See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328364448

English Curriculum Reform in the Philippines: Issues and Challenges from a

21 st Century Learning Perspective

Article  in  Journal of Language Identity & Education · October 2018

DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547

CITATION READS

1 12,344

1 author:

Jessie Barrot
National University, Philippines
32 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Channel View project

A research about Facebook and language learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jessie Barrot on 22 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Language, Identity & Education

ISSN: 1534-8458 (Print) 1532-7701 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

English Curriculum Reform in the Philippines:

st
Issues and Challenges from a 21 Century
Learning Perspective

Jessie S. Barrot

To cite this article: Jessie S. Barrot (2018): English Curriculum Reform in the Philippines:
st
Issues and Challenges from a 21 Century Learning Perspective, Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547

Published online: 17 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547

English Curriculum Reform in the Philippines: Issues and

Challenges from a 21st Century Learning Perspective
Jessie S. Barrot
National University, Philippines

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Recent developments in the region and in the Philippines have prompted 21st century learning;
the Philippine government to push for a new basic education curriculum. curriculum reform; English
Along with these changes is the adoption of the new English curriculum language teaching; K-12
curriculum; language
known as the Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum (LAMC). This
curriculum
article, therefore, sought to examine the K-12 English Curriculum in the
Philippines from a 21st century learning perspective. The first section of this
article briefly describes the LAMC and 21st century learning in both general
and English language teaching-related terms. The discussion then reviews
the specificity and coherence of the LAMC, how it is consistent with the
principles espoused by 21st century learning, and how it is aligned to
established language teaching and learning principles. The findings
revealed that the current curriculum needs to improve its specificity, inter-
nal coherence, and integration of some essential principles of 21st century
learning and language teaching and learning. The article concludes with
the possible challenges in implementing the curriculum, suggestions for
future design and implementation, and implications for future studies.

Introduction
Globalization and rapid advancement in information and communication technology (ICT) are
continuously changing the landscape of our academic, professional, and personal lives. Recently, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has approved a “blueprint” that will guide its ten
member-states on initiatives to achieve regional integration. This integration allows the member-
states to participate in the flow of goods and services, capital, foreign investment, and labor. It also
opens doors for regional job markets making the competition tougher and pushing the education
sectors to produce competent graduates who possess skills needed to actively contribute to this
knowledge-based society. The need to develop these skills gave rise to 21st century learning which
refers to a pedagogical concept that emphasizes skills and knowledge needed by learners in order to
succeed in work, life, and citizenship (The Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2015). On top of
improving these skills, the ASEAN education ministers also declared the importance of English
language training in narrowing development gaps (8th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting, 2014).
Locally, it has been observed that a 10-year basic education curriculum remains to be congested
and that students could not legally enter into contracts for employment and entrepreneurship when
they finish high school (Calderon, 2014). It was also observed that students lack maturity and
competencies in various subject areas when they graduate from high school. In fact, data shows that
the score of basic education students in the Philippines in the national achievement tests (NATs)
across subjects remained to be way below the 75-percent target of the Department of Education
(Department of Education, 2013; UNESCO, 2015).

CONTACT Jessie S. Barrot jessiebarrot@yahoo.com

© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 BARROT

These recent developments in the region and the need to develop ICT-literate individuals have
prompted the Philippine government to push for a new basic education curriculum which seeks to
provide a quality 12-year basic education program for Filipino students. One major feature of this
curriculum reform is the integration of 21st century learning framework in order to help students
succeed in the 21st century milieu (DepEd Order No. 55, 2015; SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012). The K
to 12 curriculum lengthens schooling by adding a two-year senior high school that offers technical
and vocation courses. However, this education reform should not only focus on preparing students
for competitive employment and entrepreneurship, narrowing development gaps, addressing the
crowded curriculum, and integrating ICT. Equally important is transforming them into socially
critical and productive citizens and equipping them with skills necessary for resisting the exploitative
and oppressive features of globalization that benefits only the global elite (Jackson, 2014).
Along with these developments is the curriculum review and enhancement of the English
curriculum in order to gain the lead in producing a pool of talents who have an adequate command
of the English language. However, some textbook writers and classroom teachers reported that they
struggle in implementing K -12 English curriculum for various reasons (Pazzibugan, 2013; Valerio,
2015). For instance, teachers reported that they were confused on re-planning their lessons due to
the changes in the curriculum (Valerio, 2015). Regarding textbook writing, some authors reported
some difficulties in aligning the suggested competencies per week into one consolidated and unified
lesson. One reason for these challenges is the lack of clarity and specificity of the curriculum. Before
teachers can effectively implement a curriculum, they must fully understand its basic concepts and
implications for classroom practice (Carless, 1998; Rahman, 2014; Smit, 2005) as well as the
pedagogical principles it advocates (Wang, 2008). Thus, there is a necessity to make the new
English curriculum clear, specific, coherent, and aligned to the established pedagogical principles
such as 21st century learning. Note, however, that education is a complex system embedded in a
cultural, economic, and political context. Although clarity, specificity, coherence, and alignment of
curriculum to 21st century learning and language learning principles are crucial ingredients for a
successful implementation of a curriculum, they may not be sufficient conditions to advance
language education. Other factors that must be considered include the overall wellness of learners,
safe and healthy learning environment, pedagogical processes that facilitate learning (UNICEF,
2000), facilities (Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016), roles and tasks of teachers (Kubanyiova & Crookes,
2016), implicit language practices, and level of how the curriculum is understood, valued, and
implemented (Wiley & Garcia, 2016). In short, these scholars point out the relevance of quality of
learners, learning environment, content, and processes as well as the sociopolitical, cultural and
historical contexts in the successful implementation of any curricula.
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to analyze the Philippine K to 12 English Curriculum from 21st
century learning perspective. The first section briefly describes the current English curriculum in the
Philippines. The subsequent section describes 21st century learning in both general and ELT-related terms.
The discussion then reviews the specificity and coherence (i.e., sensible connection or coordination
between and among different components [Newmann, Smith, Allensworth & Bryk, 2001; Schmidt,
Wang, & McKnight, 2005]) of the new English curriculum, how it is consistent with the principles espoused
by 21st century learning, and how it is aligned to established language teaching and learning principles. The
paper concludes with the possible challenges in implementing the curriculum, suggestions for future design
and implementation, and implications for future studies.

