EXPLORING GLOBAL ISSUES AND BETTER FUTURES THROUGH ENGLISH: A

CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED CURRICULUM DESIGN PROJECT

FOR THE JAPANESE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

by

Nicholas Ryan Kasparek

Bachelor of Arts, Carleton College, 2005
Master of Arts, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2012

A Scholarly Project
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of the

University of North Dakota

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Education

Grand Forks, North Dakota

December
2016
Copyright 2016 Nicholas Kasparek

ii
 This scholarly project, submitted by Nicholas Ryan Kasparek in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Education from the University
of North Dakota, has been read by the Faculty Advisor under whom the work has been
done and is hereby approved.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

The Need for My Project.......................................................................1

An Explanation of My Project...............................................................4

An Explanation of How I Created My Project.......................................5

II. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................7

Introduction............................................................................................7

Curriculum Design and the Syllabus.....................................................7

English as an International Language or as a Lingua Franca..............10

Content-Based Instruction and Content and Language Integrated

Learning...........................................................................................................14

Language Learning..............................................................................18

Language Functions..............................................................18

Fluency and Automaticity.....................................................20

Global Issues for Significant Learning Goals......................................24

The Alignment of Goals with Assessment and Learning Activities....29

Assessment............................................................................30
iv
 Learning Activities................................................................35

III. PROJECT: EXPLORING GLOBAL ISSUES AND BETTER FUTURES

THROUGH ENGLISH..................................................................................................45

Course Summary..................................................................................45

English Language Goals......................................................................46

Content Goals.......................................................................................47

Assessment...........................................................................................48

Grading system.....................................................................48

Course Outline.....................................................................................50

Annotations..........................................................................................57

1. Developing the Course Goals...........................................57

2. The Functional Language.................................................60

3. The Integration of Goals, Assessment, and Activities......63

4. Details about Important Learning Activities.....................67

5. Course Evaluation.............................................................70

6. Course Readings and Supplementary Content..................72

IV. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................74

How I Will Use My Project in My Teaching.......................................75

What I Have Learned from Doing This Project...................................77

v
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................79

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1. Sample Three-Column Table for Integrating the Three Components.................32

Table 2. Language Functions and Target Language..........................................................73

Table 3. Completed Three-Column Table for Integrating the Three Components...........77

vii
 ABSTRACT

This scholarly project addresses the question of how to integrate and apply

contemporary language-learning theories and strategies to design a complete university

course with significant learning goals for both global issues content and English language

development. This curriculum design project is thus embodied at its core by a course

syllabus, which is annotated to make some of the key underlying theory clearer. This

project also makes visible the background process of reviewing the literature that has

informed the development of my personal theory of practice and shaped my curricular

decisions. My curriculum recognizes English as an international language, involves the

mutually beneficial integration of content and language learning, takes a functional

approach to language learning, and takes a more humanistic approach to content learning

that challenges learners to propose provisional and partial solutions to some of the most

pressing and challenging global issues we all face today.

viii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Need for My Project

About four years ago, shortly after I began the Master’s of Education (MEd)

program in Teaching English Language Learners at the University of North Dakota, I

formally entered the world of post-secondary English teaching in Japan. I joined a large

department that teaches a unified curriculum focused on improving first-year Japanese

university students’ English discussion skills and general fluency. My experience in this

department, including invaluable collaboration with fellow English discussion instructors,

has taught me a great deal, particularly about teaching strategies, materials development

to supplement the provided teaching units, the Japanese university teaching context and

Japanese university students’ English-learning needs, and the language functions

approach to curriculum design. Likewise, I learned a lot from the various courses in the

MEd program focusing on many different aspects related to teaching English language

learners.

However, neither this experience nor my MEd courses have given me much

practice with designing entire courses of my own. Instead, I have learned about the many

elements involved in language teaching with limited reference to how they all fit

1
together; although I have practiced applying and integrating these elements to some

extent, the emphasis has been on adapting an existing curriculum, or at most, designing a

unit that fits within such a framework. While this focus on working within existing

curricula has taught me valuable skills, and this type of adaptation is highly appropriate

in many teaching settings, I feel like it has not fully prepared me to take advantage of the

freedom afforded by many Japanese university teaching positions: the freedom to create

my own ideal course. Developing an entire course requires a big-picture view that

integrates all the disparate elements of teaching English language learners—all the

relevant theory—and attempts to apply all these elements in a real context. As van Lier

(1996) warns, if a teacher does not have this coherent theory of practice, “it is highly

unlikely for the teacher to be in control, regardless of the amount of institutional freedom

available” (p. 26).

My course design project does not entail a reinvention of the wheel, however, as I

start from the recognition that my current teaching context is highly influential on my

curricular choices. I have internalized much of the explicit theory of practice represented

by the program’s unified curriculum, which provides a real model of a successful

language curriculum. My current course’s emphasis on a principled communicative

approach (Dörnyei, 2013) through an academic language functions approach to the

curriculum (Christison & Murray, 2014) has given me a general idea of what Japanese

2
university students can currently do with the English language and what their needs are

for further language development. I have seen how teaching and practicing language

functions phrases so that learners internalize and “creatively automatize” (Gatbonton &

Segalowitz, 1988) these phrases helps them develop speaking fluency and have

increasingly complex discussions in English; moreover, I have seen how this functional

approach offers a fair way to assess their classroom performance. Teaching in this

program has persuaded me that its curriculum has created a successful EFL program that

meets its narrow goals: to develop students’ discussion skills and speaking fluency.

As good as it is, though, my current program’s unified curriculum is not my ideal

curriculum for most Japanese university students. For instance, the course’s narrowness

constrains its possibilities for extension and transferability. Its topics consist mostly of

those already familiar to students, and they jump from theme to theme with few clear

connections. Development of critical thinking, creativity, and content knowledge is

extraneous to course goals, so this deeper learning occurs only incidentally, if at all.

Moreover, it is not an integrated skills course, since students at my current university

have an exceptionally large number of English courses that focus on other skills such as

writing, reading, and presenting. In most Japanese universities, students take fewer

English courses, so curricula that integrate various English language skills and that

deliberately develop other academic skills would be more appropriate in these contexts.

3
 Thus, before completing this project, I felt as though I had a new jigsaw puzzle to

assemble. Although I had a vague idea of what the completed puzzle should look like, I

did not know exactly what big picture I would be composing. Moreover, while I knew

that I had many of the puzzle pieces, collected from my teaching and learning

experiences and my prior reading of the literature, I was not sure that I had enough of

them to assemble a complete product, nor was I sure that all of these pieces actually fit

together into a coherent whole. Thus, I felt the need to attempt a project that would help

me re-examine all my learning of the various aspects of language learning and teaching,

find what was missing, and explore how to integrate all of this.

An Explanation of My Project

Informed, therefore, by both the successes and limitations of my current

program’s curriculum, I attempted through this curriculum design project to formalize my

own theory of practice, since as van Lier (1996) points out, a curriculum is precisely this

—a theory of practice. This curriculum design project is embodied at its core by a

hypothetical course syllabus, annotated to make some of the key underlying theory

clearer. This project also makes visible the background process of reviewing the literature

that has informed the development of the principles that shape my theory of practice and

underlie my curricular decisions.

4
 I have given my hypothetical course the title “Exploring Global Issues and Better

Futures through English.” As this title suggests, the course curriculum has two types of

learning goals: global issues content learning goals and English language learning goals.

This emphasis on learning content through a foreign language, and thereby developing

language knowledge and skills in conjunction with the content learning, means that my

curriculum is in the content-based instruction (CBI) or content and language integrated

learning (CLIL) tradition. Both CBI and CLIL are defined by their “dual commitment to

content and language development” (Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 157).

Christison and Murray (2014) note that such “content-based programs have been

heavily criticized” because few English language teachers are thought to have enough

subject-area knowledge to teach this content (p. 162). Turner (2004), however, argues

that English language teachers not only can develop this content knowledge but “that it is

essential that an EAP [English for academic purposes] practitioner gains some familiarity

with at least one other disciplinary or interdisciplinary area” (p. 105). Fortunately,

through graduate studies culminating in a master’s degree in global studies, I have

already gained some expertise in the interdisciplinary field that this curriculum design

proposes to teach. The course addresses questions central to the field and challenges

students to discuss real issues and imagine utopian solutions.

An Explanation of How I Created My Project

5
 This project began with a review of the literature on curriculum design for

language courses and for university courses in general. I found broad agreement on the

need for identifying “situational factors,” which include the learners’ characteristics and

needs as well as the broader environment and “the nature of the subject” (Fink, 2013, pp.

77-78). When one of the subjects is the English as a second or foreign language, Nation

and Macalister (2010) note that curriculum designers must attend to principles of

language learning based on research and theory (p. 37).

Therefore, the next step was to review the literature on one important situational

factor that should strongly influence curriculum design for English language courses in

Japanese universities: the broader environment of contemporary English language use,

especially in the international or lingua franca context relevant to Japanese university

students. This context led me to explore the literature on CBI and CLIL, which has been

linked to the teaching of English for lingua franca use. CBI and CLIL thus involve

language-learning principles at a broad level, but I turned to the literature on a language

functions approach and the concepts of fluency and automaticity to clarify more specific

principles. Since my course integrates language and content learning, I also needed to

investigate the literature on global issues, particularly as a subject paired with English

language learning. I also searched online bookstores, book reviews, repositories, and

library catalogs to find a respected undergraduate-level textbook on global issues (Hite &

6
Seitz, 2016) to guide my content choices for the syllabus and to provide the main source

material for student readings.

With the underlying situational factors and principles thus clarified, I could turn

to the three elements of the curriculum itself: the goals for significant learning, the

assessment of progress toward achieving these goals, and the learning activities that

promote this progress. I adopted a backward design approach: starting with the explicit

desired learning goals I have for my students, then determining how to assess this

learning, and finally planning the learning experiences and instruction (Fink, 2013;

Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Fink’s (2013) integrated approach to

designing college courses provided the overarching structure, while the respective

literature on various innovative assessment procedures and learning activities informed

finer-grade decisions.

7
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

For this project, I drew upon and attempted to integrate and apply various streams

of scholarship. First, I grappled with the fundamental question of what curriculum design

is and how this is best approached. Second, I addressed important challenges regarding

the role of English in global communication and the implications for teaching English

where it is a foreign language, particularly in Japanese post-secondary contexts. This

inquiry informed my analysis of the environment and learner needs in my teaching

context, which in turn helped me make an informed choice about the type of curriculum

to design. Third, as one such choice, I explored the integration of content teaching and

language teaching in the content-based instruction (CBI) and content and language

integrated learning (CLIL) literature. Fourth, I focused on the language education

element of the curriculum, examining the potential benefits and limitations of functional

language learning. Finally, I turned my attention to the content to be taught, namely

global issues, and the decisions to be made regarding its presentation.

Curriculum Design and the Syllabus

8
 In higher education practice, there is little consensus on what exactly “the

curriculum” is. For example, in interviews with Australian university teachers, Fraser and

Bosanquet (2006) found a wide variety of conceptualizations of the term, ranging from

the basic syllabus to the entire “dynamic and interactive process of learning” (p. 275).

Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) helpfully map these conceptualizations according to

product-focus versus process-focus, teacher-directed versus student-centered, and from

technical interest to practical interest to emancipatory interest (p. 277). Likewise, Nation

and Macalister (2010) are careful to note that “some curriculum designers distinguish

curriculum from syllabus” (p. 1). Brown (1995) suggests that curriculum development be

viewed as “a series of activities that contribute to the growth of consensus among the

staff, faculty, administration, and students” (p. 19).

However, even this consensus may never be perfect, and it is unlikely to extend

beyond its particular setting. Christison and Murray (2014) state at the outset, “Curricula

are sociocultural artifacts that reflect local values and local beliefs about language and

language learning” (p. 1). Van Lier (1996) suggests that curricula are even more

particularized: his model of the curriculum is “a theory of practice” that “represents

pedagogical work as a process of practicing, theorizing, and researching” (p. 24). Thus,

individual teachers would have their own curricula and their own understandings of what

these are, based on their personal experience, theory, and research.

9
 Thus, it seems more productive to examine the purpose of the curriculum in order

to develop my own localized definition. “The purpose of the curriculum,” writes van Lier

(1996), “is to guide the process of teaching and learning. It can do this in quite explicit,

controlling ways, or in more subtle, flexible ways” (p. 6). The controlling ways are

similar to the teacher-directed, product-focused conceptualizations of the curriculum,

whereas van Lier (1996) promotes a curriculum “designed to be a liberating force” (p. 9).

Yet this liberating curriculum still must be a guide, and thus must still be centered on the

syllabus, which is “a set of tools…that allows the curriculum to unfold, as a process; it is

a mediating concept between curriculum and classroom action” (van Lier, 1996, p. 20).

This conception of the syllabus and the purpose of the curriculum strikes a balance

between the narrow, prescriptive view and the broad, student-led view. My conception of

the curriculum thus takes this view of the syllabus as the foil through which the dynamic

and evolving process of learning can take place.

