /eurnin<q antl Teuchin!/.. English (7s ( I Second ~. J. Corirse Design: Developing Pr~~qrums clnd Materiab f i r Language Leclrning. to A d t h . 1986. Clark. 1993.anguage Centre.” In M. Blvth. 1987. “Language program c\-aluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities.ltluZt Education..: Addison. each c o m p o n e n t will eventually c o m e into play. C. It Belongs to .C. Culture /. Conccptualizing content in t u r n influences the course goals antl objectives. 1993. 2. 1996. antl directing thc process of course tlc lopmcnt.l)fodelStuntlartl..Wesley. A . pp. M.1 should serve not as a checklist for thc teacher b u t rather as a set o f tools for talking about.” In J.” 5>ndrome (Yes. I h b i n . “Designing an L A P course for postgratluatc students in Ecuador. Peterson. (1. From [he Clasiroom to the Ilbrkpluce: Teuchin<qES/. “From communicative compctcnce to communicative languagc pedagogy. K.194 K A T H L E E N G R A V E S hut . E. . antl M .4dult Education Programs. Washington. California Drpartmcnt of Education. 1993. N.i antl nerds usicrsmcn~arc often used intcrchangcabl!. 1983. Danien. Each component is contingent on every other component. Singaporc: SEAMEO Rrgional I. Wallcrstcin. The Second Langrrage Crirriculum. i. B. Rut as Susan Pomcroy oncc suggcstcd to me. D. Handbook ?f’Rescorch on Tcuchin<q. Wcachc. Each componcmt is.” In K. : Addisom Wc-slc~. ctl. LSL f i r Action: Problem Posing at ICbrk.” In R. Thr Secontl Language C ~ ~ r r i c t i l ~ 1111. 2 7 (3): 543 545. assessment dcpcntls o n how one conceptualizes content or on how. 1987.l!e: I: Guide to fortfblio Assecsmcnt in . : Litcrac! South.3rd ed. References Aucrllach. C. Crnter for Applied Linguistics. I ondon: Longman. F.27. C . 1989.. Sacramento. understanding. “Putting the p back in participatory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13. ~ Brown. M. Olshtain. NcwYork: Macmillan. she interprets students’ needs. Wittrock.. antl P. Mass.on~qtrugc . hut that \ \ i l l rimer mork in m> wtting. 1l. G. Richards and R. Fingerct. A . . Schmidt. etl. “Tcachcrs’ thought proressex. 222-243. M. M. Johnson.earning:7he Fifrh Dimcniion in the Ltrngtiage Classroom. Murcricl1. D.sfbr. Graves.. ~ n 63-78. Reading. ed.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlisle. Kichtcrich.4cyuisition. 1973.” In K. Hughes. -. S. Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre. 1993.” Unpul)lishetl master’s thesis. 1975. Nc\v York: Cambridge Uni\ crsit) Press.lethoci. cd. H.Venn: Explorations in the Der.9. ‘ O n communicativc competence. Testing. T. Oxford: Oxford Univrrsitv Press. Richards. Mass.. Holmes. antl Wilkins: 3 1-62. Adclaidc. Cambridgc: Cambridge Univrrsity Prvss.e Cluvcroom. ‘Helping students create their own Icarning goals.-. Cambridge: Caml)ritlgc University Press. Teuching Lungtrugc i n Context. 1987. The Skillfiil Teticher. Explorutions i n the Functions pflungtrage. Cambridge: Cambridge Nunan.: Nc\vbury House. D. M . Hutchinson. 1990. and A . “Language experience approach: Reading naturallv.elopmenr $Lc7nguuge. 1 2 3 . Ro\vlcy. J. 1989. Oxford: Oxford Univrrsity Press. 1111. J. 198 5.COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 195 Gorsuch. Graves. The Second Lungiiczge Curriculum. Hutchinson. antl L. K . 1993. Lungtiuge 7koching Course Detign: Eentls antl Irsuex. H . . Boston: Hcinlc antl Hcinlc. London: Arnold. 1 36-1 54. and T. . O’Malley. 199 1 . School for Intcrnational Training. Larsen-Freeman I>. G. VT. A. Chamot.4lI Spccik English: lntegratiniq the ESI Stticient inro the Regular Classroom. Stern.. Ncn-York: Cambridge University Press. I991 . Teacher Should Know.I Lccirning-Centered . Communicotiiz Competence: Theor).s in l . Grant. R.for Languuge Teacher. T. C. I. A . pp. Oxford. K. Oxford: Oxford Uiiiwrsit! Press. and Prcictice. Gower. Shank. 1990. Richterich. Rigg. Learning . K. antl R.’’ In R. Techniyucs and Principles in Language 7iaching. . .” In R.” In J.Ytrute<qiec in Second Langwqe . Cambridge: Camhritlgc Uniwrsity Press. P. Reading. : AddisonWcslcq.” In Trim. 1987.. 1989. Pride antl J. A . e Second I . Waters. N. Teachers us Course Derelopers. Graves.\mold. M .c Purposes: . The I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. S. J. 1989. Hull. 1986.lpprooch. K . Van kk. Loiv. u n p i g e Curriculum.”LangLiaiqeTeucher I 5 (1 2): 3. England: Penguin. I. 1986. Cambridge: Caml)ritlgc Uniwrsity Press. 1989.ungricige Teaching Mcirrix. l’rahhu. Sjdluhtis Design. 1980. “Appropriate design: The internal organisation of course units. Cambridge: Cambritlgc University Press. C. Mass. Mass. 198 3. . “Bcyond questionnaires: Engaging learners in ntwls assessment. Chicago. Rrattlcboro. 1987. “A model for the definition of language needs of adults. Lecirning How to . Atlanta. “A tl ion-making framework for the coherent language curriculum. R . Rodgcrs. Language Learning Slrulegics: f l h t Ever). G. antl A . Johnson. ctl. 1989. 1992. 1993. J. Second Lungtinge fedagogj. “Self-monitoring and self-evaluation: A guide for facilitating intkpcndcnt and autonomous learning. pp. D. u n g u q e 7euching. Hymes.” Presentation at the TESOI. English for Spcc$f.. 1996. 198811. Halliday. U. ilpprouches u n d . “Teachers as course devrlopers. Project English. Johnson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. 269-293. Kramsch. K. 1972. Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. The Learner-Centred Currimltim.. Savignon. Cambridge: Cambridge University 1’1- Omaggio Hatlley. 1988a. National Council of Teachers of English. Richards. Saphicr. I-larmontlsnmth.s and Options in Lanpu‘qe Teaching. 1984. cd. R. conference.: Research for Bettrr Teaching. London: .. rds. Contest onJ Cultrire i n Langtiap Teaching. Sociolinntiistics. 1990.I.ssue. Designing Eilsks f i r the Corninunicatir.” In I l h 7/19‘Don’r .

V. : Design and Irnplernentution.Oxford: Blackwell. E. Oxford: Pcrgainon Prcss. The ELT Curriculum: Design Innovutlon und Mona~qemcnt.Yulc 1988.196 I<ATHLEEN GRAVES Taronc. London: Prcnticc-Hall International.oIution. Wilkins. Focus on the Iungiiuge Learner. A .lluhu. . and G. A . 1987. R. White. NcwYork: Oxford University Press. J.e S ~ l l a h ~ i s Ei. 1975. Threshold-level English. Oxford: Oxford Uniwrsity Prcss. Notionul SJ. Van Ek. J. Yaltlen. 1976. D. The Cornrntrnicuti\.

Action research: description and rationale Until comparatively recently. . . This situation is the rcsult of communication gaps caused by an incrcasingly opaquc research technocracy. or not granting sabliaticals to tcachcrs for professional renovation). 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 o f action research in recond and torcign language education Quc\tions a d d r c w d in the paper include I 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 ill lie illustrated \z ith data from a longitudinal action rewarch project. research and practice. a gap which. .'l'his tcndcd to reinforce the gap hctwccn theory. and prescriptions fbr practice wcrc gcncrally devoid of data.Chaptev 1 6 David Nunan ACTION RESEARCH I N LANGUAGE E D U CAT10 N Introduction N T H I S P A P E R . rcstrictiw practiccs in cducational institutions and liureaucracics (c. 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. . not validating research time. and ovcrhurdening teachers \vho cannot conceive of\vays of theorising and researching that come out of daily work and facilitate that daily \vork. the focus of concern in much of the writing on sccontl and foreign language cducation was at the level of method.g. Mcthodological prescriptions \vcrc gcncrally argued logico-tletluctivel>. . . Theory and practice arc not perceived as integral parts of a trachcr's practical professional life. 1992: 3) . (van Lier.

on their part. 1 99 1 : 56--7) As we can see from the selcctcd extracts presented a h v c . . to seck relevant data.c. 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 o f kno\i ledge. rithcr through their own research. thcy are counterhalanced hy empirical approaches t o inquiry. and logico-tlcducti\ c argumcntation have not tlisappcared from the scene (antl I am not suggesting l~ora inomcnt that thcy should). seem to have grown tired of the s\vings and rountlabouts of pedagogic fashion. \\ ith practice Wallace’s conccption I \ captured in Figurc 16 1 Trainee’s existing conceptual schemata or mental constructs COMPETENCE Experiential knowledge ‘Reflective cycle’ STAGE 1: (Pre-training) STAGE 2: (Professional education/development) GOAL He links this with action research. researchers and teachers are more likely than \vas the case ten or fifteen !cars ago. . While position papers. I t rcpresents what I would . Iiut it is slightly more rigorous antl might conceivahly lead to morc effective outcomes. \vhcn confronted liy pedagogical questions antl I)roldcms. I’ractitioncrs. (Wallace. it is not claimcd that thcy are necessarily of general application.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. however. I believe that these days. (Nunan. rcccxi\ cd k n o n lctlgc antl cxpcricntial kno\z lctlgc. arguing that: ‘action research’ can he attractivc for two reasons: 1 It can havc a specific antl iinmcdiatc outcome \vhich can I)(. action rcscarch is justified on the grounds that it is a valuable professional dcvclopment tool. ‘Kcsearch’ of this kind is simply an extension o f the normal t-cflcctii e practice o f many teachers.directly related to practice in the teacher’s o\vn context. This is not to suggest that a revolution has taken placc. i. antl are looking for evidence before cmlx-acing the latest tt-end to appear in the educational market place. . 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. or through the rcscai-ch of othcrs. 2 The ‘findings’ of such rcscarch might lie Iiriniaril? specific.198 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. antl thcrcforc the methods might he morc free-ranging than those of conventional rcscarch.

’ Preliminary in\cstigation Hypothesis I What’s going on7 Rccmrtling and oliscrving class o v e r sc\ cral days. in fact.Thc final step is reporting on the outcomes of the interaction.rctcrcntial .ACTION RESEARCH I N LANGUAGE EDUCATION 199 call an ‘insidc out’ approach to professional development. is longitudinal in that practitioners arc involved in medium to long-term inquiry I believe that the Ixnefits to professional d lopment are justification enough for the ent of an action research agenda. the inside out approach. Content doesn’t secm to stimulate students. antl. However. Thc second step is the collcction o f basclinc data through a preliminary investigation which is dcsigncd to identify what is currently happening in thr classroom without trying to change anything.1 ‘I‘hc action rcscaarch cyclc: an FSI example Prob lcni / p u r ~ l c intlcntitication IIC justified on professional + + A teacher identifies a Imhlcni/purzlc. First.g. have emerged from a period of obscrvation and reflection. the inside out approach begins with the concerns and interests ofpractitioners. Action research and ‘real’ rcsearch In thc first part of this paper. h o er. In addition to being centred in the needs and interest of practitionrrs. as realiscd through action rcscarch. Rased on a rcvicw yielded by the prrliminary investigation. placing them at the crntr-c ofthe inquiry process. Exclusive usr ot I I + + I I I Plan intrrvrntion Outcome display questions. I should like to look at the steps involved in the action research process. Staff‘tlc\ clopmcnt session.T\vo examples ofthc action research cycle are prcsentcd inTahlcs 16. Makc links bct\vccn content antl learners. planning furthcr intcrvcntions. if necessary. I argucd that action research can Table 16. students nominate topics. In contrast. S--S interaction.e. and in actively involving them in their own professional development. along with a way of evaluating the effects of this change.1 and 16. Steps in the research process The action rcscarch process is generally initiated by the identification b y the practitioner of something which they find puzzling o r problematic. one in lvhich an outside ‘expert’ brings the ‘good news’ to the practitioner in the form of a onc-off workshop o r seminar). ‘M Y students don’t sccni intci-cstrd o r moti\ atctl.The next step lopment of some form of intervention or change to sting practice. Ss disagree \vith tvacher. This puzzle o r problem may. I . I t rcprcscnts a departure from the ‘outside in’ approach (i. . questions. Increase UYC I of . Morc in\ ol\ cmcnt and interest Morc ‘natural’ discoursc.2. and I shall deal with this in section three of my paper. c. I believe that a further rationale for pmcnt of such an agenda comes from the research process itself. + Morc complcx intrractions. an hypothc is formetl.

it hardl? counts as r arch. ntially patronising in the vimv good rcscarch and bad rcscarch.4K the I. (3) analysis ant1 intcrprctation of data’ (Nunan. [. Fundamental to any discussion of‘ research is a consideration of t h e rcscm-cher’s conception o f notions such as ‘truth’.n a t i v e conceptions o f t h c nature of research provide a point o f tension within the book. Tcachcr usrs ( k r i i i a n h r clasarooni managrmrnt ctc I dcvelopmcnt grounds. context-bound attitude to research entails a rather differcnt role for the classroom practitioncr than the first. I m h l c n i .’ (Chalmcrs 1990: 2 1 ) . the opposition is not lict\vccn action research and ‘rcal’ research. Further ‘[rescarch] stantlards arc subject to change in the light ofpracticc [lvhich] \vould sccm to intlicatc that the search for a substanti\c universal. Mhile AR In fact.2 ’l’hc action research cvc. rather than alisolutc.hat (lo \ \ r e mean by ‘research’?What is the functi Elscw-here. or hypc csis. A further characteristic. and thc status of kno\vlcdgc. I recently attemptctl t o deal \vith the tensions of objective antl subjective kno\vletlgc by suggesting that they represent t\vo altcrnati\. ‘ his vie\v. First of all. I havc defined research as ‘a sjstcmatic proc ’ of inquiry consisting o f t h r e e elements or componcnts: ( 1 ) a question. t o use a currently fashionable t e r m .200 D A V I D N U N A N Table 16. is that it incorporates an clcmtwt of intervention antl change. 4 Plan intc-rvcntion + I Tcachcr incrmscs target Ianguagc us. I believe that there is s might be good for profcssiona . the practitioncr. .c \vays o f looking a t thc world: T\vo a h . According t o this view. . For mc the salient distinction hctwecn A K and othcr forms of research is that in . the function of rcscarch is to uncover these truths.Thc first view is that external truths exist ‘out there’ somewhere.rrman]. ahistorical nicthotlology is futilc. thcn I liclicvc that practitioners. pcrhaps differentiating A R from othcr forins o f practitioner rescarch. (2) data.There is cvidcnctx that the tcachcr-researcher movement is alive and .’ 2 I’rcliminary I What’s going on? Ilcccirding a n d oliacrving class ovcr scvrral in\ cstigation I in English. should adopt a research orientation to their o\vn classrooms. The second vicw is that t r u t h is a ncgotiablc commodity contingcnt upon the historical context within \vhich phenomena arc observed antl interprctcd. \\. but Iiet\vc. This second.arch process is initiated and carrictl out I. Action research incorporates these three clcments antl thercforc qualifies as ‘rcal’ 1-csearch.>. ‘ohjcctivity’. As l’ar as I am concerned. rather than being consumers of o t h c r pcoplc’s a h r c i g n language cxainplc I I’rohlcm itlcntitication + -+ A tcachrr idcntifics a p r o l A m in hcr classroom. 1992: 3 ) . H o u t AK can also be justified o n research grounds. ‘My stutlcnts aren’t using t h c targct language [(. If knmvledgc is tentative antl contingcnt upon context.

see LeComptc and Goctz. If \vc accept this alternative purpose. In the first place. because it makes no sense for an outsider to arhitratc on the practical problems facing teachers and learners. does the imperative to demonstrate that one has safeguarded one’s research from thrcats to internal validity rcmain! By the same token. I would argue that as most AR is not concerned mith arguing from samples to populations. Krashen’s attestations on ‘subconscious’ acquisition). Key questions for establishing the rcliahilitv and validity of research arc set o u t inTable 16.) It is popularly assumed that the purpose of research is to test theories. Tuh/e 16. . antl analysing antl interpreting that data is inatlequatr.’ Allwright and Bailey h a w pointcd out that there arc problems mith this proposition. conic to the same conclusion? Extcrnal reliability Would an indcpcndcnt researcher. Secondly. This does not mean that outsiders. Howcicr.ACTION RESEARCH I N LANGUAGE EDUCATION 201 mcll and gathering strength. classrooms are too complcx for us to control all thc variables in the manner prescribed by experimental research. some theories are untestable (for example. hut (for example) to dcscribc and interpret phenomena in context. on re-analysing the data. 1991). If one is not trying to establish a relationship Iwt\vcen variables. if onc is not trying to arguc from samples to populations. (For an cxccllcnt discussion of issucs to do n i t h reliability and validity in qualitative rcscarch. o n replicating thc s t u d \ . the process should also meet the twin structures of reliability antl validity. r t that external validity is irrclmant. then it would not be unreasonable to a. ‘That communicative language teaching is more Ffective than audiolingualisrn. implementing and e\ aluatmg research ill ncctl skllls in (Nunan. 1992) There are thosr hvho \vould arguc that my definition of research as a systematic process of inquiry involving formulating a question. M C art’ drawn immetliately into embracing AR. namclj to try antl understand and deal with immcdiatc practical problrms facing teachers and learners (Allwright and Bailey. antl others \z planning. For examplc. external validity is not at issue. 1982. 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 t o a witlcr population? Soirrcc: Nunan. gracluatc students. and i f the teacher-researcher molement 17 not to becomr > e t another fad. 1992 While I would argue that any rcscarch needs to tic rclialde. collccting relevant data. then 5ignilicant numbers o f teachers. that in order to count as research. Thry propose an alternativc purpose for research. i f the momentum mhich has gathered 15 not to falter.3.3 Questions for ‘Ijpe Internal reliability establishing thr rcliahility and k’cy YllCStlOfl validity of a stud! Would an intlepcntlcnt researcher. the issue of validity is more problematic.

This programme \vas initially devised for the IdPT project (Languages Inservice Project forTeachers) in South Australia. collecting data. the role is one of collaboration and ad\ icc rather than direction and control. protilematic. Ho\vever. Collaborative focus teams arc established so that teachers involi et1 in similar areas of inquiry can support one another. Evaluating action research From what has already Iwen said. The) ha\e found them particularly useful and r e l a a n t hcxausc the! depict the complex circumstances of classroom life . Teachers arc given adequate training in methods antl techniques for identifying issues. and. InTalilc 16. and teachers of LOTE (Languages Other than English). I t is certainly not the case that everything is rosy in the AK garden. ESL teachers. inconclusive. evaluative data from teachers themselves suggests that teachers who have hccn involved in action research are overwhelmingly in favour of it. ‘Teachers are given paid relcasc time from face-to-facc teaching during the course of their action research. who collected data on the reaction of outside teachers to his LII’T project.l have provided a summary of the professional development programme as it currently exists.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. it is clear that action research is difficult. where a project has bccn establishctl h i n g i n g together mainstream teachers. For example. colleagues antl I haw del elopcd an in-service programmc. as well as those with whom they work. writes: Teacher4 hahe welcomed the article4 from LIPT. Mickan. In order to facilitate the process. 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.202 D A V I D N U N A N such as unhersity-based researchers. antl has bccn further moditietl and refined in Sydney. messy. One or more individuals with training in research methods arc availablc ‘on tap’ to provide assistance and support to tcachcrs. and prcscnting the outcomes of their research. in some cases. I t consumes a grcat deal of time. analysing and interpreting data. hahe n o role to play in practitioner-based research.4. 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. However. and often strains the goodwill of the teachers invol\etl.



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 giw 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 series of reflective activities dcsigncd to gct tcachcrs thinking about their o\vn teaching stylr. I) Rcllccting on the teaching of others: teachers examine anti critique cxtracts from a range of

classrooms identifying those aspects o l t h c 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 Teachers I-cport back on the hetween wssion task.

I> Introduction to issues and methods in action rrsearch c Introduction to thr action research pro'
lop a draft action plan. Session 1 Focus groupc antl action plans
a c

Formation of focus groups antl appointment of facilitators. Refining qucstions.

I-, Sharing of draft action plans. session task: baseline ohscr\ation, focus group meetings, preliminary data collection.
Session 4 Analysing data


Participants devclop ways of analysing and making scnsr o f thcir (lata

Iictwcrn session task: ongoing data collcction antl analysis, focus group meetings

5 Writing u p

I'articipants rcccivc input on prcscnting their research.

h Development of draft rrporting outlines.
tlctwccn session task: production of draft reports Session 6 R c h i n g 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.

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.

204 D A V I D N U N A N


’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.

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 t o thc folio\\ ing:



What are the most significant things you have lcarncd in carrying o u 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?

Sample responses to the til-st of thcsc prolxs o n the most significant outcomes for the participants arc set o u t in Appendix 1 . It can be sccn that thcsc are ovcrwhelmingly favourable, the participants choosing t o focus either o n the sulistanti\c content outcomes (‘By collecting antl a n a l y i n g data o n 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 t h c learning process facilitates learning.’ ‘I discovered that kids know ho\v to learn the project taught me t o 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 time I will hc lietter prcparctl as I \vi11 lic more awarc of\vhat I am looking for, and \ \ i l l be hettcr 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 t o indicate how thcir traching had changed as a result ofthcir involvement in the projcct. I k s u l t s are set o u t inTablc 16.5. It can Iic sccn from thc sur\.ey that, if sell’-rcports are t o lie believctl, the expericncc \vas, for most teachers, an over\\ hclmingly positi\.e onc.
~ ~

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 t c a c h c r s , 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



research, 1 tint1 that

‘ruble / 6 . 5 How has your tcaching changeti? Complete the follo\\ing: ‘Since I havr hecn doing action \\ hen I tcach I no\\ . , .’

2 3 4

tcntl to be &recti\ c


About the ,amc 14


try t o itsc a greater \aricty ofI)cha\ iours praise students criticise students


0 18 4 11 19 12

6 10


am axvarc of studrnts’ teeling.\

0 0 13 0

gi\ c directions
ani conscious of mv n o w \ crbal communication

8 9 10 11 12
13 14

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

16 14 6 12

0 0

0 15 0 0 0 0


9 8 10 I5

try to gct

students \\-orking in groups

ti-! to get tiivcrgcnt, open-cndcd student responses

15 14


distinguish I)ct\ cnthusiasm and lack o f oi-dcr t r \ to get \tutlcnt\ to participate



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 n o ot the prolession’s foremost adlocates of the dc\clopmcnt ot hai-monj bct\\ccn theor), rcwarch and practice, ~ h h o 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 o f 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 t o 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 o o m 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 j d a j clas\rooni l i t c , arc heginning t u he more r Bcing a gootl pti\c to thc \\hole research enterprise 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 ( A l h r i g h t antl Railej, 199 1 )

Appcndix 1
What are the most significant things j o u ha\c lcarned in carr)ing o u t !our cla\woom

The active inyol\ emcnt of the chiltlrcn in the learning process facilitate5 learning.

206 D A V I D N U N A N
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 next time I will be bctter collection are most suited to my research question 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 t o expect children t o 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 m e
~ ~ ~~

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .



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 m e to listen to thcm

Grateful acknondcdgcment is made t o 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.