Linguistic context in the Philippines

The Philippine is a country of linguistic diversity with more than 100 languages (Galang, 2000). Before
English language conquered the Philippines, no one language was spoken by majority of the Filipinos and
none was a good choice as the national language (Kirkpatrick, 2010). Thus, English was chosen as a
medium of instruction and a dominant language of government, media, and business (McFarland, 2008).
This influence of English was further strengthened by globalization as it compels the Philippine
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 3

government and businesses to adopt English as a language of trade. As a result, the government adopted
policies to ensure that Filipino students develop adequate proficiency in the English language. One of these
was the 1974 Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) which aims to use English language as the medium of
instruction in science and mathematics. The BEP was reaffirmed in 1987 as set forth in the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. However, recent research (e.g., Dekker & Young, 2005; Nolasco, Datar, & Azurin, 2010)
showed that Filipino pupils learn best through their mother tongues. These studies prompted the
Philippine government to institutionalize the Mother-tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE)
in 2009 through DepEd Order No. 74. MTBMLE refers to a formal and non-formal education in which first
language is used as a medium of instruction and as a subject from Grades 1 to 3 (DepEd Order 31, s. 2012).
This policy banks on the idea that learners’ multilinguality can be developed by introducing multilingual
education in the primary grades (Vez, 2009) and adopting a multilingual language education policy
(Dekker & Young, 2005; Hornberger, 2009). It is also based on the belief that multilingual development
is facilitated when learners use their linguistic resources in social contexts (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Kramsch,
2006), practice multimodal communication (Kalantzis & Cope, 2007; Shohamy, 2006), code-switch
(Ferguson, 2009; Lin, 2008), and use multilingual communication in various societal domains
(Hornberger, 2009).

K to 12 English curriculum in the Philippines

The K to 12 English Curriculum (also known as the Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum or
LAMC) was developed as a response to the poor performance of students in NAT across subjects. It is
founded on the belief that language, thinking, and learning are interrelated and that language is the
foundation of all human relations. Its overarching goal is to develop communicatively competent and
multiliterate learners who are competitive in this global economy (Department of Education, 2016).
Compared to previous English curricula, the LAMC is decongested because students no longer
cram the minimum learning competencies and standards in ten years; rather, they are covered in 12
years. In short, students cover fewer learning competencies per year in a 12-year basic education
curriculum. Meanwhile, more advanced English subjects are offered as core subjects (i.e., Reading
and Writing and Oral Communication) and applied track subjects (i.e., English for Academic and
Professional Purposes) in the senior high school.
This curriculum also introduced some pedagogical innovations (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012).
First, it adopted the MTBMLE from grades 1 to 3. This means that different subject matters (except
in English and Filipino subjects) are taught in the L1 for concept mastery until grade 3. From grade 4
to senior high school, English remains to be the medium of instruction. The implementation of this
policy is based on the assumption that using mother tongue during primary education facilitates
learning (DepEd Order 74 s., 2009; Tupas, 2015). Tupas (2015) further explains that the rise of
MTBMLE can be attributed to the following factors: (a) recognition of minority language human
rights accompanied by mobilization of cultural minorities in other countries, (b) maintenance of
minority languages, and (c) dismantling the hegemony of the national language as a de facto
medium of instruction. In political contexts of education, MTBMLE helps in educating various
linguistic minority groups and promoting mother tongue in mainstream and non-mainstream
education (Tupas, 2015). The significant role of mother tongue also extends to other areas of
development such as promoting gender equality, alleviating poverty, reducing child mortality, and
promoting health (UNESCO, 2012). Second, the time allotment for English subjects both in
elementary and junior high school levels was reduced. From five hours per week at the secondary
level, the time allotted to English subjects was down to four hours a week. At the elementary level,
the reduction was from 60-90 minutes to 30-50 minutes per session. The drop in the total number of
hours was part of the effort to promote mother-tongue education and to lengthen the contact hours
for other learning areas such as home economics and livelihood education. Third, the LAMC uses a
different assessment scheme. Instead of using NAT for both elementary and high school levels, end-
of-grade 6, 10 and 12 assessments were adopted.
4 BARROT

21st century learning

The integration and proliferation of technology and rising consciousness on cultural diversity and
globalization have shifted the traditional notion of learning to 21st century learning (Borsheim,
Merritt & Reed, 2008; So & Kang; 2014). This new concept focuses on the ability of learners to
collect and/or retrieve information, organize and manage information, evaluate the relevance,
quality, and usefulness of information, and generate accurate information through the use of
available resources (Educational Testing Service, 2007). These are the skills that contemporary
learners must possess to survive today’s highly globalized economy (PPRC, 2010).
The North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL) and the Metiri Group (2003)
organized the 21st century skills into four types: digital-age literacies, inventive thinking, effective
communication, and high productivity. Digital-age literacy refers to learners’ ability to understand
cultural, scientific, and technological information in different forms. It covers basic literacy, scientific
literacy, economic literacy, technological literacy, visual literacy, information literacy, multicultural
literacy, and global awareness. Another category of 21st century skills is inventive thinking which
refers to learners’ ability to process and apply higher thinking skills and information technology on
complex and sustained contexts. Inventive thinking is composed of life skills which include adapt-
ability, managing complexity, self-direction, curiosity, creativity, risk-taking, and higher-order think-
ing and sound reasoning. The third category directly relates to language; that is, effective
communication. By effective communication, we mean skills that are essential to succeed in today’s
society. These include teaming and collaboration, interpersonal skills, personal responsibility, social
and civic responsibility, and interactive communication. Finally, there is high productivity which
refers to the learners’ ability to be productive as part of a workforce. This category includes
prioritizing, planning, and managing for results, effective use of real-world tools, and ability to
produce relevant and high-quality products.
Twenty-first century learning paved the way for a new form of teaching construct known as
multiliteracy pedagogy. This teaching construct tasks the teachers to provide their students with
opportunities to access, evaluate, search, sort, gather, and read data from various multimedia and
multimodal sources making them multiliterate persons. Multiliterate persons refer to those who are
“flexible and strategic and can understand and use literacy and literate practices with a range of texts
and technologies; in socially responsible ways; in a socially, culturally, and linguistically diverse
world; and to fully participate in life as an active and informed citizen” (Anstey & Bull, 2006, p. 55).
According to various scholars (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; The New London Group, 1996; Rennie,
2010), multiliteracy among students can be developed in several ways. These are as follows: (a)
shifting from the idea that learning is limited to oral and written modes; (b) emphasizing meaning-
making processes, creation, and self- and social transformation; (c) making the curriculum multi-
modal through the use of various sources and types of information; (d) addressing students’ cultural
and linguistic diversities; (e) integrating ICT; (f) integrating knowledge and meaning into historical,
cultural, and social contexts of learning; (g) allowing learners to immerse in real-life experience (i.e.,
situated practice) and applying transformed meaning to other contexts (i.e., transformed practice);
and (h) adopting correlative assessment technique such as performance, projects, portfolios, and
group work.
To produce multiliterate learners, it is important to incorporate 21st century literacy themes
which include civic literacy, global awareness, financial literacy, health literacy, and environmental
literacy (PPRC, 2010). While civic literacy refers to learners’ ability to be aware and informed of
governmental processes and civic issues, global awareness refers to learners’ ability to understand
global issues and engage in diverse learning communities. The third theme relates to financial
literacy which refers to one’s ability to make informed and sound financial and economic decisions.
There is also health literacy which is the learners’ ability to access and use information for health-
related purposes. The last theme is the environmental literacy which refers to learners’ ability to
understand and discuss environmental issues and propose appropriate solutions for them. All of
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 5