With this operating definition of the curriculum and the syllabus, it is important

next to turn to the process of curriculum design, which Nation and Macalister (2010)

conceive of as a “‘how-to-do-it’ activity” (p. xv). In their model, syllabus design is

central to the process, but before this design can begin, one must first take into account

the broader environment, discover learner needs, and identify and follow a set of

principles. Only then can the teacher set goals, decide on content and sequencing, choose

10
the format and presentation of the material, and finally determine monitoring and

assessment strategies. This can easily be adjusted to accommodate a more thorough-

going “backward design” (see Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) or “integrated

course design” (Fink, 2013) approach, namely, starting with the desired results of the

course, then determining how to assess this learning, and finally planning the learning

experiences and instruction. Additionally, course evaluation is included in the curriculum

design process itself, which as an iterative process, should evolve and improve each time

the course is taught (Nation & Macalister, 2010; Christison & Murray, 2014).

This literature review addresses the first three steps of the broader curriculum

design process: 1) I consider the environment affecting contemporary Japanese university

students and the evolving use of English on the global stage; 2) I examine these learners’

needs with reference to my experience with similar learners and to research involving

similar learners; 3) I explore principles from the literature that seem promising for these

learners. The literature also plays a key role in informing the rest of the process,

especially regarding the choice of content, as well as integrated significant learning goals,

assessment, and learning activities.

Reflecting the diversity of shapes that this curriculum can take, Christison and

Murray (2014) describe 14 different but often overlapping approaches to curriculum

design. Some are more linguistic-based, others more content-based, others more learner-
11
centered, and still others more learning-centered. Each has both potential benefits for

learners and potential issues. As discussed in later sections, I aimed for the integration of

content and language, guided by a humanistic approach. To address the language-

learning component, I adopted a functional approach informed by the academic language

functions approach and outcomes-based education.

English as an International Language or as a Lingua Franca

It has become increasingly clear that English is now a global language, and it is

not simply a means for communicating with speakers from traditional English centers,

but a lingua franca for speakers of many languages (Jenkins, 2015). The terms English as

an International Language (EIL) and English as a lingua franca (ELF) have thus

highlighted important shifts in how English language teaching (ELT) is conceptualized

and practiced. Marlina (2014) prefers the term EIL, which she suggests is best

conceptualized as a perspective that recognizes the international functions of English and

rejects the idea of a central variety. Jenkins (2011) promotes the term ELF for the similar

international functions of English, and she emphasizes that mainstream ELF definitions

include native speakers as long as they too learn ELF.

The important distinction between EIL and ELF is the degree to which there is or

should be a common core variety. While ELF scholars are concerned with promoting

“ELF as a kind of English in its own right” (Jenkins, 2011, p. 928), EIL scholars argue
12
that privileging any variety or varieties is problematic (Marlina, 2014; Hu, 2012).

Furthermore, Seargeant (2009) suggests that any linguists’ constructed functional

language such as a sanctioned ELF can rarely be applied to real-world interaction in new

contexts and that the ELF focus on intelligibility risks “ignor[ing] all but the ideational

function of language” (p. 161). While Smit (2010) suggests that natural ELF interactions

over time “do more than fulfil momentary transactional needs” (p. 66), this occurs

gradually. Thus, it seems unlikely and possibly undesirable for ELF to be used as a taught

variety. ELF and EIL are, however, likely to continue to develop naturally through use in

Japan and by Japanese abroad, and part of this development could occur in classrooms.

Both EIL and ELF emphasize the recognition of the pluricentrality of English.

And as Cogo and Dewey (2012) note, it is unlikely that English as a native language

(ENL) corpora will remain relevant to much ELT once the recognition spreads that the

purpose of learning English is often to “engage in interactions for the purpose of lingua

franca communication” (p. 181). While empirical ELF research cannot be transferred

simply to “teaching ELF” (Cogo & Dewey, 2012, p. 183), the greater awareness it

provides will help teachers make distinctions with learners between innovations and

errors, as “[i]t is simply not the case that in ELF ‘anything goes’ lexicogrammatically”

(Cogo & Dewey, 2012, p. 80).

13
 Moreover, research into ELF pragmatics has already provided valuable insight

into communication strategies that can be taught to help teachers and learners become

effective ELF speakers (Bjorkman, 2010). This insight leads to one of the main tenets of

EIL pedagogy as well: to “develop the ability to negotiate and communicate respectfully

across cultures and Englishes in today’s communicative settings that are international,

intercultural, and multilingual in nature” (Marlina, 2014, p. 7). These skills and strategies

are likely to become more of a focus of teaching and assessment (Hu, 2012).

Nonetheless, as even advocates are quick to acknowledge, pedagogies of EIL are

filled with conflict and tension, as they are “dynamic, ongoing, and ‘unfinalised’”

(Marlina, 2014, p. 15). Manara (2014) points out that learners can feel confused and

overwhelmed when there is no longer one Standard English to master, and Hu (2012)

argues that EIL advocates must allow for individual aspirations to particular norms, even

those viewed as hegemonic. Kachru (2011) furthermore claims that “all Outer Circle

varieties have a standard, or ‘acrolectal,’ form, which is mutually intelligible among all

English-using populations” (p. 158).

Gupta (2012) takes this claim even further, suggesting that there effectively

already is a single global Standard English in the written domain, and that linguistics and

grammar teaching have focused too much on the relatively rare and minor differences

between different sub-varieties: “The differences in grammar between the (written)

14
Standard English of different countries is not sufficient to justify there being several

Standard Englishes: it is better for all teachers and learners to think of Standard English

as a single dialect” (p. 249). In terms of classroom implications, the message is clear: for

written grammatical education, it is important to make it clear to students “what is a hard

and fast rule for Standard English and what is not,” (Gupta, 2012, p. 256). Folse (2009)

likewise states plainly that “ELLs need to learn standard English” because they will be

judged negatively by other English language users if they are unable to use this formal

register. The recognition of some variation in these standards also means, however, that

alternative forms in the few disputed areas must not be labelled “wrong”; moreover,

“non-standard” should not be interpreted and presented as inferior, but should be

respected and celebrated.

My syllabus for Japanese university students should thus be sensitive to the

pluricentrality of spoken English and emphasize strategies for intelligible

communication, but it should also provide space for careful adherence to the international

standard written English. These students have studied the grammar and vocabulary of

English for years and have taken high-stakes tests on these aspects of the language, but

they have very little experience with actually using the language. The next section

provides an approach for these learners to use English to accomplish authentic goals and

to focus on fluency and intelligibility over a narrow focus on accuracy.

15
 Content-Based Instruction and Content and Language Integrated Learning

Both content-based instruction (CBI) and content and language integrated

learning (CLIL) are broad and largely self-explanatory terms; simply put, both are

“teaching a content area in the target language wherein students acquire both language

and subject matter knowledge” (Dupuy, 2000, p. 206). The terms are often used

interchangeably, depending more on geography and tradition than on actual conceptual

differences. Christison and Murray (2014) note, “In the U.S., content-based instruction

(CBI) is the term most commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to all types of

programs that make a dual commitment to content and language development,” while

CLIL is the more popular term in Europe (p. 157). I draw upon the literature from both

traditions, so I use the terms interchangeably as well.

Dalton-Puffer (2011) notes in her survey of the literature, “CLIL effectively

means CEIL, or content-and-English integrated learning” (p. 183). Still a young field, it

has already developed some defined central features, including the following: In CEIL,

English is a lingua franca or a foreign language, rather than one that students regularly

use in their local contexts. Students usually continue to study English as a subject, while

more than half of their content classes continue to be taught in the first language (L1),

which is typically already highly developed. In short, CLIL is a “foreign language

enrichment measure packaged into content teaching” (Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 184). On

16
Met’s (1998) spectrum, it would fall somewhere in the middle of content-driven and

language-driven, or “subject courses plus language classes/instruction” (p. 41). In

contrast, most programs, including the one in which I currently teach, are more skewed

toward the language side of the spectrum, with relatively brief and shallow thematic

units.

Dalton-Puffer (2011) points out that many “stakeholders across continents and

circumstances” believe that “CLIL is the way to transcend the perceived weaknesses of

traditional foreign language teaching” (p. 185). And indeed, despite often lacking clear

objectives, CLIL has shown definite success in developing language proficiency (Dalton-

Puffer, 2011). Part of this success is explained by the time advantage of simply having

more exposure, but there seems to be “a non-linear correlation between exposure and

competence” (Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore, 2010, p. 427). A broad range of learners show

gains in many areas, including in accuracy, despite CLIL’s focus on meaning. However,

the greatest gains are in “spontaneous L2 speaking skills,” including “greater flexibility

and listener-orientedness” (Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 187). Importantly for contexts in

which foreign language anxiety is a salient factor, such as in Japanese university classes,

another common observation is the reduction of this anxiety in CLIL classrooms, which

may be due to how “[c]ontent-based situations help steer learners’ attention from

language forms to things accomplished and meanings conveyed through language”

17
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 195). Content learning may also be enhanced due to deeper

processing and engagement, but the evidence for this is less conclusive (Dalton-Puffer,

2011).

There is some debate as to how different CLIL or CBI actually is from traditional

ELT. Kasper (2000) warns that CBI might be seen by students as a marked departure

from traditional ELT, since skills are no longer the basis of instruction, but are woven

into the context of learning about something else. However, Dalton-Puffer (2011) points

out that CLIL classrooms still have a great deal in common with traditional classrooms,

for better or for worse. Dalton-Puffer (2011) presents this familiarity for students as an

asset, but also is quick to admit that CLIL therefore cannot be expected to produce

radically different or better language learning. Instead, CLIL might actually be

considered “the ultimate dream of Communicative Language Teaching and Task Based

Learning rolled into one,” since the task and authentic communication are provided by

the content (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 3). Fink (2013) suggests that teachers attempting an

unfamiliar way of teaching and learning should expect student resistance, but that

teachers should “plan how to deal with their push back” (p. 161). This plan should

include some direct explanation the benefits of the new way to students, but it should also

involve them in experiencing some of these benefits early in the course and making some

decisions about the course style.

18
 One important potential distinction of CLIL is its use of English as a classroom

lingua franca, and in the European context, this has been an important factor in gaining

popularity as recognition of English’s role in global business and other realms as a lingua

franca (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). Thus, as part of obtaining student investment in CLIL,

students could be asked to predict how they will most likely use English in the future and

which kinds of English proficiency will be most important. It would then become clearer

to students that they should not be enculturated into “native English speaking

classrooms,” but become more culturally connected with ELF and a “kind of

‘transcultural flow’” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 288). Native-like proficiency is often seen

as simply not a realistic or particularly important goal in CLIL education (Lasagabaster &

Sierra, 2010). In contrast, learners are prepared for their most likely future uses of

English, such as “English for knowledge acquisition,” since much of the world’s

knowledge is now shared in English (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 294).

This use of English to acquire knowledge, however, relates to doubts that critics

have about “possible adverse effects on L1 advanced academic language proficiency”

(Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 196). In more dramatic terms, Kirkpatrick (2014) illustrates with

numerous Asian cases that implementing total English as a medium of instruction (EMI)

in universities can have a washback effect that can ultimately lead to the promotion of

English for kindergarteners, which could limit academic language development in the

19
students’ L1. Likewise, Butler (2005) observed that CBI in East Asian EFL contexts “is

often implemented without careful consideration of either its purpose or effectiveness in a

given context” (p. 229). Thus, if CLIL education somehow slips into more complete EMI

education, even if only at the university level, there is a real danger of English gradually

replacing the local language as the academic language. Fears of this, however, seem

overblown in contexts like Japan, where Japanese remains a robust academic language.

Instead, the more likely context for my course would be as one of the few

English-medium courses available, and it would probably be perceived as primarily a

language class. Christison and Murray (2014) summarize this prevailing view of English

language courses and teachers: “developing expertise at the level needed for secondary

and university content areas may not be a realistic option for English language teachers

unless they were also content area specialists and had developed expertise in a content

area” (p. 159). Although I have obtained some level of content area expertise through my

postgraduate studies and independent research, other stakeholders’ expectations would

most likely be shaped by my status as an English language teacher. As such, it is vital

that my course first of all have clear language goals and a principled approach to

achieving them; for this, a functional approach seems most appropriate.

Language Learning

Language Functions
20
 Christison and Murray (2014) define academic language functions as “the specific

tasks, purposes, or uses of language in academic environments, excluding the social uses

of school language, which are similar to the social uses of language outside of the

language classroom” (p. 113). More generally, “a language function is a type of

communicative act that is used to achieve a purpose and most often involves at least two

people” (Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 99). The distinction between academic and social

uses of language is less salient in CLIL settings, as learners have few opportunities to

practice either and can obtain both skills through collaborative learning. In both cases, the

functional view of language focuses on “doing something with language as opposed to

simply studying language structures,” and thus “learning activities are driven by authentic

language use and how learners operate in a given language context” (Christison &

Murray, 2014, pp. 99-100). As such, fluency and achieving communicative goals take

precedence over strict grammatical accuracy. For instance, my current teaching

program’s admirable fundamental goal is for students to learn by engaging in group

discussions “how to interact appropriately with others in order to learn a variety of

different opinions, cultures and beliefs from both native and non-native speakers using

English” (Hurling, 2012). Language learning goals are thus connected to broader goals

for probable (or hoped for) future use.

21
 Christison and Murray (2014) point out that one of the challenges with a

functional approach is that it is difficult to determine learners’ needs and then select

appropriate functions; it is never clear, especially in the Japanese context, how or even if

our students will actually use English in the future (Matsuda, 2011). Additionally, there is

a danger that the grammatical structures of functional language may not be graded

appropriately, and that these may remain opaque to learners. If learners are to notice and

internalize written English standards, this functional approach needs to be supplemented

by attention to reading strategies and feedback on written work (see Nation, 2009). For

instance, guiding learners to “read like writers” (Nation, 2009, p. 118) helps them notice

both the questions guiding the writer and the functional language used to structure the

writer’s prose. Then teachers can likewise scaffold student writing by highlighting the

need for functional language by asking them to “answer the questions” (Nation, 2009, p.