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 nes: Open University Press. LcComptc, M. antl J. Goet7. 1982. ‘Problems of rclial it? and valitlity in cthnographic arch.’ Review ?fEducarional Research, 52/ 1 . 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. Nunan, D. 1 992, Research Methods i n 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

1 Introduction 1 . 1 The Adult Migrant English Program


H I S C H A P T E R T R A C E S T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF curriculum and syllabus design in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). The AMEP is a n English-languagc p r o g r a m m e offered by the Australian government to all immigrants of non-English speaking background. Many people believe that the AMEP has hccn an important e l c m r n t 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 F i f y y e a r r o f curriculum development
Oler t h e fift) )car\ ot t h e AMEP, teachers h a c interpreted d c \ c l o p m c n t s in applied IinguistiLs in order to customisc the curriculum to thc need5 ot non-tnglish 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.



structural approache\ lcarncr-centrccl, ne b a d , conimuniati\c approa~he\ 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 t h e language by studying grammar rules and using thcsc rulcxs to translate literary texts, a method known

19x6). Words and structures \vci-e taught in a fixed sequence through response. lvhilc in America audiolingual methods \\ere d an account of these devclopments scc Howatt. As the century unfolded antl more people had the opportunit? or need to trawl. These dialogues \vert ‘situated’ within an everyday ‘setting’ such as a restaurant or a railxvay station. 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.hat thc Icarncr should bc able to do with English at the enti of the course. 1984. This expertise became the foundation on which future tlevclopmcnts in AMW curriculum were based. reading and writing the usc of thcmcs antl topics as a basis for coursc design classroom management stratcgiex in\ olving clicitation techniques. 1986: 35). imitation drills and substitution cxcrcises. there was a demand for approaches which taught people how to communicate in a wider range of contexts n i t h speakers of other languages. Applied linguists in Britain antl Amcrica responded to this demand in different ways. concrete and visual materials. thc situational approach stands out for its responsiveness to the needs of learners. British situational language teaching had emcrgctl becausc a group of British linguists.vorld’English as quickly as possible on arrival in Australia. pair antl group lvork presentation and practice techniques \vhich incorporated rcalia. All learners in the AMEP mw-e taught the samc dialogues in a fixed sequence from a common textbook. gcsturc and mime the identification of teaching ohjcctives in tcrms of \\. 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. The dialogues introduccd lexical items antl grammatical structures which were then practised by the learners in follow-up activities. \yere rxploring holv structure and meaning were relatcd to contrxt and situation (see Richards antl Rodgers. 1986). in particular Firth and Halliday.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 209 as grammar-translation. Other innovations during this period no\v taken for granted everywhere asTESOL Iwst practice includc: a concern with all the macroskills of language listening. rcpctition and mcmorisation using. They used tcchniques dcvclopetl liy hchavioural psychologists to teach ‘correct’ language habits and accurate forms. The dialogues used at the time no\v seem very contri\-ccl and inauthentic nrvcrthcless. British applied linguists developed situational language teaching. speaking. for example. migrants Situational language teaching \vas used in the AMEP becausc non-English~speaking needcd to be alile to use ‘real-\. 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. The AMEP looked to British situational language teaching. \vhich linked structures ‘to situations in which they could be usctl’ (Richards and Rodgcrs. Richards and Rotlgers. ~ .

2. interesting and interactivc educational settings recognise and respond to the individual needs. creatcd anew from untlcrlping kno\vlctlge o f alxtract rules’ (Richards and Rodgers. self-directed antl contract learning (Kno\vlcs. Language learning was f. Progressivc pcdagogies cncouragcd teachers to abandon their traditional authoritarian role in ordcr to: tlcvclop more equal antl respectful rclationships with learncrs facilitate humane.roduct-orientecI. Teachers constructed their syllahuscs from a diverse repertoire of syllabus elements and methodologies. or interlanguage. . 1 . structural approach towards an indivitlualiscd syllahus in \\-hich classroom teachers were responsible for syllabus dcsign. antl atomistic.2 Leaner-centred. was not mcrelp ‘incorrcct’ but rather revealed how the learner \vas progressing (Corder. they would acquire the target language unconsciously. to takc risks and to discover knowledge as they need it.\aturn1 longtiage learning progrewre pcclqogie. AMEI’ teachers began to understand that a learner’s non-standard approximation of the target languagc. i7nd 2.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.s 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 . 1991). 1 990). antl language learning. 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. 1 988). Grammar and vocabulary \\ere taught in isolation from thc \vay language \vas used in real life situations (sccYaltlen 19873).210 S U S A N F E E Z 2. effortlessly and flucntly (Krashcn. 198 1 . teacher-centred. Sclinker..-! The challenge to structural u p f r @ i ~ h e ~ Despite the innovations outlined almvc.1 . for example. concentrating on individual isolated phrases and structures. that is. 1986: 59). concerned with accuracy more than fluency. 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. Some AMEP . 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. Influenced by SLA. . interests antl motivations of learners encourage learners to takc responsibility for their omm learning. needs-based communicative approaches From the end of the 1970s the AMEP l q a n to move akvay from a ccntraliscd. t. 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. AMEP teachers were especially concerned with learning principles appropriate to adults including.2.

.. Classroom materials should he based o n authentic languagc use and tcachcrs should -. Increasingly AMEP teachers provided learners with opportunities to use extended chunks o f language. 9 ! . Hollida?.. .These documents were based on stretches of meaningful language with a real communicative purpose rather than on isolatctl sentences. notions: the language used to express a general area of meaning such as time.______ dra\v on a wide range of methotlologics..(. By the end of the 1980s the communicatiw language teaching methodologies had liecomc the basis of the AMEP curriculum. or discourse. 1986. I . 2. to achieve communicative purposes in context rather than simply providing opportunities for memorising isolatcd grammatical structures and vocabulary. function and social context.L - . -. . self-expression and personal development and takes rcsponsibility for learning avay from the learner. By the end of the 1 980s many AMEP teachers had developed the following Iiclicfs about language learning: Fluency is more important than accuracy. . Melrosc. 1986. . / . and political and personal freedom (for example. 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 ~- - - .J. * -7" .. Wilkins ( 1976) categorised these units of meaningful language in terms of t\vo general hcadings: functions: units of meaning identificd on the basis of their communicative purposc. for example greeting. " <L j . Intervention in thc learning process is countcr-productive because it diminishes the individual's motivation. 1987a).2 Hjmes. 1972). 1991 : 1-1 6. 1976. 198717). ' Communicative and social thcories of language and language learning emcrgPd-fi-m-tht.-. .. Learners should 'own' thcir learning so teachers should negotiate the curriculum with learners based on learner need. 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. . grammatical structures or lexical itcms.. work of linguists who w e r e concerned with meaning. Meanwhile Halliday (1 975. Hvmes (1 972) used thc tcrm 'communicative competence' to account for the two kinds of knowledge successful language users apply. - r I .. persuading and suggesting.-.. (See the following for accounts of these approaches: Brumfit. Freire. L'. .$ .. systematic way of describing language in terms of: the meanings people make with language what people do with language the social contexts in which language is used. Yalden. : ' ' . quantity and emotion. connn~micationand discourse ' .f-l~. Richards and Rodgcrs. 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. A/.2.' .. 1978) was developing a comprehensiw. .AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 211 teachcrs also became intrrested in approaches which highlighted social justicc.. . . 1980).'. in particular Hymes in the United States and Halliday in the United Kingdom (sccYalden.

Thesc learners.3 The challenge to learner-centrcJ. As the 1980s progre d. 1984). howe\rer. AMEP teachers Iiccamc increasingly aware of criticism being levrllcd at inventories of notions antl functions. Ikcausc teachers were focusing on fluency in classrooms and were trying not to intcrvcne in language learning. As Hymes had pointed out from the Iieginning. for each new class they taught.T o ovcrcomc these difficulties. By the e n d of the 1980s AMEI’ tcachcrs hvere grappling with ‘the complexities of designing intlivitlualiscd programs lvith little institutional support’ (Brindlcy and Hood. spcakcrs. 2. 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. 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. 1987). teachcrs requested ‘non-mandatory curriculum guidelines to assist thcm in planning courses to meet the nccds of commonly recurring Icarncr groups’ (Nunan. learners also ncctlcd to dcvclop kno\vledge ahout language. forgetting that communicative practice alonc \vould not dcvclop communicative competence. 199 1 : 19. 1990: 146) . 1985. 1987: 59).20) and Widdo\cson ( 1 979: 248 as quoted in Yaldcn. 1984) negotiate language learning objcctivcx with thc learners use functional-notional inventories to select antl sequcncc syllabus elements implement learner-ccntretl.2.capproaches By the mitlL1980s. Consequently thc opportunities for learners to engage with stantlard English wcrc limited and their interlanguage hecamc established as the means of communication. although these \vcrc lists of units of meaning rathcr than lists of words and structures. not with the teacher. learners were interacting with each other. they remained inventories of isolatctl components and so were of questionable value in de\ eloping communicative competence. O n e 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. (Celce-Murcia. as \vel1 as in tcrms of grammar and vocabulary (Ingram and Wiley. Non-standard forms of English limited students’ opportunities in Australia. readers and writcrs.A consequence ofthis was that AMEI’ learners had little sense of progression o r achievcmcnt (Brintllcy. fluency \vas cmphasised at the expensc of accuracy. did not progress to more standard forms of English. Tcachcrs tended to sclcct and sequence syllabus elements according to their perception of xvhat ‘worked’ in the classroom.212 S U S A N F E E Z stretches of meaningful language. AMEP teachers \vere cxpcctcd to: analyse the nccds of learners (13rindIcy. These critics pointed out that. In practice the task of designing coherent courses from all these componcnts proved to br very difficult. especially in further cducation and employment. 1990: 2 2 3 -4). for example hy Candlin (as cited in Mclrose. ncctlc-hacd comrnrrnicc7ti1. As teachers tried to tlcvisc situations in which the studcnts could practise different bvords and structurcs in ‘natural’ contcxts o f use. Nunan. 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. 1987a: 77).

in other \vords thcy explore the 1% tcxts \ ary from social situation to social situation. explicit outcomes a communicative approach which reflected real-life language use in tcrms of discourse rathcr than isolated elements such as words. see Hagan. strongly challcnged the ‘natural’ approach to language learning. ro meet the challcngey. AMEP learners would have to demonstrate their language skills in tcrms of explicit outcomes of a rccognised curriculum (for an account of this period.’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 clcar learning pathwa? 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. the diffcrcn n the following tcxts: a telephone I d 1 antl a lcgal bill an exchange bctm n a parent and a child anti an exchange bct\vcen a tcacher and a student a story pulilishcd in a book antl a story told in casual conversation. 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. Considcr. 1985: 10). AMEP learners nould h a c the opportunit) to dc\elop communicati\ c fluenc) as well as accuracy in tc-rms ot tcxt structure. Widtlo\vson ( 1 990: 164). grammar. economic and industrial change in Australia. pro\ ided a model for explicit intcxr\ention in the process of languagc learning 2. structures. AMEP learners ncctlctl increased levels of English-language proficiency if thcy were to access community services. Systcmic functional ling s explore register variation in language. that is.3 Genre-based approaches 2. The \\ riters of the AMEP curriculum were faced with sevcral challengcs. 1994). The early 1990s initiated a period of rapid social. find work or participate in further education in this changing environment. Halliday has shown that there is a n a tcxt and thc contcxt in which it is used.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 213 Developments in the wider field of English-languagc teaching wcre supporting this shift. 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 n h o l c u n i t of language use Working mith \\hole texts in real contexts of language use. pcdagog?.1 Language ilc tcvt The foundation ofthc gcnre approach is thc study ofn-hole tcxts in contcxt. If their English-language skills were to bc recogniscd in this environment. for example. the genrc approach. . functions or notions an explicit and tematic approach to the tcaching of language structures antl features.3. 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. for example..

2. . 1985.3 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’. 1996).) 2. Martin. A genre is a relatively stable pattern which recurs in tcxts used to achieve the same general social purpose.3. This information is vcry useful to language teachers and learners because it makes learning to use language a much less hit-andmiss affair. 1975. For example. linguists are able to describe patterns which recur when people use language to: 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 o r an amusing anecdote explain how somcthing works give instructions persuade someone to your point of view organisc information makc a story newsworthy for the electronic or print media. 1993.3. 1996: 1014. I99 1 . (For more detailed accounts o f the genre approach in schools. Learners work with individual tcxts which excmplify different genres in order to learn: the overall patterns of different genres of communication specific language features used in examples of that genre most relevant to their individual learning needs.3. in the community and in employment. 1993. see Kothcry. Kalantzis. (For a diagram and tletailcd description of the teaching-learning cycle initially used in schools. Rothery. Research into first language dcvclopment hy Halliday and his colleagues revealed language learning to lie a social process (for example. Painter.2 The genre approach A group of educators tlra\ving on systemic linguistics developed a pedagogy based on the notion of‘genre’.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. Krrss and Martin. see Cope. Halliday. 2. 1996). Halliday (1 991 ) describes educational learning as an organised social process in which the construction of meaning takes place systematically.214 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. Genre pedagogy is a teaching approach in which students work systematically and comprehensively w i t h the language of texts belonging to the genres relevant to their educational goals. I t makcs it possible to identify what people need to lie able to do with language in order to be successful in education. Genre pedagogy is usually presented to teachers in the form of a cycle of teaching and learning. Krcss.

Teachers adjust. Solomon and Burns. 1990. Cornish. The genrc-based cycle of tcaching and lcarning has two key characteristics: scaffolding joint construction. Joyce and Collin. 1992: 44). Drawing on both Halliday’s and Vygotsky’s ideas.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 215 The design of the gcnrc-based teaching-learning cycle draws on the theories of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1 934/ 1978. 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. Rrosnan and Gerot. 1998. criticism and challengr (Christie.5Critical litcracj All variations of genre pedagogy also emphasise the tlevelopment in learncrs of a critical approach to what they arc lcarning (see Rothery. the genre approach is used to construct a social context in which languagr learning can occur.) The genre-based teaching-lcarning cycle was initially del elopcd for primary schools.3. 1995). 1987. genre pedagogy also makes morc visible the values and worldviews embodied in those patterns. 1992. Vygotsky’s work suggests that instruction preccdcs learning. By making the language patterns of different types of texts more visible. cspecially those designed for more advanced students and adults. Scaffolding occurs when the teachcr contributes what learners arc not yet able to do alone or do not yet know. Gibhons. 1996: 1 16--20). Christie. 2. thcir contribution. 1989. 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 2 a diqcoursc-oriented unit of language around which to write gencraliscd curriculum outcomes an intcractive pedagogy for intervening in and supporting language learning. Joyce. Burns. Hood. 1991 : 1 1 . 1986). 1992: 17. All variations of genre pedagogy. 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. but it has been adapted for ESL (see Burns. 1996: 88. 1985. Joyce. Thew values and worldviews arc then open for discussion. (For further discussions ofscaffolded learning scr Gray. negotiation. and strategically diminish. Hammond. 1996. Hammond. supporting learncrs as they progress towards their potcntial level of independent performance. . 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.

1. These categories are thcn linked to a macroskill listcning.l. 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. . instructions or information tcxt. 1. one gencral. for cxamplc: ~ Can dcmonstratc understanding o f a spoken information tcxt Can tell a recount Can rcad written instructions Can write a tlcscription.This frametvork was written in terms of a pathway of language outcomcs organiscd across four levels: 1 2 3 4 Beginner Post-beginner Intermediate Advanced. further study and post-hcginncr 1 1 to morc spccialiscd contexts rcla 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. As they movc from level t o level. speaking. for example.216 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). from a gcncral lcarning context at Iicginncr to employment. description.2 From curriculum to syllabus 3. I D$ning tcrrnc Thc \\ riters of the CSWF differentiated Iictn ccn t v o IC\ el\ of English-language provision. 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 m e e t the specific language-learning nccds of individual AMEP learners. the curriculum l e ~ e land 3. rccount. This organisation makes it possihlc to Iircak the curriculum into smaller modules for students t v h o need intensive \vork in listening antl speaking or rcading and writing lvhere one of thcsc areas lags behind the other. thc othcr spccihc. The outcomes arc grouptd into language-learning domains: listrning antl speaking reading hvriting. they n v r k in increasingly spccialiscd contexts. 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. the syllabuy leic. The complctc lcarning path\vay is illustrated in Figure 17. 3. .2.2 Genercil otrtcornes: the curricirlurn l e r d The CSWE is written at the general Icvcl o f curriculum.carners \vork through the CSWE pathway at a pace related to their educational liackgrountl.2.

C) Modules Orientation to Learning * Speaking and Listening Reading and Writing * Speaking and Listening Reading and Writing Mixed Language Skills Numeracy (optional) * Mixed Language Skills * Numeracy (optional) ASLPR 11 to 2 1 ASLPR 2 all skills + * Syllabus strands I Vocational English Further study Mixed focus Modules Orientation to Learning Speaking and Listening Reading and Writing Orientation to Learning Speaking and Listening * Reading and Writing Mixed Language Skills * Mixed Language Skills * Numeracy (optional) F i p r c 17. C) Modules Orientation to Learning General contexts for language learning Students may be grouped by learning pace (Bands A.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 217 ASLPR 0 to 01 1 ASLPR 12 to 1 * General contexts for language learning Students may be grouped by learning pace (Bands A. B. I Ccrtificatcs in Spokcn and Writtcn English: curriculum structurc . B.

The elements.218 S U S A N F E E Z 1 Can untlcrtakc the roles a n t 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 2 3 4 5 6 Can request information/gootls using spokcn language Can tell a short rccount Can read rocial sight signs Can rcad simple written instructions Can rcad a short information tcxt Can rcad a short narrativc/recount Can complete a \implc formatted tcxt Can w ritc a short clcscription Can 1% ritc 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 a \hart rccount Figure 17. Figure 17.3 shows an example o f a writing outcome for Certificate 1 . are organised. learners studying within the framcwork know what is expectcd of them at any point in the learner pathway. into: fratures relating to the structure and texture of whole texts lexical and grammatical features phonological or graphological featurcs. teachers working within the AMEP.2. or gcnrc. 1998: 8. 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.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. is also indicated for each outcome. The number and complexity of the pcrformance criteria for each outcome depend on the learner’s level. Fahey. in Figure 1 7. 1994: 1-24. Few. Spinks and Yallop. In addition. share a common framework for course design antl for assessment. They are also able to map their own progress. and an evidence guide. 2000). the beginncr level. The range within which stutlcnts will be assessed against those criteria. and their related performance criteria. the beginners’ level. for an introduction to functional grammar see Butt. Performance criteria for assessment are based on the clcmcnts. Fcez.The key language fcaturcs of each text type are written as clcmcnts of the outcome. Because the outcomes of the CSWE are explicit. . (For overviews ofthc stratified systemic functional language model see Eggins. and in other contexts wherr the CSWE is used. Each outcome is written in terms of a gencralisrd tcxt type. using Halliday’s language model.

for cxamplc b y using advcrhs and/or prepositional phrases 4 can construct simple clauses 5 can construct simple noun groups 6 can use action vci-bs in the past tense 7 can use pcrwnal pronouns 8 can express time and/or location Graphology I t is assumed that: thrre may be inaccuracies in letter formation. full stops and qucstion marks Figure 17. spelling and punctuation teaching programmes \vi11 pay attention to graphological features In CSWE I the punctuation focus \vi11 I. sequence of went3 and optional reorientation) joins simple clauscs with conjunctions. for example excursion. middle and end (orientation.3 Compctcncv 1 3: Can Lvrite a short rccount . for example ‘and’. hut errors should not interfere n i t h meaning or dominate text mav redraft Grammar and vocabulary 3 can use vocabularv appropriate to topic uses vocabulary appropriate to topic constructs simple clauscs constructs simple noun groups and uscs adjcctivcb. punctuation and spelling ci-rors.Elements Pcrformancr criteria Range statements €t idence quide Discourse structure 1 can use appropriate staging uses appropriate staging. i. ‘then’. ‘My Lvcckcnd \vas good’ uses action verhs in the past tense uses personal pronouns as required indicates timc or location as required. \reekend activities 2 can use conjunctions uses at least one conjunction familiar/rclc\ant topic rccourse to dictionary may include a fc\z grammatical.e.c on capital letters. for example ‘I had a good weekend’. beginning. ‘bccauw’ at least five clauscs Lrith correct past tense forms Sample task Learners recount sequence of past cvcnts.

2 . teachers identify the social activities and topics which relate to the chosen situation of use (the field). Identifying and selecting what nceds to I)c learnt to meet the course objectives. Planning how to monitor learner progress during the course and assess learner achievement at the end of the course against the specific course objectives. 4 From s)illabu. thcy may need to teach a particular spoken text in the context of using the telephone rather than speaking facc-to-face. Competency 1 3 ) . Planning how to report learner achicvcment against the general curriculum outcomes.2. including language-learning objectives related to the immediate contexts where learners need to use English. as well as the role of those involved in the situation (the tenor). For cxamplc. To customisc thc general curriculum outcome to a specific course. 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) . For contcxts of use relevant to specific students. To design a systematic plan of course content customiscd to the learners in their class.y~l/crbu.220 S U S A N F E E Z 3. teachers may need to refine the mode description of some outcomes. In other words thcy identify the register o r variety of language learners will be working with. Teachers report learner achievement at the end ofa course against the performance criteria of the common framework. 1994: 49 80 and Fccz. curr~cu/um to 3 . Sequence the syllabus clcmcnts into an cffcctiw progression of teaching and learning. The design of indivitlual courses o f study. is carried out at the levcl of the syllabus. 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. identifying the immediate contexts in \vhich Icarncrs will be using tcxts hclonging to the genre of that outcomc.s:f r o m genre to regi.s leiel The general CSWE framework is common t o all AMEP programmes. For the selected context of use.stcr We haw already scen that language outcomcs in thc CSWE framework arc based on gcncraliscd text pattcrns. A t this level teachers address the needs o f specific groups of learners. however. (For more dctailctl introductions to Halliday’s model of register see Eggins. 1998:75 81). teachers identify the immrdiate context of use in which these text patterns will be used. Linking the specific objccti\cs to the general curriculum outcomes.3 Spec!fic objectives: the . lcarncrs arc working towards thc general outcome Can write a short rccount (CSWE I. that is. Course objcctivcs arc statrments about \vhat is planned for a particular course of study. Thc CSWE outcomcs arc already written in terms of whether the tcxts will be spoken or written. If at the level of curriculum. teachers kvork through the following steps: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Analysing lrarner nerd and set specific course objectives. the role language is playing in the situation (mode). or gcnrcs.

I f learners arc pi-eparing for employmcnt.2. critcrion-refercnccd.6lUni~ro/’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. ‘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. and must inform different types of assessment. As learners work with specific texts. 3. . Instead of grading and ranking learners against \ague notions of general language proficiency. grammatical. 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 o f t h r outcomc guide what thcy learn about the structural. lexical and phonological o r graphological language features of texts of that type. The elements and performance criteria of each CSWE outcomc are listed in two catcgories of language featurcs: tliscoursc structure. uniticd tcxt grammar and vocabulary. assessment within the CSWE frame\vork enables learners to demonstratcx. a unit o f work on lvriting a t r x t lielonging to thc genre of recount at CSWE Level 1 can lie linked to units ofwork on spoken accounts and written descriptions. formative and summativc assessment. 207) in the folloxving way: an eflkctivc language assessment program must IIC linguistically principled. explicit. Each element is atldressctl within the specific context of situation in bvhich the learners are learning to write the tcxt typc. Teachcrs can use the data collected at both Icvcls to evaluate their course dcsign. For example. lvhich relates to the rccognisable parts of the genre pattern and are linked to construct a cohesive. 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.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 221 a recount of a visit to a tourist destination (field) o n a postcard (modc) to a friend (t cn or) . Specific course objectives providc a syllabus-lcvel focus for assessment of individual learncr progress. . The approach to assessment which underpins the CSWE is described l i v Mackcn and Slatlc ( 1 993: 205-6. including diagnostic. they might work with this text: a recount of an incident (ticltl) on a shift hantl-ovcr rcport (mode) for the foreman (tenor). .