these literacies and themes, when taken together, will enable learners to acquire and utilize various
skills they need to succeed in their personal and professional life.
Summarized below are the 21st century teaching and learning principles (The Partnership for 21st
Century Learning, 2015):

(1) Mastery of core subjects and 21st century themes is essential for 21st century learners.
(2) Creativity, critical thinking, and communication and collaboration are important in pre-
paring learners for the future.
(3) Learners must be able to display a range of functional and critical thinking skills related to
information, media, and technology to be effective 21st century citizens and workers.
(4) Learners must be able to develop adequate life and career skills to thrive in this globally
competitive information age.
(5) Curriculum should adopt 21st century standards that focus on 21st century skills, content
knowledge and expertise, developing deep understanding, building understanding across
subjects, engaging learners with real-world data, tools and experts, and allowing multiple
measures of mastery.
(6) Assessment schemes should strike a balance between formative and summative assessment,
emphasize useful feedback on learners’ performance, require a balance of technology-
enhanced assessment, and enable learners to develop their portfolio that demonstrates
their mastery.

The Philippines had a long history of educational reforms from the colonization period to
globalization era with the intention to provide quality and accessible education to Filipinos.
Several reasons have been identified that prompted the Philippine government to adopt 21st
century learning framework. First, the Philippines is still confronted with high numbers of out-
of-school youth despite the free basic education policy, more particularly among the poor and
conflict-ridden areas (Education for All Global Monitoring Report, 2014). Thus, the poor
remained disadvantaged in the Philippine basic education. Another reason for this adoption
is the quality of education in the Philippines. Based on international and national assessment
tests, the Philippines scored significantly lower than the international average (Mullis, Martin,
Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004) and failed to achieve satisfactory scores (Department of
Education, 2013). These challenges would have negative impact on Filipinos as the world
becomes a global society with increasing cross-border movements. As the Philippines shift
from agricultural to service industry, there is a greater demand of producing graduates that are
globally competitive and possess competencies that match the demand of the labor market. By
formally integrating 21st century learning framework into its K to 12 program, it is hoped that
educational outcomes may facilitate social mobility and produce lifelong learners who are
socially responsible, problem solver, critical thinker, and effective communicator for “a pro-
gressive, just, and humane society” (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012, p. 12).
One model in ESL pedagogy that is anchored on 21st century learning is the sociocognitive-
transformative model which incorporates the 21st century themes into the materials and tasks. It
also puts greater emphasis on using language in authentic social contexts, interdependence
between cognitive and social aspects of language learning, and self- and social transformation.
Hence, it “aims to produce learners who are socially participative, multiliterate, communicatively
competent and lifelong learners” (Barrot, 2014, 2015). The model advances 17 established
principles in ESL pedagogy which were used as a reference point in analyzing the alignment
of the new English curriculum to language teaching and learning principles. These are as follows
in Table 1:
6 BARROT

Table 1. 17 established principles in ESL pedagogy.

1. Construction
2. Sociocognitivism
3. Transformative learning
4. Differentiation
5. Contextualization
6. Spiral progression
7. Interaction
8. ICT integration
9. Process orientation
10. Integration
11. Integration of intercultural
competence
12. Contextualized grammar and
vocabulary instruction
13. Form-meaning connections
14. Multi-componential assessment
15. Multiliteracy
16. Reflective learning
17. Balanced emphasis on
communicative competences
Engaging learners to make meaning during language learning and use (Hyslop-
Margison & Strobel, 2007; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978)
Considering both social and cognitive factors during language learning (Atkinson,
2002; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2008; Toth & Davin, 2016)
Allowing learners to participate in their communities, perform social activities, and
contribute to social and self-transformation (Atkinson, 2002; Castelli, 2011; Mezirow,
1997)
Taking into account learners’ individual differences during the teaching-learning
process (Carrell, Prince, & Astika, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999; Toth & Davin, 2016)
Providing authentic and meaningful language experience to learners (CPDD, 2010;
Roberts & Cooke, 2009)
Revisiting forms, skills, and texts at increasing level of difficulty and sophistication
(CPDD, 2010; Ellis, 2006; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
Situating language learning in the context of communication through real-life
activities that require interaction among learners (Atkinson, 2002; Hyland, 2007; Toth
& Davin, 2016)
Integrating ICT into the teaching-learning process (Bax, 2003; Chun et al., 2016; Wang
& Coleman, 2009)
Focusing on the skills and processes involved in language learning (Lai, 2009;
Littlewood, 2009)
Teaching the macroskills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, writing, viewing, and
representing) and microskills (i.e., grammar and vocabulary) in an integrated way
using relevant print and non-print resources (Brown, 1994; CPDD, 2010; Hinkel, 2006)
Focusing on developing learners’ ability to effectively and appropriately communicate
with people of other cultures (Kramsch, 2000; Leung & Scarino, 2016; Liddicoat,
Papademetre, Scarino, & Kohler, 2003)
Integrating grammar and vocabulary into authentic tasks and teaching of macroskills
(Hinkel, 2006; Lee & Muncie, 2006)
Allowing learners to attend to the relationships between forms and meaning (Ellis,
2005; VanPatten, 1996, 2007)
Employing contextualized self-, peer, and teacher assessment as well as traditional
and alternative assessment (Black, 2009; McMillan, 2000; Purpura, 2016)
Helping learners develop skills in accessing, evaluating, searching, sorting, gathering,
and reading data from various multimedia and multimodal sources (Anstey & Bull,
2006; Borsheim et al., 2008; NCREL, 2003; PPRC, 2010)
Allowing learners to consciously think about and analyze their learning experience
(Berger Kaye, 2010; Castelli, 2011; Moon, 2004)
Equally emphasizing all aspects of communicative competence (Bachman & Palmer,
2010; Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Murray, 2010)

Methodology
The theoretical framework draws on Vidovich’s (2002) adaptation of Ball’s (1994) policy cycle. This
framework acknowledges the various contexts of influences, practice, and policy text production to
fully understand policy change. Context of influence refers to the struggles among interest groups
over the construction of policy discourses while context of policy text production articulates that
texts represent policy despite their inconsistencies. Finally, context of practice emphasizes that any
policy is subject to interpretation of various stakeholders (Ball, 1994; Vidovich, 2002). Among these
three contexts, the main focus of this study was in the context of policy text production but situating
them in the context of influence and practice. On this note, the framework was used as a tool for the
analysis of the LAMC.