104); the functional language questions elicit the learned phrases in an authentic context.

When it comes to academic language functions, there is also a risk of cognitive

overload and debilitating learner anxiety, but Christison and Murray (2014) note that

through scaffolding like that described above, teachers can keep the challenge of the task

high and “extend learning capability” (p. 119). The social and academic language

functions thus must be chosen with care, and learners must be given sufficient time and

support to practice the target language directly before they apply it in challenging yet

22
scaffolded settings. This practice followed by application to new settings helps learners

develop habits of mind that are common in intercultural communication, both written and

spoken.

Much of my teaching experience draws upon a principled communicative

approach (Dörnyei, 2013), in which target language is practiced directly, but the focus

remains on using this language for communication. In the functional approach, the target

language is often composed of language chunks or phrases that facilitate an extension of

learners’ language use. In the context of academic discussions, these functions often help

structure the learners’ ideas and increase interactivity through question-and-answer pairs;

over time, this provides an increasingly complex framework for discussions on numerous

topics. Targeted practice helps learners “creatively automatize” (Gatbonton &

Segalowitz, 1988) these phrases so that they have an increasing bank to draw upon in

order to structure their ideas and speak fluently.

Fluency and Automaticity

Fluency is a major variable of L2 proficiency, an integral part of what researchers

commonly refer to as CAF (complexity, accuracy, and fluency). However, as Housen and

Kuiken (2009) note, “none of these three constructs is uncontroversial, and many

questions remain, including such fundamental questions as how CAF should be defined

as constructs” (p. 2). In common speech, fluency is taken as general language

23
proficiency, especially “perceptions of ease, eloquence, and ‘smoothness’ of speech or

writing” (Housen and Kuiken, 2009, p. 3). Researchers have operationalized these casual

judgments as “speed fluency,” “breakdown fluency,” and “repair fluency” (Housen and

Kuiken, 2009, p. 3). Latif (2013) finds the additional criteria of “length of bursts

occurring between pauses” and “listeners’ perceptions of speakers’ fluency” for

measuring speaking fluency, and an additional ten measures of writing fluency in his

review of the literature (p. 101). Latif (2013) concludes that there is “definitional

confusion” regarding writing fluency and recommends a process-based measure (p. 104).

Chandler’s (2003) simple process-based solution was to ask students how long it took

them to complete assignments of a set length, and this had the added benefit of

encouraging students to reflect on their improvement. This “face validity” (Chandler,

2003, p. 292) serves as an inspiration for the type of fluency I hope to help my students

improve: it is not a quantified measure but a holistic judgment of progress observed by

learners themselves, their classmates, and me, the teacher.

Housen and Kuiken (2009) note that the three components of CAF interact and

may compete for attentional resources. However, the interaction can also be mutually

supportive. For instance, fluent language certainly does not imply inaccurate language;

instead, greater fluency can lead to more attention to accuracy, and internalized rules and

formulaic language leads to greater fluency. McCarthy’s (2005) corpus research also

24
complicates the notion of fluency as simply a lack of hesitation and a use of ideal rhythm,

since few native speakers would consistently qualify as speaking fluently according to

these criteria. Instead, McCarthy (2005) suggests that native speakers speak fluently

when they draw upon formulaic language and scaffold each other’s communication; in

other words, they make the interaction itself fluent, rather than at the level of the

individual speakers (p. 4). Fluent interaction entails the need for speech accurate enough

to convey meaning at speed at the group level.

Formulaic automaticity offers way of achieving this fluency with accuracy, partly

by reducing complexity. Segalowitz and Hulstijn (2009) note that automaticity refers to

“the absence of attentional control in the execution of a cognitive activity” (p. 371), and it

is characterized by elements that closely resemble fluency: “its rapidity, effortlessness,

unconscious nature, and ballistic [unstoppable] nature” (p. 372). As Wood (2009) points

out, automaticity “gives the speaker time to pay attention to the multitude of other tasks

necessary while speaking” (p. 41). One of the multitude of other tasks is certainly

grammatical accuracy. Rather than piecing each word together, learners can use

automatized lexical sequences while they plan longer utterances.

De Ridder, Vangehuchten, & Gomez (2007) summarize research in cognitive

psychology and second language acquisition as recommending that this “automaticity is

best achieved by repeated creative use of the language rules taught in a context of
25
authentic communication” (p. 309). This use of language rules suggests that language

rules are still important, and that at times, it is vital to direct student attention to them.

Students can be encouraged to speak, but especially to write, in “the careful style…

consciously attending to their choice of linguistic forms, as when they feel the need to be

‘correct’” (Ellis, 1997, p. 37). Indeed, in her review of the literature, Williams (2012)

suggests that “writing seems to demand a greater level of precision than speech” (p. 326),

but that because it is often less public than speaking, it also “can be a lower-stakes arena

in which to test out emergent forms” (p. 328). Williams (2012) concludes that writing has

a positive role to play in knowledge internalization, modification, and consolidation

because learners have more time and incentive to focus on form and have a permanent

record that helps them notice the gaps in their L2; as Williams (2012) puts it, “the

permanent record pushes learners to demand more of themselves regarding language

form and the extended time gives them the opportunity to meet this demand, often with

the help of their explicit knowledge” (p. 328). Thus, a balanced approach involving both

a more vernacular style that prizes speed and meaning and a more careful style that

promotes accuracy and form seems to be the most promising approach for helping

students develop fluency through automaticity.

Moreover, writing tasks can be blended with speaking tasks when they are

accomplished collaboratively and thus involve a great deal of interaction. Williams

26
(2012) notes that that learners can “co-construct knowledge, usually documented as

increased target-like use, when they participate in scaffolded or collaborative tasks” (pp.

324-325). Tasks that involve collaborative writing often involve more negotiation and

discussion of language forms (Williams, 2012, p. 326), but speaking tasks such as

“focused activities where students can analyze the appropriateness of their output” and

formalized discussions also provide opportunities for this negotiation (Hurling, 2012).

Indeed, as part of a linguistically scaffolded curriculum, discussions provide an excellent

way to ensure that there is “pressure to mean precisely, and to have one’s meanings

precisely interpreted,” which “contributes to a concern for accuracy of expression”

(Jones, 2012, p. 11).

Wood (2002) further stresses the need for interaction as “the best way for learners

to experience the repetition necessary for the formulaic sequences to become lexicalized,

accessible through automatic channels, without the need for formulation or construction”

(p. 12). This helps learners move more of their declarative knowledge into procedural

knowledge and into automatic phrases to mark pragmatic functions (Lightbown & Spada,

2006, pp. 39-40), or as Segalowitz and Hulstijn (2009) put it, “automatization in skill

acquisition involves a shift from rule-based to memory-based performance” (p. 372).

When this targeted and repeated practice of chunked language is playful, there are

indications that there is even greater internalization and greater creativity (Kasparek,

27
2016a). This creativity is vital for learners’ approach to the content of the course: global

issues.

Global Issues for Significant Learning Goals

Berwick and Ross (1989) famously described university English classes in Japan

as a “motivational wasteland,” in striking contrast to adult interest in learning English for

a wide variety of personal goals (p. 207). Sakai and Kikuchi’s (2009) review of

demotivators finds that six different factors may contribute to this lack of motivation:

teachers, characteristics of classes, experiences of failure, class environment, class

materials, and lack of interest (p. 61). As one important characteristic of the class, the

content of a CLIL or CBI course is a potentially important way of engaging learners. As

Cates (2009) notes of language courses more generally, “Language has a certain degree

of flexibility of topic that other subjects do not” (p. 44). Capitalizing on this flexibility,

English language curriculum designers can select more engaging class materials that

demonstrate to learners the relevance of English to their lives.

Carefully selected content for interdisciplinary knowledge also supports authentic

language learning. As Turner (2004) notes, taking a metalinguistic approach to teaching

complex texts from content fields helps learners read like a writer in the field:

“Understanding the language thoroughly, as well as why it has been used in the way it

has been used, heightens understanding of the ways of thinking of a discipline” (p. 105).
28
Because the focus is both on the serious intellectual work of language learning as well as

on engaging with subject matter like a scholar, the coverage cannot be as broad as in a

course that does not attend to language, and the readings must be condensed: “for

example, an in-depth look at one excerpt from a book can act as a metonym for the whole

book” (Turner, 2004, p. 105). Skillfully used, these excerpts or even adapted texts can

provide models for students becoming more skilled language users as well as deeper

thinkers in the field and in their lives.

From his teaching context at a Japanese university, McIntyre (1996) proposes

flexible global issues content, which he defines as “an interdisciplinary approach to

contemporary sociopolitical problems of global concern,” as appropriate for “provid[ing]

the necessary motivational interest, social context, and informational content” for learners

in a CBI course (p. 118). As Hite and Seitz (2016) write, these issues “dramatize our

increasing interdependence” (p. 1). Learners, and all global citizens, need

interdisciplinary knowledge to address these issues, but even then, we must recognize

that “usually there are no simple solutions” (Hite & Seitz, 2016, p. 2). Global issues as

content is promising for creating what Fink (2013) calls “significant learning

experiences,” which involve the interaction of foundational knowledge, application,

integration, a human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn (p. 37). Fink’s (2013)

six types of significant learning involve both lower-order and higher-order thinking skills

29
on Bloom’s classic taxonomy (see Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 119). By attending to

all six types of significant learning, teachers can formulate the significant learning goals

they hope their students will achieve not only in the classroom but also beyond the

classroom. Fink (2013) presents questions focused on each type of learning in order to

facilitate this process of making course goals explicit (p. 83).

In a global issues course that promotes significant learning, learners not only need

to learn new interdisciplinary knowledge about the interconnected global challenges that

humanity faces, but also need to apply and integrate this knowledge in structured tasks.

Students would learn about their part to play in global humanity and find new pressing

issues to care about. Beyond this, they would learn how to approach and discuss these

kinds of issues and come to understand how much they have yet to learn about the world.

As Sasajima et al. (2014) put it in the Japanese introduction of their textbook, these

global issues are not only huge problems, but also immediate problems close to home,

about which students must think, personally take action toward, and autonomously learn

(p. 3). These global issues present natural “essential questions” that promote

understanding and “spark connections and promote transfer of ideas from one setting to

others” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 107). These essential questions also provide a

framework for developing course learning goals.

30
 As McIntyre (1996) cautions, however, using global issues is a “delicate matter,”

and the instructor risks being “perceived as whimsical or biased” (pp. 124-125). As a

guard against this, McIntyre (1996) recommends assessing entirely based on language

use: the teacher should inform students that “evaluation will be based exclusively on

effective use of the TL [target language] and the ability to express well-supported

opinions, whatever they might be,” even if this means that students see nothing wrong

with the status quo (p. 125). However, while the demand for “well-supported” opinions

provides some space for constructive feedback, this disinterested stance seems to give too

much away. Indeed, it would mean abandoning the “caring” dimension of significant

learning in Fink’s (2013) taxonomy, as students would not be challenged to develop “new

interests, feelings, and values” (p. 83).

Moreover, Cates (2009) points out that teaching global issues involves personal

ethics and a professional responsibility as a teacher (p. 42). For teachers with ethical

concerns, teaching global issues creates the opportunity for peace education, which

Reardon (2000) defines as the “transmission of knowledge about requirements of, the

obstacles to, and possibilities for achieving and maintaining peace; training in skills for

interpreting the knowledge; and the development of reflective and participatory capacities

for applying the knowledge to overcome problems and achieve possibilities” (p. 399).

Kent’s (1977) conception of peace education is that it is most effectively a “pedagogy of

31
the middle class,” in that it can lead to reconceptualizations of peace, social justice, and

the good society for those who consider themselves already fairly satisfied with and

invested in the status quo. In other words, peace education directly addresses the caring

and integration dimensions of significant learning, as through engagement with

foundational knowledge about global issues, students are encouraged to develop new

values and find new connections to their own lives.

As I have argued elsewhere (Kasparek, 2016b), this should not be didactic, as a

utopian peace education would require teachers to recognize only the need for

conceptualizing an ideal and to pose the question of what real peace would look like, that

is, to ask students to imagine their own utopian model. This kind of education resembles

problem-based learning, in which “the problem comes first,” thus creating the need for

new knowledge and reflective dialogue (Fink, 2013, p. 149). This openness, the

engagement of the whole person, and the need for collaboration would also involve

aspects of a humanistic curriculum. As Levitas (2009) notes, “utopian models are also

explicitly imaginary, critical, normative, prescriptive, and often future-oriented” (p. 60).

This is necessarily a challenging task, and it is important to note that if teachers ask

students to imagine such a model, teachers should first attempt to complete the task

themselves, both to design a better task and to help students complete the task (Gooblar,

2016); this means involving to some degree the teachers’ own values and provisional

32
utopian models. However, since Levitas (2009) points out, “the purpose of the imaginary

reconstitution of society is to expose it to judgment” (p. 64), students would also be

encouraged to find their teacher’s model lacking and to propose their own alternatives.