The process of sequencing syllabus elements. draw on prcdictablc gcncric text patterns.2 Design principles labus is what Ur ( 1 996: 178) tlcscrilm as a ‘mixed o r multi-strand’ syllabus. 3. 1996: 178). provides teachers with a framelvork for selecting. antl therefore learner nccd. including teaching activities antl assessment activitics. howcvcr. rent syllalius elements such as topics. which determine the materials antl resources recluiretl. meaningful and purposeful natural language. Icxis. and its intcractivc cycle of teaching and learning. structures.1 Syllabur element\ The key elements o f a tcxt-based syllabus in the context o f t h c CSWE are: texts. what they have learnt during their course. that is. involvcs teachers in deciding how to teach them.3. employment o r further study languagefeatures. in othcr words. supporting lcarncrs as they gradually m o w to increasingly independent language use. and therefore.3 Text-based syllabus design Texts. Figure 17.4 is an outline for a unit of’llork o n 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. lkxts. determine the selection of syllabus clcmcnts. a textbased syllabus is a mixed syllabus in which the organising principle is the study of lvholc tcxts in context. organiscd according to whether they relate to community access. to the curriculum outcome to which they relate topics. In the context of the CS WE. 3. .4. o r genres.222 S U S A N F E E Z against the explicit criteria of the curriculum and syllabus. o r genre. it involves teachers in choosing a methodology. In summary. identified according to the type. The text-based methotlology designed to support learners working towards CSWE outcomcs is rcprcscntcd graphically in Figure 17. they belong to. Syllabus elements and syllabus design principles focus o n thc use of wholc tcxts in context. which relate to social purposes and thc tmiadcr cultural context. especially macroskill activities and tasks. Each t r x t is a single instance of language use in a particular context of situation.3. these stretches o f unified. 3. arc thc core component of a text-based syllabus. ~ 3 3 3 from yllubus to rncthodologj n teht bared y c l c of teaching and leorning Genre pedagogy. These elements arc then incorporated into a tcxt-based cycle of teaching and learning. organisctl according to situation/registcr. tcxts. what is to be taught. related to the text type of the text in which they arc used skills antl strategies. skills and stratcgics ‘in order to be maximally comprehensive’ (Ur. coursc objectives. organising and sequencing the comprehensive mix of text-based syllabus elements in a principled way.

Phasc 1 : Building contcxt Context. Typical context-l. vicwing realia. key words and concepts they nccd to undcrstand in English meet and interview. 1992. building cultural knowledge and thc knowlcdgc of thc immediate context of' use.c.1998:28. G r w n .building is a critical phasc for second-language learners. cross-cultural comparisons. guided reading of' relevant material. Cornish. atlaptctl from Callaghan antl I<otlici-)-. taking part in role-plays and discussions.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 223 Figure 17. In this phasc lcarncrs experience and explore thc social context of the target text type. in English o r in their l'irst language. 1988. 1992 This methodology is built around five phases of classroom interaction atlaptctl from the original genre-based cycle of teaching and lcarning (Rothcry. . pictures or video. For example.uiltling activities arc 111-ainstorming. students might engage in the following activities: viehying a tclcvision advertisement for a car insurance company build up vocahulary lists research information about insurance written in their first languagc to identil). to Iiuild the context for filling out an insurancc claim. 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. listening antl talking to others. 1996). Once this knowlcdgc is shared between teacher antl learners it can hecomr thr foundation o f suliscqucnt languagc learning. guided r arch or field trips.4 Mcthotlology to support lcarncrs Lvorking to\vartls CSWF outconics Source: Fccz \ \ i t h Jo)-c.

adjusting thc stages antl the language fcaturcs as necdcd. hut in the context of purposcful language use. Phasc 3 : Joint construction During this phase the teacher begins to hand over rcsponsiliility to the 1carncrs.3. Some beginning learners with minimal formal Icarning in their first language.5 .uses antl effectiveness. Text-liasctl syllabus design makes it . Many traditional ELT grammar activities can be effectivcl? uscd during this phase. Phaw 4 Intlcpcndcnt con\tr uction During this phasc the scaffolding is taken ama) antl lcarncrs research the context and nark \\ ith their 01% n tcxts intlcpcdcnth.3. returning to an earlier phase for review as needed or skipping phascs if thcy arc not ready or if they do not need them.xt typcs. learners’ attention is always drawn to meaning as \vcll as form.4 dleeting thc ncccls ?f’clf.224 S U S A N F E E Z Phase 2: Modelling and dccon5tructing tcxt Phase 2 is teacher-directed. links are niatlc to r-clatcd tc. 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. however. scrilic.tfcrcnt Ictirncr~ Whenever necessary the teaching-learning cycle is modihcd t o suit the ncctls o f different learners. Students would also learn the structure o f noun groups. I lun<qLqtrugcteuching 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. bc ready to adapt the tcxt type they have lcarnt to control to a specific IiurIiosc. Some lcarncrs ma). 3. may not go beyond the joint construction phase for some more challenging tcxt typcs. comparing and contrasting tliffcrcnt tcxts antl thcii.The learners contribute to the construction o f a tcxt helonging to the target tcxt typc with t h r teacher acting as guide.This is the phase in which second-language learners learn the grammar ofthe target languagc. many tcrtiaryeducated adult lcarncrs with sophisticatctl study skills find the joint construction phase unncccssarv. antl if ncccssary. s o learners have thc opportunity y have lcarnt in othcr contcxts of use. In contrast. activities. For example. in the context of Halliday’s grammar. Learners arc introduced to model texts Ixlonging to the target genre in the context they cxplorcd in Phase 1 . Learners can cnter at an! phasc of the cycle. 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. Lcarncrs use the model tcxts to study the structure and language features ofthc tcxt typc. . 3. classroom management styles and asscssmcnt proccdurcs. Tcachcrs in thc AMEI’ draw on a sccond-language teaching repertoire Lvhich has been built u p over fifty years. as well as the usc o f conjunctions and prcliositional phrases to scqucncc thc clauses in time. although. In most adult ESL classcs thc context-building phasc is essential. Teacher and lcarncrs discuss and negotiate the mcanings they are making as the! go.

b a d . communicativc approaches and return to teacher-ccntrcd classrooms. Dclaruelle. It remains to be seen whether this new oricntation will bc able to dclivcr a service of’ comparable quality. 1992. The key clcments of this foundation arc: an understanding of what constitutes a whole unit of language in the context of its use . course design and assessment. 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 . like language pedagogy generally. 1998. Cornish. 1997. there has also been an ongoing cycle 01’ national classroom-based collaborative action rcscarch. 1994. Thc AMEP is currently experiencing a period of rapid change. 1999). Teachers are also beginning to identify kvhich aspects of the text-bascd approach need reviewing or developing. The CSWE is a framework within which teachers plan courses antl map learning pathways. Learners can consciously build the cultural and linguistic knowledge which will help them make the most of the new community thcy arc entering. learner-centred antl communicative approaches into a text-based framework. AMEP learners now can track thcxir progress against general descriptions of English text patterns \vhile. 1997). gaining knowledge. is evolving and changing. 4 Conclusion Overall the AMEP has bcncfitcd greatly from basing its new curriculum on genre pedagogy. 1997. 1998. Professional development has included cxtensive training in educational linguistics. at the samc. they are increasingly integrating thc best of situational. 1992. The \vay tcachers in the AMEP arc working with the pedagogy is also changing as different tcachers intcrprct it in different ways. skill and confidcncc and adjusting thcir bclicfs about language and language learning. 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. modify and locate a mricty of mcthods in a principled antl strategic way. unified. 1995. It 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.This resulted in teachers teaching text patterns as fixcd rulcs and forms rathcr than in terms of meaning and function. classroom materials antl resources modelling a tcxt-based approach to syllabus design have been published (for examplc Brown and Cornish. In othcr words. Genre pcdagogy.AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 225 possiblc for teachers to selcct. many s u p imposcd structural approaches onto the generic descriptions of text structure and languagc fcaturcs. The action rcscarch model provides teachers with a useful tcchniquc for rellecting on and rrnovating classroom practice (see Burns and Hood. Clemens antl Crawford. To support curriculum change in the AMEP. When teachers first applied genre pcdagogy. Fccz. Sincc thc implementation of the new curriculum framework. 1998. 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.time. Changing political and economic ideologies are moving the AMEP away from being a stable. learning to customisc thcir own texts to mcct thc demands of thcir immediate situations. Burns and Joyce. Jovce. As tcachers have adaptctl to the new curriculum environment. public-scctor programme to a more fragmented market-oriented programme. NSW AMES writing team.

and Cornish.. S. (cds) (1 997) Euchcrs’lbiccs 2: Zuching Design i n a Changing Curriculum. Sydney: NCELTK. D. S. G. L. ( I 984) ‘The role of nccds analysis in adult ESL programme design’. L.spuratc Leurner Groups. In R. (1993) ‘Ribliographical essay: developing thc theory antl practicc ofgcnrc-based literacy’. Eggins. Burns. A. J. In R. Krcss. G. Brindley.. Burns. K. Rrumfit. (1 992) Curricolum Gnitlelines. London: The Falmer Press. Brindle).Qstemic Functional Linguistics. Sydney : NCELTR. antl Joyce. Oxford: Pcrgamon Press. In F. S. (eds) (1 995) Euchers’ Lbices: Exploring Cotir. Adelaide: NCRC. ( 1 994) An Introduction to . Sydney: NSW AMES. London: Pinter. F. Burns. Joycc. S. Sydney: NCELTR. (1 994) W6rd. Sydney: NCELTR. S. Sydney: NCELTK. Sydney: N C E LTR .. A report submitted to the Federal Minister of Employment. Cornish. (cds) (1 998) Tcuchcrs’lbices 3:lcoching CriticalLiterucy. Fccz. Melbournc: The Australian Council )r Educational Research. and Martin. H. Oxford: Pergamon Press. H.. Cope. lvith Joyce. References Rrindley. (1 997) Reuch Street \:An English Course_fbrAdults. Johnson (etl. Sydney: NCEI T R . Burns. H. In G. Kalantzis. Fccz. and Hood. S. S.iteracy_fbr a Changing Clbrld.) The Secontl Lungooge Curriculum. R. S. (2000) Under.sed Syllahns Design. G. Dclarucllc.) Reuciing undWritin<q:Theory into Practice. antlYallop..Tickoo (ctl. Fahey. Christie.: Issues and Approaches.erd Imrners. Christie. ( 1990) ‘Discourse analysis and grammar instruction’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. of language use in context while they are still only ablc to manage language fragments. antl Gollin. S. A.. Spinks. (1 980) Threshold Level Eniqlish. . Education and Training. K.. Cclcc-Murcia.forAtinlts. van antl Alexander.226 S U S A N F E E Z a methodology for providing learner? Lvith experience of whole unit. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. F. In M. Pit (1 98 1 ) Error Ano(c.s. M. S. Cope and M.sroom:A Hundhook. Corder.) The Second Language Curriculum i n :lction. J. Harmondsworth: Pcnguin. Christie. (1 995) ‘Genre-based approaches to teaching literacy’. Marrickville. G. P. (ctl. C. J. G. (1996) ‘I See what you M e a n ’ : Using Spoken Discourse i n the Cla. (etls) (1 999) Tcachers’lbices -I: Stuying Learner-centred i n a Compctcncybased Curriculum.. A.) (1 986) The Prncticc o j Communicatire Eaching. Burns.anpuge Programfor Intermediate I.sment of Second Language Prqpcicnc). (1 990) ‘The changing facc of litcra ’. Canberra. ( 1 990) ‘Curriculum innovation in adult ESL’. J. From this foundation. Christie (ed. F. 2nd cdn. NSW: ELS.s. and Hood. (1998) El. and Hood. S. Brintlley (ed. Annual Review ?_f’ Applied Linguistics 1 1 : 135-5 1 . Sytlncy: NSW AMES. C. and Hood.)<qFunctional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide. (1 972) Pedagoyy (ifthe Oppressed.fbr Euchers. B.s and Interlungnuge. A. language educators havc thc opportunity t o develop increasingly effective ways of‘ teaching explicitly and systematically about t e x t . S. (1 998) Reach Street 2 : A n English Conr. Freire.s will Earel: An Integrated Communicative English I.) (1 991) Eachin<q Criricul Social Literacy: /I Project ?/‘National Sip!ficance on the Preservicc Preparation of Eachers f i r Eaching English Litcrac). and Crawford. (1 985) The Asse. S. M. Clemrns.t-hu. Ek. Kalantzis (ctls) The Powers $Literucy:A Genre Approach t o Eciching Writing. Brmvn. A. Sydney: NSW AMES. g r a m m a r and lexis in o r d e r t o makc it possible for learncrs t o build skills in spoken and written English which they would not be ablc t o tlcvclop o n their owm.. (etl. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sydney: NCELTR.

K.) Aboriginal Pmpectives on Experience and Learning: The Role tf’Language in Aboriginal Education. and Ilasan. R. Hammontl. Contest and7ixt:Aspcct. Brisbane.stralian TESOL 5(1): 27-70. M. and Wilcy. A . S. (1 984) Aristralian Second Language Proficieny Ratings. Vietnam. 14-172. D. (1 992) Making the Links. (1 988) Second I. M . in M. M. 199 1 . G. Victoria: Deakin Universit? Press. Sytlncy Common Ground. A. Hammond. Sydney: NSW AMES.(1 992) Workplace E x t s in the Language Classroom. J. Joyce. (1 993) ‘Assessment: a foundation for effective learning in the school context’. A. Ingram. Brosnan. (1 989) ‘The NCELTR literacv project’. (1 976) System and Function in Language. in 1‘. (1975) Learning Hov. K. Victoria: Dcakin University Press. Melrose. Halliday. Halliday. and Gerot. (1 991 ) The Communicative Syllabus: A Sjxtcmic-functional Approach to Languqe teaching. Kalantzis (eds) The Power.:A Genre Approach to the ‘Itaching !f Writing. Hallitlay. M . ( I 987) The Teacher or Curriculum Developer.. In J. Christic (etl. NSW AMES writing team (1997) LVanjarri: Indigenoux A~istraliain the E S L Classroom. Hagan P. D. Mackcn. Lc and M. M. London: Edward Arnold. K . Joyce. Krashcn. (1 990) ‘Teacher expertise antl learner responsibility in literacy development’. Sydney NCELTR. 269-93.s oflanguage in ~7 Social Semiotic Perspective. In W’orking with Genre. Halliday. P. (1 993) ‘Genre antl literacy modelling context in educational linguistics. In Pro.. (1996) Focus on reading. Hammond. London: Falmcr Press. Martin.h‘eglected Species. Gcelong. Hallitlay. . K . Burns. Sydney: NCELTR. H. A . Papers from the 1989 Conference. A . N. Howatt. Sydney: NCELTK. Sydney: NCELTR. J. Launccston: Univcrsity ofTasmania. (1 978) Langtiage as a Social Semiotic. Octobcr 1992.’M. London: Etlward Arnold. employing wholistic Gray. Prospect: A journal ofAristralian TESOI~9 ( 2 ) : 3 0 4 0 .A. (1 984) 11 H i s t o y ofEnglish Languuge teaching. University of‘lkchnology. 1-1. S. (1998) ‘Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language’. D. (1991) ‘The notion of“contcxt” in languagc education’. R. McCausland.spect: ’4 journal clfZ4u. Krcss. Melbourne: AMES Victoria. (1 990) The Adtilt Learner . (1991) ‘Texture antl meaning’. Language lnteraction and Development: Proceedings of’ the International Conference. May 1987. antl Burns. Solomon. R. A. and Slatlc. Oxford: Oxford Univ Hymes. A. Gray. (1 992) English for Social Purposes. Houston: Gulf. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 13. Sydney. to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language.spect:A journal ofAustralian TESOL 5 ( 3): 39 5 1 . (1 987) ‘ H o ~ vnatural is “natural” language teaching methodology in the classroom’ The Australian journal ofEar(v Childhood 1 2 (4): 31 9. ( 1985) ‘Helping children become language learners in the classroom’. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Knowles. D. J. Paper given at the Annual Conference of the Mcanjin Reading Council.ungtia~cleAcytiisitionand Second Language learning. M. pp. l’ridc antl J. (1 992) ‘Towards a language-based theory of learning’. Sydncy: NSW AMES. H a r m o n c h orth: Penguin. Holmra ( r t l s ) Sociolinguislics. Geelong. Nunan. K . (1972) ‘On communicative competence’. Green. London: Pintcr. (1985) Language. London: Oxford University Press. 13. L. A . . J.s oJ‘Literacj. Sydney: NCELTR. NeIvYork: PrenticeHall. K. J. 1).AUSTRALIAN ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM 227 Gibbons. Hood. E. Pro. In R. Language and Education 1 2 (2): 99-1 18.. Cope and M. K. A . R. M. Halliday. Sydney: NCELTR. (1 994) ‘Competency-basctl curriculum: the NSW AMES experience’. Paper prepared for the Phonctic Society of Japan in the context of the Symposium on Language Acquisition Tokyo 3.

C. Vygotsky. S. Cambritlgc. revised and cditcd b y A . Nen. (1 996) . (1 985) Learning the Mother Tongue.s and Methods in I. Painter. In R. C. Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity Prcss. Victoria: Deakin University Press. London: Longman. Williams (eds) Literacy in Socict. ( I 986) ThoLight and Lunguu‘qc. Wilkins. London: Longman. D. Design and Implementation. (1 934/ 1978) /141ntl in Socicy: The Development qj’ Higher f. . (1 976) Notional Syllabuses. C.e S~~llahus: Prentice-Hall. f i r Language Eacbing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss. . Rothery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evolurion. (1 9871. (1 996) ‘Making changes: tlc~elopingan educational linguistics’.ychoJogical Processes. Sclinker.228 S U S A N F E E Z Painter.. Ur. Richards. Kozulin. J. (1 990) Aspects of’longuuge Icciching. Vyptsky. Widdowson. J. . Hasan and G.‘. London: Yalden. Cambridge: Cam1)ritlgc Universitv Press. L.anguap Teaching: i t Description and Anahsix. T. Hasan and G. Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press. Geelong. L.i. P. York: Cambridge Unilersity Press. (1986) j1pprociche. Yalden. MA: MIT Prcss. In R. Williams (cds) L i t e r u y in Sociey. London: Longman. ( 1 99 I ) Rediscovering Interlanguqqe. L. ( 1 996) ‘Thc dcvclopment oflanguagc as a resource for thinking: a linguistic view of learning’.) The Cornmunisatit. J. and Rodgcrs. S.4 Course in Lungucige Eciching: Practice and Theory. S. H.. J. ( I 987a) Principles ?f’ Cowse Design .

other important considerations. thcrc is one crucial question \ve need to ask ourselves. antl the ncctl for studcnt-ccntrcdncss. There arc. by hearing and reading things we can understand [. a cultural prefercnce for the teacher being the holder of all knowledge. No-one knows how \vc learn language. The discussion is conducted under four headings: the need to communicate. and still others thinking that they involve completely unrrlatcd skills. the need for long-term goals. thcrc arc plenty of theories around. and there are always constraints the straitjacket of a ccntraliscd syllabus. Hall M A T E R I A L S PRODUCTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE 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 {orlanguage teaching. the lack of lilirary rcsourccs. . 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. “learning to understand spokcn language”. .Thcy should bc acccptcd as fcaturcs of the context in which \\-e attempt to do what we think is the right thing to do. and so on. othcrs that xvc learn by rcpcatrd practice of common patterns. of course. so the \vortls we think in the original qucstion are very important. suggesting criteria liy which materials might lie evaluated. I will examine materials from projects in which I have been involved antl evaluate thcm in the light of the criteria.Chapter 18 David R. tion of this chaptcr.Thcrc is a further distinction between “learning to spcak”. the need for pupils to pass public examinations. the need for an orderly and industriously quict classroom. the nced for authcnticity.Thc qucstion should be the first item on the agenda at the first planning meeting. Some think that hvc learn by studying and internalising rules. B . “learning to read”. In the third and final section. O f course. antl “learning to write”. Many people makc: a distinction between first language learning and second o r foreign language Icarning. Others distinguish clearly between “learning” a language and “acquiring” a 1anguagc. by negotiating. others that they are clifferrnt but rclatcd proc Y S . b y simulating real situations. But thcsc should not govern what we must do. I will put forward somc of my own liclicfs about language learning and teaching. I‘l‘hclist is long. vet othcrs that \YC learn by mcmorising hvords antl collocations.1hc qucstion is this: How do we think people [earn la ng u a p ? Nobody knows ho\v we learn language. with some thinking that thc arc similar proccsscs. some of which will be mentioned here.

This tends to concentrate on aspects of language structure. 1989). there are three conditions: 1 2 3 We must haw something that Lve want to communicate.230 D A V I D R . given the lack of success of conventional classroom teaching. language function. just about everyone learns to communicate fluently in at least one language. situational features. In most languagc-teaching materials. we must put them in situations where they ncctl to communicatc in English. If lvc want our pupils o r students to learn English. Second. of course. but rather to the ahility to take advantage of any opportunity to learn outside the classroom. the results are always going to he disappointing. Nevertheless. we must teach them how to learn. materials o r methodology for a language-teaching program. By ‘teaching horn to learn’. We must have some interest in the outcome of the communication. It is. H A L L Theory The need to communicate There are three things about language learning that arc fairly obvious and uncontroversial. For rcal communication to take placc. and in most languagc-teaching classrooms. look at the longcr-term ncctls of students. Third. but only the really cxceptional will have progressed to anything approaching fluency. it is perhaps worth making the attempt to approximate as closely as possiible to the three conditions. or behavioural outcomes (competencies). in oliservahlc terms. but which are not often enough stated together. I do not mean t o refer to learning in classroom settings. very few people learn to communicate fluently in a new language learned entirely in formal language classes. First. 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 conclusion I draw from thcsc three facts is that the need to communicate is at the heart of learning a language. I t is only in the longer term that some students will cxperience the need to communicate in the targct language and mill havc the chance to become fluent. it has always heen necessary to conduct some sort of needs analysis. the students may be able to perform more o r less satisfactorily in a formal test. In looking at needs. The need f o r long-term goals In devising a syllabus. In other words. M’C must prepare them for the opportunities which will come outside the classroom. technical content. We must have someone to communicate with. thcsc three conditions do not exist. 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. however. . N o matter what exciting methodology you use. where considerable work has been done on learning styles and thcir applicability to the language class (Hawkey. most people who learn to communicate fluently in a language which is not their L1 do s o by spending a lot of time in situations where they have to use the language for some real communicative purpose. Willing. If we are going to help our students succeed in learning a language. What. The language-teacher operates within fairly tight limitations. perhaps we should look more closely at this longer term. We should. This is normally thc L1 or mother tongue. 1982.

text to table. structure manipulation exercises. people learn language by having to communicate something that they do not know how to say. and approximations is a crucial part of such communication. primarily. An ‘interpretational’ responsr addresses the meaning of a text in relation to the individual. It can be helped. The language tcachcr’s typical tools of comprehension questions. The use of gestures. I t is. (I am not saying that teachers should not check understanding. in ESP matcrials. But because they deal with topics from the students’ particular specialisation. and mode-switching (e. The reading of such rnatcrials becomes merely an exercise. 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.g. by close cooperation with the content teacher. questions. guesswork.) Kenny (1 989) classifies student response to content into threc catcgorics: ~ thc empirical the interpretational the socially validated. The need f o r authenticity In the light of the above assumptions about language learning and the long-term needs of language learners. While more elegant or more accurate o r morc verbal ways of expressing the point may be developed as similar situations are repcatcd. summaries. graph to text) all stay firmly at the empirical level of response. isolated entity. 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. rewordings. in many casc-s. At the very least. An authentic response depends on thc existence of an authentic need. the materials themselves which have to be authentic. they often deal with topics which arc already very familiar to students. not involving an authentic need for reading it is neither thr seeking of specifically needed information nor the exploration of a new topic. The empirical response involves working out the meaning of a text within the boundaries of the text. In the classroom context. as thcy rclatc: to the . By ‘empirical’ is meant the addressing of the content as a context-free. of student needs. to the point where they can: (a) initiate communicative cvcnts. and the ability to use such strategies becomes an essential feature. an authentic response dictates the atltlressing of content rather than form. I believe that in a natural setting. I t is not. by which I mean that they arc ‘found’ matcrials originally written for some other purpose than languagc tcaching. vocabulary explanation.. the main aim has to be to give students confidence in their ability to communicate dcspite difficulties. facial expressions. rather. and discussion for clarification o r expansion rather than for the mere checking of understanding. so that the kS1’ matcrials complement and support what is happening in the content class. Learning styles arc obviously important in this area. the question ofthc use of authentic materials can lie refocused. It involves assimilating new knowledge into the structure of information in the individual’s head. in my view. Checking can be donc just as easily and is more natural during genuinely communicative events. this need may only be an approximation and may be artificially created. Many materials are impeccably authentic. the response to the materials what is donc with them that should be authentic.MATERIALS PRODUCTION 231 If a tcachcr is to provide students with the tools to learn language outside the classroom. and (b) persist with the attempted communication even when it becomes difficult.