Data sources
Two data sources were used in this study. The first data source is the LAMC which provides the
pedagogical framework, key, content and performance standards, directions for the English courses
at different levels, and expected performance from the teachers. The LAMC’s most recent version
was published in May 2016. The curriculum has four components: language learning process,
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 7

effective language use, making meaning through language, and holistic assessment (Department of
Education, 2016). Component 1 (Language Learning Process) presents the six principles that guide
teachers in teaching the language: spiral progression, integration, interaction, contextualization,
learner-centeredness, and construction. Component 2 articulates how learners can better understand
culture and language as well as use processes and strategies by providing them opportunities to use
language in the following learning areas: (a) listening, speaking, and viewing; (b) reading, viewing,
and responding; and (c) writing and representing. Component 3 shows the interrelatedness and
interdependence among language macroskills and the development of thinking skills for the purpose
of helping learners make meaning through language. The last component deals with holistic
assessment which aims to provide quantitative and qualitative feedback for learner development.
Holistic assessment is characterized by the use of authentic performance, holistic view of language
(i.e., interrelatedness between and among macro and micro skills), integrative view of learning (i.e.,
total array of skills), consideration to the developmental readiness of learners, and multiple referen-
cing (i.e., assessment through different means).
Another data source used for the text analysis is the P21 framework for 21st century learning.
Although there are several versions of 21st century frameworks (e.g., Partnership for 21st century
skills, EnGauge, Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, National Educational Technology
Standards), Voogt and Roblin (2012) found a large extent of alignment among them. Hence, this
analysis is primarily anchored on the principles espoused by P21 Framework which is considered to
be the most recognizable 21st century learning framework (Shubert, 2011).
All of these documents are publicly available and were gathered through an online search using
relevant key words, such as 21st century learning, 21st century literacy, P21, K to 12 English
curriculum, English curriculum guide, and language teaching principles.

Data analysis
The current study used policy text analysis (Alahiotis & Karatzia-Stavlioti, 2006; Jarvis, 2000) to
examine the specificity and coherence of the new curriculum, and its alignment to 21st century
learning and established language teaching and learning principles. It should be noted that the
conduct of a text analysis of a curriculum document is influenced by the relevant concepts related to
effective pedagogy and curriculum design (Alahiotis & Karatzia-Stavlioti, 2006). Thus, major ped-
agogical concepts related to Philippine K to 12 curriculum and English language teaching were
investigated. These include 21st century literacy, curriculum policy, and English language teaching
and learning principles. After identifying these major concepts, the LAMC was examined to
determine its alignment with the principles espoused by the identified pedagogical concepts.
Moreover, the analysis extended to the documents that are connected to the LAMC such as
Department Orders from the Department of Education.

Findings
Criticisms towards the English curriculum in the Philippines have grown since the implementation
of BPE. In fact, numerous discussions and suggestions have been made on how the English
curriculum and English proficiency of students can be improved to make them relevant in their
respective contexts. As a response to the repeated criticisms, the LAMC was introduced. In light of
this development, this paper analyzes the new English curriculum in the Philippines from a 21st
century learning perspective and offers some suggestions for its future design and implementation.
The following discussion focuses on these three areas: the alignment of the new English curriculum
with 21st century learning principles, its adherence to the established language teaching and learning
principles, and its specificity and coherence. The analysis was limited to grades 1 to 10 since only
these levels are covered by the LAMC.
8 BARROT

Alignment to 21st century learning principles

Aligning the curriculum to 21st century learning principles is not an easy task. It requires a
concerted effort among curriculum developers, government education agencies, school heads,
and teachers for the curriculum to fully incorporate these principles into any curriculum.
Notably, the LAMC was developed to address the needs of the Generation Z (those born from
1994 to 2004) and to equip them with various literacies that will help them thrive in this global
and knowledge-based society. While the new curriculum included multiliteracy as one of its
goals, the content of the new curriculum fell short in integrating the essential principles of 21st
century learning.
Firstly, the LAMC could have used a more coherent approach to integrating 21st century themes
and skills into the new English curriculum. No part of the curriculum can we find that the 21st
century themes were discussed nor explicitly mentioned in the content standards. Failure to provide
a guide on how these themes can be incorporated into the learning competencies and standards
would result in the teachers’ hit-or-miss selection of texts, topics, and tasks. There are two ways on
how the themes may be embedded into the LAMC. First, a theme may be assigned in each quarter.
For instance, the first quarter of each grade level may focus on civic and global literacy, while the
second, third, and fourth quarters may concentrate on financial, health, and environmental literacy,
respectively. Second, each of the five themes may be embedded into each quarter. This means that
each quarter should equally emphasize these five themes.
The LAMC could also use instructional approaches that would help learners develop their life and
career skills, creative and critical thinking skills, and other higher order thinking skills. This can be
done by providing details on how students can effectively use language for creative, functional,
personal, and academic purposes. For instance, as part of learning competencies, students may be
asked to analyze or process the various ways on how language is used in different forms of texts to
convey meaning and to affect the audience’s behaviour and feelings (CPDD, 2010).
The LAMC recognizes that Generation Z learners “will grow up with a highly sophisticated media
and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy and expert than their Gen Y fore-
runners” (Department of Education, 2016, p. 5). Despite this recognition and the fact that ICT
contributes to creating a diverse learning environment and enriching teaching content, the current
English curriculum was silent about its integration. Aside from the brief description of Generation Z
learners in the LAMC, no other part of the curriculum provides substantial discussion on how ICT
can be integrated into the teaching and learning process. This lack of information about ICT
integration may have adverse effects on addressing the needs of students and achieving the objectives
of the curriculum. Nonetheless, ICT integration raises few problems, such as the ability of teachers to
use technology for instructional purposes and the availability of ICTs. Because not all schools in the
Philippines have sufficient ICT resources, the LAMC may propose specific ways on how to address
the digital divide.
One commendable feature of the current English curriculum is the specification of various
standards (i.e., key standards, grade level standards, content standards, and performance standards)
that learners across levels need to attain. However, these standards do not fully reflect the develop-
ment of 21st century skills, such as digital-age literacies, inventive thinking, effective communication,
and high productivity. All of these standards exclusively focus on developing language skills and
understanding of literature for a deeper appreciation of Philippine culture and other cultures around
the world. This shows that among the 21st century skills, much of the focus is on effective
communication. The LAMC also lacks provisions on how learners can engage with real-world
data, tools and experts, and allow multiple measures of mastery.
One strength of the current English curriculum is its emphasis on holistic assessment, which
refers to an ongoing collection of both qualitative and quantitative feedback from various sources.
The LAMC further advocates that assessment should be based on authentic communicative activ-
ities, interrelationships among micro- and macroskills, and students’ level of development. However,
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 9