Global issues content using such a utopian method could provide powerful

motivation for students. Díaz-Rico (2013) suggests that teachers can engage learners by

drawing upon “a symbolic system that is subdominate in the first language but lies

dormant, connected with powerful emotions, in a sense waiting for a portal of

expression” (p. 202). Díaz-Rico (2013) further states, “Good teachers dip into the

imaginary to teach, to use that primordial realm of ‘prepossibility’ where dreams

originate” (p. 63). This involvement of the imaginary is partly to “harness the power of

imagination” for language learning (Díaz-Rico, 2013, p. 202), but it also stems from the

personal ethics that Cates (2009) mentioned. Díaz-Rico (2013) argues that this type of

teaching “creates an agenda for English learning that uses powerful strategies to better

the world” (p. 235).

The Alignment of Goals with Assessment and Learning Activities

These grand goals for significant learning involving both English language

learning and global issues content could certainly appear to be “just pie-in-the-sky

dreaming” (Fink, 2013, p. 173), but by making these goals explicit and developing

thoughtful and creative assessment aligned with deliberate learning activities, this
33
dreaming can be transformed into reality. Fink (2013) describes this process as an

“integrated” model of course design, noting that “it is a relational model, not a linear

model” (p. 69). Thus, although the overall sequence generally follows the backward-

design principle of setting goals first, then determining assessment techniques, and finally

planning activities, the design of goals, assessment, and learning activities influence each

other and bleed into one another in practice. Goals are always connected to thoughts on

how they can be assessed and how learners can be helped to achieve them.

Assessment

Díaz-Rico’s (2013) requirement for transformative teaching, namely, “making

genuine progress toward a clear and attainable outcome” (p. 348), suggests just such an

integrated approach with assessment as a key component. Indeed, the focus on progress

highlights the role of assessment: obtaining evidence of progress requires “forward-

looking assessment” that asks what learners are expected “to be able to do in the future as

the result of having learned about x, y, and z” (Fink, 2013, p. 95). Put another way,

assessments of this kind are “of performances that integrate knowledge into action”

(Kasper & Ross, 2013, p. 2). Thus, classroom assessment “embedded in instruction for

the primary purpose of monitoring student progress” should form the majority of

assessment (Gottlieb, 2006, p. 87).

34
 However, it must be noted that my course must also contend with the necessity of

turning in grades. While Gottlieb (2006) makes the helpful distinction that “while

assessment is based on interpretation of data, grading is more evaluative” (p. 169), Fink

(2013) rightly argues that both should reinforce learning goals and activities (p. 305).

Fink (2013) further points out that that grading signals to students how important each

activity is (p. 157). However, it is important to recognize that grading can also have a

chilling effect; for instance, Craig (2013) warns that grading writing-to-learn work can

make learners overly anxious and “focus on the wrong writing skills,” when they should

be “thinking and learning and organizing material” (p. 22). Shepard (2000) extends this

to the broader social context of testing in society, arguing that “our aim should be to

change our cultural practices so that students and teachers look to assessment as a source

of insight and help instead of an occasion for meting out rewards and punishments” (p.

10). This also means contending with the effects of standardized tests, such as the

ubiquitous TOEIC in Japan. As Shepard (2000) points out, these tests often find their

conceptual roots in old frameworks involving “objectivity” and “formula-based methods”

and “hereditarian theories of intelligence” (pp. 6-7). This has depressing washback

effects on students, as Turner (2004) observes: “Students seem to want to ‘train’ to reach

the appropriate entrance level score or band rather than to engage with the language as an

essential, and integral, part of their engaging with their subject of study” (p. 98).

35
 Fortunately, as Fink’s (2013) claims about the compatibility of grading with

learning suggest, recent scholarship also provides ideas about how both assessment and

grading can be directed toward learning in the classroom and beyond. Many of these

ideas stem from a growth mindset and a Vygotskyan “understanding that cognitive

abilities are ‘developed’ through socially supported interactions” (Shepard, 2000, p. 7).

This learning-directed assessment is “educative assessment” Fink (2013), which does not

just provide a record of learning results, but also “enhances the learning process itself” (p.

93); it is also “formative assessment,” which is “specifically intended to generate

feedback on performance to improve and accelerate learning” (Nicol & Dick, 2006, p.

199). These are more than just exercises of useful skills, as they involve more complex

tasks and ask students to “’do’ the subject” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 154).

Exercises can play their part as training, but are less effective as assessment.

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) propose that courses and units be designed around

“essential questions” that “are not merely emblematic of their fields but really alive” (p.

108). These questions engage students in the work of actually doing the subject, even as

novices, and this work extends beyond the classroom and the limited timeline of the

course itself. These questions “signal that inquiry and open-mindedness are central to

expertise, that we must always be learners” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 108). As

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) emphasize, these essential questions also help course

36
designers create performative assessments, as these performances should require students

not only to address the questions in some way (p. 167), but also provide evidence that

students have “deeply considered them” (p. 148).

This linking of assessment to essential questions is vital to achieving course goals

and recognizing if learners have achieved the hoped-for learning. Fink (2013)

recommends completing a three-column table (Table 1) that clearly and explicitly aligns

course goals with assessment and learning activities; this helps course designers “avoid

the easy trap of giving lip service to important learning goals but then going about

teaching in a way that does not really support those learning goals” (Fink, 2013, p. 140).

Table 1. Sample Three-Column Table for Integrating the Three Components.

Learning Goals Assessment Procedures Learning Activities

Goal 1 ? ?
Goal 2 ? ?
(Adapted from Fink, 2013, p. 139)

Some of these goals involve understanding key concepts, not least because this

understanding forms the basis for more complex and higher-level goals; therefore, quick

low-stakes assessments of students’ comprehension will help expose gaps and highlight

the need for further learning. Day and Park’s (2005) taxonomies of comprehension and

comprehension-checking question types show how students can demonstrate

understanding in different ways, some basic and others complex. Beyond this, Day and
37
Park (2005) claim that “well-developed comprehension questions help students begin to

think critically and intelligently” (p. 61). Something as simple as a quick quiz on the

homework reading can help train students to become better readers; moreover, as Fink

(2013) points out, giving a quiz and setting up activities that build on this understanding

signals to students that they are accountable for doing the homework and gives them “an

intrinsic reason for doing the reading” (p. 128). Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel (2014)

also recommend “frequent quizzing” from a cognitive psychological perspective, since it

can “help students consolidate learning and interrupt the process of forgetting,” provided

the stakes are not too high, but still carry consequences (pp. 226-227). Kwan (2011)

emphasizes these stakes and the clear grade-stratification in quizzes as providing a

helpful incentive for “high-quality effort and response” (p. 4).

Assessment necessarily involves other types of evaluation too, as teachers want

students to not just understand or even just “learn to ‘do something’; we want students to

‘do it well’” (Fink, 2013, p. 99). This evaluation requires us to “think like an assessor”

and “consider the assessment evidence implied by the outcomes sought” (Wiggins &

McTighe, 2005, p. 148). The emphasis on determining the quality of the learning points

to the need for clear criteria and standards. These criteria “highlight the most revealing

and important aspects” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 173) or “‘traits’ that will count in

the evaluation” of a performance (Fink, 2013, p. 100). To construct an analytic rubric,

38
teachers construct a point-based scale with descriptions of poor and good versions for

each criterion. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) also provide a helpful self-test for teachers

to ensure that their assessment ideas are valid, fundamentally ensuring that performers

not demonstrating deep understanding could not meet the criteria and that performers

demonstrating understanding would meet the criteria (p. 187). Reliability can also be a

concern, especially when there are multiple graders. Doe (2012) notes how my current

unified-curriculum program’s discussion test rubric improved to avoid proficiency bias

and increase inter-rater reliability by avoiding holistic measures of fluency and accuracy

and instead quantifying these simply as “reliance on L1” or “abandoning a turn due to

language issues” (p. 14). Reliability, especially when there is only one grader, can also be

addressed through varied types of assessment (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 188).

For even greater fairness and face validity, on each type of assessment, students

should be given multiple opportunities to self-assess, assess each other’s performance,

and even modify the criteria. Learners are then better able to internalize the criteria and

apply it in their future work (Fink, 2013, pp. 102-103); one reason for this better

internalization is that students gain a sense of “ownership of the evaluation process”

(Shepard, 2000, p. 12). It also promotes learning if teachers provide the criteria and

rubrics used to evaluate student work or simply explain their evaluation. This

communication of assessment and evaluation to the students involves feedback, which at

39
its most basic, provides an analogue to a scoreboard and applause for sports or game

players, in that it informs students of how well they are performing (Fink, 2013, p. 107).

However, feedback can even be more focused on improvement, whether through

interventions as in dynamic assessment, or “the dialectical unity of instruction and

assessment” (Poehner & Lantolf, 2010, p. 312), through specific advice for improvement,

through individual or peer reflection, or even corrective feedback. Each of these can play

a role in moving learners forward, especially when the feedback is immediately

applicable. As Polio (2012) notes, corrective feedback “on the final version of a paper

seems essentially useless if learners do not have anything to do with the feedback” (p.

385). Indeed, the timing of the feedback seems crucial. Fink (2013) emphasizes

immediacy to the extent possible. This seems to relate to the attentional component of

learning, since “most importantly, the learner has to pay attention to the feedback” (Polio,

2012, p. 385).

The form of the feedback can vary widely. Interaction provides an immediate

kind of feedback, operating like Fink’s (2013) scoreboard and applause. For written

feedback, Chandler (2003) found that students rated “Underlining with Description” the

best method, while she found evidence that simple “Correction” or plain “Underlining”

increased accuracy most on subsequent writing (p. 292); thus, each of these have

40
potential benefits for different groups of students. As with all feedback, helping students

notice the gap between where they are and where they want to go is the key.

Learning Activities

Of course, the process cannot stop with simply noticing the gap, as students need

effective learning activities to provide direction toward how to get to where they want to

go and help them develop the skills that will get them there. Again, Fink (2013)

emphasizes that all three major components must be closely integrated: learning goals,

assessment, and activities. Without close links, learning may be merely incidental rather

than directed.

Out-of-class learning. The foundational knowledge learning goals require

learning activities that not only assess comprehension but aid in comprehension,

memorization, and internalization. As Fink (2013) notes, even by itself, covering the

course content and achieving these knowledge goals can be incredibly time-consuming if

teachers are not careful; thus, Fink (2013) recommends that teachers find “some way to

move the initial learning of the content to out-of-class activities, leaving more in-class

time for learning how to use it” (p. 146).

Extensive reading of appropriately graded texts on global issues is one important

learning activity that can be accomplished mostly outside of class. Simplification or other

41
support is vital, since as Nation (2009) emphasizes, “extensive reading can only occur if

95 to 98 percent of the running words in a text are already familiar to the learner or are no

burden to the learner” (p. 51). Teachers can adapt texts by simplifying the language, gloss

difficult words by explaining their meanings in the L2 or the L1, or elaborate on the text

to make the difficult words’ meanings clear (Nation, 2009, pp. 58-60). Mehisto (2012)

likewise suggests “scaffolding content, language, and learning skills development” for

students in CLIL courses and provides a variety of ways of accomplishing each type (p.

24). At times, intensive reading of short, authentic texts can also help learners engage

more deeply with not only particular language features of the text but also more nuanced

ways of thinking in the discipline (Nation, 2009, pp. 25-26; Turner, 2004, p. 105). Nation

(2009) notes that “computer-assisted reading” can help with both types of reading, as it

“effectively individualizes” the support for each learner (p. 59). Godwin-Jones (2010)

points out how easy this has become through browser plug-ins, digital texts that teachers

can upload or learners can find for themselves, and increasingly advanced online tools (p.

5).

Another relatively new technology-enabled way of freeing up class time for more

complex learning is to use flipped learning, in which “students acquire knowledge at

home, such as via watching videos made by the teacher, and practice the skills in class,

where the teacher can easily monitor and correct the students” (Chen Hsieh, Wu, &

42
Marek, 2016, p. 1). As with reading, students “can learn at their own pace,” since they

can control the playback of the videos (Chen Hsieh, Wu, & Marek, 2016, p. 2).

Furthermore, flipped learning requires students to take more responsibility for their

learning, and while learners spend more time on learning activities outside of class, the

literature suggests that it is a highly effective use of time (Chen Hsieh, Wu, & Marek,

2016, p. 18). Learners can take a more active role in out-of-class learning activities as

well, such as by writing messages and comments through social-networking apps or

online forums; in Chen Hsieh, Wu, and Marek’s (2016) study with a Taiwanese

university class, most students rated the popular messaging app used (LINE) as a

“beneficial technology” (p. 17).

As discussed above, comprehension questions can be designed to prompt further

consideration and deeper understanding, and this applies both out of class and in class.

Students can answer questions and prepare at home for an in-class monologue speaking

task modelled on the original 4 / 3 / 2 task (see Boers, 2014). If this is performed after

pre-task planning in pairs or groups, this activity can help students improve not only

English fluency, but also accuracy and complexity (Ogawa, 2016). Students can thus

consolidate their learning of both language forms and taught content as they first

summarize and respond to this content, and then immediately reformulate and rearticulate

the speech for new listeners, thus automatizing and proceduralizing their output.