antl the advantages of allobving student participation in resource gcncration. or pertinence ofthc lcsson. Where only tcachcrs and textbooks have previously been exposed to comments about the repetitiveness. comes from the teacher or thc materials. In this context.g.. \vhat is talked about. But materials writers might givc morc thought to the use they can make of student invcntivcncss and energy. 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.e. It is possihle to build opportunities for this into your materials: not everything has to he specified in advance. 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. by giving a presentation as a lobbyist to a group o f other students playing the role of policy-makcrs. The undcrstantling of a text antl the validity of that understanding need to bc tested through group interaction. i. H A L L way in which knowledge and experience arc storcd and retrieved. antl the materials. interest. the learners. The process changes student status from passive receivers of information to active accountability (see Kcnny.Thcy know what their owm needs antl interests arc. It is also clear that most materials used in thc language-teaching classroom approach neither social validation nor the prerequisites for communication.2 3 2 D A V I D R. irrelevance. represented y the group. I do not mean h y this that ready-made or teacher-prepared materials and the teacher h a w n o place. Kcnny and Laszebvski. To put thcsc three categories of response anothcr Lvay: the empirical has a single dimension the contcnt. 1993. we can see that it is desirable to aim for a socially validated response to materials in class. it is not enough to assimilate new knowledge individually. You d o not hale to be operating in a resourcerich cnvironment to (lo this. the contcnt being dictated Iiy either thc tcacher o r the matcr-ials. as might examination of parallels and contradictions between different texts.. now cvcryonc becomes accountahle. 1994).Traditiona1 essays (“Compare and contrast the vicws of x andJ”) might include interpretational responses to a number of texts. tedium.. In other words. tlcbatcs. and the intcrprctation defended in a process of critical scrutiny. 1993. The potcntial for learners to participate in generating materials has long been neglected. 1993). and so on. Their selection of materials not only has to be pi-< defended. the interpretational has two tlimcmsions the contcnt and the individual. is an opportunity for socially valitlatctl responses. varicty. Even bcginning learners in an environment with fc-w samples of targct language use can b e involved in content-generation. Clayton et al. ~ . Thr content is examined in relation to existing kno\vledge structurcs and belief systcms. The ‘socially validated’ response involves exposing the individual’s response to a text to group evaluation. while the socially validated adds a third dimension that of society. e. presentations. Combining the nccd for authentic response with the nccd in the classroom 1 for drveloping confidcncc to initiate and pcrsist \vith communication. I \vould suggest that studcnts themselves arc in a unique position to look for rclcvant resource matcrials. Public presentation of ideas through postcr sessions. What sometimes looks like a social validation activity is often no more than an exercise in which real beliefs are not cxplored. Traditionally. ~ ~ The need f o r student-centredness The language classroom may bc thought ol’as ha\-ing thrcc components the teacher. all of the actual contcnt of the class. A n example of this might be where a student is given notes on arguments for better public transport and asked to “role-play”.

then \vc can find the roots by factorising. Thc new materials were arrangcd under chapter headings labcllcd with scientific “concepts” such as Measurement. Example: 1:aLtorisation o f x ’ + 1-1 2 0 gi\es (A ~ 3)(x + 4) = 0.The view of languagr learning is essentially behaviourist that learning takes place through exposure to language patterns. In tcrms of the prerequisites for communication. The series proved to be very popular when it was released commercially. called roots. 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. There is n o doubt that the materials were very innovative in a numhcr of ways. it is clcar that thcrc is nothing here beyond the empirical 1evel. . 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 roots of the equation arc therefore 3 antl 4. 1978. If the factors of’ a quadratic equation can lie found easily. 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. All language production is controlled entirely by the textbook.. and thc syllabus framework was widely imitated. Description antl Process (Bates. 1976). Dudley-Evans et al. both in other commercially produced textbooks and. to the extent that conceptually correct answers that arc not in conformity with the prescriptiveness of the textbook author are deemed to bc incorrect. No\\make similar rentences about thc follo\z ing: a) x2 b) x’c) x2 + + 7x 9 1 r ti) x2 10 = 0 18 = 0 100 = 0 5x 6 =0 + + (Hall. 1980: 51 52) In tcrms of expected student responsc.MATERIALS PRODUCTION 233 Sample materials I have Iieen involvcd in a number of materials and curriculum development projects. Hcrc is a rcprcscntativc exercise A quadratic cquation has two solutions. but thcrc arc no dcmands made on student inventiveness and nothing is contributed by the student. in a similar xvay to a Notional Syllabus (Wilkins. 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. 1976). more significantly. 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 student may bc motivatctl by thc partial relevance of the subject-matter.

1 and 18. Despite the warnings in this chapter to consider theoretical positions seriously before planning materials. In fact. 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 18.234 D A V I D R . used the Munby ‘communicative’ needs analysis approach (Munby.1 Workshect 1 : stutlcnt A only . with the predictable result that by the time it came to actualll. 1 You are looking lor a scholarship to stuly ovcrscas.2 for a representativc example. the team members wcrc so entrenched in different antagonistic theorctical positions that consensus writing had become almost impossible. Complete this table with the dctails o f the scholarship you \voiild likc to gct Amount pcr month Ihration Subject o f study Country Extra alloLvanccs 2 You have some accommodation to rent. 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. 1985. Khong. set up with British Council help. 1978). the dcvclopmcnt of theory and practicc go hand in hand. writing. writing should not be delayed too long. H A L L A communicative approach The University of Malaya Spoken English Project of the early 80s (Hall. 1984). See Figures 18. The acts of‘writing and trialing cannot be delayed until a fully worked out thcorctical position has been established.

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. Despite an outward appearance of social validation (opinions have to be exchanged). is not involved to the extent of having a personal stake in the outcome. The above excrcise is fairly typical of the sort of information gap cxercisc frequently found in ‘communicative’ textbooks. 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. One consequence of using the Munby approach was that often more time was devoted to setting up a situation than actually doing the activity.The student is not e n p g k . Fill in thr table with the details of the scholarship Amount pcr month Duration Country Conditions I I Figtire 18 2 Work\hcct 2: \tudent B onl) N o linguistic structure is prcscribcd in the example given. ~ ~ .of rooms I kacilitics Location 2 You have a scholarship to offer. and content r e l a t i d y tightly controllcd.MATERIALS PRODUCTION 235 1 You are looking for accommodation to rent. Nature of accommodation Numhci. It \vas not unknown for a couple of pages of input to produce only a line or two of linguistic output. Complete this table \vith dctails of the accommodation you would like. roles are assigned.

1991 .Vol. transferring this skill to a critical rcatling o f their o\vn \vriting. 1993). H A L L A genre-based approach The approach to reading and writing 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. 19. All extracts arc takcn from the journal “Solar Energ! Materials”.Thc merit function. 1986) in that it attcmpts t o analpsc tcxt in t e r m s o f thc typical discourse featurcs and language functions to I>(. Predict how thc follo\z ing cxtracts might continue. \vas the following: where the whscript I denotes ith mcasurcmcnt. chosen more because it is short than because it is rcprcscntativc. F . 131. it tlors n o t attempt t o assign grammatical fcatures t o particular functions. rather.. Unlike the approach takcn by Australian g e n r e . In onc approach all unknmvns (three thicknesses and 36 pairs o f n antl k) \vcrc evaluated simultaneously using the Marguartlt algorithm [ 1 2 . For Ni (see fig. The dashcd curvcs wcrc calculated with the optical functions of fig. A more representative sample would stretch to many pages and normally involvc thc analysis of p a r t of a text in the context of a whole article or thcsis.t m c d theorists (Dcrclvianka. and rn i\ t h e numlier of measurement\. 6 the dependence o f thc optical transmission antl sheet resistance on the annealing time at 620°C for t w o tlil’fcrcnt coatings are shown. Aftcr two minutes. particularly those relating to the research article antl the student dissertation. 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.236 D A V I D R . 1 antl 2. 3 and agree satisfactorily with the emittance mcasurcmcnts. to provide analytical tools t o students so that they can approach rcatling in a critical \vay. We M 111 call this the “one shell” approach.found in tliffcrcmt kinds of technical writing. Martin. 1989. H c r c is an example of an activity. rcspecti\elj. It aims. . 6) we oliservctl at thc beginning an incrcasc o f the transmission and a decrease of the shcet resistivity. the superscripts cxp and cal refer to the experimcntal and calculated \ d u e s . The liehavior of transmission T and shcxct rcsistancc R at this temperature in thc investigated timc interval is different for diffcrcnt stabilizer matcrials. T\vo diffcrcnt unconstrained optimization approaches \\rere implemented to evaluate layer thicknrsscs and Ag optical constants. In fig.

often cxtcnding to students’ o\vn knowledge and hence involving social validation. tions. s o that there is a limited tlegrcc of genuine interaction. experiential approach The ‘Talkbase’ approach. This appeared to lie> more motivating. 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 \vith the initial stages of carrying o u t research and writing a thesis. 1995). First presentations by students arc normally short anti not particularly coherent.MATERIALS PRODUCTION 237 This is a small part of a unit for students of Encrgy Tcchnology on sequencing.e. Iiased on a repeatcd pattern of Plan. Autonomy. Saving. thcy report in writing. 1988. unfortunately for the purpo . As the first lveek develops. students begin to find personal meanings in thcir . Hohvever. We mould no\\ like > o u to lea\? the classroom antl to Lome hack again this afternoon ready to talk for a fcn minutes aliout X. Examples arc: Drying. It concentrates on using linguistic antl contextual clues for efficient reading. and writing is passcd around among the group for comments. interviews. Iiehavioural o r situational categories. O n the tirst morning of the course. As the course developed.They then go off and report hack a second time. Do. some of the tasks in the course still looked like exercises designed for practice rather than the occasion for genuine involvement. Evaluate. Technology . a description of thc first week of opcration may help to give an idea ofwhat the course is like. In this hvay. using all the resources of the immcdiatc environment including teachers and other students. this third example seems to me to lie approaching authenticity within the constraints of the classroom. 0 1 1 the third occasion. informed nolv hy feedback from others antl h y thcir experiencc ol‘\vhat others hale tlone. Students discuss possible completions to the extracts in small groups.he course. (I Iall. Water. normally in groups. In particular. of text very often involved discussion of the intention ofthe authors and a critical examination of their arguments. Studcnts carry out a major piece of intlcpentlent Lvork during the coursc. the course also fulfilled the criterion that it should provide students with the tools to continue improvement after the coursc. provided that the texts are ones that arc of real interest to the students. Hall and Kenny. The syllahus is a set o f procedures rather than a set of materials or a set of linguistic. Report Rack. on which arc written the lvortls: 1 Wclcomc to thcTalklmw courw. and so on. students have to plan again. and Plan Again. of this chaptcr. functional. A t the e n d of this. full-time course. In terms of the criteria for communication and response to text. N o detailed timetal>le o r content is specified. A studen t-generated. so representative examples are difficult to find. ‘X’ is a single wort1 or a phrase chosen by the teacher. does not use teaching materials as such. b u t they are discussed by the teacher and all the other students. the only teacher-provided “material” ot’the first wcck is given to studcnts. individual consultations. Ncverthclcss. also tleveloped at the Asian Institutc of Tcchnology in the 8Os.’l’his consists of a slip of paper. Work through a series of report-back sessions in various modes poster sessions. was devised for an intensi\. Hall antl Kennv. ‘l. Uncxpcctcd Outcomes. Only a general syllalius outline is given. 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. we began to rely less and less o uhlishcd texts antl to get students to bring their own work to class. 1994.

Except at a very few places.) are found and brought to class by the students themselves. Mountford. Clayton. “Discovering resources in Ho Chi Minh City: preparing the ground”. becomes committed and almost totally student-dominated. it depends on having something to say. so that course content is generated by students. C. H. such as the example from the first day of the first week... Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.You do not write to conform to somebody else’s model. their ideas and their opinions for public scrutiny. London: Longman. 1978. Savage. but in the end your materials and the writing of the materials will not be the simple passive implementation of someone else’s ideas. by R. In this course. Nhan. both form of presentation antl organisation of content improve markedly.T. For materials writers..238 D A V I D R . Le. 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. Shaw. not by teachers. At the end of the course. It is intercsting to watch the effect that this has on weaker students. 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. and students care about whether they have made their point. but also to those \vho ncctl more detailed background information. MacKay and A . texts (recorded interviews.T. In terms of Kenny’s three categories of interaction with text. journal articles.T. antl communication within the classroom. 1993. J. who in many language classes would never open thcir mouths unless forccd to by the teacher.Thc ‘social validation’ of my values has ultimately been through presentations in journal articles and conference presentations. and students hcgin to analysc published and unpublished academic discourse produced hy others. 78-96. L a n p a g e Programs in Development Projects. Both your own and other people’s beliefs about effective language learning will be modified and enriched by your experiences. In terms ofthc prerequisites for communication. but initially they have been discussed in the hothouse context of materials and curriculum development teams and tested in actual use in the classroom. 33 1-341. ed. As the coursc develops. 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. they are all present: there is a genuine commitment to communicate. ed. References Bates.T. English for Spectfic Pnrposes. activities fall clearly into the social validation category. as well as outside it. and Pham.You look at other people’s models and you read current theory. .Thcy will be developed in the interaction between the writcm. “Writing ‘Nuclcus”’. M. They struggle to communicate their research not only to others in the class who share their technical specialisation. Students present their work. by W. the desire to take the floor and to make a point does not depend on linguistic ability o r a forceful personality. there is a genuine audience. the teachers and the studcnts. M. Students find themselves engaged in research in their own field of study. it is worth bearing this in mind. etc. research which many of them will go on to develop further as part of their Master’s or Doctoral dissertation.They will contribute to the sum total of materials writing experience.



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, 163-197. 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.

Chapter 1 9

Simon Sergeant

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 and the speed of diffusion antl technological advance sccm t o 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 t o 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 tiy 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 l v h o 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




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’.

CALL facilities have l x c n 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

242 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 by 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 oII\.’ 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 from linear constraints and from the chore o f reivriting in long-hand. l ‘ h c ‘opportunitirs get taken’ hypothesis (Pcrkins ibid.) suggests opti students will recognize the opportunity of large-scale editing. T h e deeper el‘fects involving a restructuring of the cogniti! e skills underlying t h r \vi-iti Iic ‘soaked up’ liy assigning \vriting tasks on the word processor. In other words, the opportunity tloes 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 s u r \ o f perceived program usc among fulltime 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 t h e m . T h c 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. T h e samc applies t o Gapmaster. Teachers place the words they \vant t o blank o u t in square hrackets. T h e t r x t s i w d are usually rxtracts from 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 t o map t h e 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 t h e 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 t c x 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

244 S I M O N S E R G E A N T

Stor) board Gapmaster


Word procc-ssing
Vocal) Games
Tcstmastcr G r a m m a r Games Clarity Grammar Pinpoint Fast Fuod


38.3 18.6 17.5

Instructional /conjectural Instructional Einancipatory Instructional Inatructional Instructional Instructional

Word s t o re

FCF Fxcrciscs
MatchmastciLondon Adventure

150 116 94 49 35 34 22 13 10
\ I

4.5 3.5
2.8 1.5 1.1 1 .o

Kcvelatory Instructional Instructional Instructional Kcvelatory

0.7 0.4 0. 3


Instructional: Icarncrs irecall

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


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 o n 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

The shortfall between thr potential learning opportunities that could be rcalizcd and the reality of the way programs arc frequently undcruscd is obvious. activities. for example with Lvortl processing. 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. complex activities tc Certain factors militate against the use of more time-consuming integrated activities such as simulations. thc safer.They involve the manipulation of language in ways which do not involvc any exchange of meaning. constitutcs a worthn. which are less obviously related to course content. the teacher can take a more passive rolc. expertise arc less likely to be ahvarc of the rangc of opportunities offered by authoring and using \%-ell designed CAI. though some novices make up for this by being enthusiastic and crcative liecause they do not havr preconceived ideas. and staffroom anccdotcs will discourage other teachers. it represents a micro~innovation. I t tends to be authoritarian.hile task.The more complex a program is. 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. or intcracting at a basic level with a simulation. less about such experien o lie favoured by the majority.C A L L INNOVATION I N THE ELT C U R R I C U L U M 245 activity liegan . sometimes not at all. There is. As a consequence. Each timc teachers use a new CALL activity. During a four-hour lesson. Storyboard has a consistent history of almost 100 percent relialilc use. may disco gc a tcacher from using valuable activities.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. A number of personal failures. test reconstruction. so ‘extra’ activities.The effort teachers need to put into lcarning a new program and training their students to take part in an activity will be calculatcd. Under conditions of teacher ownership.The risk of failurc is an important part of thc calculation. This type of program involves more preparation and time in terms ofpre-CALL and post-CALL activities in the classroom. Summary of the problem Teachers with a low level of CALL. a danger of over-using a small number of programs and requiring students to use the same program (with different texts) repeatedly. 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. A similar cost benefit calculation applies to the creation of materials. materials are Lvrittcn into courses using these easily mastered packages . Once a task has hcen set. offcring guidance only when requircd.tcachrr and students a break from each welcome change of other. Tcachers take a technocentric viewpoint and assume that thc minimal task imposed by the program. evaluative a n d overly structured. thc least interesting things. whcthc~r gap filling. so there arc few lost lessons. migrating to the computcr room is a ne which tends to g i w thc.[. thcrcfore. which involve the class and the teacher in learning how to use a program that has less repeat value than a text reconstruction activity. Underwood (1 984) commcnts that CAIJ. 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. based on perception ot the reliability of the hard\varc antl the complexity of the program. may be less used. in this modc trics to simulate what the tcachcr docs in the classroom to be exact.Transformation exercises antl controlled pattern practice are activities \vhich involvc thc production of language but not the use of language (Willis 1990).

bvr i ting cl ear insti-uc ti ons / tlocunic n t a t ion) or from t he top .s t o usc. fixed supplcnicntarv clcmcnts Ibr a Iiarticular coursc.ninto courscs. E\. ivhrthcr t o focus acti\ity from thc bottom-up o f the system (c. A similar sclcction.1.1.ct\z n all stakeholders \z ithin the institution. Thcy arc \\ rittcn into the teacher’s notes. 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. t h c good\vill o f the managcmcnt is a s s u r d .1. atlniinistrativc staff O n a day-to-tla: Iiasis. inaterials in the instructional mode (see Figui-c 19. ‘I‘hc CC. \vhich is the typical Icvcl of’atloption of‘the majority of’tcachers. The syllalius then Iiecomes resistant t o m o r e integrated acti\ itics in cniancipatorv or rc\clatory motlcs. \\orking under the assumption that if things arc running smoothly. Most of thc timc it is more Iirotital)lc t o locus on Iicrmancnt improvements. but arc considered secondary t o the process o l teaching the subject matter of the syllalius. by talking to other practitioners antl by everyday olisci-vation antl practicc. In an ideal situation. it means that far less training is rcquirctl. T h c l d l implementation of CALL is a lengthy Iiroccss. or \vriting clearer gains cxlicrtisc hv studying the ticltl intcnsivrly. technical staff. . both users (students antl tcachcrs) antl non-uscrs (managers. pritnarily tlcri\-ctl from textbooks with a structural/functionaI ordering ol‘itcnis.don n ( c . In the \vitlcr syllalius thcsc structures and functions arc supplemented \vith further materials 01’ the same nature. thc CC makes decisions about the most cffcctivc lint. the CC can therefore ivoi-k at the ‘thing’ 1 1 o r at the ‘person’ Ic\-c. A nunilicr of communicative activities are also a\ ailalilc. tcachcrs antl niatci-ials \vritcrs. This is also rcflcctctl in the Iialancc of C A I l materials. tends t o tldinc the normal level o f CALL use. Il‘this is multiplied hy 40 staff or 2000 studcnt users. in his/hcr efforts t o cnsurc cfl(xtivc CALL Icssons. maintaining the goodwill of the managcmcnt). Impro\ cnicnts made to the system. simplification and transfcr of skills takcs placc Iict\vc.XI cnsurc adoption.crytlay priorities usually in\-olvc thc bottom-up approach. antl Iiecomc institutionalized. materials antl instructions arc tcachcr and stutlcnts.246 SIMON SERGEANT \vhich produce as much student ‘liusyncss’as Iiossililc tor the least effort in materials writing or lesson preparation. Thcy arc supplcmcntary t o the tcxtlmok matcrials. \z hcrcas training antl retraining is a constant rcquircnicnt lbr nc\v staff or for those requiring updating. Most materials exist only as texts. such ing or simulations.Working at thc ‘thing’ Icvcl lcatls t o case of access for all users: students.g. T h e Iireliondcrancc of CAI. the CC (CAI. At this stagc it is tlifl’icult t o alter t h e materials or introducc a \vitlcr variety o f prograins. Iivrhalis simplifying a procedure b v a single key press. s o that a particular unit in a textbook may tic supplcmcntctl \\it11 a t e x t reconstruction activity. of work. dealing \\ ith Iiroblcms as they arise. something can hc made easier for t e a c h . For example. The prc\alcncc of the supplementary u s c 01‘ CAI I .l. t cac he r training. a vocabulary activitv a n d / o r a gapfilling acti\ it!. materials development. They arc easily authored materials ~1rittc. is in thc position o f coordinating the interaction o f t w o highly complex systems: net\\ orkctl computers and the staff within the organintion (scc Appendix Ix-lo\~ ).: to set u p system structurcs.g.1) reflects the nature 01’ the \\ idcr syllalius. Five ycars \vci-c nccdctl in our ccntrc for the institutionalization of a minimal Icvcl o f CAI. CALL implerncntation strategies CALL expertise is a complex skill \vhich can lie acquired liv various means. Working at the ‘person’ Icvcl in\-olves creating antl maintaining a flo\v o f information t.

dclction.I ma: add \-aluc t o a CALL facility hy \\-orking \vith managers. I havc cxplorctl the nature of' day-to-day CALI value-atltling activity within the context o f t h c CALI.I.I.aluation and self-education. t h e 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. the actions o f t h c CC arc pivotal t o thc pi-ot igniiicant curriculum change. antl ensure5 that the innovation I! users of' CALL.hich a teacher Lvith rcsponsilility for CAI . Tvhilc thcy arc morc mundanc. In this article. co-ortlinator (CC). To crcatc antl maintain the CALL facility in good working ortlcr requires a pi-ofcssional change agcnt: the CAI. cataloguing. Conclusion With insufficient management. thc Icycl o f CALL use is likclv to tlcclinc. facility \vhcrc I work. antl that managers. . to providc instructions t o teachers. tlc\-cloping interesting matcrials.(CC) or a team of' protcssionals with a high tlcgrec ofcxpcrtisc in CAL.Thc C C can minimize problcms faced > by 'atltling \ d u e ' tc t c m at iarious lcvcls. c\. filc hackup) antl therefore the lcvcl o f use tleci-cases in scope antl quality. timctabling. Ideally. Eight years m ~ recluii-et1 ~ c before o u r ccntrc ti thc standard of' implcmcntation antl expertise rcquircd t o gcncratc a teacher training course such as CALLI'EC.1 co-ortlinatoi. T h e resolution o f these problems is sccn as a precontlition for maximal benefit to the ELI' curriculum. tcachers antl students rccognizc these opportunitics antl take them. The CC deals lvith practical problcms. maintenance of materials (printing. define. are the sine clua non oi' CALI. tcachcrs and studcnts cithcr at the thing (system) I C 1 or at the person 1c Whcrc only a sniall amount o f non-teaching time is made availal)lc. e sensuring s that CALL in this casc the CA1. thcrcfoi-e.: trouldc shooting. O n a larger scale.. Summary of value-adding activities 'I'hc summary in the Appendix t o this articlc illustratcs thc ua!s in \\. is ccntral to the ~ ~ ~ w cof operates smoothly. software acquisition antl installation. The pro\-ision of morc time allo\vs the CC to focus o n value-adding activities 1% hich arc lcss conccrnctl nit11 the day-to-(lay running of the facility such as teacher training. to author high cluality materials antl ~vcavc them into the structure of courses. I p u t for\vartl possildc strategies lotdealing u i t h prohlcms arising from the institutionalization of a minimal Icvrl of CALL u s ~ ~ . crcatc antl maintain high quality learning structures antl communicatc their potentials t o managers antl users simply antl cffectivclv. is at least minimally implcmentetl.Thc change agent. the main focus o f activity tcntls t o shift alvay from teacher training to other consitlcrations which.CALL INNOVATION I N THE ELT CURRICULUM 247 t o source soft\\ arc.Thcy can intcrprct CALL use in tcrrns of current mcthotlology. T h e CC is rcsponsihlc for the creation and maintenance of a student learning niche within the cui-riculum. 'I'hcsc actions are rcsponsihlc tor facilitating conscious learning opportunities by ensuring that CALL learning exists.