there could have been a more extensive discussion on how teachers can practice principled assess-
ment (e.g., reliability, validity, practicality, consequences, and authenticity) in their respective class-
rooms using both the traditional and alternative forms of assessment. Learners can also be provided
opportunities to develop their portfolio to showcase their mastery of skills and knowledge and to use
technology-enhanced assessment.
Beyond the notion of alignment and consistency, it is equally important to emphasize how 21st
century learning is reflected in the LAMC considering the context in this point in time. Filipino
learners are currently living in a global society where diversity impacts language education. Such
context also requires language educators to have deeper understanding and appreciation of the
various learning needs of the 21st century learners. Thus, teachers and educators must recognize that
they are not teaching a static discipline. Despite this reality, the LAMC is silent on how this diversity
will be addressed and how the teachers should change their understanding of the approach to
language education. One way to genuinely succeed in implementing a 21st century language
curriculum is that teachers must understand the work and study habits of the learners and use
this awareness in creating supportive instructional contexts.
The essence of 21st century learning is not merely about the knowledge and skills the learners
possess but on what they can do with these knowledge and skills. Although the LAMC specifies
various competencies and language facts (e.g., proper grammar) that learners need to master, the
curriculum lacks provisions on how these competencies can be used in authentic or real-life contexts
and how learners can process these sets of information. This rigid classroom practice makes learners
uncritically ingest information and accept information as they are without question. Because of this,
the LAMC has the tendency to produce compliant learners instead of competent multiliterate ones.
To address the issue, the LAMC may provide real-life tasks in which these target competencies can
be applied. As a culminating activity, these tasks need to be carefully selected and be reflective of the
trends, issues, and needs of the present society.
Though 21st century learning is a viable pedagogical concept, it is also worthy to recognize its
limitations. In the context of English language teaching, 21st century learning may need to recognize
not only technological changes but also the changes that linguistic and cultural diversity bring. In
this way, the emphasis is not just on multiliteracies but also on multilingual literacies. While it is
desirable that the LAMC inherit all the features of 21st century learning, it might be necessary to find
a tailored way of implementing the English curriculum based on the educational culture of the
Philippines because not all students in the country have access to well-rounded education.

Alignment to the established language teaching and learning principles

Generally, the LAMC adheres to the established language learning and teaching principles (i.e.,
constructivism, spiral progression, contextualization, macroskills integration, interaction, and holis-
tic assessment) that will inform teachers’ instructional planning and delivery. Nonetheless, there are
areas that still need to be revisited to ensure that the new English curriculum faithfully reflects these
principles. While there was an attempt to use spiral progression, it is not clear how skills, gramma-
tical structures, and texts progress from simpler to more sophisticated levels and how these items are
revisited to provide the needed reinforcement. Although it is not clear just how much more details
can be reasonably expected from the LAMC, a more detailed table that consists of specific items,
structures, and strategies could have been helpful in showing how progression occurs at least per key
stage. To contextualize teaching and to realize differentiated instruction, the curriculum indicated
that the content should include print and electronic texts that are age, context, and culture appro-
priate. To do this, guidelines may be offered as to how teachers can implement differentiated
instruction and contextualization. There is also a need to define exactly how teachers can make
texts culturally, contextually, and age appropriate.
The LAMC framework emphasizes the development and integration of macroskills. However,
each of these macroskills remained to be represented separately as language arts domains. As a
10 BARROT

result, there was a disconnect between and among the learning competencies set for each of the
macroskills in the LAMC. For instance, a disconnect was observed in the learning competencies for
reading and vocabulary (p. 103, week 8), listening and speaking (p. 103, week 8), reading and writing
(p. 110, weeks 8 and 9), reading, viewing and responding (p. 87, week 2), and listening, speaking and
viewing (p. 92, week 1). Because of this lack of coherence between and among these learning
competencies, teachers and materials developers might struggle on how to link these competencies
into one cohesive lesson. To realize the principle of integration, the LAMC learning competencies
could be listed per cluster of skills (e.g., writing-representing, listening-speaking-viewing, reading-
viewing-responding). For example, a set of learning competencies could be specified for listening-
speaking-viewing cluster.
The lack of appropriate integration is not exclusive to macroskills; it is also observed in the
teaching of grammar and vocabulary. Although the curriculum claims that the receptive skills,
productive skills, and grammar and vocabulary will be taught in an integrated way (Department
of Education, 2016, p. 8), the details of the curriculum fail to reflect such a claim. The reason for this
is that the chosen vocabulary and grammatical items are not essential to the target productive and
receptive skills. For example, the writing task (i.e., writing a short story) in week 4 of the second
quarter for grade 4 requires the past verb tense; however, the target grammatical item used is the
present form of verbs. Aside from being inconsistent, a mismatch between the selected grammatical
item and the target macroskill also adversely affects the form-meaning connection. In terms of
effectively integrating vocabulary to speaking, common oral expressions of idioms may be included.
Other important principles in language teaching and learning that the curriculum fails to
integrate are reflective learning, computer-assisted language learning, balanced emphasis on various
communicative competencies particularly strategic competence, process orientation, and intercul-
tural competence.

Specificity and coherence of the LAMC

Many notable features are present in the current English curriculum. Among these are the inclusion
of multiliteracy as a goal of the whole teaching-learning process, the notion of viewing and
representing as part of the language macroskills, the principle of spiral progression, key stage
standards for grades 3, 6, 10 and 12, and specific language arts domains. Despite these innovations,
the LAMC needs to improve its specificity and coherence.
Although the framework indicates that theories of language, language learning, and language
teaching were considered, specific theories that underpin the curriculum were not explicitly clarified
in the LAMC. It can be gleaned from the philosophy and rationale and guiding principles of the
curriculum that it adheres to the functional (i.e., language is viewed as a vehicle for expression of
functional meaning) and interactional (i.e., language is viewed as a vehicle for performing social
transactions and for establishing social and interpersonal relationships) view of language. For
instance, the curriculum states that language is used to establish human relationships and to express
thoughts, values, and understanding (Department of Education, 2016, p. 3). It is also apparent that
the curriculum is guided by the theory of constructivism which views learning as a transformation of
knowledge and puts emphasis on process, learning skills, self-discovery, and social and communica-
tion skills (Nunan, 1999; Soule, 2008). It also views learners as active participants in learning and
sees teachers as facilitators more than an authority figure (Nunan, 1999).
While the LAMC framework specifies viewing and representing skills, the curriculum was silent
on the representing skill. Among the six macroskills only representing was not included as a sub-
strand of language arts in the enumeration of the learning competencies per grade level.
Representing was not also mentioned in any of the performance, grade level, or content standards,
yet it was incorporated into the framework alongside writing.
Another prominent feature of the LAMC is its key stage standards for grades 3, 6, 10, and 12.
However, these key stage standards need to be detailed enough to guide the writing of the learning
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 11

competencies across grade levels and to show how one key stage standard progresses to another key
standard. This lack of clarity may have contributed to some observed incoherence between and
among key stage standards, grade level standards, content standards, and performance standards. To
address this concern, a more specific version that specifies the standards per domain (e.g., speaking,
reading, writing, and spelling, vocabulary and grammar) which the students are expected to know,
apply, and understand may be developed. As noted by Schmidt et al. (2005), standards should
progress in terms of depth and not merely a repetition of the same standards.
A weak coherence was also observed in the learning competencies listed under each domain.
Some learning competencies and topics are introduced before a pre-requisite knowledge that can
provide scaffolding for the understanding of these topics and learning competencies. For example,
grade 2 students were required to summarize information without developing first their skills in
getting main ideas. Another example is the mismatch between the selected grammatical forms and
productive skills (i.e., speaking and writing). As shown on page 94 of the LAMC, the topics under
grammar are prepositions, but these grammatical points are not essential to the assigned writing and
oral tasks. A similar situation is observed in the competencies listed on page 111. In this section, the
target grammar is sentences for following and giving directions but the required writing and oral tasks
involved writing a feature article and keeping the discussion going, respectively. It can, therefore, be
supposed that the LAMC fell short in maintaining the interconnectedness of its components. One
possible reason for this is that the LAMC is developed using a specialist approach. A specialist
approach is employed when a group of specialists are responsible for decision making and producing
the curriculum and treats teachers solely as implementers of the curriculum. The lack of inter-
connectedness arises from the fact that these specialists operate from different beliefs and assump-
tions (Graves, 2008). Thus, future revisions of the LAMC may focus on selecting and sequencing
topics and competencies—both within each grade and across grade levels—that are consistent with
the set standards.
Teachers are crucial in the successful implementation of the curriculum because they carry a
significant responsibility for curriculum change. However, teachers are facing challenges on how
they can properly implement the new curriculum because of lack of specificity on processes,
strategies, and approaches that they can use at the classroom level (Hardman & A-Rahman, 2014).
The LAMC may need to detail how the lessons will be planned and delivered, how each of the
macroskills can be taught, how texts and materials should be selected, and how culminating tasks
should be designed. To address this issue, a special section devoted to teaching approaches and
teaching means may be added to help teachers in translating the curriculum into classroom practices
(Xu & Fan, 2016). In addition, a sample culminating task that incorporates GRASPS (goal, role,
audience, situation, product, and standard) could be specified at the end of each quarter. This
culminating task can be an in-class or out-of-class activity that allows learners to use technology.
Each culminating task per quarter needs to integrate the learning competencies covered during
weeks 1 to 9 of each quarter. And to make the learning competencies for each week aligned to one
another, the performance task per week could focus on productive skills (speaking, writing, repre-
senting) using the receptive skill tasks as enabling tasks. The target subskills of all macroskills can
also be made consistent with one another. For instance, if reading focuses on getting main ideas, the
same subskill should be the focus of listening and viewing. If writing focuses on informative text, the
same text type may be used during oral tasks.
While the curriculum claims that various text types will be taught (Department of Education,
2016, p. 10), the types or genres of reading, listening, and viewing texts that students need to process
as well as writing fluency are not well specified. Furthermore, there seems to be the absence of a
definition of some important terminologies such as key stage standard, content standard, grade level
standard, performance standard, oracy, processes, and strategies. This absence of a definition for key
terms may lead to lack of uniform interpretation of these concepts (Paterson, 2010), consequently
broadening the gap between the intended and the implemented curriculum.
12 BARROT

Conclusion
The Philippines has initiated English curriculum reforms to respond effectively to the demands of
21st century education and the current educational problems of the country such as low achievement
test scores and congested curriculum. Overall, the current curriculum may need to improve its
clarity, specificity, and internal coherence as well as the integration of some essential principles of
21st century learning and language teaching and learning.
Given these findings, teachers may encounter various challenges in implementing the curriculum.
First, the teachers may not be able to fully practice principled teaching in their respective classrooms
because of the lack of integration of essential principles of 21st century language pedagogy. The lack
of specificity and clarity of the curriculum may also contribute to the mismatch between what
teachers want to teach and what learners want or need to learn. Moreover, the gap between the
intended and implemented curriculum is more likely to happen if the curriculum is not clear to the
teachers. This is because teachers tend to interpret curriculum in a way that it conforms to their own
teaching style and beliefs (Rahman, 2014). As such, policy makers may need to clarify some
provisions in the LAMC and specify ways on how the new English curriculum can be translated
into specific classroom practices. It may be necessary to incorporate examples of classroom practice
after each outcome statement to show how various components can be linked with one another.
Another potential challenge that might be encountered is the changing of teachers’ views on their
role as a facilitator of learning (not merely as a knowledge transmitter), on the role of their students,
and on the teaching-learning process including assessment. Thus, teachers’ skills and knowledge
need to be upgraded and enriched through teacher training to match the demand of the new
curriculum. Training and orientation must be given as early as pre-service training and teacher
education courses. These trainings should be continuous and developmental to provide them
sufficient support and knowledge in implementing the changes (Malderez & Wedell, 2007). Since
teachers interpret curricula in the light of their own teaching style and embedded framework,
training should also focus on helping teachers embrace new ideas in teaching English. As empha-
sized by Kırkgöz (2008), in-service and pre-service trainings have a positive impact on the teacher’s
ability to embrace and implement curricular innovations.
Finally, there is the issue of very limited instructional time. In total, students spent about 160
hours of instruction in the LAMC over the 40-week academic year. This meant four hours per week
contact time. Unless out-of-class activities that expose students to L2 samples are explicitly provided,
the reduction in the English subject makes the contact hours fewer than what is needed to see a
measurable progress; that is at least 200 hours per year (Nunan, 2003). Thus, future revisions of the
curriculum may require the inclusion out-of-class activities that will reinforce and supplement in-
class contact hours. Moreover, with only four instructional hours per week, teachers might struggle
to cover eight to ten different learning competencies in one week. To address this issue, English
curriculum for lower grade levels may focus mainly on fostering positive attitudes towards commu-
nication rather than treating it as a means of starting English language education (Butler & Iino,
2005). It might be necessary also to integrate some of the related learning competencies and/or focus
on the essential ones. In other words, the LAMC should aim to provide quality rather than quantity.
The above findings highlight the need to develop an evidence-based curriculum. This can be
realized through a series of studies that will provide useful information for curriculum revision. For
instance, future studies may go beyond simple analysis of curriculum by conducting empirical
studies on how the curriculum, teaching, learning, and assessment are realized in Philippine context
from the perspective of teachers, students, parents, and school administrators who bring their own
knowledge, perspectives, experience and values to the task. Note that the term used is ‘realized’ and
not ‘implemented’ because the notion of ‘implementation’ remains problematic and puzzling among
researchers (Marsh & Willis, 2007). Since teacher beliefs are crucial to embracing curricular
innovations (Wagner, 1991), future studies may examine the pedagogical framework that language
teachers use and bridge the gap between their beliefs and the new English curriculum. Further
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 13

research also needs to be directed toward examining the capacity of English language teachers in
implementing the curriculum at a classroom level and design appropriate training programs. Finally,
future researchers may conduct a multidimensional qualitative research using classroom observation,
teacher interview, and lesson plan analysis to determine the actual challenges that English language
teachers encounter in implementing the new English curriculum.
It is hoped that through the proposed course of action, the new English curriculum will be firmly
established, teacher- and student-friendly, and balanced in reconciling the macro-level policy and
micro-level implementation. No curriculum innovation would be successful without the concerted
effort of its three key stakeholders: the policy makers, the teachers, and the students.

ORCID
Jessie S. Barrot http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-4058

References
8th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting. (2014). Joint statement. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/images/
Statement/2014/Sept/JS%208th%20ASED%20Adopted%2011%20Sept.pdf
Alahiotis, S. N., & Karatzia-Stavlioti, E. (2006). Effective curriculum policy and cross-curricularity: Analysis of the new
curriculum design of the Hellenic Pedagogical Institute. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 14, 119–147. doi:10.1080/
14681360600738277
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,
86, 525–545. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00159
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Developing language assessments and justifying
their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Barrot, J. S. (2014). A macro perspective on key issues in English as second language (ESL) pedagogy in the
postmethod era: Confronting challenges through sociocognitive-transformative approach. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, 23, 435–449. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0119-4
Barrot, J. S. (2015). A sociocognitive-transformative instructional materials design model for second language (L2)
pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: Development and validation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 283–297.
doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0179-0
Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present, and future. System, 31, 13–28. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00071-4
Berger Kaye, C. (2010). Work that is real: A pitcher cries for water to carry and a person for work that is real. Principal
Leadership, 10(6), 19–23.
Black, P. (2009). Formative assessment issues across the curriculum: The theory and the practice. TESOL Quarterly, 43,
519–524. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00248.x
Borsheim, C., Merritt, K., & Reed, D. (2008). Beyond technology for technology’s sake: Advancing multiliteracies in
the twenty-first century. The Clearing House, 82, 87–90. doi:10.3200/tchs.82.2.87-90
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “action plan.”
Language Policy, 4, 25–45. doi:10.1007/s10993-004-6563-5
Calderon, M. (2014). A critique of K-12 Philippine education system. International Journal of Education and Research,
2, 541–550.
Carless, D. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26, 353–368. doi:10.1016/s0346-
251x(98)00023-2
Carrell, P., Prince, M., & Astika, G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language
Learning, 46, 75–99. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00641.x
Castelli, P. (2011). Reflective learning in practice: Transforming experiences in a graduate global leadership curriculum.
Paper presented at Academic and Business Research Institute Conference, Nashville, TN.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Issue Eds.) (2011). A holistic approach in multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern
Language Journal, 95, 339–343. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01204.x
Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80. doi:10.1111/modl.12302
14 BARROT

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4,
164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044
Curriculum Planning & Development Division (CPDD) (2010). English language syllabus: Primary & secondary
(express/normal [academic]). Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Dekker, D. & Young, C. (2005). Bridging the gap: The development of appropriate educational strategies for minority
language communities in the Philippines. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6, 182–199. doi:10.1080/
14664200508668280
Department of Education. (2009). Institutionalizing mother tongue-based multilingual education (MLE). Retrieved
August 10, 2016 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2009/DO_s2009_74.pdf
Department of Education. (2012). Policy guidelines on the implementation of grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 basic
education curriculum (BEC) effective school year 2012–2013. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/
sites/default/files/order/2012/DO_s2012_31.pdf
Department of Education. (2013). NAT overview and 2012 test results. Retrieved August 12, 2016 from http://depedqc.
ph/announcements/2013-NAT-GUIDELINES/2013%20NAT%20Overview%20-%20QC.pdf
Department of Education. (2015). Utilization of language mapping data for mother tongue-based multilingual education
(MTB-MLE) program implementation. Retrieved August 10, 2016 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/
order/2015/DO_s2015_55_0.pdf
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide for English. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://www.
deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2016/English%20CG_0.pdf
Education for All Global Monitoring Report. (2014). Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Educational Testing Service (2007). Digital transformation: A framework for information and communication technol-
ogy (ICT) literacy, a report of the international ICT literacy panel. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.
doi:10.2307/40264512
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59, 199–208.
doi:10.1093/elt/cci039
Ferguson, G. (2009). What next? Towards an agenda for classroom code-switching research. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 231–241. doi:10.1080/13670050802153236
Galang, R. (2000). Language planning in Philippine education in the 21st century: Toward language as resource
orientation. In M.L.S. Bautista, T.A. Llamzon, & B P. Sibayan (Eds.), Parangal cang brother andres: 11 festschrift for
Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 267–276). Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41, 147–181.
doi:10.1017/s0261444807004867
Hardman, J., & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27, 260–277. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109–131. doi:10.2307/
40264513
Hornberger, N. H. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous
experience). Language Teaching, 42, 197–211. doi:10.1017/s0261444808005491
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing,
16, 148–164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Hyslop-Margison, E., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical impli-
cations. The Teacher Educator, 43, 72–86. doi:10.1080/08878730701728945
Jackson, L. (2014). Muslims and Islam in US education: Reconsidering multiculturalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2000) Globalization, the learning society and comparative education. Comparative Education, 96, 343–355.
doi:10.1080/713656613
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2007) Language education and multiliteracies. In S. May & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 195–211). New
York, NY: Springer.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
36, 309–322. doi:10.1080/13598660802376204
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 7–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.004
Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The
Modern Language Journal, 84, 311–326. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00071
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 15

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90,
249–252. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00395_3.x
Kubanyiova, M., & Crookes, G. (2016). Re-envisioning the roles, tasks, and contributions of language teachers in the
multilingual era of language education research and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 117–132. doi:
10.1111/modl.12304
Lai, Y. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL
Quarterly, 43, 255–280. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00167.x
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition. New York, NY: Longman.
Lee, S., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading
composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 295–320. doi:10.2307/40264524
Leung, C., & Scarino, A. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of goals and outcomes in language/s education. The
Modern Language Journal, 100, 81–95. doi: 10.1111/modl.12300
Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural language learning. Canberra,
Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Lin, A. (2008). Code-switching in the classroom: Research paradigms and approaches. In K. A. King & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (pp.
273–286). New York, NY: Springer.
Littlewood, W. (2009). Process-oriented pedagogy: Facilitation, empowerment, or control? ELT Journal, 63, 246–254.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccn054
Malderez, A., & Wedell, M. (2007). Teaching teachers: Processes and practices. London, UK: Continuum.
Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report:
Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Boston,
MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
McFarland, C. D. (2008). Linguistic diversity and English in the Philippines. In M. L. S. Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds),
Philippine English: Linguistic literary perspectives (pp. 131–156). Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
McMillan, J. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://PARE online.net/getvn.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
74, 5–12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401
Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge
Falmer.
Murray, N. (2010). Pragmatics, awareness-raising, and the cooperative principle. ELT Journal, 63, 293–301.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccp056
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and
why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 297–321.
doi:10.3102/01623737023004297
Nolasco, R., Datar, F., & Azurin, A. (2010). Starting where the children are: A collection of essays on mother-tongue
based multilingual education and language issues in the Philippines. Quezon City: 170+ Talaytayan MLE.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age.
Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Metiri Group.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (Ed.) (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Pacific Policy Research Center (PPRC) (2010). 21st century skills for students and teachers. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha
Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.
Paterson, L. (2010). Grammar and the English national curriculum. Language and Education, 24, 473–484.
doi:10.1080/09500782.2010.495782
Pazzibugan, D. (2013). ‘K 12’ still struggling. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://newsinfo.
inquirer.net/419261/k-12-still-struggling
Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom.
Education, 130, 241–250.
Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 190–208.
doi:10.1111/modl.12308
Rahman, N. (2014). From curriculum reform to classroom practice: An evaluation of the English primary curriculum in
Malaysia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York, England.
Rennie, J. (2010). Rethinking literacy in culturally diverse classrooms. In D.L. Pullen & D.R. Cole (Eds.), Multiliteracies
and technology enhanced education: Social practice and the global classroom (pp. 83–99). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Roberts, C., & Cooke, M. (2009). Authenticity in the adult ESOL classroom and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 620–
642. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00189.x
16 BARROT

Schmidt, W., Wang, H., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and
science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525–559.
SEAMEO INNOTECH (2012). K to 12 toolkit: Resource guide for teacher educators, school administrators and teachers.
Quezon City, Philippines: Author.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shubert, A. (2011). Teaching millenials: A model for integrating 21st century skills into an English language arts
curriculum (Unpublished executive position paper). University of Delaware, DE, USA.
Smit, B. (2005). Teachers, local knowledge, and policy implementation: A qualitative policy-practice inquiry. Education
and Urban Society, 37, 292–306. doi:10.1177/0013124505275426
So, K., & Kang, J. (2014). Curriculum reform in Korea: Issues and challenges for twenty-first century learning. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 795–803. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0161-2
Soule, L. (2008). The fusion model of instructional design: A proposed model for faculty development programs in
technology education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Louisiana.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review,
66(1), 60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 framework definition. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://
www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework _ Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Toth, P. D., & Davin, K. J. (2016). The sociocognitive imperative of L2 pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 100,
148–168. doi:10.1111/modl.12306
Tupas, R. (2015). Inequalities of multilingualism: Challenges to mother tongue-based multilingual education.
Language and Education, 29, 112–124. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.977295
UNESCO. (2012). Why language matters for the millennium development goals. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2015). Philippine Education for All 2015 review report. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0023/002303/230331e.pdf
UNICEF. (2000). Defining quality in education. Paper presented by UNICEF at the meeting of the International
Working Group on Education, Florence, Italy.
Valerio, M. (2015). Factors affecting English instruction of grade 7 K to 12 curriculum as perceived by high school
English teachers of the Division of Quirino. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3, 48–67.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vez, J. M. (2009). Multilingual education in Europe: Policy developments. Porta Linguarum, 12, 7–24.
Vidovich, L. (2002). Expanding the toolbox for policy analysis: Some conceptual and practical approaches.
Comparative education policy research unit, occasional paper series, 2. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Policy
Research Unit, Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competencies:
Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299–321. doi:10.1080/
00220272.2012.668938
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wagner, J. (1991). Innovation in foreign language teaching. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood
Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 288–308). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Wang, H. (2008). Language policy implementation: A look at teachers’ perceptions. Asian EFL Journal, 30(1), 1–25.
Wang, L., & Coleman, J. (2009). A survey of internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education in China.
ReCALL Journal, 21, 113–129.
Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and
possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 48–63. doi:10.1017/s0958344009000056
Xu, J., & Fan, Y. (2016). The evolution of the college English curriculum in China (1985–2015): Changes, trends and
conflicts. Language Policy, 16, 267–289. doi:10.1007/s10993-016-9407-1.

View publication stats