43
 Another potentially out-of-class learning activity that improves deeper learning of

foundational knowledge, especially of key phrases, vocabulary, and concepts, is spaced-

repetition quizzing, or “spaced retrieval practice” (Kang, 2016, p. 15). Kang (2016)

points out that “over a century of research findings” demonstrate that “spaced practice

enhances the efficacy and efficiency of learning” (p. 16). Brown, Roediger, and

McDaniel (2014) summarize the relevant findings in cognitive psychology and

memorization this way: “The simple act of spacing out study and practice in installments

and allowing time to elapse between them makes both the learning and the memory

stronger, in effect building habit strength” (p. 63). These quizzes should not be too easy,

however, since “effortful retrieval both strengthens the memory but also makes the

learning pliable again, leading to its reconsolidation. Reconsolidation helps update your

memories with new information and connect them to more recent learning” (Brown,

Roediger, and McDaniel, 2014, pp. 100-101).

Spaced retrieval practice can also be easily combined with “interleaving,” or

mixing in other kinds of items for learning (Kang, 2016, p. 15), which can encourage

students to make these new connections. In the past decade, many web-based and mobile

flashcard applications such as Anki and smart.fm have adopted spaced-repetition systems

(SRS) for learning language and keywords (Godwin-Jones, 2010). Godwin-Jones (2010)

speculates that these might be “particularly useful for language maintenance” (p. 9); in

44
other words, they can help learners review previously taught language and concepts so

that they remain fresh in learners’ minds, again facilitating new connections with other

knowledge. These flashcard applications could therefore be a helpful out-of-class

component of a flipped classroom, even though it would probably be difficult to include

them as part of a grade; their utility could be emphasized to students explicitly, as well as

implicitly by periodically asking students to produce previously-taught content in low-

stakes quizzes, interactive tasks, and writing tasks in class.

In-class learning with ongoing assessment. Interactive tasks involving

classroom talk such as small-group discussions are an incredibly versatile form of

learning activity, as they simulate the type of dialogic learning I hope my students will

continue to do outside the classroom for their entire lives. Alexander (2010) asserts that

dialogic teaching “harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend pupilsʼ thinking

and advance their learning and understanding” and “empowers the student for lifelong

learning and active citizenship” (p. 1); moreover, it involves ongoing assessment of

learners’ progress and needs. Two important components of this teaching are “scaffolded

dialogue” and “discussion,” which critically “entails the open exchange of views and

information in order to explore issues, test ideas and tackle problems” (Alexander, 2010,

p. 3). By attending to Alexander’s (2010) principles of dialogic teaching, teachers can

ensure that interactive tasks promote observable progress toward significant learning

45
goals: these tasks must be collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful

(pp. 3-4). In short, these should be collaborative tasks that address real questions, and the

talk should be “planned and structured with specific learning goals in view” (Alexander,

2010, p. 4).

Hurling (2012) and Doe (2012) were instrumental in developing a discussion test

for such collaborative tasks in my current teaching program, and Hurling (2012) notes

that “similar tests do not seem to exist in the field of applied linguistics” (p. 5). Fink’s

(2013) comments on how tests and grades serve as important indicators for students of

the importance of tasks are again relevant here: in my experience teaching the discussion

course in my current program, the test has served as an important way to help students

focus their attention on the assessment criteria and focus their effort to improve their

discussion performance. In turn, this leads to improvements in the holistic quality of their

discussions. In other words, well-designed discussion tests can have positive washback

effects and are themselves learning activities, and I am fortunate to have been a small part

of the development of just such a carefully designed test.

Another way that teachers can promote positive washback through evaluative

assessment tasks that double as learning activities is by using clear rubrics, which are

fundamentally composed of

46
 a task description (the assignment), a scale of some sort (levels of achievement,

possibly in the form of grades), the dimensions of the assignment (a breakdown of

the skills/knowledge involved in the assignment), and descriptions of what

constitutes each level of performance (specific feedback) all set out on a grid.

(Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 6)

These rubrics make teachers’ implicit expectations for student performance explicit in a

way that students understand, which empowers students to become “stakeholders in their

own college careers” (Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 187). Stevens and Levi (2013) suggest

that well-designed rubrics “reflect values that are intrinsic to academe and to education

generally, but values that are too seldom articulated and defended” (p. 189). Discussing

rubrics with students and collaborating with students to modify or even construct aspects

of them can further help students learn about and internalize these values and become

“fully active learners” (Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 58). Moreover, this collaboration

increases not only students’ understanding and motivation, but also teachers’

understanding of students’ “prior knowledge, skill levels, ability to self-assess, and

motivation” (Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 53).

Rubrics also provide a record of students’ individual performance over time, thus

revealing specific progress toward learning goals in a way that both teachers and students

themselves can see. Stevens and Levi (2013) note that rubrics can encourage students “to
47
think critically about their own learning” and “inspire precisely the pattern of ‘self-

assessment and self-improvement’ intrinsic to creating the kind of motivated, creative

students we all want in our classes” (p. 21). To create such a productive rubric, first

teachers need to reflect on what exactly they hope for out of each assignment (Stevens &

Levi, 2013, p. 30). This teacher reflection at the outset leads to rubrics that in turn

facilitate student reflection.

Another good way to facilitate this important student reflection and track

students’ progress is low-stakes in-class writing. One popular form of this writing is a

reflective writing task commonly known as the “one-minute paper” (OMP). Stead (2005)

notes that although “innumerable variations” are possible, the basic format involves

students quickly writing their answers to two questions at the end of class: “(1) What was

the most important thing you learned in class today? (2) What question is unanswered?”

(p. 119). Students therefore reflect on the lesson and try to articulate both their new

learning and their remaining uncertainties. This student reflection can be further guided

by making the questions more specific to the current or previous lessons’ topics and by

using this task at other points in the lesson, not only at the end. As Stead (2005) points

out, student responses also provide valuable “timely feedback about students’

understanding” so that teachers can adjust their plans and supplement the course with

additional learning activities if necessary (p. 122). Indeed, although Kwan (2011)

48
promotes quizzing as more effective than reflective writing for assessing cognitive

learning, even he concedes that the OMP is “an excellent tool for assessing students’

perceptions,” and he suggests that the two modes of assessment be used in tandem (p. 6).

Stead’s (2005) review of the literature shows that students also appreciate the opportunity

to reflect and respond to the content in informal writing tasks. Additionally, these can be

saved and collected in a “learning portfolio” that provides a record of students’ learning

throughout the course (Fink, 2013, pp. 131-33).

Craig (2013) calls this kind of reflective writing “writing to learn” and suggests a

reason for students’ appreciation of these low-stakes writing tasks: they give “writers the

privacy to try out new ideas and language without feeling too self-conscious” (p. 21). By

encouraging this kind of writing to learn, teachers can help students “begin using writing

as a tool for thinking and learning” (Craig, 2013, p. 15). However, this writing does not

need to be completely private; in fact, another important use of these short reflective

writing tasks is that they open a channel for student-teacher communication, especially

for more reticent students (Carless & Zhou, 2015, p. 12). Additionally, students can write

collaboratively, mutually scaffolding each other in a way that combines writing and

discussion (Craig, 2013, p. 24).

As with all learning activities, these writing tasks can build upon previous tasks

and grow more complex over the course. Students can also be scaffolded throughout the
49
writing process as they complete and revise more formal papers. One way to accomplish

this is to link assignments. For example, a discussion might be linked to a collaborative

writing task, which in turn is linked to an individual presentation to a small group, which

finally leads to an individual essay (see Craig, 2013, pp. 43-44). Presenting one’s work

requires thinking of an audience and involves the instant feedback of whether or not this

audience of one’s peers can understand one’s ideas, and making presentations allows

students to practice expressing themselves in important new media (Craig, 2013, p. 45).

Students can also be guided through the revision process through self-assessment, peer-

assessment, and feedback from the teacher (Craig, 2013, p. 84). Again, a rubric is vital

for organizing this feedback and sharing the “burden of explanation” with students

themselves (Stevens & Levi, 2013, p. 50); as Stevens and Levi (2013) point out, students

“remember best the things they themselves said in class; second best, the things their

classmates said; and last, the things the professors said” (p. 51).

Another way to link assignments is to adopt an instructional strategy like

problem-based learning (PBL), which Fink (2013) describes simply as a teaching style in

which students are presented with a “realistic problem” first and then gain information

and co-construct knowledge through small-group discussions centered on key questions

(p. 149). These problems should be connected to the course’s essential questions.

Students can then move from group-work to individual tasks that extend and personalize

50
the project; for my course, the question of what a better world would look like provides

one course-unifying problem.

51
 CHAPTER III

PROJECT: EXPLORING GLOBAL ISSUES AND BETTER FUTURES

THROUGH ENGLISH

Course Summary

This 14-week content and language integrated learning course focuses on a

variety of related issues that people all over the world need to think about and discuss.

Every week, learners will practice and develop functional English language skills that

will help them learn about, discuss, and write about these issues. The course thus has both

language goals and content goals. Learners will be guided to find their own answers to

the following essential questions:

 Who are we as global citizens?

 What is important to care about in our world?

 What are the challenges presented by global issues, particularly those involving

population, wealth and poverty, food, energy, climate change, environmental

destruction, environmental effects on human health, technology, and alternative

visions for the future?

 What is your vision of a better possible future?

52
  How could humanity address all the challenges presented by current global

issues?

All participants will recognize that these are difficult questions with many

different answers. Learners will gain foundational knowledge about global issues to begin

to answer them. Learners will also collaborate to construct new knowledge through

guided critical thinking and creative thinking activities.

English Language Goals

1. Learners will creatively automatize functional English language chunks

(exponents) through repeated use. Specifically, learners will acquire language for:

 Persuading (e.g., giving reasons, examples, evidence, advantages,

comparisons)

 Expressing feelings

 Describing

 Classifying

 Clarifying/Paraphrasing/Summarizing

 Predicting

 Imagining (e.g., different viewpoints, alternative ideas, playful ideas)

53
  Interacting (e.g., creating a supportive atmosphere, asking follow-up

questions, agreeing and disagreeing).

2. Learners will practice habits of mind that promote the clear consideration and

expression of problems and ideas.

3. Learners will develop their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills to

communicate faster and more easily.

4. Learners will improve their language use accuracy for effective international

communication in English.

5. Learners will develop interactive skills for future international communication

regarding global issues and come to see themselves as part of the global

conversation.

6. Learners will come to enjoy English communication.

7. Learners will identify ways to continue developing English skills in the future,

such as joining English discussions.

Content Goals

1. Learners will gain foundational knowledge about pressing global issues in eight

interconnected areas: population, wealth and poverty, food, energy, climate

change, environment, technology, and alternative visions for the future,

specifically to
54
  Understand key concepts

 Describe complex challenges

 Identify possible solutions.

2. Learners will develop critical thinking and creative thinking skills by responding

to global studies issues.

3. Learners will address the essential questions with knowledge from the course

readings and presentations, knowledge co-constructed through classroom

activities, and knowledge from their lives.

4. Learners will come to see themselves as engaged global citizens.

5. Learners will engage with and discuss global issues to find new connections and

develop new interests, feelings, and values.

6. Learners will integrate knowledge and ideas to propose and defend a (modest and

ambiguous) utopian vision of a possible future that responds to current global

issues.

7. Learners will reflect on their learning and changes in their thinking and be able to

construct knowledge about how to address global issues.

Assessment

Grading system

55
 Quizzes (multiple choice and short answer) 5%
Participation (showing engagement in all classroom tasks) 10%
In-class written tasks (collected in a learning portfolio) 10%
Functional language use (e.g., in regular discussions and essays) 15%
Active listening (e.g., reactions, questions, agreeing & disagreeing) 15%
Application of global issues knowledge (showing engagement with course 15%
content)
Discussion tests and responses (applying language skills and content 15%
knowledge)
Final written task and presentation (utopian vision) 15%

Notes on scoring. Group performance affects individual scores, but this course is

designed for all learners to succeed with individual engagement and effort. Discussion

tests are scored on content, active listening, and functional language use. Depending on

the number of students, test scoring may be conducted by peers with a provided checklist.

Rubric information will be provided before the tests. Written tasks are scored mostly on

the application of content and functional language. Part of the score is based on progress

toward standard English grammar. Students will be given feedback on a draft and then

asked to revise for greater accuracy.

Discussion test rubric. This will be further elaborated through discussion with

students, following the “feedback model” described by Stevens and Levi (2013, pp. 56-

58).

Criteria 0 1 2 3 4
Functional No uses Rare or Use of at least Use of at Use of at
56
Language inaccurate 4 types of least 6 least 8 types
use taught types
functional
language (e.g.,
Opinions,
Reasons,
Examples,
Agreeing)
Active No uses Rare or Occasional use Good use Great use
Listening inaccurate with with a
use helpful variety of
questions helpful
questions
Course None Rare or Occasional use Good use Great use
Content apparent inaccurate with specific
Knowledge use references
Critical and None Rare Occasional Good Great
Creative apparent
Engagement
with Content
English Total Very Unclear Mostly Clear and
Language reliance unclear expression in clear smooth
Fluency on expression English or expression expression in
Japanese in English some reliance in English English
or on Japanese
frequent
reliance
on
Japanese

Written task rubric. This will likewise be revised through the feedback model.

Criteria 0 1 2 3 4
Course None Rare or Occasional Good use Great use
Content apparent inaccurate use with
Knowledge use specific
57
 references
Critical and None Rare Occasional Good Great
Creative apparent
Engagement
with
Content
Functional No uses Rare or Occasional Good use Great use
Language inaccurate use
use
Standard Reliance on Very Unclear Mostly Clear and
English Japanese unclear expression clear and accurate
Language expression expression in English accurate expression
Use (after in English expression in English
revisions) in English

Course Outline

Lesso Content Language Tasks & Homework

n
1 Essential Introduce and In-class:
questions, practice:  Consider essential questions
global issues  Expressing  Interview partners about
overview, and feelings themselves and their initial
course goals  Persuading with answers
Opinions,  Discuss hopes for course and
Reasons, and classmates
Examples  Short in-class reading on global
 Interacting in citizenship (Sasajima, 2014, p.
English 111)
(Reactions,  Brainstorm global issues for
Agreeing / global citizens
Disagreeing,  Translate textbook list and find
Clarifying, and connections with brainstormed
Follow-up list
Questions)  Brief reflective writing task
about current interests, values,
58
 concerns, and goals
 Small-group discussion on the
global problems posed by
population

Homework:
 Population reading (excerpted
and adapted from Global Issues
textbook, with additions on
inequality and punishment)
 Watch short video lectures
(narrated presentations) on
content and language
 Review key terms and language
chunks with online flashcards
(spaced-repetition system)
2 Population New functions: In-class:
 Summarizing  Monologue speaking task
(Who are the  Paraphrasing (repeated speeches that
global citizens  Changing Topics summarize parts of the reading
with these and Joining content) – listeners practice
global issues?) Discussions reacting and paraphrasing
 Quiz
Review previous  Small-group discussions (I.
functions Global population issues and
local connections and II. Future
solutions and challenges)
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brief small-group brainstorming
about global issues of wealth and
poverty

Homework:
 Wealth & Poverty 1 reading
(adapted from textbook)
 Video lectures on upcoming
content and language
59
  Flashcards
3 Wealth & New functions: In-class:
Poverty 1:  Describing  Monologue speaking task –
Development  Persuading with listeners practice reacting and
and foreign aid Evidence summarizing
 Quiz
(How does this  Interactive practice activities
connect to using the target language to
immigration explore the content in new ways
and population  Small-group discussion
issues?)  Role-play debate
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brainstorming about how
countries have tried to solve
problems of poverty

Homework:
 Wealth & Poverty 2 reading
(addition on Occupy movements)
 Video lectures
 Flashcards
4 Wealth & New functions: In-class:
Poverty 2:  Comparing  Monologue speaking task –
Market vs. state  Persuading with listeners practice reacting and
approaches Advantages and asking for evidence
Disadvantages  Quiz
(How do these  Interactive practice activities
address the using the target language to
challenges of explore the content in new ways
population and  Low-stakes small-group
development?) discussion test
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Role-play debate
 Reflective writing task
 Brainstorming about how food
and poverty are connected

60
 Homework:
 Food 1 reading
 Read online feedback and
respond with written comment
based on a prompt
 Flashcards
5 Food 1: Causes New functions: In-class:
of hunger and  Classifying  Monologue speaking task
the Green  Imagining  Quiz
Revolution Different  Language review activities based
Viewpoints on discussion test performance
(How are these  Interactive practice and activities
related to Special review: using the target language to
population,  Expressing explore the content in new ways
wealth and feelings  Small-group discussions
poverty?)  Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brainstorming how to solve
issues of hunger in the future

Homework:
 Food 2 reading
 Videos
 Flashcards
6 Food 2: Future New functions: In-class:
food supplies  Predicting  Monologue speaking task
and possible  Imagining  Quiz
futures Alternative Ideas  Interactive practice activities
 Imagining using the target language to
Playful Ideas explore the content in new ways
 Small-group discussion
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Group writing task on a utopian
vision for future food security
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brainstorming connections of
global issues (e.g., food,
population, poverty) to energy
61
 Homework:
 Energy 1 reading
 Video lecture
 Complete written task
 Flashcards
7 Energy 1: Special review: In-class:
Japan and  Expressing  Monologue speaking task
nuclear energy feelings  Quiz
 Imagining  Cooperative written task revision
Different  Target language review and
Viewpoints practice activities
 Persuading  Small-group discussion
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Mid-term course evaluation
 Brainstorming other kinds of
energy and their respective
problems

Homework:
 Energy 2 reading
 Video lecture
 Complete written task revision
 Flashcards
8 Energy 2: Special review: In-class:
Renewable vs.  Comparing Ideas  Monologue speaking task
Nonrenewable  Classifying  Quiz
and  Alternative Ideas  Target language review and
Conservation practice activities
 Small-group discussion test
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brief discussion about the
connections between energy (and
other global issues) to
environmental damage

Homework:
62
  Climate Change reading
 Video lecture
 Read test feedback and respond
to related prompt with a written
comment
 Flashcards
9 Climate Special review: In-class:
Change  Predicting  Monologue speaking
 Persuading with task
Evidence  Quiz based on
weaker points on the test and
new reading content
 Language and
content review based on test
performance
 Role-play small-
group discussions (switch
roles)
 Feedback – guided
peer reporting
 Brief reflective
writing task
 Brainstorming other
environmental dangers

Homework:
 Environment reading
 Video lecture
 Flashcards
10 Environment Review language In-class:
functions as needed  Monologue speaking task
 Interactive practice activities
 Small-group discussion
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Brief reflective writing task
 Small-group discussion: Will
technology solve global issues or
create more problems?
63
 Homework:
 Technology reading
 Video lectures
 Flashcards
11 Technology Review language In-class:
functions as needed  Monologue speaking task
 Interactive practice activities
 Small-group discussion test
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Reflective writing task
 Brainstorming predictions and
hopes for the future

Homework:
 Alternative Futures 1 reading
 Video lecture
 Read test feedback and respond
to related prompt with a written
comment
 Flashcards
12 Alternative Review language In-class:
Futures 1 functions as needed  Monologue speaking task
 Targeted review activity based
on discussion test feedback
 Small-group discussion
 Feedback – guided peer reporting
 Outlining final written task by
answering functional language
questions (with pair help)
 Brief reflective writing task
 Brainstorm what is still missing
in the alternative visions of the
future

Homework:
 Alternative Futures 2 reading
 Flashcards
64
  Complete written task outline
13 Alternative Review language In-class:
Futures 2 functions as needed  Monologue speaking task
 Small-group discussion with peer
feedback
 Writing the first draft with peer
support

Homework:
 Independent reading
 Flashcards
 Complete first draft
14 Course Review language In-class:
Essential functions as needed  Monologue speaking task
Questions  Brief small-group presentations
and feedback
 Structured peer feedback on first
draft
 Discussion on course essential
questions and other learning
 Reflection on learning in the
course and course evaluation

Homework:
 Submit final written task
 Edit language based on targeted
feedback and re-submit
 Flashcards

Annotations

1. Developing the Course Goals

65
 The course goals have been developed primarily with reference to Fink’s (2013)

taxonomy of significant learning, though there is some noticeable overlap with Bloom’s

thinking skills (Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 119). Christison and Murray (2014) note

that Bloom’s widely-used taxonomy of thinking skills can help teachers and activity

planners manage both cognitive and language demands; this attention to the level of

thinking required ensures that learners are not overwhelmed by the dual demands and

experience debilitating anxiety (Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 115). Teachers can

recognize when the demands are high and make sure to scaffold learning appropriately at

these times; therefore, it seems useful to use this taxonomy at the level of activity

planning. Fink’s (2013) taxonomy likewise helps ensure that learners are appropriately

challenged but have the tools to succeed. However, more importantly, it also helps

teachers translate their “deep dreams” for their teaching into explicit learning goals “in a

controlled and focused way” (Fink, 2013, p. 92); thus, it is especially helpful at the level

of course planning.

Answering Fink’s (2013) questions [in italics] helped me ensure that the course

promotes all six types of significant learning (pp. 83-89). At times, it seemed more

prudent to keep parts of some goals implicit and not list them explicitly on the syllabus.

Foundational knowledge. What key information (facts, terms, formula, concepts,

relationships…) is important for students to understand and remember in the future?

66
 Language Goal 1: Learners will creatively automatize functional English

language chunks (exponents) through repeated use.

What key ideas or perspectives are important for students to understand in this

course?

Content Goal 1: Learners will understand pressing global issues in eight

interconnected areas: population, wealth and poverty, food, energy, climate change,

environment, technology, and alternative visions for the future.

Application. What kinds of thinking are important for students to learn here:

Critical thinking, in which students analyze and evaluate? Creative thinking, in which

students imagine and create? Practical thinking, in which students solve problems and

make decisions?

Content Goal 2: Learners will develop critical thinking and creative thinking

skills by responding to global studies issues.

Language Goal 2: Learners will practice habits of mind that promote the clear

consideration and expression of problems and ideas.

What important skills do students need to learn?

67
 Language Goal 3: Learners will develop their listening, speaking, reading, and

writing skills to communicate faster and more easily.

Language Goal 4: Learners will improve their language use accuracy for effective

international communication in English.

What complex projects do students need to learn how to manage?

Content Goal 6: Learners will integrate knowledge and ideas to propose and

defend a (modest and ambiguous) utopian vision of a possible future that responds to

current global issues.

Integration. What connections (similarities and interactions) should students

recognize and make… Among ideas within this course? Among the information, ideas,

and perspectives in this course and those in other courses or areas? Between material in

this course and the students’ own personal, social, and work lives?

Content Goal 3: Learners will address the essential questions with knowledge

from the course readings and presentations, knowledge co-constructed through classroom

activities, and knowledge from their lives.

Human dimension. What can or should students learn about themselves?

Content Goal 4: Learners will come to see themselves as engaged global citizens.

68
 What can or should students learn about interacting with people they may

actually encounter in the future?

Language Goal 5: Learners will develop interactive skills for future international

communication regarding global issues and come to see themselves as part of the global

conversation.

Caring. What changes would you like to see in what students care about, that is,

any changes in their… Interests? Values? Feelings?

Content Goal 5: Learners will engage with and discuss global issues to find new

connections and develop new interests, feelings, and values (specifically, become more

interested in international news, feel more connected to unfolding everyday tragedies,

and value proposed solutions as imperfect attempts to deal with global issues).

Language Goal 6: Learners will come to enjoy English communication.

Learning how to learn. What would you like for students to learn about… How

to be a good student in a course like this? How to engage in inquiry and construct

knowledge with this subject matter? How to become a self-directing learner relative to

this subject? That is, have a learning agenda of what else they need and want to learn

and a plan for learning it?

69
 Language Goal 7: Learners will identify ways to continue developing English

skills in the future, such as joining English discussions.

Content Goal 7: Learners will reflect on their learning and changes in their

thinking and be able to construct knowledge about how to address global issues.

2. The Functional Language

The number of taught language functions is somewhat high compared to the

number taught in my current program, so these will be taught with minimal variations in

terms of language chunks or “formulaic sequences” (Wood, 2002, p. 12). In other words,

learners will be taught and practice only one or two ways to fulfill each language

function, or purposeful communicative act (Christison & Murray, 2014, p. 99). For

example, learners will practice giving reasons only two ways: (It’s) because… and So

that’s why…. The focus is thus on giving learners more ways to use language (i.e., a

variety of language functions) rather than on teaching learners more variations within

each language function (i.e., functionally synonymous phrases).

This reduction of variation is partly to reduce the cognitive load and focus on

creatively automatizing these phrases through focused practice (Gatbonton & Segalowitz,

1988). However, learners will also be encouraged to try out their own deviations from the

presented language chunks as part of this creative and playful process (Kasparek, 2016a).

70
The flexible list of language functions and their associated language chunks are listed

below, drawn in part from my current teaching program’s curriculum (Hurling, 2012), in

part from Christison and Murray (2014), in part from my experience and intuition as a

language user, and in part from my hopes for how students will use English in the class.

Both listener and speaker functions will be taught for each function in order to help

learners scaffold each other in fluent conversation, using formulaic language, just as

McCarthy (2005) argues that English speakers do in the real world. The listener and

speaker functions are paired to promote interactivity, as they are in my current program’s

curriculum (Hurling, 2012). The speaker functions can also be directly transferred to

student writing, through which learners can focus on the “careful style” of

communication (Ellis, 1997, p. 37) and thereby devote attention to developing accuracy

as well as fluency.

The language functions and associated target language listed below (Table 2) are

a starting point for the course, and based on ongoing assessment of student performance,

some functions and phrases may be omitted and some may be added.

Table 2. Language Functions and Target Language.

Function Function Target Language

Type Subtype Questions Phrases
Persuading Opinions What do you think? I think

71
 (It’s) because
Reasons Why (…)?
So that’s why
Examples For example? For example,
What does the evidence
The evidence suggests that
suggest?
Evidence
What makes you think I heard that
that? In my experience,
Advantages
One/Another
and What are the advantages
advantage/disadvantage of
Disadvantage / disadvantages of __?
__ is
s
Comparing {X} is better/more __ than
Which is better?
Ideas {Y}.
Expressing How does that make you It makes me
Feelings feel? sad/angry/hopeful that
Describing How would you
Now, there is/are
describe __?

Classifying How would you classify There are # types of __.

these? One/Another type of __ is

Could you explain?

Clarifying How would you define For me, __ means
__?
Rephrasing Paraphrasing So, …? In other words,
How would you __ wrote/said that
Summarizing
summarize __? In short,
If…, then
What if…?
One/Another effect
Predicting What would the effects of
would be
__ be?
In the future, we might
Imagining Different How about from __’s
From __’s perspective,
Viewpoints perspective?
Alternative
How about another idea? Another idea could be
Ideas
72
 Are you serious? I’m just joking.
Playful Ideas
How about a wild idea? I’m just riffing, but
Nice idea!
Good point!
Reactions Well said.
I see.
Right.
Interacting Can I ask a question?
Questions
(especially to Do you have any questions?
create a Changing
supportive Can I say something?
Topics and
atmosphere) Let’s discuss __.
Joining
Is there anything else about __?
Discussions
Do you agree with __?
Agreeing and I see your point, but
Disagreeing I partly agree, but
I completely agree, and

3. The Integration of Goals, Assessment, and Activities

It is vital that assessment is integrated and aligned with the course goals (Fink,

2013). To help me ensure that I accomplish this alignment, I completed Fink’s (2013)

three-column table for integrating the three primary components of course design (Table

3).

Table 3. Completed Three-Column Table for Integrating the Three Components.

Learning Goals Assessment Procedures Learning Activities

73
Language Goal 1:
Learners will remember
functional English
language
Content Goal 1: Learners
will understand pressing
global issues in eight
interconnected areas:
population, wealth and
poverty, food, energy,
climate change,
environment, technology,
and alternative visions for
the future
Content Goal 2: Learners
will develop critical
thinking and creative
thinking skills by
responding to global
studies issues
Quizzes
Spaced-repetition
flashcards
Classroom assessment
activities such as gap-fills
Quizzes
Monologue speaking tasks
Discussions and
brainstorming activities
before content presentation
(for baseline
understanding)
Small-group discussions
about comprehension
questions
One-minute papers
Small-group discussions,
including discussion tests
One-minute papers
Guided self-assessment
feedback tasks
74
Video function
presentations
Focused target language
practice in pairs and
groups
Extensive and intensive
readings
Online videos (teacher’s
presentation of additional
content and found online
videos that offer students
opportunities to
vicariously experience the
issues)
Online written interaction
(Slack team)
Language functions
practice in pairs and
groups with scaffolded
critical or creative thinking
practice
Prompted brainstorming
Small-group discussions
and role-play discussions
Online written interaction
Language Goal 2:
Learners will practice
habits of mind and apply
language functions that
promote the clear
consideration and
expression of problems
and ideas
Language Goal 3:
Learners will develop their
listening, speaking,
reading, and writing skills
to communicate faster and
more easily
Language Goal 4:
Learners will improve
their language use
accuracy for effective
international
communication in English
Small-group discussion, Interactive language
including discussion tests functions (active listening
and speaking) practice in
One-minute papers pairs and groups
Guided self-assessment Small-group discussions
reporting and role-play discussions
Writing tasks Scaffolded writing tasks
Discussion tests Monologue speaking tasks
Low-stakes writing tasks Active listening practice
tasks
Learning portfolio
All interactive tasks,
especially discussions
One-minute papers
Online written interaction
Writing tasks, especially Discussions and other
the final revised draft of interactive tasks in which
the utopia project there is pressure for
express meaning precisely
Learning portfolio
Collaborative and
Discussions, especially scaffolded writing tasks
discussion tests
Written response to
Presentations to small writing task feedback
groups
Revision tasks
75
Content Goal 6: Learners
will integrate knowledge
and ideas to propose and
defend (modest and
ambiguous) utopian
visions of a possible future
that respond to current
global issues
Content Goal 3: Learners
will address the essential
questions with knowledge
from the course readings
and presentations,
knowledge co-constructed
through classroom
activities, and knowledge
from their lives
Content Goal 4: Learners
will come to see
themselves as engaged
global citizens
Language Goal 5:
Learners will develop
interactive skills for future
international
communication regarding
global issues and come to
see themselves as part of
the global conversation
Final writing task on a
better vision of the future
Presentations to small
groups
Peer-assessment of
presentations and drafts
Discussions, especially the
discussion tests
Reflective writing tasks
Guided self-assessment
reporting
Written response to
discussion test feedback
Reflective writing tasks
Discussions about
questions that involve
students’ connections to
the issues
Discussions, especially
discussion tests
Reflective writing tasks
76
Cooperative writing task
on a utopian future of food
Guided and scaffolded
process-oriented activities
that build to the final
writing task
Revision tasks
Online written interaction
Discussions
Monologue speaking tasks
One-minute papers
Online written interaction
One-minute papers with
guided reflection
Discussions
Brainstorming activities
Utopian project activities
All interactive tasks,
including language
practice activities,
brainstorming tasks,
discussions, and
collaborative writing tasks
Content Goal 5: Learners
will engage with and
discuss global issues to
find new connections and
develop new interests,
feelings, and values
(specifically, become more
interested in international
news, feel more connected
to unfolding everyday
tragedies, and value
proposed solutions as
imperfect attempts to deal
with global issues)
Language Goal 6:
Learners will come to
enjoy English
communication
Language Goal 7:
Learners will identify
ways to continue
developing English skills
in the future, such as
reading online articles in
English and joining
English discussions
Discussions
Utopia project (including
the presentation and the
final draft)
Reflective writing tasks
Course evaluations
Interactive tasks such as
discussions (evidence of
enjoyment in these tasks
such as smiling and
laughter)
Reflective writing tasks
Course evaluations
Reflective writing tasks
Reflective final discussion
Course evaluations
77
Online videos for
vicarious experiences
Guided discussions
Scaffolded preparation
activities for the utopia
project
Online written interaction
All interactive tasks
Practice especially of
functions for the
imaginative use of
language, especially the
playful use of language
Online written interaction
Prompted reflection in
one-minute papers, course
evaluations, and the final
discussion
Guided reflection on using
spaced-repetition flashcard
applications, reading
online English texts with
computer assistance, and
interacting online through
informal English writing
 Content Goal 7: Learners Reflective writing tasks in Prompted reflection in
will reflect on their the learning portfolio one-minute papers
learning and changes in
their thinking and be able Discussion tests Scaffolded discussions
to construct knowledge
about how to address
global issues
(Adapted from Fink, 2013, p. 139)

4. Details about Important Learning Activities

I have drawn upon both the literature and my experience to design learning

activities that seem to align best with the learning goals and assessment of students’

progress toward these goals. Since learning activities become easier for students when

they are repeated as part of a basic routine, I have selected several important learning

activities that are present in most or all of the classes, though with variations. One of

these repeated activities is the one-minute paper (OMP). As Stead (2005) found in his

review of the literature on the OMP, this informal writing task provides learners a

valuable opportunity to reflect on and respond to what they have learned. Because the

OMP typically asks students about both their understanding of the content and the gaps

they perceive or the questions they still have, this paper provides a key weekly indicator

of individual progress. Moreover, informal writing tasks like the OMP can open a less

intimidating channel for students to communicate with me directly (Carless & Zhou,

2015, p. 12). As Fink (2013) notes, the products of these informal writing tasks can easily

78
be collected into a “learning portfolio” that helps both students and teachers see students’

progress, especially when other artifacts of learning and feedback supplement these

writings (p. 131).

The monologue speaking activity is another repeated learning activity. Modeled

on the 4 / 3 / 2 task, students would repeat the same spontaneously-composed speech to

different listeners, trying to increase speaking fluency, accuracy, and/or complexity in

each repetition (see Boers, 2014). This would help to ensure that even the quietest

students have an opportunity to produce spoken language and notice gaps in this output.

Because these monologue speaking tasks can be performed on a wide variety of content,

as long as this content is somewhat familiar, the prompts can simultaneously assess

students’ comprehension of previously-taught content. As Day and Park (2005) note,

“well-developed comprehension questions help students begin to think critically and

intelligently” (p. 61). Student answers to these questions can take the form of simply

circling the best choice of many, writing short responses, or as in the monologue

speaking task, verbally responding.

The use of spaced-repetition system flashcards (or online quizzes) as a weekly

out-of-class learning activity is similarly intended to foster greater facility with the

foundational knowledge of the course, especially the challenging new language and

concepts. As Kang (2016) emphasizes, spaced practice, especially when content learned
79
at different times is practiced simultaneously, “enhances the efficacy and efficiency of

learning” (p. 16). It can also help students make new connections. This out-of-class

practice could be replicated and reinforced through periodic in-class quizzing so that

students see the value in doing this ungraded homework. In future iterations of the

course, I may try to develop a way to link this homework to students’ scores in order to

nudge them toward consistent practice. I hope that students come to see the inherent

value of this style of reviewing so that they can apply it to future learning as well, and I

think I would ask students to reflect specifically on whether they can imagine any uses

for spaced practice for other classes or other purposes.

Another important learning activity is small-group discussion, which is closely

integrated with an important assessment task: the small-group discussion test. The

learning activity and the assessment task are nearly identical, though students will have a

little more preparation time for the discussion test. In order to make clear to the students

that discussion is an important component of the course and that improving the quality of

these discussions is an important goal, I have decided to weight this component of their

course grade accordingly. As Fink (2013) reminds us, “the relative weight of each item

on the course grade should reflect the relative importance of that activity” (p. 157). For

the discussion task, I have taken my current teaching program’s unified curriculum as an

important source of inspiration. As Hurling (2012) and Doe (2012) stress, the discussion

80
test developed in this program has already undergone careful revision to address

questions of validity and inter-rater reliability. I have tried to learn from these lessons,

though I will need to assess some aspects of my rubric more holistically in order to

validly assess the desired performance regarding content. Following Hurling’s (2012) and

Doe’s (2012) model, I would divide students into groups of roughly four for a timed

discussion. I would use my rubric (and probably a scoresheet with check-boxes for uses

of the language functions and space for notes on student examples) for each of the four

students, and I would give immediate feedback afterwards. For the first low-stakes

discussion test, students would assess each other by using the same rubric (and

scoresheet). While my current program does not allow for teacher intervention in these

discussion tests, I would adopt a more dynamic assessment style in which I can better

assess what students can do with scaffolding (Poehner & Lantolf, 2010).

The discussions also help to form a teaching strategy inspired by problem-based

learning (PBL), which as Fink (2013) describes it, “starts with a realistic case problem”

about which students engage in reflective dialogue and then find new information in

order to eventually “try to analyze and solve the problem” (p. 150). Students would have

a short discussion about the upcoming topic at the end of each class, would then gain

information through the homework tasks, and would finally reflect on this in group

discussions that revisit versions of the initial question. The final utopia project would

81
follow a similar cycle, with the problem of what a better world would like framing the

entire course. The tasks build upon each other and provide practice for the eventual

written description and defense. As Craig (2013) points out, linking final paper

assignments to collaborative tasks, presentations, and feedback tasks scaffolds students

throughout the process.

5. Course Evaluation

This represents the first iteration of the course, but it should be noted that this

syllabus is not set in stone. There may even be adjustments to content and language

goals, and therefore to the assessment and learning activities, in response to more specific

learners’ needs and interests. As Fink (2013) emphasizes, even if you are not taking a

fully negotiated curriculum approach, teachers should “keep the dialogue open with the

class about all aspects of the course design” (p. 162). For example, the brainstormed list

in Lesson 1 might lead to the replacement of some units, though since one of the goals of

the course is for students to learn to care about new global issues, I would ensure that the

new units would also push students toward this goal. Responding to the ongoing

assessment of students’ performance would likely entail adjustments to the schedule at

the very least, as students may need additional learning activities to help them achieve

particularly difficult learning goals.

82
 Additionally, curriculum design scholars broadly agree that curriculum design is

an iterative process that should lead to better and better courses (e.g., Christison &

Murray, 2014; Fink, 2013; Nation & Macalister, 2010). To accomplish this, teachers

should seek out a variety of data that provide feedback on the quality of the course and

their teaching. Fink (2013) points out that this evaluation can take a wide variety of

forms, including teacher reflection, outsider observation, recording for self-observation,

whole-class interviews, and student questionnaires. Fink (2013) emphasizes that teachers

collect this information not only at the end of the course, but also in the middle; this way,

the students providing the formative feedback can benefit from any changes the teachers

make in response to it (p. 160). Therefore, I have included both a mid-term course

evaluation and a final course evaluation in my course design.

6. Course Readings and Supplementary Content

Because this is the first time that I would teach this global issues content, and

because the interdisciplinary field of global studies is overwhelmingly broad, I have

chosen to structure the course around Hite and Seitz’s (2016) popular textbook designed

for US university students. This textbook is already in its fifth edition, reflecting

improvements based on university teachers’ feedback and the expert authors’ own

reflection. It has also been updated to reflect current global issues and conditions. For

these reasons, I believe that it is a strong starting point for the first iteration of this
83
curriculum design. However, as Fink (2013) acknowledges, it is impossible to cover

“everything that students will ever need to know about the subject of [one’s] course,”

especially when there is an “ever-growing body of knowledge” in all fields of study (p.

62). Thus, it is better to engage deeply with a limited amount of this content than to cover

quickly and superficially as much content as possible. In this conception of covering the

content as deep engagement, “‘acquiring new knowledge of the content’ becomes the

basis for achieving several other kinds of learning” rather than an end in itself (Fink,

2013, p. 65). I have therefore selected sections from only some of the chapters of the

Global Issues textbook (Hite & Seitz, 2016). In fact, my biggest worry about this first

iteration of this course is that I have erred on the side of too many topics at the expense of

more sustained and more significant learning.

I recognize the need to adapt these textbook readings in order to bring them into

the realm of extensive L2 reading; as Nation (2009) points out, about 95 to 98 percent of

the vocabulary should not present a burden to the learner (p. 51). After gaining a better

understanding of the students’ reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge, I would

need to simplify some of the language, gloss some difficult words by explaining their

meanings in the L2 or in the L1, and elaborate on some of the text to make the difficult

words’ meanings clear (Nation, 2009, pp. 58-60). Since I would be composing these

adapted texts on a computer, it would make sense to upload my adaptations for students

84
to read on computers so that they can use computer-assisted reading tools such as free

browser plug-ins (see Godwin-Jones, 2010, p. 5; Nation, 2009, p. 59). My goal for my

adaptations would be to retain the sophistication and complexity of the content as much

as possible while simplifying only the language. My brief video lectures would also

attempt to scaffold students’ comprehension of the content from the readings.

The first course reading, to be read collaboratively in class, would not need

adaptation, because it comes from a textbook written specifically for English learners at

Japanese universities: CLIL Global Issues (Sasajima et al., 2014). This textbook seems

generally less useful than Hite and Seitz’s (2016), primarily because the readings seem

overly simplistic. However, if students are struggling with the complexity of Global

Issues (Hite & Seitz, 2016), then I might begin to draw more heavily on this specially-

written CLIL textbook (Sasajima et al, 2014).

Beyond just learning from readings, Fink (2013) stresses the need for “significant

learning experiences,” which may be direct or vicarious (p. 121). Fink (2013)

recommends film, video, literature, and oral history for experiences that are difficult to

have directly (p. 122), so I plan to supplement the readings with related video clips and

primary sources whenever possible. Again, I have not yet attempted to gather all of these

sources. This is due to two reasons: first, the sources will depend on the specific students’

85
needs and interests; and second, I hope to draw from recently relevant news as a way of

connecting the course to ongoing developments in global issues.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

In a sense, this curriculum design project embodied in the above syllabus is my

own realist utopian project, in that it is my current vision of an ideal course that I might

actually have the opportunity to teach in future. I have attempted to analyze the

environment of the contemporary Japanese university context and to identify the current

needs for English language teaching within this context. I have explored a variety of

principles drawn from the literature and in relation to my personal teaching philosophy.

Like any utopian vision, my ideal curriculum offers an implicit critique of the status quo

of the current courses on offer, but it does so in recognition that my curriculum itself is

far from perfect and remains a work in progress. This curriculum only tries to imagine a

better way of teaching English at Japanese universities as they are, seeking small changes

rather than some kind of radical transformation. In fact, much would be familiar to the

hypothetical students taking this course.

How I Will Use My Project in My Teaching

86
 In any course that I actually end up teaching, the introduction of small changes

and introducing innovations from other contexts can lead to future expansion, especially

if I communicate my rationale for these changes clearly to the students and keep them

engaged in the dialogue (Carless & Zhou, 2015, p. 12; Fink, 2013, p. 162). My review of

the literature has strengthened my resolve to persuade students that there is great value in

learning English as an International Language; in other words, I can now make a better

argument for the primacy of intelligibility in most English communication, with the

important caveat that accuracy and standards matter in English writing. The literature on

CBI and CLIL has likewise persuaded me that English language learners can

productively engage with challenging new content as a way of stretching their language

abilities toward new levels of proficiency. Teaching language functions still seems like a

good approach to enabling students to do more with the language and engage more and

more fully with the course content. Fink’s (2013) taxonomy of significant learning has

inspired me to reflect on how and why exactly I want my students to engage with the

content and improve their language skills; keeping the course goals, assessment, and

learning activities integrated in my curriculum design was challenging, but this practice

has already started to become a more natural habit of mind.

Even if I am unable to adopt all of the teaching elements proposed in this

particular curriculum in precisely the way I have described, many of the individual

87
elements can be creatively applied in all of my teaching, whatever the context. For

instance, even in my current teaching position with a unified curriculum, I have learned

to reflect on what my goals for significant learning actually are within this program, and

to imagine how to promote and assess progress toward these goals in creative and

informal ways that supplement the official goals of the program. In particular, I have

reflected on what kind of goals I have for students to learn about learning and have

started to think about how they might continue not only to use the discussion skills and

functional English phrases that they have mastered but also transfer the strategies for

learning that they have practiced in my class.

Another broadly transferrable strategy that this project has emphasized for me is

the concept of spaced repetition for better learning. This has reminded me to reconsider

assessment strategies such as quizzing, which I had been skeptical of in the past as

promoting the wrong kind of motivation in students, namely, the extrinsic motivation

from the fear of getting a bad grade. I have come to believe that through careful

construction, comprehension questions can facilitate more critical thinking and

integrative thinking. Likewise, I have come to a greater appreciation of the value of

grades in general, specifically those derived from rubrics. At the university level

especially, rubrics seem like a powerful tool for helping students develop a greater sense

of ownership of their learning, and therefore, greater intrinsic motivation. I had not

88
considered the possibility of developing rubrics together with students, which now seems

like an excellent way to assess and reshape their understanding of what constitutes good

performance.

This course on global issues from a utopian perspective may well prove to be

unmarketable to Japanese university administrations, but the experience of creating this

idealized course in a deliberate and detailed way has given me the confidence that I could

competently teach a variety of related interdisciplinary and even discipline-area courses

on subjects in which I am relatively well-versed: postmodernity, social theory, area

studies such as American studies and South Asian studies, international relations,

philosophy of education, and linguistics. This project’s syllabus might provide a starting

point, or even a template, for the design of some of these courses; however, it is more

likely that I would repeat the entire process that this project has taught me, and that this

process would become progressively easier and more refined in each iteration.

What I Have Learned from Doing This Project

My current theory of practice in the Japanese university context is thus embodied

in this curriculum design project: my curriculum promotes intelligibility and fluency over

accuracy due to my recognition of English as an International Language, involves the

mutually beneficial integration of content and language learning, takes a functional

approach to language learning, and takes a more humanistic approach to content learning
89
that challenges learners to propose provisional and partial solutions to some of the most

pressing and challenging global issues we all face today. Combining all these elements

into a coherent whole has facilitated the integration of all of my learning throughout this

MEd program, and more broadly, throughout my language teaching career. It has thus

provided ample opportunity for my own significant learning experiences, as I have

reflected on all this learning, integrated and applied it in new ways, understood how

thoughtful course design is a powerful way to continue learning about the field, reflected

on my implicit hopes for my teaching and what I care most about, and thought more

carefully about how I want to interact with students. In short, I have come to understand

how much this scholarly project is both a culmination of all that I have learned about

language teaching up to this point and a model for my future development as a teacher.

While I started this curriculum design project with a sense of feeling

underprepared for designing an entire course, I now see that I already had almost all the

pieces; it was just a matter of assembling them like a jigsaw puzzle to form the big

picture, occasionally searching around for the few missing pieces. Completing this

project has helped me construct a larger vision of English language teaching, in which the

various aspects of this endeavor come together to form a coherent whole. My personal

theory of practice has thus taken shape.

90
 REFERENCES

Alexander, R. (2010). Dialogic teaching essentials. National Institute of Education,

Singapore.

Berwick and Ross. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of

English still alive after exam hell? JALT Journal, 11, 193-210.

Bjorkman, B. (2010). So you think you can ELF: English as a lingua franca as

the medium of instruction. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication

Studies, 45, 77-96.

Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45(3), 221-235.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to

program development. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of

successful learning. Harvard University Press.

Butler, Y. G. (2006). Content-based instruction in EFL contexts: Considerations for

effective implementation. JALT Journal, 27, 227-242.

91
Carless, D., & Zhou, J. (2015). Starting small in assessment change: short in-class written

responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 1-14.

Cates, K. A. (2002). Teaching for a better world: Global issues and language education.

Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 5, 41-52.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in

the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language

writing, 12(3), 267-296.

Chen Hsieh, J. S., Wu, W. C. V., & Marek, M. W. (2016). Using the flipped classroom to

enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-25.

Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2014). What English teachers need to know (Vol. 3:

Designing curriculum). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cogo, A. & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven

investigation. London: Continuum.

Craig, J. L. (2013). Integrating writing strategies in EFL/ESL university contexts: A

writing-across-the-curriculum approach. New York: Routledge.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

92
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to

principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.

Day, R., & Jeong-suk, P. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading

in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.

De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L., & Gómez, M. S. (2007). Enhancing automaticity

through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 309-315.

Díaz-Rico, L. (2013). Strategies for teaching English learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Doe, T. (2012). Assessment: Improving rater reliability on the EDC discussion test. New

Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(1), 11-18.

Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Communicative Language Teaching in the twenty-first century: The

“Principled Communicative Approach.” In J. Arnold & T. Murphey

(Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick's influence on language teaching (p. 161–

171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from

beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33,

205-223.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

93
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to

designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Folse, K. S. (2009). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners: A practical

handbook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t

it? Studies in Higher Education, 31¸ 269-284.

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for

promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22,

473-492.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). Emerging technologies: From memory palaces to spacing

algorithms: Approaches to second-language vocabulary learning. Language,

Learning & Technology, 14(2), 4-11.

Gooblar, D. (2016). Doing your own assignments first. Pedagogy Unbound. Retrieved

from https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1583-doing-your-own-assignments-first

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language

proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

94
Gupta, A. F. (2012). Grammar teaching and standards. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G.

Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as

an International Language (pp. 244-260). New York: Routledge.

Hite, K. A., & Seitz, J. L. (2016). Global issues: An introduction (5th ed.). West Sussex:

Wiley Blackwell.

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language

acquisition. Applied linguistics, 1-22.

Hu, G. (2012). Assessing English as an International Language. In L. Alsagoff, S. L.

McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching

English as an International Language (pp. 123-143). New York: Routledge.

Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning

English Discussion, 1(1), 2-10.

Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of

Pragmatics, 43, 926-936.

Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.

Jones, A. (2012). Embedding English in the tertiary curriculum: Engaging with content

through writing.

95
Kachru, Y. (2011). World Englishes: Contexts and relevance for language education. In

E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and

learning (Vol. 2) (pp. 155-172). New York: Routledge.

Kang, S. H. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning policy

implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 3(1), 12-19.

Kasparek, N. (2016a). Facilitated play, target language use, and authenticity. New

Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 4, 143-152.

Kasparek, N. (2016b). Toward a utopian peace education. In T. Ottman, Z. Ritchie, H.

Palmer, & D. Warchulski (Eds.), Peace as a global language: Peace and welfare

in the global and local community. i-universe.

Kasper, L. F. (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction: Theoretical foundations and

pedagogical applications. In L. F. Kasper (Ed.), Content-based college ESL

instruction (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kent, G. (1977) Peace education: Pedagogy of the middle class. Peace & Change, 4(3),

37-42.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in East and Southeast Asian

universities. In N. Murray & A. Scarino (Eds.), Dynamic ecologies: A relational

96
 perspective on languages education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 15-29).

Dordrecht: Springer.

Kwan, F. (2011). Formative assessment: the one-minute paper vs. the daily quiz. Journal

of Instructional Pedagogies, 5, 1-8.

Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More

differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367-375.

Latif, M. M. M. A. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be

validly measured? Applied linguistics,  34(1), 99-105.

Levitas, R. (2009). The imaginary reconstruction of society: Utopia as method. In T.

Moylan & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Utopia method vision: The use value of social

dreaming (pp. 47–68). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language

integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian

Bilingual Sections project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418-442.

97
Manara, C. (2014). “So what do you want us to do?”: A critical reflection of teaching

English as an International Language in an Australian context. In R. Marlina & R.

A. Giri (Eds.), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language:

Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students (pp. 189-202). Cham:

Springer.

Marlina, R. (2014). The pedagogy of English as an International Language (EIL): More

reflections and dialogues. In R. Marlina & R. A. Giri (Eds.), The Pedagogy of

English as an International Language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and

students (pp. 1-19). Cham: Springer.

Matsuda, A. (2011). ‘Not everyone can be a star’: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about

English teaching in Japan. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in the era of

globalization (pp. 38-59). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCarthy, M. (2005). Fluency and confluence: What fluent speakers do. The Language

Teacher, 29(6), 26-28.

McIntyre, D. (1996). Global issues in EFL: Why and how. JALT Journal, 18, 117-130.

Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15-33.

98
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J.

Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and

Multilingual Education (pp. 35-63). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York: Routledge.

Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York:

Routledge.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated

learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in

Higher Education, 31, 199-218.

Ogawa, C. (2016). Examining the effects of types of pretask planning on oral

performances. JALT Journal, 38, 97-118.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2

education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4),

312-330.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error

correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375-389.

99
Reardon, B. (2000) Peace education: A review and a projection. In B. Moon, S. Brown,

& M. Ben-Peretz (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education (pp.

397–425). New York: Routledge.

Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central,

and backward design. Relc Journal, 44, 5-33.

Kasper, G., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview

and introductions. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language

pragmatics (pp. 1-40). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom.

System, 37, 57–69.

Sasajima, S., Ikeda, M., Yamazaki, M., Chida, T., Fujisawa, S., Fukushima, J., Nakaya,

M., Yukita, M., & Schramm, A. (2014). CLIL global issues. Tokyo: Sanshusha.

Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global

language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2009). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language

learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:

Psycholinguistic approaches, (pp. 371-388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

100
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational

researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Smit, U. (2010). Conceptualising English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a tertiary classroom

language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 39, 59-74.

Stead, D. R. (2005). A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher

Education, 6(2), 118-131.

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save

grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning (2nd ed.).

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Turner, J. (2004). Language as academic purpose. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 3(2), 95-109.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum. New York, NY: Longman.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria,

VA: ASCD.

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language

development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.

101
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language acquisition and production: Implications for

teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 01-15.

Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent

expression in second language narratives: A case study. The Canadian Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39-57.

102