Conimunicationr Improl ing the information flou bctu ccn CALL personnel and manager?. and Software evalciation c7nd acc~uitition Initiating the purchase or design of ne\v software antl submitting it to materials writers for evaluation. Echnica/ matters I)> managers. Eachcr training 1 ' 1ho arc authoring Initiating and developing tcachcr training. . observable organizational change antl flow of communication. on the level of finance and 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. ranging from presentations and markshops to responding to the day-today questions of individual teachers. Eacher training kncouraging the management to initiate antl dc\clop various forms of teacher training. GLlidlng C/ILL ure Administering the timetable.248 S I M O N S E R G E A N T Appendix: value-adding activities 1 Working with non-users (managers) Infuencing Influencing thc private evaluation ol CALL hardware/softm arc.Ilaterialc tlevelopment Writing materials and model lessons antl supporting teacher5 coursemare. 2 Working with users (teachers and students) Mbrking at the y5tem l a e l Designing and programming the s)stcm to make idcntifying thc nrcd tor new h a r t h arc it reliable and transparent to use. Evaluation Evaluation b? managers of CALL on thc lcvcl o f consumcr satisfaction. Writing instructions and manuals to support CALL use. Training may be cithcr in thc use of existing activities or in thc creation of materials. . Cataloguing and publishing materials in a form that teachers find useful when planning lessons.

Notes 1 In Storylmartl. D. 1990 The L e ~ i c i i lSyllabus (Collins) . and Wright. L. J. M. 1994 ‘The meaning of innovation for ESL teachers’. 4: 329 4 2 (OW) Nicholls.e . 9 no. Rinchart antl Winston. M. and Crookcs. I I... antl Skehan. Chin. I>. Atkin. Phillips. In Etiticutionul Reseurch 14: 1 1-1 6 (NFER. 2 Gapmastrr is a form ofcloze procedure. CAKE. K. 2 2 no. ( e & ) 1985 Untlcr\vootl. R. and Corcv. I. \vith students filling in missing u o r t l s in a text. C. Nc\vYork) Delano. S. Australia) Papcrt. Koutlcdgc) Pcrkins. In Brumfit. antl Benne.This l e ~ cis l the prilate domain of thc teacher. C. 1997 ‘ I low do students learn?’ (Occasional Paper no. G. E. 1988 ‘Evaluation of LL‘I‘ projrcts’. 4 (I’crgamon) Kcmmis. In British Council Occasionu[ Papers no.. Riley. C. students have t o rcasscmblc a tcxt which has 1)ct. R. 1988 The E l T Curriculum: D e s i p . 5 . 1985 ‘The fingertip effect: hon information-processing technolog? shapes thinking’. K . 1’. References and bibliography Krurnfit. 9 no. Innoration and .C X L vol.Ilunuiyerncnl (Black\vell) Willis.W..lpprocich (Newbury HOLISC) White. I<. S. Cunip~itersund the Lcinguuge Eucher: ci Cornrnunicatir... D. 1987 ‘Computer criticism vs. technocratic thinking’.) 1976 The Planning of’Chnnge (Holt. 1984 Linguistics. Inpuencing Changing the may teacher5 think ahout CALL. M. 122 (British Council/ Pergamon) Chin. (eds) 1985 ‘Computers in English LanguagcTcaching: AVien from the Classroom’. L . P. In Bennis. In Syxtem vol. G.. 1992 ‘Computers as a stimulus for talk: the nature of talk gcncratcd by pairs of studcxnts using StoryIx)ard’.’.CALL INNOVATION I N THE ELT CURRICULUM 249 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. University of East Anglia) Kcnncdy.+plied Linguistics i. (cds.01. Routlctigc) Phillips. concerned \\ ith how teachers relate t o CALL and the \\a> CAI I is integrated into a lesson at the planning stage. 1976 ‘General stratcgics for cffccting changes in human systems’. 1 ) . In 0 . D... In . antl Skehan. 1985 ‘Logical possibilitics and classroom scenarios for thc tlcvclopincnt o f CALI. Rcnnc. 2: 19-29 (University of Queenslantl.n deleted from the ScI-cCn. I. R. Philips. K . In Educutionnl Reieorch 17: 22-30 (NE‘EK. N.


PART FOUR Evaluating curriculum change .


E\ aluations of this type are largely. This type of 1 . Generally the information tlcrivcd from evaluation for purpo o f accountability is not used in any niajor \vay to improve thc functioning o f the curriculum o r classroom practice.mcnt. then cuts may be made. If. although not exclusively. it is highly likely that a school \\ill discontinur supporting this venture. or at the end of a project. Usually. The main g e n t d purposes arc examined first. There arc other points to notice. the domain of policy makcrs or pro\-itlrrs of resources. whether something is intrinsically a ‘good thing’ or not. topic-rclatctl purposes. in other words \z hethcr something has been both effective and efficient. for example.Thus. They can he divided into two broad categories: general purposes specific. such evaluations arc carried out after an innovation has been running for some time. Kathcr it informs decisions as t o whether something is to continue or be discontinued.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 A 1 2 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. sponsors or heads o f institutions are not satisfied with thc implementation of a particular project. 2 General evaluation purposes E\ aluation ma) bc undertaken for thrcc principal rcawns 1 2 3 accountability curriculum de\ elopmcnt and betterment self cle\elopmcnt tcac her\ and othci language teaching profc\\ional\ Evaluation f o r purposes o f accountability Evaluation for purposes of accountability is mainly concerncd with determining whether there has bccn value for money. and then judged to b e ineffccti\-e. The main aim is to report on a product and givc an evaluative judgt. if a particular reading schcme is introducctl. There is a close link bctwccn pmver and c d u a t i o n for accountability. cvaluated a year later.

The ideas o f Stcnhousc ( I 975) \\. This information may l i e rcportctl at various times antl in various f’orms.crall outcomes.aluation of‘ c l a s s r o o m s . Evaluation f o r purposes o f 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. end product ol’an inno\ation. formativc e\ aluation is drsignctl to pro\-itlc information that may l i e used as the basis for future planning and action..s.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. cvaluations intended to improve thc curriculum will gather information from tliffei-ent people ovci. for example as rcymnscs t o qucstionnairc.It ma? I w largcly descriptive antl qualitative. records. Sumniati\-c cvaluations arc liinitctl I)! their focus on outcomes a t the cntl o f an educational inno\ a t. Whilst it could not b e said that the test information \vas without value for this Project. From this it follo\vs that tcachcrs have major contributions t o make in the c\. ion.fhrrnutive evuluution. and intcrcnccs about curriculum quality from statistical a n d dc\. 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 ( ~ .DICKINS A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E evaluation. Thc rcsults pla!ctl a U S C ~ L Ipart ~ in confirming that thc gctwral approach o f t h c materials \ \ a s cttccti\.riting tvithout being supplcmcntctl liv other data. knoivn as summcitii’c L‘I illtrotion. I t p o r t a n t in the management of evaluation to inclutlc a l l relevant partics. In contrast to summative ?valuation for purposcs o f accountability. Evaluation f o r purposes of curriculum development Tcachcrs have a kc? rolc to pia! in thc curt-iculum r-cnc\\. It is the tcachcr. then the choice n m ~ i l dl i e for tcachct-s’ reports and tlircct olxcrvations in the classroom antl not for tests of short-term changes in children’s twhaviour.c. antl has consistently failed t o takc into account tcachcrs’ cvaluati! c comtnc‘nts. i. it can I)c said that \vhcrc resources a r c limited antl it is necessary to conccntt-atc itlion gathering i n l i ) r t n a t i o n t o give thc greatest rcturn on mom?.clopmcnt process. It is formative sincc it aims t o strengthen and improvc the curriculum. rather than the o most information alwut specific classroom ‘trstcr’ or the evaluation ‘expert’. intcrvic\vs. ~ h has contcxts. has also tended t o in\ olvc testing and mcasurcm c n t . o r diary kccping.254 P A U L I N E REA.l m d i t s for the production of Units. antl anal! s c s of thc statistical significance of results olitainctl.‘l’his is known as. measurements. It has focuscd o n the o\. This is sometimes referred to as illurninatii.a period of timc.c antl not readily usable for guiding re\\. As opposed to mcrcly passing an cvaluatil-e judgement o n the cnd product of a tcaching programme (summativc evaluation). Such evaluations arc ongoing antl monitor tl lopmcnts hy identifying the strengths antl \vcakncsses of all aspccts of teaching antl learning. (Harlcn 1973: 91 9 2 cited in Stcnhousc 1975) tval u a t i on for CLIr r icu luni t leve Iop in c n t pur 1 x ’ \vi11 involvc information from tcachcrs an(\ other relevant El :I‘ l)rofcssioiials.. timc antl h u m a n energy.c in promoting achievement of i t s stated o b j c c t i \ q antl the dcvclolimcnt o f tests also had s i d e . and ncctl not entail tests.e evuluution (Parlctt antl Hamilton 1987) Iiecausc it involves raising t h e .

W h a t 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 of this kind is tlcf'initc~lTnot conccrncd \vith mcasurcnicnt. 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. aspccts of ntation. antl tcachrr self dc\clopment). Thus. 1 3 Specific topic-related purposes for evaluat' ion tion. . \\e need to itlrntify clearly the focus of OUI. t o complcmcnt (lata tvpically tlcrivetl lrom a test analysis of learner pcrformancc. curriculum. or contrihutc to\\ artls an cxplanation of. the tcxtlmoks. \\-hat is less cttc. rclatcd Ilkrcnt aspccts of the teaching antl learning pi-ocess. antl in 01-derto improve learning outcomes. In other ~ v o r d sthe .hat is hcing cxamincd. o r is thc focus on the textbook or thc \Yay tcach grammarlThc c\aluator has t o he clear as t o \\. What is meant by thc cni. Evaluation is thc means h y lvhich \vc can gain a Iwttcr understanding of \&at is cffcctivc. 'I'hrough alvarcncss-raising activities. antl the resourcrs available t o the teacher.PURPOSES FOR EVALUATION 255 coiisciousncss o f tcachcrs antl otlic-1.question.cti\.aluations arc both illuminative ant1 formati\e in purp)sc. 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\. evaluation must focus on both the means antl thc product of the learning pro .tL'1' practitioners as t o \\. Kcv factors arc that: 1 2 3 4 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 m a y explain. In ortlcr t o do this. antl xvhat ai1ptw-s to he of no use at all. This t) pv o f cvaluation is also tlcvclopmcntal antl formative.ironmen/ o f t h c classroom since it is this that pro\. w h y a prugrammc is su other information. Accountabilit: 1 5 us \\itli sumniati\c e\aluation 1% hilc cui riculum tle\clopmcnt and teacher sclt ti arc I x t t c r informed 11) c\ aluation as a formati\c p r o ~ c c c In this section \\ 1 . associated Tvith curriculum drvc~lopmcnt antl tcachcr self-development.e. A r e \vc intcrc~stctlin evaluating the classroom organization. arc they cffcctivc?).Thc! focus m o r e o n th antl less o n the product. there is a need t o examine more closclv those conditions that ma? contribute t o succcssful language learning. should be incluclctl in an evaluation of the.c. of tcaching antl learning antl have a tnajor role t o play in tcachci- Summary c h a c examined the general p u r p o w s f o i e\ aluation (accountal)ilit>. We arc concerned 1% ith formative a n d illuminative evaluation. lopmcnt. \vhcxn \vc ask the question 'Do o u r teaching antl Itm-ning Ixogrammcs \vork?' (i. the inodc(s) of teacher presentation.hat actually happens (as opposed t o what is s u p p s c d to happen) in the language teaching classroom. varied processes of teaching arc as important as the outcomc of learning.itlcs the focus for our c d u a t i o n s ? Thr cmvironnicnt is macle u p of man! things including t h e social organization of thc classroom.

a list of criteria against which to evaluate the materials. o r do you includc teachers’ guides. matc. rvatlcrs. When it comcs to teacher-made materials a specification. the cff‘ectivcncss o f teaching and learning is not cxplained solcly in terms of how good or bad the learning materials are.rials-in-proccss. that is Lvithout rcfcrence to their actual use in the classroom. In the case of class textbooks. This distinction between the theoretical (i. However. \ve arc rcfcrring to the theoretical worth of the materials. teaching manuals.c. etc? L ) o you make a distinction hctwccn materials dcsigncd spccilically for first and second language teaching. We can generalize from the notion o f ‘tasks’ to the notion o f teaching and learning materials in the following manncr.256 P A U L I N E R E A . I t is also crucial not to ovcrrniphasizc the importance of learning materials. audio and visual materials.D I C K I N S A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E 4 Materials Before anal) sing the extent to \\ hic h g i en ~ tcaching and lcarning matcrials arc suitable. and outcomes from materials. materials are only purr of thr. is indicated at thc outset o r accumulated during the proccss of materials writing and is thus ‘known’ to the tcachtxr. who distinguishes three phases in the evaluation of materials: materials~as~\I. supplcmcntarv units. Rut. gives us no information about how these materials actually work with a class. As Allwright ( 1 98 1 ) suggcsts. 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 2 3 110 you refer cxclusivelj to textbooks.orkplan. Evaluation o f 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. Examining the materials as they stand. 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? The role o f 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 o n classroom teaching materials. i. construct validity) and empirical value of materials has becn explored by Rrccn ( 1 989). In both cases. as Breen (1 989: 189) statcs: ~ . the evaluation criteria will be those used lvhcn tlcciding \vhich hook is best for your teaching context.c. with unrealistic expectations made of thcm. taking u p the range of points covered in comprehensive checklist. co-operative management of language learning. ‘Materials-as-workplan’ refers to the theoretical value ofmatcrials.

lieneht greatl) in the eialuation. 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. For I. design and usc of materials b\ cngaging the help and r IC\\ s of learners’. Lon. W h o evaluates the inaterials is the final point to he considcrcd here.PURPOSES FOR EVALUATION 257 Workplans can only provide opportunitics for change in knowledge and capability and for successful outcomes in relatively unpredictable antl broad measure. on the othcr hand. (1 987) comments on the range of individuals connected \vith a language learning course and examines both the nature antl purpose o f t h e evaluations they arc likely to make. antl then make the nccessar! changes A parent. 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.’ . ‘This brings us to an evaluation of ‘Materials-in-pro .itie. a materials writer might carr: out a formati\e e\ aluation designcd to indicate 1% hcthcr the texts arc appropriate to the targct learners. might onl) be intereyted in examination results. Rrccn and Cantllin suggest a ! s in \r hich learners ma) participate in the e\aluation of materials On the procedurcsf o r tiorking with tasks and actir.Thc ‘outcomes fi-om materials’ rcprcscnt the relative achievements of learners. ten tliffei-cnt perspectives on materials evaluation could be offered: The LcarneiThe Parent The Teacher Thc Head or College Principal I’hc Teacher Trainer The Curriculum Committee Mrmbcr The Inspcctor The Educational Rcscarc heiThe Ikhlishcr The Materials Designer (Low 1987) U) examining the role(\) o f these p i ticipating groups in the materials cx\aluation process.o\z-. M hic h imphes a summati\ c asscyymcnt ot learner pcrformancc O n the premise that ‘teachers ma.7 in the clossroom What do you find are the most useful w a to learn a new language? tasks and activities?What arc the reasons 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 d o 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? .

should n o t h e untlcrvalucd. and jutigcmcmtal statements. Classroom oliscrvation givcs us thr opportunity t o see tcachcrs putting theory into prac. Wc need t o ol)scrvc tcachci-s in action using thrir kno\vletlgc in t h e real sctting of thc classroom.ticc: it shmvs us what tcachcrs tlo rather than \\.)rming tasks in the classroom. It is important t o recognize the diffcrent and relevant contriliutions t o materials evaluation. . the data I’rom lvhich \vi11 bc augmented Lvith details of learner outcomes. T h e importance 01‘ ohscrvational (lata.hat thrv kno\v. Summa i y In evaluating materials it is ti ai-\ t o cxaminc the Ivays in \vhich teaching and learning materials arc sensitive t o the uagc Icai-ning lira< . 5 Teachers and teaching Purposes f o r classroom observation F. tcachcrs a r c \.klist as a guide.258 P A U L I N E R E A . I. accountability. invol\cs morc vie\vpoints than that of the “intlclien(lcnt” outsi(lc olxervei-’.Yaluation is a crucial part ol’teaching. ‘use of aids’. the qucstions can Iic reformulated to make them morc relevant t o individual contexts. ‘suitalility of matrrials and methods’. o r the materials used t o tcach it. Iiut how is it done \vcll!Testing knowledge o f theory is not cnough to judge clfectivc teaching.o\v ( 1 987:27) maintains: ‘the evaluation of a language learning programme.e. Grading teachers Your o\vn tcaching context \ \ i l l influence your v i e w o n the ~ i u q i o s c sof‘ classroom ol)scrvation.e. Sometimes this evaluation is car-rictl out without much participation hy thc tcachcr i v h o is actually Iicing ohscrvctl. for example. The cxpcricncc of many tcachcm suggests that it is primarily summative in p u r p c . Also. \vorkplan) and cmpirical (i. From this \\.lien grading tcachcrs using a checklist is mainly o n the product of teaching antl Icarning. thc chccklist is used by an cxtc-rnal oliset-vcr. antl then c o m m e n t on the lessons using a chcc. derived from an analysis of materials in use. hut also. and importantly. I ‘ . process) analysis of materials.n antl Candlin 1987: 27) As with most in\ cntorics ol’this kind. The focus \\.e mav conclude that a comprchcnsivc evaluation of‘our teaching antl learning materials \vi11 cntail a thcorctical (i. It is necessary to analyse learner outcomes.kited by inspectors \vho check thcir class rccor~ls and lesson plans. t o the procctlurcs lor lvorking with texts and Iicd. As I. h i t not to the exclusion of cvaluating other aspects o f the teaching antl learning process. obscrvc a Irsson.D I C K I N S A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E What is good and not so good a h i t the tnatcrials you arc \vorking Lvith no\v? W h a t do you think is missing from them? W h a t changes \vould you make t o them? (13rcc. Evaluation criteria should relate not only t o thc aims antl contents o f language Icarning. ‘ability t o cstalilish rapport’. incxtrica1)ly Imund u p \vith reporting a grade.T!’pically.

reordering words and sentences). filling in a gapped passage. Here trainees ‘teach’ a lesson to their colleagues. learner to learner. attention to the following: (a) classroom pcrsonality (b) classroom management (c) awareness of learners The above should be gone into in detail. for example. for example. an example of formative teaching evaluation. fifteen minutes covering a specific topic or skill . therefore. 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. 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. The category ‘what the learner is doing’ could highlight. the nature of the interaction (teacher to learner. but also there is an attempt to examine the process o r teaching and learning. (d) what is being sought (e) how it is being sought (f) what thc learner is doing 3 Post lesson evaluation. i. ‘What are the different question types that the teacher uses?’ ‘How are visual aids used at the different stages (presentation. Here we refer to the formative value of classroom observation where the feedback from evaluation will he used to further develop o r improvc an aspect of classroom practice.Tutor and learner observers look out for specific points in the teaching practice. o r as part of curriculum bettrrment o r tcacher selfde\ elopment.P U R P O S E S FOR E V A L U A T I O N 259 Teacher development Using observation merely to grade teachers. for example. In its simplest form a trainee teaches a group of learners for a short period of time. Peer teaching is an alternative mcthod of evaluating teachers in training. It is important to use observation to provide information that teachers can use as a basis for future action. practice. is extremely limiting. learner to teacher) o r the type of writing that the learners are doing: copying from the blackboard. for example. with a vicw to promotion. what the teacher is doing. An item on a checklist which focuses on ‘how’.c. can also identify a wealth of information about the teacher and teaching. 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. Another way is using microteaching. Feedback can come both from the trainer and fellow learners. I t is.

Taking microteaching as an example. \vc can consider ways in hvhich evaluation may be made more illuminative. they arc primarily geared towards training and grading. . and thcir learners.260 P A U L I N E R E A .. but checklists may reflect an cxtcrnal observer’s judgement on what is effective teaching. It can lie very informal. Or it can be part of a written (such as the class record) or oral rcport on thc lesson itself. with a vie\v to improving their performance.D I C K I N S A N D K E V I N G E R M A I N E (apologizing. Teacher self-development A more participant-orientated cvaluation through observation is important in raising teachers’ awarcncss. collaborative. 1 2 The teachers prepare an open profilc of themselves as teachers. Statements such as the following would make up a teacher’s own professional principles: I always correct learner errors. Again. a key feature ofthc teacher development process. antl counselling thcm on relevant aspects of their teaching. and useful in terms of tcachcr self-dcvclopmcnt. for example in the form of brief notes written immctliatcly after the lesson. in many ca. Thcrc is a need to consider lvays in Lvhich teachers themselves may become more involvctl in the proccss of evaluation. . the teacher uscs the appropriate methodology. reading for specific information. peers and/or a trainer observe this performance and comment on it using a checklist as a guide. We shall examine these in detail. in other words. peer evaluation. However. the syllabus is being covered. a checklist can be used.). Here it is important for there to be somc means of encouraging open and constructively critical discussion. One of the advantages of self-cvaluation inventories is that they can be designed by individual teachers to suit thcir own tcaching contexts. Peer evaluation Peer evaluation can be incorporated into microteaching where several trainees are present during the lesson o r where they share the same microteaching session. and so on. They are relatively simple to use and pet potentially they can providc a wealth of information about teachers. monitoring their progress. their teaching. I t is in the form of a sort of self-presentation which can precede the feedback session at the end of the microteaching. used to determine Lvhcther thc training institution will qualify a teacher. not only is the olxcrvation largcly controlled by someone other than the classroom teacher..The proccss can be examined at three levels: self-evaluation. antl collaborative group work. I do not allow learners to use their first language. Teacher selfevaluation Self-Evaluation is simply thc practice of tcachcrs reflecting on what has taken place in the I tsson . Additionally. consider the following procedurc (adapted from James 1983) which may involve both teacher self-evaluation and peer evaluation. The observation involved in the above practiccs can he used for improving thc teachers’ techniques. Alternatively. Now. ctc.

hut may also cncouragc antl support teachers in difficult circumstances. I never ask learners to read aloud to the rest of the class. More control is in the hands of the peer group but it requires good lcatlership skills. I never ask a learner to use language which has not been previously presented and practised. .PURPOSES FOR E V A L U A T I O N 261 I teach the rules of grammar to help lcarncrs use the language. Nonctheless. I believe that learner errors are the result of first language intcrferencc. in an article about Rurkina Faso. these small groups antl their discussion topics could be Ilrought together in a national conference. improving their performance. Since tcachers may find themselves in a situation where there is little or no in-service training. Because peer evaluation is collaliorativc in approach.. discusses the junction of teachers’ self-help groups which can form the basis of a collaborative national teacher organisation. I t may be a gradual process which is initially promptcd by an rxtcrnal olxcrvrr but latcr moves tobvards self-evaluation. I always mark learners’ writtcn work. A t a later datc. in microteaching it can be used by both peers and tutors to discuss hvhat constitutes elements of good teaching practice. the teachers in discussion groups indicate whether they agree or disagree. Kouraogo (1 987). evaluation can bc the m a n s to understanding their own teaching bettcr.] does not presupposc any external obscrwr. Collaborative group work can offer an additional opportunity to evaluate the trainer and the programme. If thcrc is tlisagrccment then they are asked to rewrite the statement to reflect \vhat they think. I adapt my teaching to suit what the learners say they want. 3 For each of these statements. I make certain that a large proportion of the learners’ time is spent in group work. Evaluation in this broad scnse is an important part of teacher education which teachers can use throughout their careers. I always use authentic materials as a basis for teaching. . 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. Summary We havc moved from the narrow perspcctive of grading teacher performance t o an evaluation o f tcachers and teaching which can provide information of practical use to tcachers for the development of their ttwhing. I try to exercise a strong personality in the classroom. Note that this self-cvaluation checklist [. 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. 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. . and adapting to the changing needs of the classroom. Kouraogo suggests that groups could meet on a monthly basis and discuss the practical problcms that tcachers have. A t 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. One of the purposes of these self-help groups is that they may not only help teachers resolve practical prohlcms.

and D. University of Exeter. Exeter: Language Centre. Candlin.’ In: R . E. L. G. P. M. 1975. 1989. Camhridge: Cambridge University Press.s. 1983.): ELTTextbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development. K.s. Brecn. London: Harper and Row. M.’ Evaluation and Research in Education 1 / 1 . ‘The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. N. 1989. An Introduction to Curriculum Research unci P. 1987. ‘The need for a multi-perspcctivc approach to the evaluation of foreign language teaching materials.sment 2: Report of the Second Exeter Seminar. London: Modern English Publications/British Council. ‘What do \ce need matcrials for?’ English Language Teaching Journal 36/ 1 : 6-9.): Evaluating Education: I. 1987.’ English Language Teachingjournal 41 / 3 : 171 8. Stenhouse. M. Lon. James.sues and Methods. Teacher A. Torrance (eds. ELT Documents. Sheldon (et].262 P A U L I N E R E A . .’ In: R. Murphy anti H. 1987. and C. Johnson (ed. ‘Which materials?: a consumer’s and designer’s guide. ‘Curriculum rcncwal and INSET in difficult circumstances.): The Second Language Curriculum. Rrecn. G. D.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. Parlett.’ In: L. 1987. London: Hcinemann Educational. ‘Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. Kouraogo. 1987. Hamilton. 198 1 . 1987.s.

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. 1992. Stollcr. 1994). 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. Implications for primary ELT. 1993. Markee. comprising classroom observation and interviews. In order to facilitate detailed discussion. positively oriented towards the innovation. A picture of the process of curriculum implementation will be developed mainly through the analysis of qualitative data.Chapter 21 David R. Within the Hong Kong context. Carless A C A S E S T U D Y OF C U R R I C U L U M IMPLEMENTATION I N H O N G I<ONG 1 Introduction U R R I C U L U M I N N 0 V A T I O N is 110th a highly complex phenomenon (Fullan. 1993. the strategies that they use during thc implementation process and how their pupils respond to the innovation. but with little noticeable impact on what goes on in the classroom (Morris. it is common for curriculum innovations to result in a facade of change. how they go about moulding the innovation to their own context. 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. teacher education and curriculum innovation are discussed. this article will focus on one of the case study teachers who seemed t o be particularly successful in implementing the innovation. as elsewhere. 1997) and one that requires further research and investigation (Markee. including lesson transcripts and interview extracts. The aim of this analysis is t o verify and devclop elements of' the theory of curriculum innovation through exploringTOC implementation in the specific context of a well-qualified teacher. 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. 1995). C .

.g. 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. in a study of change in developing countries. tion \z i l l hrictly discuss just three factors that seem particularly relevant to the caw study discussed in this paper. Fullan (1 991. it is e. teacher training and teachers’ undcrstantling of the innovation. If the innovation is incompatible \vith teachers’ existing attitudes. . and encouragement o f teacher motivation antl commitment.]. 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. Fullan. suggests four clements nccdcd for successful teacher training to support innovation: permanent and locally available in-service training. the former to relate the innovation to the realities of the spccific school context. 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. Markee. Teachers need both on. their teaching tend to be derived from their owm expcricn experience. resistance to change is likely to occur (Waugh antl Punch. 1990). p. ’l’rachcrs’ attitudes otniously affcct thcir xhaviour in thc classroom.264 D A V I D R. l’cnncr. their interaction \vith collcagucs and the values and norms of the society in kvhich they work.g. adjustment ofthc content oftcachcr training to the teachers’ o\vn Icvcl of knowledge and experience. Within E I T . However. Egypt (Holliday. 1997) indicates a numhcr of different factors that may affect the implcmcntation or non-implementation of curriculum innovations. 1987). When teachers’ attitudcs arc congruent with the innovation. 1996). in an investigation of a communicative syllabus being introduced in Grcck secondary schools.g. 1991 . 1995). through improved working conditions or opportunities for professional dcvclopment. e. establishment of effective t c m s for supcrvision antl support of teachers. teachers who arc initially enthusiastic about an innovation may easily become disillusioned if there is a lack of support for thc innovation. 199) \varns us of a cardinal fact of social change. but it is the latter that tends to prove most essential. through a cascading model. . It is desirable that they understand h t h the theorctical underpinnings and classroom applications of the innovation. then they are likely to be positivcly tlisposctl to\vards its implcmcntation.and off-site training. and Oman (IIarrison. thcir training. This . 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. Grcccc (KaravasIloukas. In some form this scenario has been documented in China (Hui. e. 1995). for cxample. thorough undcrstantling of the principles and practice of the proposed change. especially in contexts kvhcre teachers are not \ycll-traincd and/or lack sound subject knowledge. [. 1994).] Teachcr training antl support are crucial issues in the prcparation of teachcrs to implcment a ne\v curriculum [. 1997. 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. Thcir attitudes as learners. Training therefore needs to be ongoing antl tlcvclopmcntal rather than piecemeal (Brintlley and Hood. .” For example. such as inadcquatc rcsourcing or negative sentiments from the principal or colleagues. . Karavas-Doukas (1 995). namely teacher attitudes. Vcrspoor (1 989).

Criterion-referenced assessment is used to assess pupil progress towards the targets and enables information to bc recorded antl reported to relevant parties.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 265 Dissemination of innovation from curriculum developers or change agents is often insufficient to achieve understanding amongst potential implcmenters. justifying and evaluating solutions. 4 Research methodology and rationale The study involved case studies of three English teachcrs. I litherto. 92). whole-class teaching styles predominate and tcachers tcnd to emphasise the transmission of information and knowledge. such as parents. A major premise of T O C is that pupils should be actively involved in thcir owm learning and in the construction and dewlopment of knowledge antl ideas. s o that a sharcd vision of the implications of the changc can be tlevclopcd. ( 1 994). innovativc within the I Iong Kong context where teacher-centred. including identifying. TOC postulates that students learn through five fundamental. In summary. to a large extent. “’Tasks”are purposeful and contextualiscd learning activities through which pupils progress towards the targets. what is often needed is the negotiation of meaning between developcrs and teachcrs.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. linking teaching. starting in Primary 1 classes Lvho p r o c c d through the school using TOC. Initially T O C was to bc implemented in the three core primary school subjects of Chincse. implementing TOC over a 6-month period in their own Primary 1 or Primary 2 classrooms. congruent with “intcrnational good practicc”. learning and assessment in a rccursive way. and with respect to ELT. 3 Nature of TOC A T O C cross-circular framework \vas d loped tiy a research antl development team. Instead. speeds and abilities can lie licttcr catered for. Allied to on-site classroom support discussed carlicr. inquiring through questioning or testing hypotheses. Mathematics and English. 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. intcrtwining ways of learning: communicating through receiving and sharing meaning. This alignment of targets. 1 996. It is. tasks antl task-based assessmcnt. howevcr. in different schools. so that variations in pupil learning styles. TOC has much in common with communicative methodologies. T O C is. based on current knowledge about how children learn. with pupils . Thr implementation schedule forTOC is an incremental one. conccptualising through organising knoivlctlge and identifying patterns. with subscqucnt introduction of other subjects and also extension into secondary schools. p. reasoning through logical argument and by deducing o r inferring conclusions and problem-solving. schools have licen given some flcxihility in the pace antl extent o f implementation. tasks and assessment forms an integrated curriculum framework. T O C also proposes that more attention should be paid to the individual learning needs of different pupils. these strategies seem to be promising methods in minimising the problem of misconceptions about innovations. “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. T O C is made up of three main conceptual elements: targets. and outlined in Clark et al.

1 2 . the extent to which they believed that they were carrying them out. I took the role of a participant observer and was willing to take part in lessons. This “compatibilist” stance (Lynch. 7 . 10. Postobservation interviews. carried out at the end of each cycle of observations. the teachers’ familiarity n i t h T O C principles. The research questions that guided the study focused mainly on the following issues: 1 the teachers’ attitudes towards English teaching antl towards T O C . 1 1 . She has completed a teaching ccrtificate as an English major from the Hong Kong Institute of Education. 17. Case studies enable information to be collected from a number of sources and over a period of time. reinvent or reject an innovation. totalling 15-18 audio-taped observations per teacher. relatively little is known about how innovations are o r arc not implemented in the classroom context. prior to the commencement of classroom observation. A 26-item attitude scale was developed to measure the orientation of respondents to ELT andTOC. For reasons of space.Thirteen ofthe items (numhers 3 . for example. Summative interviews were conducted in order to probe into some ofthe main issues. 1996) or mixetl-method approach aimcd to facilitate triangulation through the use of both numerical and non-numerical data. the main provider . in that they arc the individuals who will implement faithfully. 5 Background to the teacher and the school The teacher involved in this case study. 13. This teacher perspective is crucial because teachers arc the key element in the implementation process. The central focus of the study was to explore the nature of curriculum innovation through analysing thc pro o f T O C implementation in the classroom. C A R L E S S aged 6-7 years old. A baseline interview. The approach enables the development of an understanding of thc phenomenon from the teacher’s view. 1 8 . 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. It was also administered to a wider sample of primary English teachers. focused primarily on the lessons that had just been observed. The attitude scale was administered to the case study teachers prior to the classroom observation period and again 6 months later at its conclusion. whether they were actually implementing T O C principles and the strategies that they Lvere using. arising from the classroom observations and the ongoing data analysis. 2 0 and 24) implied a broadly positive orientation towards T O C and related principles. had 4 years’ teaching experience at the commencement of this study. collected relevant background information about the teacher and the school. as indicated earlier. rrfcrrcd to as Carol Lee (a pseudonym). Data collection methods used for the study comprised classroom observation. I tried to encourage. A series of five scmi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the three teachers. this paper will focus principally on qualitative data from the classroom observations and interviews. assist o r monitor pupils during individual. All interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher. and the extent and nature of change antl development in the teachers during the period o f t h e study. pair o r group activities. 5 . 9 . focused interviews and an attitude scale. the other items indicated a broadly negative orientation. 14.266 D A V I D R . Classroom observations were conducted for 5 -6 consecutive English lessons for each teacher in three separate cycles during the school year. The case study approach seems particularly suitable to investigate a curriculum innovation becausc.

She also holds a B. She is the pancl chair (similar to a head of department) for the subject of English and also t h r T O C coordinator in her school.” Although the methodology of this lesson may seem relatively typical of international ELT practice. The target language structurcs for the lesson were. Taken as a whole. The principal of the school is supportive of Carol and allows her a high degree of autonomy.Thc pupils are activcly involved in using the targct language and are carrying out a7‘OC language learning task.Ed. one of the major urban areas in Hong Kong. “Who is this?”“This is names of family mcmhers.40 pm. namely classroom observation.] 6. it was the third year that she had taught in her current school. + . degree from a British university and is currently studying for an M. this lesson thcrefore seemed to indicate that Carol was able to put into practice a number of the main features ofTOC.1 provides excerpts from one of the lessons observed in the first cycle of observation. His ohvn attitudc to TOC is characterised by Carol as one of acquicsccmce rather than cnthusiasm.Ed. 1996). [. Seven lessons prr week are allocatcd to the subject of English. 6 Findings and discussion This main body of the paper \vi11 consider data from thc three sources mentioned carlicr. hvith elements of‘reasoning and problem-sol\-ing involved in the identification of family members in the photos. thc lesson transcript shown in Table 2 1 . In fact. . In her opinion. pupils are principally involved in communicating and inquiring.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 267 ofprc-scrvice teacher education in Hong Kong. at thc Open University of Hong Kong. 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.l’he mingling activity part of thc lesson (see lines 2 9 4 0 ) cxcmplifies a numbcr of’keyTOC features. a morning OIW antl an afternoon onc that co-exist more or less independently in the samc premises. a recent survey indicates that only 3% of English tcachcrs are graduates and 550/0 of English teachers are not subject trained (Education Department. With respect to ELT. it represents an innovativc approach consistent withTOC principles. in comparison with the traditional norms prevalent in Hong Kong primary schools. the reason for T O C implcrnentation in the afternoon session \vas mainly to follow the lead of thc morning session rather than through a proactive dcsirc to introduce TOC.OO pm and 5. she carried out T O C with a Primary 1 class of 26 pupils aged mainly 6 ycars old. intcrviews and the attitude scale. a finding corrolmratcd by subscqucnt olxervational data not included in this paper. \?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. I h r i n g the period of the research. both as the T O C coordinator and the pancl chair for English. Her school is situated in Kowloon.1 Classroom data In ordcr to providc a flavour of how this teacher carries out TOC in hcr classroom. She is very well-qualified acadcmically in comparison with the majority of Hong Kong primary teachers. Carol works in thc afternoon session.This section has seven timetabled lessons of 35 min each between 1 . meaning that thcrc are two sessions. A t the time of the research. The school is a bi-sessional onc. . In terms of the five fundamental intertwining ways of learning.

. you can ask 'I'onimy. c ~ . '1': l'his is m e (points). (f'upils leure their scot) m i l mow toiwrds the Iron1 o/. . CAI'ITALISATION = c%mphasis.: Good.f. Who's this (points)? Who's this? This is . . 'l'his is my mother (point. I am Miss I cc.) 20 '1.2 ctc = itlciitifictl Icarncr.\). . This is m y father (points). I 1 . (in itulrcs) = commentary. L L L : This is Irene. 'l'his is my father. (Pupils stand near the. IIc is my father.s) 35 Ircne. Her namc is Stella. Miss 1. M! name is Miss 1 ..onvcntions: T = teacher. L2: This is Miss Lrc. \\bo's thi. C A R L E S S Table 2 1 . W h o is this 5 (points)? Who is thi.fumi!i member.) 'I'i-anscription c. go around (cises gcstwe). .s und then usks them questions ahorit the names antl relationships of the). Okay. get hook antl get your photos readv. L3: This is Miss Lee. .: I Icr name is Ircnc. I Icr narnc is Irene. 'fhis is my sistcr (points). I am Miss I ce. 15 (Then she recups and remind\ pupi1. . she tells pupils iurh no photos t o take oiit their hunch& II hich hc71.front V f t h c tluss. y o u can answer okay no\v try. L1.. ficr name is Cclinc. A n d this is my family. [~rcsiimub(~ C. . This is my fhmily. this is Irene. L 5 : 'I'his is Ircnc. L4: Irene. Her name is Stella. your 3 0 'What's this?' antl then you can ansmrr. I IIS. He is a man. . My name is Miss I r e . . This is Ircnc. They arc my sisters (points). She then usks them to take out theirfami(r. His name is h i . Y o u can walk aroun(1 and then look at the othcrs. His name is h i .L = whole class choral. .I. 1. She takes one p u p i l photo as cin crumple. . = pausc. t h e teacher 10 u\k the turget yuestions und m s i w r them. Ant1 this (points to t h e phoro) is my family.1. . ut. 1. more indcpenclcnt inititil prompting and pupil purliripcition del-clops.strution and pructicc) T : Stand up.\CIMS /upolo~ps. 7hc re\curcher also 40 joins in which encoriruges firrthcr coinmunicution in the turgct lcingriuge. family.ephotos in them.thc clci<.: Look. . I lis narnc is h i . Comc hcrc children. . O r I Icidi you can ask Kitt Okay come out.I am Miss Lee.r. . This is my fathtxr 10 (point\).faini!r~) 1':Look at me (points to herself).268 D A V I D R.) Yes.4ntl I ha\c t \ v o sisters. 'I'his is mv sister (points). 25 T : Her name is Irenc.? W h o is this? L1: This is Miss Lev. fie. Stand up.s o f t h c nume. ( S o m e get o t i t o/ their seuts. I Icr name is Cclinc. tire led b).1. man) of them make comments in Cantonese..? (Further ifemon. I Excerpt from a Irsson transcript 1 (She takes our an altractii e cnlurcycd plioro o/ ber. Comc hcrc chiltlrcn. brit uftcr some encouragement. . T: A n d this one (points). No\v I \\ant you t o gct \\ ith [sic]vour photo o r your hantll)ook ( U S E S p m r e ) . photos. This is m y family.

lines 2 S ) . I think it’s a kind of acquisition and I havc t o give them an environment that English is the first language instead 01’ Chinese. change implementation. the input is rich in directives. that thcy nccd to use Cantoncse or mixed codr because ofthc low le\ el of language skills ofthe pupils. This contrasts with a view.2. thcre is an adhcrcncc to the “here and now” principle. I 1% 111 nou proceed to discus. 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. short simple scntences (e. p. use of the photo) to facilitate pupil understanding.g.g. her statcments in interviews and her attitudc scale responses all indicate that Carol has a positive attitude to\rards T O C and associated principles. For example.Thc extracts discussed here relate to her attitudc touartls T O C . 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. she is able to maintain English medium during the lessons mainly hccausc of her own high overall proficiency and her ability to use clear. lines 10 14) antl visual support (e. a number of themes from the inter\ IC\\ data.2 Interview data Haling looked briefl>at an example o f how Carol tarrieq o u t T O C in the classroom.’’ 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 . 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. her understanding of TOC. studcnts seem to be converting input into intake: and in the activity stage. the rolc ot the principal.g. commonly expressed by Hong Kong primary tcachers. p.Ittirude tortar& TOC‘ Her actions in thr classroom. I think acquisition is important for them. 1 ) 6. 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.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 HONG KONG 269 the target language serves as the medium as well as the focus of instruction. In other words. (summativc inter\ie\v. 9). it is easicr for them to learn a language. I hclieve that it’s much more easy for them to acquire a language rather than learn a language” (baseline interview. In other words.1 . in thc interviews shc describes hcr attitudes towartlsT0C as “positive” or “more than positive hut I can’t say very positive. she has a clear rationale for using the target language s o as to lacilitatc language acquisition among the pupils. simply English supported by pointing or gestures. 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. “For primary school students. Carol explains thc I)encfits of using the target language as follo\vs: If thcy can try t o listen to English more. 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. I think it’s strange if you learn. teacher \upport and teacher reflection 6.

6.These provide a sample of her attitudes. Understanding of the principles and practice o f a 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. p.270 D A V I D R . Statement 3 7 9 10 11 13 14 24 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. but in general demonstrated a rcasonalile. her expressed attitudes scem to be congruent with the constructivist view of‘ learning cspoused in thc T O C framework (Clark et al. not just a classroom situation. task (“knowledge in use”). 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. her prc-service training and her experience of“1anguage immersion” when studying in the UK as an adult. such as activities. active involvement of pupils (first two sentences). real-life context (“ not just a classroom situation”).. I think that isTOC.2. on both administrations. ltem No. for example.2 Undersranding ? ITOC The first four interviews all asked rcspondcnts to summarise their understanding of the main principle of TOC. I think put the knowdcdgc in use is quite important in TOC. though not full. She strongly agreed with the following statements on both administrations of the scale: Item No. despite confessing to some confusion about the differences betwwn TOC tasks and associatcd terms. (post~obscrvationinterview three. 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. Carol put different emphases on different aspects of T O C at various times. C A R L E S S teachers. 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. exercises or worksheets. understanding ofTOC. not just copying. . she has touched on a number of TOC elements. try to increase their interest in Icarning. I think in T O C it should bc more livcly. p. 7) Although she has not uscdTOC terminology directly. Statement 22 Under T O C pupils \vi11 be less motivated than before Overall. 1994. The following sample answer is quoted to illustratc clcmcnts of her conception of TOC: I think Lve should try to motivate thcm.

the format of assessment. staff’development. I have an cxcusc. He doesn’t control what I did.2. thc implementation of ‘I‘OC seems also to have brought some benefit to Carol. (baseline interview. he gives a full support to m e and if I want to take some courses he always mentions that I shouldn’t worry about missing lessons. 5) This laissez-faire style is in contrast with more authoritarian leadership stylcs commonly perceived to bc! found amongst many Hong Kong principals. If cvcrybody is doing a traditional class. 1). innovation can be used by principals 01. “why do you have to do so many things?Wc don’t d o it so ifwe compare with you. theTOC matter lvcausc wc have to change the assessment task.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 HONG KONG 271 6.teachers as a vehicle fbr countering inertia and lc-gitimising attempts to improve. change thc format of teaching. Carol expresses it in the following way: Because it is T O C I can d o a lot of activities and prepare a lot of things. administrative and resource support are some of the main means by which principals can facilitate change. it seems to be effective as shr has the confidencc and ability to benefit from the autonomy granted by her principal. the format of rcport card. First of all.4 TOC and change Change is often best effected gradually and as indicated by Clark et al. 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. with the development and implementation of T O C being aligned with the readiness of teachcrs and schools. 16) O n the othcr hand. too man! things at a go. Carol acknodcdgcs the supportiveness antl flexibility of her principal: Even he thinks we shouldn’t do that [implemcntTOC] hut once we started. (baseline i n t e n k w . p. p. (summativc interview. The introduction of T O C provides teachcrs with a rationale for more activc antl innovative teaching approaches. In Carol’s case the principal is supportive and willing to permit her a high degree of autonomy. (1994) in t h e T O C curriculum framework there should he flexibility over time-scales. As indicated b y Morris clt al. As Carol comments: Maybe it’s too rushed for the school to run t h c T O C class. I can do it hohvever I like. 7) . before kvc just adapt the ivholcTOC. He thinks that it is good for m e to take some courses and he always asked me to encourage my colleagucs to go out antl take some courses. it seeins that we are lazier than you. a “wait and see” attitude prevalent amongst principals according to Morris et al. the building of collaborative cultures. wc have changed the time for each lesson. because it is TOC class so I can make it different from the other class. hve have to adapt it and change bit by bit.2.”so because it’sTOC class.3 The role $the principal Instructional leadership. academic. it’s a kind of excuse o r reason why I change my way of‘teaching. so I don’t think it is a good way to change the curriculum. 6. In Carol’s case. maybe if1 do it in a tliffercnt way then the others may say. (1 996). ( 1 996) in their report on a major T O C rcscarch project.

(summativc interview. C A R L E S S In other \vortls. I think my teaching skill is quite good already but I tind I can lcarn some more even ne\vcr things. Even though I hvatch the studcnts. you make the classroom really English. . . many many things. 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‘his support can take different forms.Etl. I believe that if teachers likc to watch each other. From the teacher’s point o f vicw. I now frequently use examplcs from Carol’s class to exemplify points that I am making. 6. I can watch how the teachers teach. 1 have dcvcloped new understandings of the primary classroom antl of TOC. and I have confidcncc in my teaching and Y O U have given me a lot o f atlvicc in thc whole year. 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.2. 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. I think it’s good because now I a m doing the assignment [M.6 Tcacher reflection and der cloprnent A t various points in the intcrvic\vs. p. From my anglc. This enables her to teach in her preferred \vay. I think I really learn a lot of things. school-bascd support is an essential component of inservice teacher education provision for innovations (Vcrspoor. ’l’hc following extracts show evidence of Carol developing a rcflcctivc orientation to her tcaching: . and in my o\vn teacher education classes.5 Teacher-researcher collaboration As mcntioncd carlicr. I think the others can give you some comments s o you can improve antl also improve by watching how the others teach . for example. assignment] and I hale to go into the classroom to \vatch the students. 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. p. 5) Other responses also show an interest antl atiility in identifying and beginning to reflect on relevant teaching issues. 10) 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. I think I’ve improvctl in some parts.You make me get used to having somcliotly watching my lesson. Carol s h o w s hcr open-mindetlness and interest in finding out more allout teaching as a means for prolkssional improvement. yet with less risk o f facing negative peer pressure from her more tratlitional~mintlcdcolleagues. the collaboration bct\z n a tcachcr and a tcacher educator researcher as described in this paper \vas mutually enriching. 6. (summativc interview.1. 1 989). thank you very much. so now I don’t care if anybody comes into my classroom antl \vatchcs ho\v I teach. So. Carol comments as follo\vs: You make my class a real English class.2 7 2 D A V I D R.

1 ) 7 Conclusion This paper tried to show how a well-qualified English teacher has responded to a curriculum innovation. support for teachers at the classroom level plays a significant role in facilitating the implementation of innovations. do help to pro\-ide a climate conducive to the development of curriculum reform. 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. 1992) of whichTOC is one componcnt. The Second Language Curriculum i n Action. In addition to these wider initiatives. Sylncy. in one form or another. I t has been indicated that despite the challenges associated with successful curriculum innovation. her understanding of thc innovation. G. gcncral governmental initiatives that upgradr the professionalism of teachers. her high standard of English proficiency. Such initiatives arc part of a long-term enhancement of primary education in Hong Kong (Education Commission. “Curriculum innoIation in adult ESL.. . References Brindlc)..). S. The anal! of a case study.” In G. Reference has been made to her attitude towards the innovation. this teacher’s initial experiences withTOC have been largely positivc.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. . p. her professional development and interview comments on a number of issucs relevant to thc change process. Support and encouragement. In other cases. qometimcs I find that the> c n j q doing thow actillties hut how much dit1 the! really learn? I just wonder (pmt o b s c r ~ ation inter\ IC\\ 2 . Therefore. 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. . (baseline interview. proactive involvcmcnt from principals o r scnior colleagucs and/or ad\ )ry visits from inspectors.This reinforces Stenhousck \enerablc dictum that thcrc is no curriculum development without teacher tlevclopment. and her desire for further self-improvement and professional development. Hood. Brindle) (Ftl. her classroom teaching. This discussion is not incant to imply that curriculum innovation can only lie fostered bv teachers who have the abovc characteristics. In this case. NCEUI’K. p. A number of her charactcristics have assisted her: hrr academic and professional training. in addition to being desirable in their o\vn right. her positive attitudes ton-ards teaching and toivards the innovation. tcacher trainers or experienced teachcrs may be needed to facilitate implementation. are an essential prerequisite for successful classroom implementation of a curriculum innovation. 17) . but it is fair to sa\’ that such teachers arc probably in a favourable position. 1990.

Markee. Englcnood Cliffs. Carnhritlge University Press. Government Printer. Lynch. quality schools: international pcrspectivcs anti policy implications. 1996. The h’erz. Principles and Practice i n Secontl Language ... Prcnticc-Hall. 1996. 1993. E. Language Program Eraluation: Theor). R . Education Department. Hong Kong..kyui.. Morris. Hong Kong. 1988. 2 37. Education Dcpartmcnt. 1987. Holliday. N. Education Commission. S . Hong Kong University. ‘liirget-Oriented Curriculum Evaluation Project: Interim Report. Stern. 1995. D. . Karal as-Doukas.. B. Morris. I. 53 68.” Unpublishctl master’s thesis..Clethodologj. D. K.. 1994. Teachers College the Qua/iy ?f’Etlucation in Developing Countries. 1992. Stoller.. 1997. “Change and conflict: introduction of the communicative approach in China. Hong Kong. J. “Quality tcachcrs.. 229-243. A . 1992. 1989.. Prentice-Hall. L. D. pp. Classroom Second Longucige Derelopment. P.s.. ‘‘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. Appropriate . University of I long Kong. M. Pathways to Change: Improi. 1994. Faculty of Education.Weaning of Etlucationul Change. Faculty of Education. 1997. Brownell. F. Cambridge. “Thc diffusion of innovations i n intensive ESL programs. and 1 2 associates. 38 41. . Punch. “Teacher receptivity to systemwide changc in the implementation stage. M. Hong Kong. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of‘Educational Refbrm. .2 54. Fullan. London. 1995. 1991 . Krashen.. Markcc. Improving the Qialiy $Leorning:A Framework for TargetOriented Curriculum Rener4d in [long Kong.” Applied Linguistics IS( 3). Y. Cambridge University Press.” :lnntial Review ofApplied Iinguistics 13.sition. Hong Kong Univcrsity Press. J. Washington DC. old \vine: communicative language teaching in China. . Institutc of Languagc in Education. “Thc diffusion of innovation in language teaching. Culture and Curriculum 8(1).274 D A V I D R. NcivYork. . See also chapter I O of this volumc. Cambridge. Cambridge. “Teacher identified factors affccting the implementation of a curriculum innovation in Greek puldic secondary schools. Harrison.. 283 303.from the Language Classroom. Morris. Hong Kong. Cambridge. 1 99 5.. 1993. antl Social Context. R . Cambridge University Press. Fullan. 1987. Teocher Suri. Nunan. I’enncr. P. 300-327. Education Papers 7. World Bank..” Revieri ofEJucutionul Research 57(3).”In: K. Hui. 1994. Verspoor. 1996. J. Report No 5: The teaching profession..). A . Scarino. London. Falmcr Press.. Managing Curricular Innoration. (Eds. “Look who’s talking noLv: listcning to voices in curriculum rene\val. The Hong Kong School Curriculum.” English Teaching Forum 35(4).” Language. F. C A R L E S S Clark.” Teaching and Teacher Education 12(5).. Hopkins. 1996. Curriculum Development i n [long Kong. Ellis. . P. antl Practice.” TESL Canatlajournal 12(2). “New bottles. A . NJ. 501 -5 17.. University of Hong Kong. Waugh. 1996. Railcy. 1 17. Cambridge University Press. I-Iong Kong.e). 1996. Wong.. N. . Ibice.

Real and imagined pressures have often led writers antl publishers to substitute or eliminate topics deemed objectionable to various constitucncics (lanner. 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. Slectcr and Grant..” according to Thomas and Biddle (1 979. ESL. Satlker.inconsrquential. Powcll and Garcia. 1974. Cole. ESL text materials attempt ideological neutrality in order to appeal to a broad and often censorious educational market. According to some studies (e.g. Thus. 1983. Any one dcpiction of a female or male.g. l c x t materials published for second language lcarning in particular prcscnt language in ways that reinforce the sense of ideological neutrality. 1988. Content analysis of textbooks in a variety of educational subjects (e. it is a particular bias sustained over time and through repetition which has a cumulative cffcct. 199 1 . The potential influence ofgendered role models may haw particular weight in ESL in highcr education. Weitzman and Rizzo.Chapter 22 Joan Lesikin DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE: A METHODOLOGY FOR UNCOVERING GENDER BIAS I N ESL TEXTBOOKS 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 prescriptions antl behavior of others. science. ESL textbooks especially may have a morc profound cffcct than texthooks used suhscqucntly in a collcgc student’s academic carerr. Porreca. For many ESL collcgc students. 4). same-gender role models provide stronger role identification for some people than models of a different gender. cducational texts may have just that effect. and Dayley. Rem antl Rem. p. female characters in texts are stronger role models for some lvomen than they arc for some men. 1988) . And \vc know that teachers in a variety of cducational subjects usc tcxthooks about s nty pcrccnt ofthc time (Komoski. These texts arc typically ~ T . for example. however. Hill.. 1985). 198 1 . teacher education. 1984) has shown them to contain gender bias. children’s rradrrs. ESL textbooks may be their first encounter with the American educational system. ESL tcachers arc probably no exception. Because of their ubiquitous presence in our schooling. 1973). may lx. social studics.

The methodology 1 present bclow allo\vs for the analysis of text materials containing both extended discourse. 1979) whose theory of social semiotics links language with power. is grounded in a semantic and lexical linguistic tradition in the social scienccs. an outgro\vth of critical analysis. in order to triangulate findings. and with little background given to make sense o f it. Feminist rcscarchers use both these general and sometimes overlapping perspectives. 7 7 ) . Thus. dcvoid of its history of usage. related to feminist critical analysis. Using another based on the works of Jackendoff ( 1 972). whcrc ideology may lie more apparent. as can lie found in many ESL text materials. and context-reduced sentences. Krcss and €lodge. sentence-level items. 1987). presented below. Kress. . External social forces influcncc a writer’s choice of language. showed that females antl males are equally represented in terms of social prominence. and adjectives. Porreca ( 1984) found widespread bias primarily Iiy quantifying language items. Feminist content analysis. in examining the middlc chapter of Developing Reading Skills: lntermediate (Markstein and I Iirasawa. Dillon ( 1 9 methodology to examine ESL textbooks. ~ ~ . For example. such as those in Porreca’s study. grounded in Hallitlay but dealing only with extended discourse. The methodology I propose both interprets language content and quantifics language items.and Cowper ( 1 992). Feminist critical analysis. The methotlology can be used alonc or in conjunction with other mcthodologies. thcmatic role. we can lie more certain that the findings arc robust antl not influcnccd by our methotlology (Firestone. ~ Methods of analyzing gender bias in texts Researchers h a w rxaminetl gcndcr hias by quantifying language items in the content analysis tradition and by interpreting language content more in the critical analysis tradition. the present methodology can also he applicd to context-reduced. I. Yet ideological knowledge in tcxts informs meaning. nouns. they looked at grammatical function. 1989. focuscs on the semantic and structural properties of language in ordcr to examine ideas antl assumptions about gender. The approach. firstncss. this researcher (Lcsikin. Similar to Mills’s methodology ( 1 995). occupational visibility. Recently. 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). analyzes languagc at the structural/mcaning level and seems to bc lrss inferential than analyses that only count of language clcments. 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. based on Halliday. o r by combining methodologies that encompass these perspectives. Her study focused on omission. If different methods haw similar results. It is advantageous because it gets at meaning that may be hidden duc to the presentation of context-rcduccd language. A variety of approaches may he needed to account for the inherent contradictions in tcxts. and lexical choice. the meanings and structures of language in a textbook o r any other writing reflect ideology. and Fairclough (Fairclough. At the same time thc two structural analy. masculine generic constructions. 198 l ) . where ideology may be less apparent. according to critical linguists such as Hodge. on thc other hand. Using a combination of methodologies.276 J O A N L E S I I < I N filled both with extended discourse in narratives o r essays and with individual sentences in lists.anguagc itcms may br prcscntetl \vith littlc i f any surrounding context.

rhcmc. 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). It is the first clement in a clause (lvith the exception of initial adverbs) ‘‘VIhich serves as the point of departure of the message. those Lvho are not of interest are not thc focus. most likcly prcsent a stronger. People who are centers of conversations. 41 2). the ideational function of a clause is how it represents experience in terms of meaning. and last stressed element According to Quirk and Grccnbaum (1 973). “the t h r m r is the most important part of’ a clause from the point of view of its presentation of a message in sequence” (p. person or persons in theme position. Rhcme is the remaining part of the messagc.DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE 277 Analyzing gendcr bias as social prominence in texts The methodology is based on M. 41 2 ) . 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. 38). According to Hallitlay. ~ Participant junctions The division of gender-specific nouns and pronouns in clauses into theme.Thc person o r persons occurring as the last stressed element bear the information focus of the clause and. Thc). I use these concepts to dctcrminc the relative social promincncc of females and males in written texts.‘lhc last strcsscd clement of a clause is also important. It is the person who is the center of conversation. the topic in writing. it is that with which the clause is concerned” (Halliday. . A. Similarly. Since themes and last strcssed elements arc the most prominent and could be more intlucntial rolcs for students than those rolcs cmbcdtictl in rhrme. like the. 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. which develops the themc. Theme. Halliday’s examination of the functions of language. more alluring role model than those characters in rheme position. K . I examine their participant functions. We communicate about people who in somc way intcrcst us or arc important to us. p. or the information focus ~voultlseem to have more social prominence than pcoplc who are not. or the information focus until anothcr person is introduced or focused on o r the communication or text ends. p. rheme. 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. 1% hich helps us to get at the ideological message. 1985. topics of writing. 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. have communicative prominence (Quirk and Creenhaum. in a Ivrittcn text such as a textbook. Thus the noun o r pronoun also has a participant role in terms of this ideational function.Themc is the psychological suliject. Thus pcoplc can be perceived as having different degrees of social prominence hy the dcgrcc of intcrcst shown them.

Eliminate themes or rhemes which have both female and male nouns or pronouns (c. Targct I’hrnomrnon Scnwr Token Valuc Procedure The procedural steps to apply this mcthodology arc: Collect all clauses in the “unmarked” form (thosc that are not questions a n d / o r negations).. Grammar in Use (Murphy. I will discuss t h r findings from one o f the textbooks. To determine the roles of thosr gender-specific nouns antl pronouns labeled as theme and last stressed clement. as in Ann in /inn telephoned someone (p. Tabulate the number o f themes.1).g. and compare the numlicr of themes and last stressed elements to the number of rhemes. the functions include doing. thc ratio of females (n = 15) to males (n = 29) is 5 2: 100 (34”h to 66%). 44 are theme. Elcven gentler-spccific nouns and pronouns in clauses are rhcmcs. note the gender-specific focus. I Participant roles o f nouns anti pronouns Group 1 Actor Group II Rccipicnt. Group I participants take a more active role experientially than those in Group 11. O u t of 55 gender-spccific nouns and pronouns in clauses. acting. If it does.g. 94). and last strcssed elements according to gender. rhcmes. Anne is here or T h y waitedfor Rob to come). saying.. attributing. ‘ Findings Theme and rheme I applied this methodology to a singlc chapter in each o f scvcral tcxtbooks devrloped for the ESL academic markrt. to demonstrate thc application of the methodology. Of these. as in him inyou want him to get some stamps (11. and rclating. Those in Group I1 are the complcmcnts of the participants in Group I.2. the ratio of females (n 3) to . incorporatc into the results the quantity of themes and last stresscd clt‘ments compared to quantity of rhcmcs. sensing. Tabulate the themes and last stressed elements by participant function and gender. Categorize these clauses b y gcnder antl by thcme/rhemc distinction. Goal Brnchciai-? Beha\ cr Sayer Rccci\cr. whcre the role o f actor is defined a3 the most active and direct participant in an experience. 101). Of these.278 J O A N L E S I K I N The participant roles can be di\ided into two groups (seeTable 22. 1989). Client. re-examine them in terms of participant functions. Anne and John arc here or Either June or Bob I$) since cooccurring forms offset each other. In Group I. by gender. containing at least one gentler-specific noun o r pronoun (e. Lastly. Table 2. 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.

Table 22. more than three times as often as females (n = 3) or the ratio of‘ 27: 100. they are actors. to M 55 52:100 18:100 49: 100 = psychological subject o f a clause. Males outnumber females in all rolrs except that of senscr. clcmcnt = last strcsscd clcmcnt in a clausc~ bearing information focus. males (n 1 1) arc actors. I found that they (n = 44) function in fivc participant roles (see Table 22. seven gender-specific nouns as rhemes are the last stressed elements in seven of the clauses. That is. and bchavcrs. sensers.As theme and rheme (including the last stressed element) of a clause. 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%) o r a ratio of SO: 100. In addition. rhcmc = noun or pronoun devrloping the subjcct including last stressed clcmcnt I)caring information focus.2). sayers. In addition. tokens. as in Torn in I’ve just seen Torn (p.w frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as thcmc and last strcsscd clcmrnt in “unmarked“ clauses Female Malc Total Rutio Thcmc Elcmcnt I‘otal N 15 2 17 9 6 34 29 33 N 29 5 34 Yo 66 71 67 N 44 7 51 1 toM 52:lOO 40: I00 5 0 : 1 0 0 Note: Theme psychological subject o f a clause. Of these. ~ ~ Table 22.3 Grammur 7n I1. (SecTablc 22. Participant rolcs By examining those gender-specific nouns and pronouns in theme position in the same clauses to determinc their participant roles. 98).2 Grammar in Use: frequency of gender-specific nouns and pronouns as thcmc and rheme in “unmarked” clauses Female Malc Totul Ratio N l’hcmc I‘\hcmc Total Note: Thcmc 15 3 18 Y O 34 27 33 N 29 8 37 Y O 66 73 67 N 44 II I.) Thus males dominate thc positions of communicative prominence in clauses in this chapter by double the numbcr of females.3 . where fcmalcs (n = 4) arc prcscnt twicc as often as males (n = 2).4). the ratio of females (n = 2) to males (n = 5) is 40: 100 (29% to 7 1 Yo). the strongest participant role. The 15 females occupy four of the rolcs while the males occupy fivc. Howcvcr.DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE 279 males (n = 8) is 38: 100 (27% to 73%). there are more than twicc the numbcr of m a l a (n = 10) than females (n = 4) as sayers or . The total number of female to malr nouns and pronouns in the chaptcr is morc equitable: 44% to 56%. 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.

As part ofthe acculturation process. ESL students’ new identities arc shaped in part by what thcy read in our classes. the fcmalcs as scnscrs). the second largest role. with an overall prcscncc more than t\vice that o f fcmalcs. antl sccing indivitluals. suggesting females as feeling.3 Grarnmur 7n Use: frcquc. Males arc primarily presented as actors and sayers. more than three times as often as females and dominate four of thc five roles in thcmc position in clauses.\ole: 21 67 44 29 00 33 79 2 5 10 1 33 56 71 100 67 01- F to M 27: 100 100: 50 80: 100 40: 100 0:IOO 50:100 34 Actor = a doer. Grammar in Use is onc ofthe largest sclling textbooks to thc academic ESL markct.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. . 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. saver = a vcrlialircr. When the texts they read reflect biased assumptions about gentler. The roles of actor antl sayer h a c the greatest numher of nouns and pronouns. 1995). Iwhavcr = a pcrson having an = a person cxhibiting physiological or psychological Iwhavior. Tuhle 22. token attribute or relation to another. While thc comparable l‘rcqucncy of females and males varies antl males occupy thc two strongest roles. Femalc5 (n = 4) antl malc5 (n = 5) arc most clcnly matched in the role oftokcn.280 J O A N L E S I K I N the ratio of 40: 100. Fcmalrs outnumlxr males as scnsers.cling. engaged in identity construction antl ncgotiation” (Norton. stereotypical roles arc prescntcd for each gcndcr (the males as actors and sayers. At the same time. thinking sccing. based on the opinions o f ten marketing experts in pul)lishing and distributing ESL textbooks ( h i k i n . often reinforcing the lower prcstige antl p v c r ascrilxtl to fcmales. males arc greater number o f male nouns and pronouns in clauscs in general rcinforccs these finclings o f dominancc. 41 0). suggesting males as thc docrs antl vcrlializcrs. all the roles presented for lmth females and males arc activc cxpcricntially. p. thinking. Both arc fairly evenly divided as tokens expressing having an attribute or relation to another. the strongest participant role. Summary of findings and implications Males dominate the positions of communicativc prominence ( 1 00: 50) in G‘rummar in Use. Language learners arc “constantly organizing and reorganizing a smsc of who they arc and how they rclatc to the social world.! of‘partic~il~aiit I-olea ofgcntlci--specitic iiouiis antl pronouns in “unmarkctl” clauscs Roles 8ctor Scnscr ’l’okcn N 3 4 4 4 0 17 (Yo N 11 “0 N 14 6 9 14 1 51 Saycr Reha\ cr Total . thc texts may transmit these hiascs. 1997. in thc ratio o f 80: 100.‘l’hcy are. in othcr \vords.Thc findings also suggest that fairly traditional. acnscr = a p v r w n li.

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. In constructing ne\v identities. Teachers might begin by citing ccs of gentler bias in the ESL class’s textbook. Conclusion In conclusion. 1976. 820 821). Discussion might lead to reflective hvriting or to studcnts interviewing Americans or fricnds and family members on specific topics raised about gendcrcd roles. and perceived proficiency in the subject” antl that graduate students (females most especially) who pcrccived gender-biased behavior in their classes wcrc negatively affected. behaviors. Students may also creatr alternative tcxts as language learning activities. Finally. sort out. 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. MacKay. (See. may also construct less ponwful and prestigious identities than their male counterparts from similar sources. in some cases they hvithtlrew from the discipline or graduate program (pp. McArthur antl Eisen. In bringing gcndcr bias in ESL textbooks to our students’ attention.g. Knowledge of gender bias in educational tcxts and in other aspects of schooling. and construct their new roles and idcntitics in the new culture by making the unconscious conscious. not only in the US mainstream culture but in the students’ cultures as \rcll. stercotypcs. By discussing what ~ v as e tcachcrs perceive as gender hias. performance in. As their teachers. no research has been done on the effects of gender bias in ESL textlmoks. ’l’hc results of these studies suggest that our female ESL students. andTodd-Mancillas. such as pcrccivcd academic strengths and differential conduct antl expectations of teachers in relation to female and male students. mankind) and rewrite the text using more inclusive languagc. 1975.DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE 281 To my knowledge. we can write to publishers o r 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. making adjustments more problematic antl perhaps slowcr than for her male counterpart. for example. 1979. ma): help stutlcnts reflect on their prior school experiences. 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. Students may be a v w e of these forces o f changc in their own cultures but may not be a\varc of them in thc US. devaluation. and make kno\vlctlgeablc decisions about their future educational goals. ~ . The undervaluing o f women potentially adds to the female language learner’s sense of alienation and worthlessness. A subsequent activity could have students applying this new kno\vlctlge to their o writing. For example. alienation. like American females.. ~ v may c find that students have different pcrccptions antl vieLvs from our own. These effects include feelings of exclusion. he. Rehavior and role assumptions and cxpcctations arc changing. consider their present behaviors with teachers and students. 198 1 . \ve help our students explore. or expectations.) 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.C I\ immediatel) raise gcndcrcd behavior antl roles as issues in their ow-n acculturation process. students might take a published tcxt containing generic masculine forms (c. and lowered self-expectations. Montemavor.

our ESL students may also want to explore gender issues in the US workplace. education.. 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. Langtiuge as ideology. (1 989). they may now. ‘ ‘ L h masculine pronouns used gcnerically lead to thoughts of men?’’Sex Roles. New York. N. religious o r cultural customs? Gender roles and behaviors also frame our students’ social lives. D. L. 16&21. (1 995). Komoski. 42. 737 750. MA: MIT Press. Lesikin. E. (1 992). 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. Hill. Cole. NY. ( 1977). A. NewYork. As young adults in a new culture.semantics. Cowper. perspectives on parental leave. L. L. G. they probably do not. P. Topics such as child care options.” Educational Leadership. 3 (1 ). sexual harassment. and Hodgc. O u r students knew the expcctctl gentlcrctl hehaviors and options in their own cultures. family. Issucs of gentler have relevance for our students and can provide valuable information and insights as they learn English and create new identities. Halliday.” Educational Researcher. 6-1 8. Dillon. J. Octobcr). B. “Instructional materials will not improve until \vc change the system. A n introduction to functional grammar. Dating and courting customs may undcrgo change in the new culture.. Fairclough. . (1 985). “Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Firestone. G. D. “Contradictory findings in text anal A focus on gender. but now in the US. our ESL students are ripc for exploring options. R .” Paper presented at the Applied Linguistics Symposium. Semantic interpretation in pneratirvgrammar. Language anti power. (1 994. Cambridge. London: Edward Arnold. NYSTESOL. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ( 1 979). Columbia University Teachers Collcgc. K. Lesikin. K . Jackendoff. L. E S O L textbooks and the social power of’ESOL student: Procedurcs. 16 (7). (1973). (1 985). work-related stereotyping.yntactic t h e o y . Unpublished dissertation. “DOCS sex-biased job advertising ‘aid and abet’ scx tiiscrimination?”journal of’Applied Social Pychology. (1983). S. 3 1-37. L. W. References Bem. as never before. (1972). A . (1987). 9. and occupational realities and expcctations. and Bern. A concise introduction t o . consider choices in gmdered social roles and behaviors.for analyzing the potential influences of textbook churacteristicv. and Dayley. W h o 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. A. Englewood Cliffs. 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. their benefits. J. M. and career opportunities can p r o d e information and reflection on students’ future participation as gendcred lvorkers in the US. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. NJ: Prcntice-Hall.282 J O A N L E S I I < I N issues of gender also seem highly relevant to our students’ familial. and drawbacks. Kress. Introduction to contemporay linyuistic . social. NewYork: Longman.

J. Wcitzman. “Sexism in current ESL textbooks. (1979).).” journal of’ Personulicv and Social P. Murphy. Mills. and Brice.). 31 9). C. Sticht (Eds. ED 225 185). Biddlc (Eds. NcwYork: Routledge. (1981). D. Huntington. 3 1. Language: Social psychological perspective. gender. TX: Idarcourt Brace Jovanovich College. and social attitudes. ( 1 975). 122-147). (1988). and Hirasabva. “Race. MacKay. (1974). Role theory: Concepts and research (pp. L. L. Feminist stl. .). P. “Sexism in children’s books and elementary teaching materials.” In M. Critical issues i n curriculum (pp. 409-429. “Language. R. Spring. A. 107-1 15.” Langmge journal q f t h e Linguistic Societl. 1’. B. “The naturc and history ofrole theory. (1 997). . Satikcr.” TESOL Quarterb. Fort Worth. 798 825. 78-1 10). and P. E. N.” In A.). pluralism. (1991). C. M. ( 1 989). (1988). L. B. Thomas.” In J. 4 1 4 2 ) . Chicago. New York: Pcrgamon Press.Y. 18. D. Urbana. DC: Library of Congress (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.” Communicafion Q u a r t e r k . J. Gcrshuny. J.DETERMINING SOCIAL PROMINENCE 283 McArthur. and the ownership of English. Grammar i n use: Rgerence and practice. Tanner. L. Sleeter.. R. and Eiscn. J. S.for interrnetliute students oJEng1ish. “Masculine generics = sexist language: A review of literature and implications for speech communication professionals. “Don’t touch my projectile: Gentler bias and stereotyping in syntactic examples. Markstcin. IL: National Council ofTcachcrs of English. 89-96). IL: NSSE. about stcreotypcs.). thought.s (pp.. and Biddle. and disability in current textbooks. Quirk. J.” In L. (1984). (1981). The textbook in American society (pp. Giles. and Grant. (1 979). Christian-Smith (Eds.. (1 976). and textbooks. W. W. (1 995). London: Routledge.” TESOL Quarterb.).4677473.ychology. “Achievements of male and female storybook characters as detriments of achievement behavior by boys and girls. J. “Images of males and females in elementary school textbooks.Thomas and B. 705-724. K. New York: Cambridgc University Press.. 25: 21-23. H. Vfilmericu. G. New York: Newhury House. class. Norton. L. Porreca. “Language. 1980. S.” In H. R. A c o n m e grammar ~ f c o n t e m p o r a yEnglish. and Garcia. (1973). E. (1 997).”In E. S. Todd-Mancillas.’listt’cs. (1981).’’ New York: National Organization for Women’s Legal Dcfcnsc and Educational Fund. Krieger. R. P.” Science nntl Children. M. and J. Sexism and langnuge (pp. L. Stanley (Eds. M. W. Cole and T.. Nilsen. “What research says . Smith (Etls. K . and Rizzo. 161 -1 79). identity. “The textbook controversies. and Grcenbaum. R. Powell. Macaulay. New York: Robert E. H. Tanner (Ed. Kobinson. D. Developing reading skills: Intermediate. Washington.. Apple and L. R. C. Montcmayor. G.. 73.. . Bosmajian. “Diversity. 33. The politics o f t h e textbook (pp.

1 2 1 Rrunci 99 107 burcaucrati\ation 7 4 CALL (conipiitcr~a. H ..H. K. organization o f content antl 189-90. 246. 123. 1 2 2 3 Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) 208-28. Certificates in Spoken and Writtcn English 21 5 25. curriculum devclopmimt over 50 v c m 208. P . G . 240 9 CALL co-ordinator (CC) 241. 265-73 Cclcc-Murcia. A .sistcd language learning) 4 .F.1). C L T i n Korca 160 I . 104 I3a/crnian. innovation and 242 . 7 3 4 Rricr. selecting and tlcvcloping 188 9 .I 3. Thailand 1 38. 1 1 2 14 I k h n i a n . 201. communicati\c approaches 2 I O . 2. N . 2 12 Certificates in Spoken antl Written English (CSWI:) 21 5-25 change: liindamcntal 120. 276. 149 50 Candlin. 1 19 Rhatia.1 .) guidelines 42 4 authenticity 2 3 1 2 availahilit) of material. G . H. 176 haw foi-m of vcrlx 5 1 basic intrrpcrsonal communication skills (BICS) 100 I . D . M . 112 Rrumfit.9 Hrown. students' 162. 80 Iichavioural educational psychology 209 Brnnv. C. C. 205 Altman. 269 70 attrihutcs of innovations 1 2 3 attrihutive hedges 76 Austin. 264. as thc prccursoi oftask\ 6 0 2 aquaculture outreach project 137 4 8 art 103. W . 1 12. 149 50 Railcy.I_ . 281 Rrintllcy. 'I'OC 265 Aston. steps in pr(i activities 185 6 . 201.Index abilities 16 accountahilitj 2 5 3 . I). structui-al approachc%s 208-1 0 affective goals 182 affects 10-1 1 age 103 5 Allwright. 205 13angalol-c Project 4 8 Rarmatla. 242 Ucrctta. L. M. K . P. C . 105. C. 178. grmx-hawd approaches 21 3 1 5. M . 7. and 'real' rcscarch 199 202. see ulso tasks activity ol)jcctives 182 3 adoption ol'innovation 1 19. 38.l'cachcr Education Course (CALLTEC) 24 1 Canale. 58 -9 astrophysics papers 7 1 attitude markers 76 attitutlcs 161. V . 247 CAI . tlcscription antl rationale 197 9. K..1. M. 58. 106 Asian Institute o1'Tcchnology. 72 Iilingiial education 9% 107 Ih-ccn. 105 Australia: AMEP see Adult Migrant English Program Australian Languagc Levels (ALI. 257-8 Krctt. S. 128 analysis: antl classification 57 9. CSWE 2 2 I 2. 64-9 p o w m casc-stud) rcseai-ch 5. 257-8 Cartcr. K .4 action research 197 207. tcachcr\' 162. Ace o l o aquaculturc outreach project cnt 190.

267-9. 6 4 70 consti-aintc and rcso~~rccs I92 4 content: conceptualizing 18 3 7. K . 205-7. purI>o\c o l I0 1 1 . N. action rcscarch 202 4. I). 170 EFI teaching: CLI"5 inadcquatc.ontinuity 169 77. . delining 14%50. purposes for 5 . 147 classification 579 classroom genres 74 5 .. target compctcncc 1 1-1 2 compiitcr~assistctllanguage learning (CALL) 4 . 123. teachers' niisconcrptions ahout 1 55 6 5 5 7. 175. course tlevclopmcnt pro< 190-2. 104 cognitive goal\ 182 cohcrcnt c~rclatrtl sti-atcgics 60 cohc\ion. 240 9 computcri/ctl Iarigiiagc corpoi-a 2 3 . lexis 46 5 4 . 173. tlilriculties due to 1 5 3 . organimtion of 189 90. Hoiiolul~i 111 cclcctic s ! Ilahusc.4 corpora 2-3. aquaculturr outwach Ixojcct 146..3 tast-Wcst Center..a lc. 174 Clarkr.176 discourw compctencc 55 7 (liscour\c s ! Ilabus 5 5 6 3 drills 92 Dutllc! -E\ ans. 15 convci-gcncc htratcgies 6 0 1 Cooper. 64 7 0 countc%rparts174-5 course tlevclopincnt proc 178-96 (. 267 9 cmcrgcnt language pi-ogram fi-ainc\\ ork 1 37 4 8 emphatics 76 cinpirical~rational inno\ation strategies 1 2 1 4 empirical response 2 3 1 2 cmpoizcrnicnt 173 5 cpistcmic grammatical subjects 77-9 cquililxium paradigm 1 1 1-1 2 evaluation 5 . lexical 57 Coleman. 56 educational gron th. 2 1 0 Clark. 4I t') 100 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. pi-inciple 169 70 culture 186 Cummin\. in I:l-L c'ontcxts 150 1 . learner's 1 2 14. 104 curriculum: rvaluation for p i i r p e s o f curriculum ( l e i clopmcnt 2 54. 127 collaboratii-c gi-oup \\ ork 26 1 collocations 5 1 common-core teaching 80 1 critical literacy 94. 242 Cliomsk!. 1 1 8 26. K . formal antl infornial I6--17 context~huiltling 22 3 continuity: content antl 2 1 . K. K.s/attitud(~s 161 Etl\vartls. tcchnologicetl discourse 170 3. 2 5 3-62. paradigm shifting and 108 1 1 diffusion of scholarship 1 1 1 direction 15. syllahus tlc\ign 18 5.4MEPZl0-13. CLT 22 3. grammar-hasctl 158 exclusion\ 4 7 9 .achie1ing23 5 . 272 clozc. 78 9 classroom obser\ation 258. R. inadequatc account of EIL teaching 160. 33. I.74 dynamic pcrspcctii c 109 communicatii e compctcncc 5 5--6. self-crcatctl 1 3 2 ~ 3 cognitii c academic language proticicnc! ( c . local I6 3 educational syllabus 46-7 ctlucationd system 1 5 3. and process 2 . 158 9 ctlucationi \aluc.1 discourse: AMEP 2 11-1 2 . 71 8 3 tlisciplinc-spccifc coinponcmts 80. H. role in CLT I C ) 22 content-l>ascclcourscs 1 86 contcnt q~ccilyirig lists 4 9 54 context 24. managing the learning process 30-2. cultural 169 77 contrilxitions. tcachcrs' tlifliculties in introducing in South Korea 149-67. 1 18 core compctcncics 42. materials protluction 2 34 5 .ourscwork 1 14-1 5 coverage objcctivch 182. materials 2 56 8. 1 . 9-26. J . teachers antl tcaching 2 58 62 cxaminations: General papers 87 9.149 comniunicatii-c language teaching (CLT) 2 . account 01' 160 Ellis.INDEX 285 checklists 259-60 Chin. 2 2 disciplinar! \ariation 3. 21 5 critical thinking objectives 182-3 c ~ i h . 160 1 . managing thc learning process 3 3--8. and syllahus tlcsign 184-5. 100 I .6. 5 5 .

LINC and genre theory 93-6 genre-related strategies 60 qeocmtrism I 14 I 5 gcography 105. G . 2 1 1 . learner 13-14 experiential content domain 29-30 experiential. 175 focus 20 formal learning context 1 6 ~ 17 formative evaluation 23. W . 103 genre: AMEP and genre-based approaches 2 13-1 5 . G . 169 Jacobson. 2 1 1 . student-gcneratcd material5 2 37. gcnrc-based approach to materials production 2 36-7.3. L. disciplinary variation 72 . 142 interactive tliscoursc 58. 9 7 . A.M. 162. R . 87-98 Korea.3 grading teachers 258 9 grammar 32. 214. 181-3 Gorlach. learner’s 12-1 4 Inner Circlc 1 10. I 3 4 Hallitlay. 78 9 high-structure teaching 32. S 120 Lakoff. 1 5 0 Holmes. 254 function \\ ortls 5 1 functions 54. and the syllabus 4 8 9.K.~ 3 64-70 . 174 Jacob.G. 34-5 highway engineering 7 4 Holliday. 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.286 I N D E X expantling 145-6 Expanding Circlr 1 10 I I . 92-3 knowledge about language 3. syllabus design 184-5 fundamental change 120-1 funding. agc and 103-5 language awareness 96 language competence 149 50 language corpora 2 . 224 Kachru. C 119 Kenn) . computer corpora as 65 first order innovation 243 Flew. 106 Gcrman Model 1 0 5 goals: long-term 230 I . 244 gender bias 5. 182. 1 12 1 3 expectations. F. 7 5 . 141-2 Jamcs. B B 108. R 144. 175-6 hedges 76 Henrichsen. expatriate 174-5 expressive functions 1 1 2 facts. 113 Kennedj.5. 109 10 Havelock. . as tcxt 2 13-14. 74 illuminativr evaluation 255 implementation: factors affecting 264-5 impro\emcnt. 4 1 .A. 53 language: knowledge about 3. I>. 1 12-1 3 innovation strategirs 123 4 institutionalisd utterancrs 5 1 instrumcntal functions 1 1 2 integrative functions 1 12 interacting needs 141. 2 1 3 . H . R. 4 1 Hutchinson. educational system 158-9 Kouraogo. M. 21 1 Gapmaster 243. G . K. collaborative 261 grouping 3 9 . 8 7 98. 130. setting 39 4 5 . LINC and 90 2 grammar-based examinations 158 Grammar in Use (Murphy) 278~-80 grammatical subject 77-80 group projects I 3 4 group work. D. P 261 Krashcn.9 . 8 0 Hvincs. M. T.67.8 ‘cxperts’. 62 interactive learning model 2 12 1 3 intrrdependent participants 17-19 interlanguagr continuum information 1 12 International Ccrtificate Confercnce (ICC) 62 intrrpcrsonal function 75 interpretational response 23 1-2 involvement objectives 182-3 Ivanic. 123. 184. 220-1. A. South 149. 141 hvhrid models 124 Hqland. 75-6. views of language and languagr teaching 88-9 language acquisition 269. 97 Gouer.E. 5 3 joint construction 2 15. 1 2 3 4 Hayes.chological oricntation 38-9. 112. 2 3 1 ke!\vord\ 89 90. insufficient 159 I long Kong 263-74 ‘hourglass’ articles 7 3 humanistic education 29 humanistic/ps!. 275-83 General Secondary Education rxamination papcrs 8 7 9 Gcncsee. 277 Hamnctt. 89. 9 4 . K . 191. 225 6. R . 124 Hewings. M. 259 Johnson. 92. A. 1 1 3 govcrnmcnt(s) 88.

lessons from 96--7 language proficicncy orientation 38-9. J .: Grurnmur in IJsc 278 80 name tags 130. tension of syllabus v language and learning 48-9. P. 156-7. 1 8 5 organization of content and activities I 8 9 9 0 Outer Circle 110-1 I . language-based theory of‘214. 3 2 . 144 mctacommunication 14-1 5 metadiscourse 75-6 metaphorical patterning 5 3 4 methodology: CLT 14. 28 learning: language 229-32. materials production 232 lcarncrs 248-9. 29. scaffnldcd 214-15.E.8 Long. I I 2 1 3 ownership 173-5 paradigm shifting 108-1 I . 68 lexical approach 2. 143 largc classes 158. A. C . theory 230 2 mathematics 103 matrix-organixd course5 190 McCarthy.I N D E X 287 language fcatures 22 I Language in thc National Curriculum (LINC) project 3. 110 linguicism I I S linguists 89.P. evaluation of 256 8.17. mccting nee& of different lcarncrs 224. 58 Murphy. L). 15. 79 Mackcn. L. 200 I objective knowledge 200-1 objccticc needs 178-9 objectives. 29. 257. 281 MacDonald. pro1)lenis in using CALL 245 6. 18 19. 87-98. 221 Malaysian Communicational Syllabus 5 5 managcment of the learning process 2. roles 18-1 9. participation in c\aluating matcrials 257-8. 279 learner-ccntredness 4. 4 8 . 134 national curriculum: Australia 2 15 16. 40. 127. M. 68 lexical syllabus 56 Lincoln. 2 10. 4 1 language use needs 141. 28. Y .1 1 needs. R. contributions 1 2 14. M.30. 186-7 learning tasks see tasks lcnding (class) library 1 3 1 . setting 3 9 4 5 . management of 2 . actively involving learners 1 3 7 4 8 . M. 97 linkage models 124 linking related texts 224 LIPT action rrscarch project 2 0 2 4 listening skills 185 local educational growth 163 Logan. actively involving in n c d h analysis 137 4 8 . 162. 1 1 2 long-term goals 230-1 L o n . 27 4 5 learning process goals 3 6 7 learning stratcgics 41. 38 -9. lack of rxpcrtise and time for 156. 34-5 Macaulay. long-tcrm 230-1 needs analysis 38-9. G. 276. 202 3 microteaching 260 1 missed opportunities 243. sample matcrials 233-8. 203 4 Lewis.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. G. ways of and T O C 265 learning-ccntredness 29-30 learning nectls 180 1 learning process. managing the learning process 27-9. 1 34 Lewis. 1 5. 4 0 . 102 last stressed elcnicnts 277-8. styles antl CAL 2 4 3 4 .90. 181 3 opportunities. 258 low-structurc teaching 32--3. 46--54. students’ difficulty I l l 12 . S. 52 media I 5-1 6 metacogniti ve nccds 14 1 . 198. missed 243 5 oral skills 154. ban 89. and CI T 11-14. and introducing CLT 153. antl paradigm Yhifting 1 1 I 12. 27-45 Masch. course development proccssey framework 178 8 1 needs-hascd communicative approaches 2 10 1 3 negotiated spllahus 147 Nicholls. M. 105 mastery objectives I82 3 materials: availability of 1 1 2-14. 77 8 . 120 normati! e-re-cducati\ c innovation strategics 1234 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’ 233 Nunan. lcarning-teaching context 16-~17. CSWE 222 4 Mickan. England antl Wales 89 natural language learning 1 20.39. AMEP 210-1 3. selccting and tlc\cloping 188-9 rnatcrials protluction/drvclopment 229. N. 170 I . M. 162. intlivithalization and 127 36 Larking.

target rcpertoirr 1 1 12. 272 pccr teaching 260 pcrccii ctl attributes of innovations 109 Pcrkins. 75 6. 260 1 sclf-c\ aluation 260. 272 3 rcgi\tci 220-1 Smith. R. 41. 119. txaluation of curriculum proccs\ 2 2 3.I'. H.1 1 . I. 41 stakchol(lcr-ccntrctl approach 171.H. 75-6. 182 . 154 5 speaking skills 154. 278-9 Richards. 4 8 . R.3. diffusion of I 1 1 scirncc 101.S. 174 social Iwhaviour 90 social interaction motlel 1 2 3 4 wcial prominence 275 83... 276 po\vcr-cocrcivc innovation strategies 12 3 4 Prabhu.L. N . 185 record\. 2 37 8 research: action research antl 199-202 rcscarch articles (KAs) 72-4. 1 I 2 Kogcrs. 41 cfuc\tionnaii-c\ 1 30. 264. teacher 255. N. 1 34 Ramii-e/. 77 8. lo\v antl introducing CI T 156 7. rolc of 271 prohlcm-sol\ ing motlel 1 2 3 4 1)rohlcniatizing 192-4 process 2 . J. to class participation 157 resources antl constraints 192 4 I-csponsil)ilit~ 129 rhcmc 277. 182 3 scaffoltling 2 14 1 5 scholarship. 87. 105.1 sclt-learning programmcs (SI P) 1 3 1 4 scniantically densc itcyns 5 1 wntcncc hcatls 5 1 2 sequencing 20 I . 27 4 5 ~I-OCCSS compctcncc 1 3 process project 171 3 profcwional dc\clopmcnt 197 9.98 Porrcca. 79 lopmcmt and tliffubion ( K D and U ) n10dcI 12 3 -4 rchcr-tcacher collaboration 272 ancc: to change I 19. 120 prescription 66 7 prc-s>I l a h u s 59. 1 34 progressivt. J . management o f t h r learning procc\s 2. \kill\ 162. 22 Samraj. 185 skills-hasctl rtlucation 170--1 Sladc. J . I I . 143. 221 radio ne\\ \ 1 32. 4 7 9 . specific purpow orientation 38 9 . D. D . 103-4 situational language tcaching 208-1 0 skills 54. corpora a\ 65 6 r( education 128 reflccti\r practlcc 198. 180 rclational markel-s 76 relevance 129 rcliahility 201 repair \tratcgics 61 rcpcrtoire: language teaching repertoire 224-5. 259 60. 108 9 I'aulston.M. 1 1 1 peer c\ aluation 260L 1. 101 iapport 129.288 I N D E X participant roles 277 8. 129 3 1 reading learning need\ 141. 175 stance75 6 stanclard English 90 Stcnhousc. 79 proficicncy: languag' prohcicncv orientation 38-9. [mlagogics 2 10 1 1 project managcmcnt 171 3 pronunciation 184 proportional syllahiis 56 I)S)chological/humanistic orientation 38 9 . I85 specific pui-posc orientation 38 -9. 189 Singleton. piirp(~scs for c\ aluation 25 3-62. and kno\vlctlgc about languagc 3 . 77-8. M. 106 planning grids 44 planning strategies 60 plant hiology 74 politeness stratqics 60 politics 105. 41 purposc: of curriculum 10.M. 24 steps 72 3 Stern. 103 second order inno\ ation 243 sclf-created clcm' 1 3 2 3 self-dcvclopmcnt. 79 Saphicr. 109. 77 8 . 60 pincipal. a n a l y h g gender bias as in tcxts 277 -80 social sciences 7 4 wcially validated response 2 3 1 -2 wciocultural context 121 socio-linguistic competence 56.8. 243 person markers 76 phenomenal grammatical subjcrts 77 9 physical education 103. J [ I 99. 122.K. 123 romanticism 88 routes 1 5 . I ) . 272 3 professional genres 72 4. K. E. 254 Stephens. 19 ~ 2 0 reporting hack 145. movement 185 Iiroficicnc> goals 182 proficiency tests I80 ~~i-otilc cards 1 10-~1. 162. 162. 279 80 participatory processes I86 -7 I'atton.

154-5 strategic pre-syllal)us 59. -_ understanding of‘ innovations. 269 70.2 2 2 ‘us’-‘thein’configuration 175 Usher.M. 57 . skills 185 Yaltlen. learning 41. I 9 7 variation 2-3. AMEP 208-10 structural indigenization 1 10 student-gcneratcd. 162 3. 27-45. 21 1 Willis. 191. 146 Wilkins. teachci-s’ 264 5.. grading 258 9. 162. 72-3 syllabus: AMI:P/CSWE 220. M . . 2 59-60. 278-9 thcoretic intligcnization 109 10 ‘thing’ technologies 242 training.3 . 271 tcachers 248 ~ 9 attitudes . A . 162. professional dc\elopmcnt 197 9.earchcr-teacher collaboration 272. L. 1 . 264 teacher support 159. 6 0 stratcgics: tliscoursc 6 0 2. 68 \+ords49-54 work-related needs 1 3 9 4 0 World Englishes paradigm 108 17 ‘would’ 5 1 writing: learning ncctls 141.. 34 5.0 1 ~in CLT 17 18. 2 70 units of nark 2 2 1 University of Illinois a t Urbana. 58. 48. experiential materials 2 17 8 stutlcnts see learncrs subdivision 2 1 subjective kno\vledgc 200 1 suhjectivc needs 178-9 bilingual cducation and 99 107. innovation 123. 46-54. 173 teacher education 155. . 222--5. 142 4 .. disciplinai-v 3 . 1).. understanding of innovations 264 5. 260 1 .L. P. 245 strategic competence 56. 71 8 3 Vaxrus. mctadiacoursc 75 6 .. 73 task-bascd learning 2.INDEX 289 Story1x)artl 243 4 . 184 voluntary lcarning 130 Vygotsky. t c x t l)ascd syllabus design 222 5 theme 277 8 . 149-50 Swales. 272. 253-4 support. 273 supra-scntcntial linking 52 Swain. J. k.pccific components suhstantive intligcmization 1 I0 aluation 2 3 . 102 1 . 170 validity 2 0 1 value-adding activities 247. purposes For evaluation 258 6 2 . 264. I76 Tcrrell.~‘-. J. 48. 198 Waters. 264 w c a h l a r y 49. Icxis in 2 .*-~-. K.A.riin. language teaching rcpertoire 224-5. 265. 0 . J . T.Champaign (UIUC) 1 1 1 University of Mala)a Spoken knglish Project 234 5 Ur. 59 tasks 61 2. aquaculturr outreach project 145. individualizing learning tasks 1 31 4 . e . J. 49-50. 170-3. 270. tliscipline~. text based cycle 2 2 2 4 ~ Teaching knglish t o Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) pi-cparatory programs 108-17 technical texts 2 1 6 . 272 1. 141 Witltlo\vson. tension of syllabus v language antl learning 4 8 -9 syllahus grids 184 7 synonyms 52 ‘synopsiaing’ words 52 ‘Talkhasc’ approach 237 8 targct competence 11-1 2 targct need. I20 tcxt: language as 2 1 3.~ 7 technocentrism 241 2 tcchnologisctl tliscourse. hasc form o f 5 1 Vcrapoor. 143. L.~-~.‘”~. discourw syllabus 55 61. 19-20 targets 265 Taronc. 11. sclf-development 25 5. view of needs assessment 180.. F.14. highstructure antl low-structurc 32-3. 102 Van l i c r . teacher 159. 264 transactional language 62 transfer goals 182 ‘I. 109 vc>rhs. 186 7 structural approaches 183. S E C also disciplinar! \ ariation.4. syllabus design 1 8 5 6 Taylor. 21 5 Wallace. 272. . design antl disciplinary variation 80 1 . 96-7 tcaching: dominant discourses 170-1 . prrccived tliffjcultic\ in introducing CLT in Korea 149-67. 248 9 valuc-synonyms 52 values 16 1 Van t k . 175. M . 180-1 Target-Oriented Curriculum (I‘OC) 26 3 7 4 target repertoire 1 1 12. 49. tcachcr 155. G .. A . views on language and languagc teaching 88... re.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful