The Learner-Centred Curriculum

THE CAMBRIDGE APPLIED LINGUISTICS SERIES

Series editors: Michael H. Long and Jack C. Richards
This series presents thefindingsof recent work in applied linguistics which
are of direct relevance to language teaching and learning and of particular
interest to applied linguists, researchers, language teachers, and teacher
trainers.

In this series:
Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading edited by
Patricia L. Carrell, Joanne Devine, and David E. Eskey
Second Language Classrooms - Research on teaching and learning
by Craig Chaudron
Language Learning and Deafness edited by Michael Strong
The Learner-Centred Curriculum by David Hunan
The Second Language Curriculum edited by Robert Keith Johnson
Language Transfer - Cross-linguistic influence in language learning by
Terence Odlin
Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition edited by
Susan M. Gass and Jacquelyn Schachter
Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition
by J. Michael O'Malley and Anna Uhl Chamot
The Development of Second Language Proficiency edited by Birgit Harley,
Patrick Allen, Jim Cummins, and Merrill Swain
Second Language Writing - Research insights for the classroom edited by
Barbara Kroll
Genre Analysis - English in academic and research settings by John M.
Swales
Evaluating Second Language Education edited by
J. Charles Alderson and Alan Beretta
Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar edited by Terence Odlin
Power and Inequality in Language Education edited by James W. Tollefson
Academic Listening — Research perspectives edited by John Flower dew
Language Program Evaluation - Theory and practice by Brian Lynch
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching edited by Sandra Lee McKay and
Nancy H. Hornberger
The Learner-Centred
Curriculum
A study in
second language teaching

David Nunan

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

© Cambridge University Press 1988

First published 1988

Eighth printing 1996

British Library cataloguing in publication data

Nunan, David
The learner-centred curriculum
1. English language - Study and teaching - Foreign
speakers 2. Curriculum planning
I. Title
428.2'4'07 PE1128.A2

Library of Congress cataloging in publication data

Nunan, David
The learner-centred curriculum.
Bibliography
Includes index.
1. English language - Study and teaching - Foreign
speakers I. Title II. Title: Learner-centred
curriculum.
PE1128.A2N86 1988 428'.007 87-26802

ISBN 0 521 35309 2 hardback

ISBN 0 521 35843 4 paperback

Transferred to digital printing 2004

MV
To Cath
for her time, patience and support.
Contents

Series Editors' Preface x

Preface xi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Preamble 1
1.2 Linguistics and Language Teaching 1
1.3 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development 2
1.4 The Curriculum Process 4
1.5 The Structure of the Study 8
1.6 Conclusion 9

2 Curriculum Processes 10
2.1 Traditional Approaches to the Curriculum 10
2.2 ESL and Curriculum Planning 15
2.3 Summary 20

3 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development 21

3.1 Introduction 21
3.2 Theoretical Bases for Learner-Centred Curricula 22
3.3 Communicative Language Teaching and Learner-Centred
Curricula 24
3.4 Communicative Language Teaching — The Teacher's
Perspective 28
3.5 The Concept of Language Proficiency 32
3.6 Towards a Generalised Language Curriculum
Framework 35
3.7 The Teacher and the Curriculum 36
3.8 Summary 41

4 Pre-Course Planning Procedures 42

4.1 Introduction 42
4.2 The Starting Point 42
4.3 Needs Analysis 43
4.4 Participants in Pre-Course Planning Procedures 45
4.5 Grouping Learners 46
4.6 Resources for Planning 48

vn
viii Contents
4.7 Investigating Needs—Analysis Procedures 51
4.8 Conclusion 52

5 Planning Content 54
5.1 Introduction 54
5.2 Content Selection - An Empirical Investigation 55
5.3 Analytical Approaches to Content Specification 57
5.4 Deriving Content from Learner Data 62
5.5 Grading Content 66
5.6 Conclusion 75

6 Methodology 76
6.1 Introduction 76
6.2 Methodology and Communicative Language Teaching 78
6.3 Acquisition in the Classroom 81
6.4 Stimulating Classroom Acquisition 84
6.5 Methodology in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 88
6.6 Negotiating Learning Activities 95
6.7 Conclusion 97

7 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum 98

7.1 Introduction 98
7.2 Materials in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 99
7.3 The Community as a Resource 105
7.4 The Teacher as Developer of Resources 108
7.5 Conclusion 115

8 Assessment and Evaluation 116

8.1 The Place of Evaluation in the Curriculum 116
8.2 Some Key Concepts in Evaluation 118
8.3 Some Key Questions in Evaluation 121
8.4 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency 123
8.5 Techniques for Self-Assessment 130
8.6 Conclusion 134

9 Evaluation and Professional Development 136

9.1 Introduction 136
9.2 Evaluation and the Planning Process 137
9.3 Evaluation and the Implemented Curriculum 138
9.4 Evaluation and the Assessed Curriculum 142
9.5 Causes of Learner Failure 144
9.6 Evaluation and Teacher Development 147
9.7 Conclusion 150
 Contents ix

10 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer 151

10.1 Introduction 151
10.2 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer —
A National Study 151
10.3 Future Directions 174
10.4 Conclusion 178

References 181
Appendix 187
Subject Index 191
Author Index 195
Series Editors' Preface

Australia has one of the largest and most dynamic migrant education
language programmes in the world. What makes the Australian Adult
Migrant Education Program (AMEP) unique is that although the prog-
ram is co-ordinated at the national level, the process of curriculum
development it embodies is bottom up rather than top down. At each
institution where migrant language programs are offered, learners are
actively involved in setting their own goals and determining what and
how they will learn. It is this experience which Dr David Nunan, director
of the National Curriculum Resource Centre, Adelaide, presents in this
important book.
This is more than just an account of the AMEP however. This book
offers a model of what curriculum development is. David Nunan shows
that curriculum development involves the interaction of needs analysis,
goal setting, grading and sequencing of content, materials development,
implementation and evaluation, and shows how these processes interact
within a learner-centered approach to curriculum. Throughout, the dis-
cussion is illustrated with numerous examples from the AMEP experi-
ence. At the same time, Nunan demonstrates that curriculum work must
move beyond speculation and have a solid empirical basis if it is to have
any substance, and illustrates the use of questionnaire, interview and
case study data in curriculum planning. In addition, Nunan demonstrates
that language curriculum practitioners have much to learn from
mainstream educational research and practice.
The AMEP is a unique example of a national curriculum project
which attributes a central role to both teachers and learners at every
phase of the curriculum process. As such, it should be examined carefully
by all those involved in language curriculum work. We are happy to
have the opportunity to bring this important work to the attention of a
wider audience through its publication in the Cambridge Applied Linguis-
tics Series.

Michael H. Long
Jack C. Richards
Preface

This book presents curriculum theory and practice as these are applied
to English language teaching. The concept of 'learner-centredness' pro-
vides a unifying theme for the work as a whole, and, while the focus of
the study is adult ESL, it is hoped that the book has something to say
to those working in EFL and also to those working with children.
The book takes a 4bottom-up' view of curriculum development. In
other words, it is grounded in studies of what language teachers actually
do and think as they plan, implement and evaluate their language pro-
grammes, rather than on what curriculum specialists say they ought to
do. A series of exemplary case studies of teachers at work illustrates and
reinforces the theoretical perspectives presented in the body of the book.
The book attempts to marry theoretical perspectives and empirical
insights from applied linguistics with those from curriculum research
and development. It is hoped that the marriage is a happy one, and that
the strengths rather than the weaknesses of both disciplines are apparent
in the work. It is also hoped that teachers, researchers and academics
working within a linguistic paradigm might come to see the benefits to
be derived from applying general educational theory and research to
language teaching.
This book owes a great deal to the Australian Adult Migrant Education
Program (AMEP) which is charged with the task of providing English
language learning opportunities to non-English speaking immigrants to
Australia. The studies in the book were only made possible by the col-
laboration, assistance and involvement of many of the fifteen hundred
teachers employed by the AMEP. These teachers gave generously of their
time and professional expertise, and the ideas and insights presented
here belong to them.
While is is not possible to name all those who helped make this study
possible, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the support and
assistance of several special individuals. Foremost is Geoff Brindley who
was a joint partner in the development of many of the ideas presented
here. I owe a great deal to the editors of this series, Jack Richards and
Mike Long, both of whom have been extremely supportive. I should
also like to thank the following individuals for their encouragement,
assistance and advice: Chris Candlin, Carole Urzua, Pat Rigg, Alan
Beretta and Leo van Lier. Thanks are also due to my colleagues at the

xi
xii Preface
National Curriculum Resource Centre, in particular to Jill Burton and
Mary Szabo. Finally, I should like to thank Peter Donovan, Adrian du
Plessis and Ellen Shaw from Cambridge University Press for their advice
and support.

Adelaide, April 1987.

\ Introduction

1.1 Preamble
Traditionally 'curriculum' is taken to refer to a statement or statements
of intent — the 'what should be' of a course of study. In this work a
rather different perspective is taken. The curriculum is seen in terms of
what teachers actually do; that is, in terms of 'what is', rather than 'what
should be'. The work is thus based on what many language teachers
have found both desirable and possible.
The curriculum is seen from the perspective of the teacher for two
reasons. In the first place, in the sort of learner centred system towards
which many language teaching organisations are moving, the teacher is
the prime agent of curriculum development. Second, educational reality
is not what educational planners say ought to happen, but what teachers
and learners actually do. The notion that planning equals teaching and
that teaching equals learning is naive. Research suggests that the equation
is much more complex than this, that teachers do not slavishly follow
a pre-specified plan, and that learners do not necessarily always learn
what teachers teach (Allwright 1986; Burton and Nunan 1986). It is
this insight which has prompted within these pages a rather different
view of language curricula.

1.2 Linguistics and Language Teaching

Due to a series of events which are partly circumstantial and partly
historical, much of the development in language teaching has occurred
outside the educational mainstream. The assumption seems to have been
that educational theory and research has very little to contribute to the
field of language teaching.
The implicit message, that learning a language is so different from
learning anything else that there is little point in developing links with
the educational mainstream, has been partly due to the disproportionate
influence exercised over the field by theoretical linguists. The belief that
language pedagogy is basically a linguistic rather than an educational
matter has led to research which is couched within a linguistic rather
than an educational paradigm. This, in turn, has created a fragmentation

1
2 Introduction
within the field, with different interest groups being concerned with
particular aspects of the teaching—learning process to the exclusion of
other aspects. Thus, in Europe, in the 1970s, the focus was on the
specification of content through the development of syllabuses which
had a linguistic focus. While the development of functional—notional
syllabuses represented a broadened focus, the focus itself was still basi-
cally linguistic, and there was a comparative neglect of methodology.
Other practitioners focused on methodology to the exclusion of other
elements in the curriculum, such as content specification and evaluation.
This state of affairs is beginning to be redressed. In the last two or
three years a number of publications have appeared urging the develop-
ment of integrated approaches to language curriculum development. (See
for example Stern 1983; Yalden 1983; Richards 1984; Nunan 1985a;
Dubin and Olshtain 1986.) These publications urge the development of
procedures which are systematic and comprehensive, containing similar
components to those contained in traditional curriculum development.

1.3 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

This work differs from other publications in that it provides a theoretical
and empirical rationale for learner-centred curriculum development
within an adult ESL context. Such a curriculum will contain similar
elements to those contained in traditional curriculum development, that
is, planning (including needs analysis, goal and objective setting),
implementation (including methodology and materials development) and
evaluation (see for example Hunkins 1980).
However, the key difference between learner-centred and traditional
curriculum development is that, in the former, the curriculum is a col-
laborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners are closely
involved in the decision-making process regarding the content of the
curriculum and how it is taught.
This change in orientation has major practical implications for the
entire curriculum process, since a negotiated curriculum cannot be intro-
duced and managed in the same way as one which is prescribed by the
teacher or teaching institutions. In particular, it places the burden for
all aspects of curriculum development on the teacher.
In a curriculum based on the traditional ends—means model, a fixed
series of steps is followed. Thus, in the curriculum planning process
proposed by Taba (1962), planning, implementation and evaluation
occur in sequential order, and most of the key decisions about aims and
objectives, materials and methodology are made before there is any
encounter between teacher and learner.
 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development 3

In fact, studies have demonstrated that most teachers simply do not

operate in this way. Thus, Shavelson and Stern write:
Most teachers are trained to plan instruction by (a) specifying
(behavioural) objectives, (b) specifying students' entry behaviour,
(c) selecting and sequencing learning activities so as to move learners
from entry behaviours to objectives and {d) evaluating the outcomes
of instruction in order to improve planning. While this prescriptive
model of planning may be one of the most consistently taught
features of the curriculum of teacher education programmes, the
model is consistently not used in teachers' planning in schools.
Obviously there is a mismatch between the demands of the
classroom and the prescriptive planning model.
(Shavelson and Stern 1981:477)

In this work, we shall look at what teachers do focus on in the planning,

implementation and evaluation of language courses. From studies of
teacher practice a negotiated curriculum model is developed in which
much of the consultation, decision making and planning is informal and
takes place during the course of programme delivery.
Most of the studies on which this work is based are reported here for
the first time. They include a large-scale study of the teacher as curriculum
planner in which over eight hundred teachers participated. Also included
are smaller-scale empirical studies of teachers' involvement in content
selection, methodology, materials selection and adaptation and assess-
ment.
One of the major assumptions underlying the learner-centred
philosophy is that, given the constraints that exist in most learning
contexts, it is impossible to teach learners everything they need to know
in class. (While this is certainly true of adult contexts, it is probably also
true of other contexts as well.) What little class time there is must
therefore be used as effectively as possible to teach those aspects of the
language which the learners themselves deem to be most urgently
required, thus increasing surrender value and consequent student moti-
vation.
In consequence, while one major aim or set of aims will relate to the
teaching of specific language skills, other aims will relate to the develop-
ment of learning skills. Such aims may include the following:
— to provide learners with efficient learning strategies
— to assist learners identify their own preferred ways of learning
— to develop skills needed to negotiate the curriculum
— to encourage learners to set their own objectives
— to encourage learners to adopt realistic goals and time frames
— to develop learners' skills in self-evaluation.
The adoption of a learner-centred orientation implies differentiated cur-
ricula for different learners. This is because it is unrealistic to expect
4 Introduction
extensive participation in curriculum planning by learners with little
experience of language and learning. When dealing with inexperienced
learners, it is often necessary for the teacher to begin by making most
of the decisions. For this reason the curriculum is conceptualised, as
much by processes for carrying out curriculum tasks as by products (that
is, the specification of content, lists of methodological options and so on).

1.4 The Curriculum Process

The key elements in the curriculum model proposed here are as follows:
initial planning procedures (including data collection and learner group-
ing); content selection and gradation; methodology (which includes the
selection of learning activities and materials); and ongoing monitoring,
assessment and evaluation. A brief description of these elements and
their functions within a learner-centred curriculum follow and are elabo-
rated upon in the body of the text.
The first step in the curriculum process is the collection of information
about learners in order to diagnose what Richterich (1972) refers to as
their objective needs, that is, needs which are external to the learner.
This initial data collection is usually superficial, relating mainly to factual
information such as current proficiency level, age, educational
background, previous learning experiences, time in the target culture
and previous and current occupation. It is also sometimes possible to
obtain more subjective information on preferred length and intensity of
course, preferred learning arrangement, learning goals and information
relating to preferred methodology, learning-style preferences and so on.
However, this sort of information, relating to a learner's subjective needs
as an individual in the learning situation, can often only be obtained
once a course has begun.
If the information is collected before the learners are assigned to a
class, it can be used for initial class placement purposes. At this point,
a decision has to be made as to the weighting which will be given to the
different kinds of needs which have been assessed. This will depend very
much on the relative importance which is accorded by teachers to factors
such as language proficiency, life-style, learning preferences and so on.
In making a placement decision, these factors have to be balanced against
the administrative and resource constraints under which the programme
has to operate. Thus it is perfectly feasible to imagine a situation in
which the same learner might well be placed in one centre in an 'inter-
mediate class', while in another he would be placed in an 'English for
motor mechanics' group and in yet another in a 'young, fast learners'
category.
While language proficiency continues to be the single most important
 The Curriculum Process 5
grouping criterion in most language teaching institutions, it is worth
exploring other possible types of class arrangement. In developing more
diverse grouping arrangements it is important for teachers to accept the
notion that the grouping convention of 'twenty students of the same
proficiency level for twenty hours a week' (or whatever the convention
might be) is not the only arrangement, nor even the most desirable one.
Unfortunately, from the evidence collected during the study reported in
Chapter 10, it is often administrative inflexibility which precludes more
imaginative learner groupings.
Content selection is an important component of a learner-centred
curriculum. In such a curriculum clear criteria for content selection give
guidance on the selection of materials and learning activities and assist
in assessment and evaluation. By making explicit the content objectives
of a course and, eventually, by training learners to set their own objec-
tives, the following benefits can accrue:

Learners come to have a more realistic idea of what can be achieved in

a given course.
Learning comes to be seen as the gradual accretion of achievable goals.
Students develop greater sensitivity to their role as language learners
and their rather vague notions of what it is to be a learner become
much sharper.
Self-evaluation becomes more feasible.
Classroom activities can be seen to relate to learners' real-life needs.
Skills development can be seen as a gradual, rather than an all-or-
nothing, process.
A crucial distinction between traditional and learner-centred curriculum
development is that, in the latter, no decision is binding. This is particu-
larly true of content selection and gradation. These will need to be
modified during the course of programme delivery as the learners' skills
develop, their self awareness as learners grows and their perceived needs
change.
It is therefore important that the content selected at the beginning of
a course is not seen as definitive; it will vary, and will probably have to
be modified as learners experience different kinds of learning activities
and as teachers obtain more information about their subjective needs
(relating to such things as affective needs, expectations and preferred
learning style). It is the outcomes of ongoing dialogue between teachers
and learners which will determine content and learning objectives.
The selection of content and objectives is therefore something which
is shaped and refined during the initial stages of a learning arrangement
rather than being completely pre-determined. This is because the most
valuable learner data can usually only be obtained in an informal way
after relationships have been established between teachers and learners.
6 Introduction

The initial data collection, which is used principally for grouping

learners, generally provides only fairly superficial information which can
be used to make rough predictions about communicative needs. The
most useful information, relating to subjective learner needs, can be
obtained only once a course has begun and a relationship is established
between teacher and learners. It is these subjective needs, derivable from
information on learners' wants, expectations and affective needs which
are of most value in selecting content and methodology.
As most learners find it difficult to articulate their needs and prefer-
ences, the initial stages of a course can be spent in providing a range of
learning experiences. It is unrealistic to expect learners who have never
experienced a particular approach to be able to express an opinion about
it. This does not mean, however, that activities and materials should be
foisted on learners at the whim of the teacher. Learners should be encour-
aged to reflect upon their learning experiences and articulate those they
prefer, and those they feel suit them as learners.
With low-level learners, developing a critical self-awareness can best
be facilitated by the use of first-language resources. In some cases the
use of bilingual assistants may be a possibility. In other cases translated
activity evaluation sheets should be used. These need not be elaborate.
In fact they may simply require the learners to say whether or not they
liked a given activity. Sample self-evaluation sheets are provided in Chap-
ter 8.
Methodology, which includes learning activities and materials, is gen-
erally the area where there is the greatest potential for conflict between
teacher and learner. In a traditional curriculum, this conflict would
probably be ignored on the grounds that the 'teacher knows best'. In a
learner-centred curriculum, it is crucial that any conflicts be resolved.
Evidence from recent studies documenting widespread mismatches bet-
ween teacher and learner expectations are examined in the chapter on
methodology. The solution to methodological mismatches is to be found
in techniques and procedures for negotiation and consultation. As
Brindley suggests:
Since, as we have noted, a good many learners are likely to have
fixed ideas about course content, learning activities, teaching
methods and so forth, it seems that teachers will continually have
to face the problem of deciding to what extent to make compromises.
However, if programmes are to be learner-centred, then learners'
wishes should be canvassed and taken into account, even if they
conflict with the wishes of the teacher. This is not to suggest that
the teacher should give learners everything that they want—evidence
from teachers suggests that some sort of compromise is usually
possible, but only after there has been discussion concerning what
both parties believe and want.
(Brindley 1984:111)
 The Curriculum Process 7

The value of negotiation and consultation between teacher and learner

is vividly illustrated in the case study which forms part of Chapter 10.
Evaluation is the final component in the curriculum model. Tradition-
ally, evaluation occurs at the final stage in the curriculum process. In
the model proposed here, however, evaluation is parallel with other
curriculum activities and may occur at various times during the planning
and implementation phases, as well as during a specified evaluation
phase. In the model, course evaluation is separated from student assess-
ment (Shaw and Dowsett 1986).
The purpose of assessment is to determine whether or not the objectives
of a course of instruction have been achieved. In the case of a failure to
achieve objectives, it is the purpose of evaluation to make some determi-
nation of why this might have been so. Questions relating to evaluation
include the following:
Who is to evaluate?
How are they to evaluate?
What are they to evaluate?
At what point in the curriculum process will evaluation occur?
What are the purposes of the evaluation? In other words, what will
happen to the curriculum as a result of evaluation activities?

In traditional curriculum models, evaluation has been identified with

testing and is seen as an activity which is carried out at the end of the
learning process, often by someone who is not connected with the course
itself. (In other words, the emphasis is on summative rather than forma-
tive evaluation.) In a learner-centred system, on the other hand, evalua-
tion generally takes the form of an informal monitoring which is carried
on alongside the teaching—learning process, principally by the particip-
ants in the process, that is, the teachers and learners.
Self-evaluation by both teachers and learners will also be promoted.
By providing learners with skills in evaluating materials, learning
activities and their own achievement of objectives, evaluation is built
into the teaching process. By encouraging teachers to evaluate critically
their own performance, evaluation becomes an integral part of both
curriculum and teacher development.
Any element within the curriculum may be evaluated. At the planning
stage, needs analysis techniques and procedures may be evaluated, while,
during implementation, elements to be evaluated may include materials,
learning activities, sequencing, learning arrangements, teacher perfor-
mance and learner achievement.
With more advanced learners, it is often possible not only to train
learners to identify causes of learning failure but also to suggest remedies.
Such consciousness-raising activities can assist learners to monitor and
evaluate their own learning processes.
8 Introduction

1.5 The Structure of the Study

Chapter 2 looks in detail at some of the theoretical and philosophical
perspectives which have been articulated in curriculum development in
general, and in language teaching in particular. The various elements in
the curriculum are described, and it is suggested that, until fairly recently,
some of the essential elements in the curriculum have either been seriously
neglected or completely overlooked. Chapter 3 looks at the background
to the development of a learner-centred approach to curriculum develop-
ment, with particular reference to the language curriculum. Different
philosophical approaches to the curriculum are examined, and a contrast
is drawn between subject-centred and learner-centred approaches. A
rationale for the learner-centred approach is drawn from work on adult
learning and communicative language teaching. Finally the chapter looks
at the roles, functions and responsibilities of the teacher within a learner-
centred curriculum.
Chapter 4 is concerned with the initial planning processes. It looks at
the controversy surrounding needs analysis, discusses procedures for
grouping learners and provides some practical suggestions for data col-
lection which have been developed by teachers.
Chapter 5 considers the questions of content selection and gradation.
Various principles for selecting content are discussed, and ways in which
such content, once selected, may be graded are outlined.
Methodology is considered in Chapter 6. The perspective taken is that
of the communicative curriculum, and it is suggested that a 'weak'
interpretation of the communicative movement allows the greatest flex-
ibility. The importance of learner consultation in selecting learning
activities is also discussed. Recent research into second-language acqui-
sition is presented, along with a study designed to demonstrate its prac-
tical implications.
Chapter 7 looks at resources. It is suggested that authenticity is a key
concept in any programme designed to provide learners in class with
the sorts of skills they will need to communicate effectively outside.
However, a broad view of authenticity, encompassing learner response
as well as textual source, is stressed. The notion of the community as a
resource is also explored.
Chapters 8 and 9 address issues relating to monitoring, assessment
and evaluation. In these chapters it is suggested that encouraging self-
assessment on the part of learners will raise their sensitivity as language
learners. It is also suggested that self-evaluation on the part of teachers,
particularly through small-scale action research projects, is a valuable
means of promoting professional development.
The final chapter presents the results of a large-scale ethnographic
study of the difficulties faced by teachers in implementing a learner-
 Conclusion 9

centred curriculum model. It also draws together some of the central

themes in the book, and points the way for future directions. In particular,
it suggests that there is a pressing need for an empirical as well as a
theoretical base for curriculum development. In order for the curriculum
to be truly learner-centred, there is a need for documentation, not only
of what learners want from language courses, but also of what they are
capable of doing at various stages of proficiency.

1.6 Conclusion
In their analysis of theory and practice in education, MacDonald and
Walker have this to say:
Happy alliances between theorist and practitioner in our system
are rare: more often, the relationship is one of mutual mistrust
punctuated by open antagonism. Between sub-groups of
practitioners also, and perhaps particularly between teachers and
managers, the unity of common purpose rests on almost religious
observance of territorial boundaries. Practitioners can, however,
generally rely on each other for support when faced with an external
enemy, such as public criticism, whereas the theorists' behaviour
in such circumstances is less predictable.
Partly as a consequence of this, education has a highly developed
and long-standing mythology which acts as a protective public image
projected by its members. At all levels of the system what people
think they are doing, what they say they are doing, what they appear
to others to be doing and what in fact they are doing, may be sources
of considerable discrepancy.
(MacDonald and Walker 1975:7-8)

One of the central themes of this study is that such discrepancies will
continue as long as a simple equation is assumed between what is planned,
what is taught and what is learned. It is only when the complex inter-
relationships of the various elements within the curriculum are studied
together that we might begin to get an accurate picture of what is going
on. However, such a picture is only likely to emerge if a truce is called
in the war between theorist and practitioner. Both must be prepared to
admit that they need the other so that theory might be constantly tested
against practice.
2 Curriculum Processes

2.1 Traditional Approaches to the Curriculum

Why does Teacher A teach functions but not structures? Why does
Teacher B try to encourage learners to discover their own errors rather
than correcting the learners herself? Why does Teacher C try to develop
communication skills through role play, language games and so on,
rather than through drills and controlled practice activities? Why does
Teacher D create all her own materials through authentic sources, while
Teacher E, who has students with similar needs, uses coursebooks written
by someone else?
Some teachers claim that teaching is essentially a practical activity,
and has very little to do with the theoretical deliberations of educational
philosophers, psychologists and curriculum designers. Stern, in fact,
suggests that this is a characteristic of language teachers in general:
Language teachers can be said to regard themselves as practical
people and not as theorists. Some might even say they are opposed
to 'theory', expressing their opposition in such remarks as 'It's all
very well in theory, but it won't work in practice'.
(Stern 1983:23)

However, as Stern goes on to observe, implicit in all the decisions made

by the teacher relating to classroom practice, materials, methodology
and content is a theory about the nature of language and the nature of
language learning. Not all teachers will be able to articulate their theories,
but they will have them just the same, and they lie behind the sorts of
questions posed at the beginning of this chapter.
Curriculum planning can be seen as the systematic attempt by
educationalists and teachers to specify and study planned intervention
into the educational enterprise. In this chapter we shall explore some of
the central concepts behind the study of the curriculum and look at a
number of different models which have been developed to specify and
assist in the planning, presentation and evaluation of learning.
One way of looking at the curriculum is to see it as an attempt to
specify what should happen in the classroom, to describe what actually
does happen, and to attempt to reconcile the differences between what
'should be' and what actually 'is'.

10
 Traditional Approaches to the Curriculum 11

Lawton (1973) sees the gap between theory and practice, that is, the
gap between what should be and what is, as one of the central problems
of the curriculum. He suggests that:
This gap exists at a number of levels; for example, the difference
between what teachers suggest should happen and what can be
observed in the classroom, the gap between educational theory as
taught in colleges and universities and the 'common-sense' practical
approach of teachers in schools. Students leaving college and
entering schools are sometimes advised by practising teachers to
'forget all that theory and get on with the real teaching'. But every
teacher is involved in decisions of a theoretical nature: if he decides
to teach mathematics but forbid playing cards in class, he is basing
his decision on some kind of theory of what is worthwhile; if he
decides that a book is too difficult for a certain class or pupil, he
is making use of psychological theories about intelligence, or ability,
or stages of development.
(Lawton 1973:7-8)

One of the most influential curriculum developers this century is Tyler,

whose best known work, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction,
was published in 1949. For many, this book is seen as the early bible
of curriculum design. In it, Tyler provides a model for the systematic
development of the curriculum. He asserts that the development of any
curriculum for any subject whatsoever must be based on a consideration
of four fundamental questions. These are as follows:

What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain
these purposes?
How can these educational experiences be effectively organised?
How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

The first question forces the curriculum developer to contemplate and

clarify the nature of the educational enterprise in which he or she is
involved. In other words, it requires the specification of aims, goals and
objectives. The second question relates to the content of instruction and
requires the curriculum designer to articulate the subject matter which
will be used as a vehicle for attaining the pre-specified aims, goals and
objectives. The third question, relating to the organisation of the educa-
tional experiences, requires the curriculum designer to articulate the
principles for staging and sequencing input for the curriculum. The final
question, on attainment of pre-specified purposes or objectives, relates
to the area of evaluation.
While the model articulated by Tyler has been extremely influential
in educational circles, it has by no means been free from criticism. One
of the major criticisms is that it is the archetypal 'ballistic' model, suggest-
12 Curriculum Processes

ing as it does that curriculum activity occurs in a series of discrete and

sequential stages. In the first instance aims and objectives are specified;
content is then selected and organised, and finally, after the teaching
has been completed, there is an evaluation phase to determine whether
the aims and objectives have been achieved.
The other major criticism of the model is that it represents an ends-
means view of education. Lawton suggests that:
One objection to the whole curriculum model based on the four-
stage progression from objectives to content to organisation to
evaluation is that this is far too simple. For one reason, it is open
to Bruner's suggestion that leaving evaluation until the final stage
of the curriculum process is rather like doing military intelligence
after the war is over: in other words, evaluation should take place
at every stage. This would make the curriculum model a cyclical
one rather than a linear model.
{op cit.A4)

It was criticism of linear models of curriculum development which led

Wheeler (1967) to develop a more integrated model. This has similar
elements to Tyler's in that it begins with aims, goals and objectives, goes
on to the selection of learning experiences and thence to the selection
of content, takes into consideration the organisation and integration of
learning experiences and then specifies evaluation. However, it differs
from Tyler's model in that it allows for recycling, so that evaluation
feeds back into aims, goals and objectives. In this way the evaluation
stage provides a basis for modifying the aims, goals and objectives the
next time a course or module is taught.
By the end of the 1960s, thinking on the curriculum had become much
more sophisticated. This can be seen in Kerr's (1968) interactive cur-
riculum model, which has four major interactive elements: objectives,
evaluation, knowledge and school learning experiences, each of which
has subsidiary elements. All of these elements interact in the learning-
teaching situation, and a change in one element in the model leads to
changes in all other elements.
An influential figure in the curriculum field was Stenhouse, whose
major publication, An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development, was published in 1975. The fact that many of the ideas
he advanced are only now gaining widespread recognition indicates that
he was well in advance of his time. With curriculum specialists such as
Stenhouse, however, it is important to bear in mind the social, political
and educational contexts in which they worked.
Some language specialists have recently adopted Stenhouse's 'process'
curriculum. While process models may represent a paradigm-shift in
language curriculum development, it should be remembered that
Stenhouse's model was developed within the context of his strong com-
 Traditional Approaches to the Curriculum 13

mitment to a subject-centred view of the curriculum, and may not neces-

sarily be as relevant in systems subscribing to other philosophies or
approaches.
Stenhouse defines the curriculum as:
An attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of
an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical
scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice.
(Stenhouse 1975:4)

He suggests that a curriculum should consist of three major parts relating

to planning, empirical study and justification. Each of these consists of
subsidiary parts as set out in the following table.

TABLE 2 . 1 MAJOR ELEMENTS IN A GENERALISED CURRICULUM MODEL

A. Planning consists of:

1 Principles for the selection of content — what is to be learned and
taught
2 Principles for the development of a teaching strategy — how it is to
be learned and taught
3 Principles for the making of decisions about sequence
4 Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weakness of
individual students and differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3
above to meet individual cases

B. In empirical study:
1 Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students
2 Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers
3 Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in
varying school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer group
situations
4 Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and
on different pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation

C. In relation to justification:
A formulation of the aim or intention of the curriculum which is
accessible to critical scrutiny.

The process model developed by Stenhouse has three particularly useful

things to say about curriculum development in general. In the first place,
it accords a central place in the curriculum process to an analysis of
14 Curriculum Processes

what is actually happening, in contrast with the pious statements that

are often made about what ought to be happening. It is thus centred on
the implemented rather than the planned curriculum (Bartlett and Butler
1985). Secondly, it recognises the central role played by the teacher in
the curriculum development process. Finally, it gives recognition to the
fact that effective curriculum development is largely a matter of effective
teacher development by suggesting that curriculum change will only find
its way into the classroom if teachers themselves become the principal
agents of curriculum change through critical analysis and reflection on
their current performance. Stenhouse's ideas have been taken up and
developed by curriculum theorists such as Kemmis and McTaggart
(1982), who have proposed an action-research orientation to curriculum
development. Their use of action research in the language classroom is
discussed in Chapter 9.
At this point, mention should be made of the distinction between the
terms 'curriculum' and 'syllabus'. In the United States, it is customary
to use the term 'curriculum', rather than 'syllabus', to refer to all aspects
of the planning, implementation and evaluation of curriculum. The term
is also used for a particular course of instruction. In Britain, the term
'syllabus' is used to denote that part of curriculum activity concerned
with the specification and ordering of course content or input. In other
words, it is concerned with the 'what' of the curriculum. In this book,
the term 'curriculum' incorporates those elements designated by the term
'syllabus' along with considerations of methodology and evaluation. In
relation to language teaching, the key elements for consideration within
the curriculum are as follows: initial planning including needs analysis,
grouping learners, goal and objective setting, selection and grading of
content, methodology (which includes materials and learning activities),
learning arrangements (incorporating learning modes and environments),
and finally assessment and evaluation.
In this section we have taken a fairly general look at the concept of
the curriculum. We have looked at the evolution of the curriculum from
the 'ballistic', ends—means model of Tyler, through to the process model
articulated by Stenhouse. We have seen that the aim of curriculum theory
is to provide a more systematic approach to education. Unfortunately,
the systematic consideration of the curriculum has been left to 'experts',
and it has only been in recent years that the central role of the teacher
as curriculum developer has been recognised. In the next section we shall
look at curriculum planning within ESL, and trace the application of
some of the ideas outlined in this section to the field of language teaching.
In the final section we shall consider the implications of the learner-
centred philosophy for systematic curriculum development.
 ESL and Curriculum Planning 15

2.2 ESL and Curriculum Planning

Until recently, there has been a comparative neglect of curriculum theoris-
ing in relation to ESL. This neglect could well be due to the dominance
(and, some would say, the disproportionate influence) of theoretical
linguistics over language teaching. Language learning has been seen as
a linguistic, rather than an educational, matter, and there has been a
tendency to overlook research and development as well as planning
processes related to general educational principles in favour of linguistic
principles and, in recent years, second language acquisition research.
Thus, decisions on selecting and grading input have traditionally been
made on linguistic grounds. Recent empirical research into learnability
and speech processing constraints has demonstrated that there is not
always a direct correlation between linguistic predictions of difficulty
and what learners actually do find difficult, and only recently has atten-
tion focused on the selection and grading of input on the basis of what
is actually learnable at any given stage (Johnston 1985). As mentioned
in Chapter 1, recent researchers have tended to take a broader view.
Clark (1985a), borrowing from a framework developed by Skilbeck,
relates developments in language teaching to a number of dominant
mainstream educational ideologies. These are Classical Humanism,
Reconstructionism and Progressivism. Before looking at Clark's analysis,
it might be worth looking at the way he conceptualises 'curriculum
renewal' (a term he favours over the more widely used curriculum 'de-
velopment').
Clark suggests that:
. . . this takes in the creation of syllabuses in which educational,
subject-specific and learner-orientated objectives (content and
methodology) are reconciled, the creation of resources to provide
learning experiences for the learner, the writing of principles and
guidelines to assist teachers to tailor their classroom practices to
the requirements of their learners, the elaboration of an assessment
scheme to monitor and measure pupil progress, the devising of
strategies to evaluate the curriculum itself, and last but not least,
the working out of strategies for teacher development, so that
teachers are enabled to renew their own curriculum in the light of
their own classroom reality.
(Clark 1985a:3)

Within this broad concept of the curriculum, Clark suggests that the key
elements are objectives, content and methodology. In any curriculum
design, certain ends will have to be reached through the specification of
content and methodology. In Clark's mind, the key problems to be solved
in curriculum design are: first, whether ends should be predetermined,
or whether they should be the result of an open-ended learning process;
16 Curriculum Processes

whether content should be selected to meet predetermined ends or

whether it should be selected on its inherent merits; and finally, how
conflicting views about learning can be translated into effective
methodology.
Clark attributes many of the problems currently besetting language
teaching to a failure on the part of language teachers to take a broader
perspective. He says that:
Much unnecessary confusion has been created by those who have
thought the solution to the language curriculum problem could be
found in one part of the jigsaw to the exclusion of other parts.
Thus, panaceas have been sought in methodology alone, or in catch-
all technological aids ... or in 'graded tests', as if assessment by
itself could improve the teaching-learning process, or in the
production of new teaching materials, or in the elaboration of ever
more complex syllabuses such as the various Threshold documents,
or in studies of acquisition of language development, or in
impressionistic global descriptions of proficiency at different levels.
{op cit.:6)

Classical humanism is the educational philosophy underpinning the sub-

ject-centred view of learning. It is the view which has been most savagely
attacked by the radical sociologists of education. In language teaching,
it can be seen to underpin the views of those who believe that curriculum
planning should start with an analysis of the target language, rather than
with the needs of the learners (see for example Young 1971).
According to Clark, reconstructionism is the philosophy underpinning
the ends-means, or objectives, approach to curriculum design. This is
the model which was first articulated by Tyler, and later sophisticated
by people such as Taba (1962). The ends—means model, according to
Clark, is the philosophical driving force behind much of the work of
the Council of Europe. Clark documents a number of criticisms of this
approach, suggesting, in particular, that it reduces the teacher to the
role of a mere implementor of someone else's curriculum. It has also
been suggested that the formulation of objectives, on which the model
itself rests, is defective in that while certain communicative objectives
relating to skills such as the use of transactional language are easy to
operationalise, it is much more difficult to produce objectives for the
expressive and creative functions of language. In raising this particular
objection, Clark cites Stenhouse, who asserts that it is the unpredictable
rather than the predictable outcomes of student behaviour which make
education worthwhile.
The major objection to the ends-means model seems to be that it
concentrates exclusively on the products rather than the processes of
learning, and assumes that specifying the end points of learning is all
 ESL and Curriculum Planning 17

that the curriculum designer needs to do. However, there is growing

recognition within the profession that specification of the end products
(the syllabus design component of the curriculum) must also be accom-
panied by specifications of methodology (that is indications on how to
reach that end point).
Progressivism, the third educational ideology, finds expression in the
process syllabus. Proponents of the process approach are Breen and
Candlin (1980), Prabhu (1983), Long (1985) and Long and Crookes
(1986). Process curricula are less concerned with specifying content or
output than with the sorts of learning activities in which learners should
engage. They therefore align themselves more with methodology than
with syllabus design. In such curricula, specification is more in terms of
tasks and problems for the learner to grapple with than in terms of
linguistic items (whether these be structures, notions or functions).
One of the most widely-reported experiments in the use of process
curricula, is Prabhu's Bangalore project. The language program in this
project is described in the following terms:
The program is constructed around a series of problems, requiring
the use of English, which have to be solved by the learner. The
problems are introduced as specific tasks in which the students have
to interpret the language data — for example the timetable or set
of rules or a map with its rubric - and use the data for particular
purposes. Tasks are usually preceded by pre-tasks, in which the
teacher performs a task similar to the one the students will be asked
to perform themselves, in interaction with the class, using whatever
language that seems appropriate for this purpose. Thus the level of
language used by the teacher is determined by the demands of the
problem, and by the teacher's natural powers of simplification,
unplanned and spontaneously structured.
(Brumfit 1984:104)

Clark's analysis shows that while language teaching may have escaped
the educational mainstream it has been inevitably influenced by trends,
developments and philosophies within that mainstream. Recent writings
by Richards (1984), and Nunan (1985a), indicate that applied linguists
are beginning to recognise the need to set language teaching within a
broader educational context. It is to the models developed by these two
writers that we now turn.
Richards (1984) begins his survey of the field by pointing to the narrow
conception of curriculum development that exists within language teach-
ing, where the focus has been almost exclusively on language syllabuses,
that is, on the specification of content and input, to the exclusion of
other crucially important aspects of the curriculum development process
such as needs analysis, methodology and evaluation. He attempts to
18 Curriculum Processes

redress this by presenting a curriculum model in which language teaching

is seen as a set of processes and procedures which are both systematic
and interrelated.
The essential elements in the model are needs analysis, objective setting,
content and methodology, and evaluation. The raw material from which
the curriculum developer creates language courses includes information
about the target language, information about learners, information about
the delivery system, a learning theory, a teaching theory, assessment and
evaluation procedures. Underlying the model is Taba's (1962) model of
curriculum processes, and it can therefore be seen to reside within the
ends—means tradition. This is not to say that the model is necessarily
dated. In fact, Richards incorporates into his model a proficiency-
oriented view of language and language use, a view which is consistent
with an ends—means approach.
By suggesting that the starting point for curriculum development be
an analysis of learner needs rather than a linguistic analysis, Richards
has distanced himself from the linguistic tradition in language teaching
course design. He suggests that needs analysis allows for greater numbers
of people to be involved in curriculum development, it also enables goals
and objectives to be identified, and provides data for evaluation and
accountability.
Richards sees the specification of objectives as crucial in curriculum
processes predicated on a proficiency-oriented view of language. He
states that:
Proficiency, however described, refers to a product or result of
successful language acquisition, and since it represents a very general
concept, needs to be operationalised in making decisions about
content and procedure in teaching. This is done through the
development of program goals or objectives. In language teaching
a number of different ways of stating objectives are commonly
employed, variations in practice reflecting different perceptions of
the nature of second- or foreign-language proficiency. Current
approaches include behavioural, process, content and proficiency
based objectives.
(Richards 1984:10)

In considering content and methodology, Richards suggests that there

are two different orientations that the curriculum designer can take. The
first of these is to look at language input specification as the fundamental
basis for methodology. The other is to focus on instructional processes
and not bother with an explicit specification of language content. The
content-oriented approach has dominated language syllabus design for
many years, first in the guise of structural and latterly in the guise of
functional-notional syllabuses. Process-oriented alternatives include the
'fringe' methodologies such as Silent Way, Community Language Learn-
 ESL and Curriculum Planning 19

ing and Suggestopedia. It also includes task-based, and process-based

syllabuses such as the Bangalore syllabus of Prabhu. In discussing
methodology, Richards suggests that regardless of orientation there are
three underlying components. These are (a) a linguistic dimension which
justifies what aspects of language will be taught, (b) a psycholinguistic
dimension which includes an account of the processes underlying learn-
ing, and (c) a teaching dimension, which relates to learning experience
activities and tasks and to the role of teachers learners and materials in
the learning system.
Richards comments on the general lack of evaluation procedures in
language teaching, attributing this to the relatively short life span of
most teaching methods and also to the absence of the sort of systematic
approach to curriculum development that he is advocating. He suggests
that the purpose of evaluation is to determine whether the objectives of
a programme have been attained and, where they have not been attained,
to suggest procedures for improvement. He describes a comprehensive
evaluation model taken from Omaggio etai (1979) which contains eight
steps. These are as follows:

1 Identify a set of programme goals and objectives to be evaluated.

2 Identify programme factors relevant to the attainment of these
objectives.
3 For each factor in Step 2, develop a set of criteria that would
indicate that the objectives are being successfully attained.
4 Design appropriate instruments to assess each factor according
to the criteria outlined.
5 Collect the data that is needed.
6 Compare data with desired results.
7 Match your discrepancy.
8 Prepare an evaluation report.

The course design model developed by Nunan (1985a) is similar in many

respects to that devised by Richards. The essential elements in this model
include needs analysis, goal identification, objective setting, materials
development, learning activities, learning mode and environment and
evaluation. The model differs from that proposed by Richards, however,
in that apart, from initial ad hoc needs analysis for the purposes of
grouping learners, curriculum development activities occur during the
process of teaching and learning. The curriculum development process
is cyclical and is thus similar to that developed by Wheeler (1967). It is
also interactive, recognising that the impetus for curriculum development
can begin with any of the elements in the model and that a change in
one element will affect other elements. For example, the discovery of
new materials may suggest a modification to objectives, learning arrange-
ments and evaluation. Use of new materials will almost certainly have
20 Curriculum Processes

an effect on methodology and the sorts of learning activities which take

place in the classroom.
The other aspect of the model which differs slightly from previous
ones is the prominence it gives to the teacher in the course design process.
Reassessment of the role of the teacher in curriculum development is a
major preoccupation of the present work and is expanded upon in the
pages which follow.
In this section we have looked at recent language curriculum develop-
ment models. We have seen that until fairly recently there has been a
lack of balance in the attention devoted to different elements within the
model with the focus being either exclusively on the selection and grading
of content, or on methodology.
The current need is for language curriculum designers to look beyond
linguistics to the general field of educational research and theory for
assistance in developing curricula. There is also a need for curriculum
development to be systematic, and for due consideration to be given to
all the key elements in the curriculum development process.

2.3 Summary
The curriculum model developed in the rest of this book is a synthesis
of the product-oriented ends—means model, and the process-oriented
approach first proposed for language teaching by applied linguists such
as Breen and Candlin. One of the articles of faith underpinning this
book is that any curriculum which fails to give due consideration to
both process and product will be defective. Thus, while the model con-
tains procedures for developing goals and objectives, and for evaluating
these, it sees the various curriculum development activities as ongoing
processes within the teaching—learning process. Important in planning,
presenting and evaluating learning outcomes will be joint consultation
and negotiation between teachers and learners. Adopting a process orien-
tation allows for greater flow and integration between planning proces-
ses, implementation processes and evaluation. The model thus rejects
the ballistic nature of ends—means models where planning occurs before
course delivery and evaluation after course delivery. It also rejects the
general tendency for some ends—means approaches to downplay the role
of methodology or ignore it completely.
3 Learner-Centred Curriculum
Development

3.1 Introduction
One way of typifying curriculum models is in the degree to which they
allow curriculum development to occur at the local level. A fully cen-
tralised curriculum, as the name suggests, is one which is devised in a
centralised location and then disseminated (this is sometimes known as
the centre-periphery model for obvious reasons). Many school curricula
developed during the 1950s and 1960s accorded with this centralised
model. They were often produced by a government department or agency,
and then disseminated to a wide range of learning institutions. The
responsibility of the teacher in such systems was often little more than
to implement the curriculum and to act as 'classroom manager'. An
example of a centralised approach to language teaching is the Situational
English course which was developed for teaching ESL in Australia during
the 1960s and early 1970s. During this time, it was possible to go into
language classrooms all over the country and find a similar curriculum
in place for teaching a wide range of learners. In those days the only
criteria for differentiating learners was level of proficiency.
During the 1960s, the relative inflexibility of centralised curricula,
and a change in educational thinking which paid more attention to the
learner, led to the 'school-based' curriculum development movement.
School-based curricula are devised either wholly or in part within the
teaching institution itself. Such curricula are capable of being much more
responsive than centralised curricula to the needs and interests of the
learners they serve. The learner-centred movement in ESL/EFL is partly
an offspring of the school-based curriculum movement.
A perennial tension in language teaching is between those who sub-
scribe to a subject-centred view and those who subscribe to a learner-
centred view of language and language learning. The subject-centred
view sees learning a language as essentially the mastering of a body of
knowledge. The learner-centred view, on the other hand, tends to view
language acquisition as a process of acquiring skills rather than a body
of knowledge. Both viewpoints are quite valid, and most courses will
reflect elements of both. It is the relative emphasis given to language as
a body of content to be internalised, or language as communicative
processes to be developed, which will determine which of the labels

21
22 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

'subject-centred' or 'learner-centred' should apply to a given curriculum

proposal.
Proponents of learner-centred curricula are less interested in learners
acquiring the totality of the language than in assisting them gain the
communicative and linguistic skills they need to carry out real-world
tasks. Implicit in this learner-centred view is a recognition that no one
person (not even a native speaker) ever masters every aspect of the
language. If it were possible to master every aspect of every skill in a
given language, and if one had unlimited time to teach or learn another
language, then there would be no need to make choices, and consequently
no debate. However, given the fact that most learners do not have
unlimited time (many may have only between 150—300 hours of formal
instruction) it is crucial that appropriate choices be made.

3.2 Theoretical Bases for Learner-Centred Curricula

In this section the theoretical background to the development of learner-
centred language teaching is explored. We shall take a brief look at the
theory and practice of adult learning before looking at the development
of communicative language learning and teaching. The proficiency move-
ment is also described. Finally we shall look at the implications of the
learner-centred philosophy for the language teacher. This provides the
context for an examination of the nature of the curriculum, and the
various elements within a curriculum model which come into prominence
when the curriculum is seen from a learner-centred perspective.
The theory and practice of adult learning or androgogy has had a
long history. However, it is only comparatively recently that this theory
and practice has been related to adult language learning. The most prom-
inent theorist in the field of adult learning is Knowles (1983), whose
book The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species became very influential
in adult learning circles.
Two other specialists in adult learning theory whose work has been
influential in language teaching circles are Brundage and MacKeracher
(1980). Their book Adult Learning Principles and Their Application to
Programme Planning is regularly cited these days in the language teaching
literature. Some of the principles of adult learning identified by Brundage
and MacKeracher are as follows:
Adults who value their own experience as a resource for further
learning or whose experience is valued by others are better learn-
ers.
Adults learn best when they are involved in developing learning
objectives for themselves which are congruent with their current
and idealised self concept.
Adults have already developed organised ways of focusing on, taking
 Theoretical Bases for Learner-Centred Curricula 23

in and processing information. These are referred to as cognitive

style.
The learner reacts to all experience as he perceives it, not as the
teacher presents it.
Adults enter into learning activities with an organised set of descrip-
tions and feelings about themselves which influence the learning
process.
Adults are more concerned with whether they are changing in the
direction of their own idealised self-concept than whether they
are meeting standards and objectives set for them by others.
Adults do not learn when over-stimulated or when experiencing
extreme stress or anxiety.
Those adults who can process information through multiple channels
and have learnt 'how to learn' are the most productive learners.
Adults learn best when the content is personally relevant to past
experience or present concerns and the learning process is relevant
to life experiences.
Adults learn best when novel information is presented through a
variety of sensory modes and experiences, with sufficient repeti-
tions and variations on themes to allow distinctions in patterns
to emerge.
(Brundage and MacKeracher 1980:21-31)

The research surveyed by Brundage and MacKeracher in formulating

their principles of adult learning indicate that adult learners are pro-
foundly influenced by past learning experiences, present concerns and
future prospects. They are less interested in learning for learning's sake
than in learning to achieve some immediate or not too far distant life
goals. Translated to the field of language teaching, this suggests that a
learner-centred rather than subject-centred approach is more likely to
be consonant with the principles of adult learning. Adult learners are
less likely to be interested in subscribing to the 'banking principle', that
is in gaining mastery over subject matter or skills which may be useful
at some far distant date, than in acquiring skills which can be put to
immediate use. However, the empirical evidence on this matter is rather
thin. What evidence we do have seems to suggest that adult learners
vary markedly in their attitudes towards learning, their preferred learning
styles and their perceptions of what is of value and what is not (Willing
1985).
In his study of adult language learners, Brindley suggests that:
. . . one of the fundamental principles underlying the notion of
permanent education is that education should develop in individuals
the capacity to control their own destiny and that, therefore, the
learner should be seen as being at the centre of the educational
process. For the teaching institution and the teacher, this means
that instructional programmes should be centred around learners'
needs and that learners themselves should exercise their own
24 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

responsibility in the choice of learning objectives, content and

methods as well as in determining the means used to assess their
performance.
(Brindley 1984:15)

From his survey of the literature, Brindley concludes that adult learners
are not merely passive recipients of subject matter devised by some
educational authority, but have 'a wide experience of life which can be
brought to bear in the learning process'. It is this belief among others
which leads him to adopt a learner- rather than a subject-centred
approach to the development of language curricula.
An important figure on the curriculum landscape is Munby (1978).
The Munby model, which was at first thought to hold great promise for
language syllabus design, has come increasingly under criticism in the
last few years and is now generally regarded as the core document in
the narrow-band approach to needs-based course design. This narrow-
band approach sees course design largely in terms of the specification
of the 'what' of language teaching to the exclusion of the 'how'. The
somewhat mechanical nature of the procedures for deriving course input
and the atomistic approach to language specification and learning has
been criticised as well. In fact, in some ways the Munby model can be
seen to be antithetical to the learner-centred philosophy from which it
was supposedly derived. Being based on data about the learner, rather
than incorporating data from the learner, it could be argued that the
model is only superficially learner-centred.
While the Munby model might be quite adequate for providing objec-
tive information for content specification, it fails to provide the sort of
subjective information which is at the heart of the learner-centred pro-
cedures for curriculum design. The distinction between subjective and
objective needs analysis, and procedures for using both types of analysis
in designing language curricula are considered in greater detail in Chapter
4.

3.3 Communicative Language Teaching and Learner-

Centred Curricula
A major impetus to the develop of learner-centred language teaching
came with the advent of communicative language teaching. In fact, this
is more a cluster of approaches than a single methodology, which grew
out of the dissatisfaction with structuralism and the situational methods
of the 1960s. Its status was enhanced by the Council of Europe, and
some seminal documents on communicative language teaching have in
fact stemmed from this body. Prominent among these are Threshold
 CUT and Learner-Centred Curricula 25

Level English by van Ek and Alexander (1980), and Notional Syllabuses

by Wilkins (1976).
A great deal has been written in the last few years about the theory
and practice of communicative language teaching. However, a basic
principle underlying all communicative approaches is that learners must
learn not only to make grammatically correct, propositional statements
about the experiential world, but must also develop the ability to use
language to get things done. These two aspects of language are captured
in the distinction between the propositional and illocutionary (or func-
tional) levels of language (Widdowson 1978). It was recognised that
simply being able to create grammatically correct structures in language
did not necessarily enable the learner to use the language to carry out
various real-world tasks. While the learners have to be able to construct
grammatically correct structures (or reasonable approximations of target
language structures), they also have to do much more. In working out
what this 'much more' entails, linguists and sociolinguists began to
explore the concept of the speech situation. In so doing they were able
to articulate some of the ways in which language is likely be influenced
by situational variables. Among the more important of these variables
are the situation itself, the topic of conversation, the conversational
purpose, and, probably the most important of all, the relationship bet-
ween interlocutors in an interaction. All of these interact in complex
ways in communicative interaction.
As already indicated, early support for communicative language teach-
ing came from the Council of Europe. Basically, the Council of Europe
wanted to specify the sorts of things that language users might want to
do with languages used within the European Community. Consequently,
they were thinking of a specified group of adult learners using the lan-
guages of Europe to carry out specified tasks which included not only
economic and business activities, but also recreational and tourist
activities. It is important to be aware of this historical background
because communicative approaches are currently used in many different
contexts and situations, not all of which were intended by the original
working party of the Council of Europe, and in consequence some Coun-
cil of Europe perspectives may not be relevant.
According to Howatt, there is a strong and a weak version of com-
municative language teaching. He says:
The weak version which has become more or less standard practice
in the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners
with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes
and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a
wider programme of language teaching.
(Howatt 1984:279)
26 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

The strong version of communicative language teaching, however, sees

language ability as being developed through activities which actually
simulate target performance. In other words, class time should be spent
not on language drills or controlled practice leading towards communica-
tive language use, but in activities which require learners to do in class
what they will have to do outside.
In recent years it is the weak version which seems to have gained
sway. Thus, we see teachers who adhere to a communicative view of
language teaching also incorporating elements of structural practice and
grammar teaching into their classes. Littlewood is a proponent of the
weak view of communicative language teaching. He says:
The structural view of language has not been in any way superseded
by the functional view. However, it is not sufficient on its own to
account for how language is used as a means of communication.
Let us take as an example a straightforward sentence such as 'Why
don't you close the door?' From a structural viewpoint, it is
unambiguously an interrogative. Different grammars may describe
it in different ways, but none could argue that its grammatical form
is that of a declarative or imperative. From a functional viewpoint,
however, it is ambiguous. In different circumstances it may appear
to function as a question — for example, the speaker may genuinely
wish to know why his companion never closes a certain door. In
others, it may function as a command . . .
(Littlewood 1981:1)

In fact this weak version has so successfully synthesised traditional and

'communicative' principles that it is debatable whether the term 'com-
municative' is still useful. (Few teachers these days would admit to teach-
ing 'non-communicatively'.)
In a useful survey of communicative language teaching, Quinn suggests
that communicative approaches can be distinguished from traditional
approaches to language pedagogy in a number of ways. These are set
out in Table 3.1:

TABLE 3 . 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL AND COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES

Traditional approaches Communicative approaches

1 Focus in learning:
Focus is on the language as a Focus is on communication.
structured system of grammatical
patterns.
 CLT and Learner-Centred Curricula 27

Traditional approaches Communicative approaches

2 How language items are

selected:
This is done on linguistic criteria This is done on the basis of what
alone. language items the learner needs to
know in order to get things done.

3 How language items are

sequenced:
This is determined on linguistic This is determined on other
grounds. grounds, with the emphasis on
content, meaning and interest.

4 Degree of coverage:
The aim is to cover the 'whole The aim is to cover, in any
picture' of language structure by particular phase, only what the
systematic linear progression. learner needs and sees as
important.

5 View of language:
A language is seen as a unified The variety of language is accepted,
entity with fixed grammatical and seen as determined by the
patterns and a core of basic character of particular
words. communicative contexts.

6 Type of language used:

Tends to be formal and bookish. Genuine everyday language is
emphasised.

7 What is regarded as a criterion of success:

Aim is to have students produce Aim is to have students
formally correct sentences. communicate effectively and in a
manner appropriate to the context
they are working in.

Which language skills are emphasised:

Reading and writing. Spoken interactions are regarded as
at least as important as reading and
writing.
28 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

Traditional approaches Communicative approaches

9 Teacher/Student roles:
Tends to be teacher-centred. Is student-centred.

10 Attitude to errors:
Incorrect utterances are seen as Partially correct and incomplete
deviations from the norms of utterances are seen as such rather
standard grammar. than just'wrong'.

11 Similarity/dissimilarity to natural language learning:

Reverses the natural language Resembles the natural language
learning process by concen- learning process in that the
trating on the form of utterances content of the utterance is
rather than on the content. emphasised rather than the form.

{Adapted from: Quinn 1984:61-64)

3.4 Communicative Language Teaching—The Teacher's

Perspective
In this section, a study is reported which investigated the attitudes of
teachers towards communicative language teaching. The point of depar-
ture for the study was an earlier investigation into the methodological
practices of foreign language teachers by Swaffar, Arens and Morgan
(1982).

Background
The study undertaken by Swaffar, Arens and Morgan was designed to
test the salience for foreign language teachers of the distinction between
rationalist and empiricist approaches to language learning. Results indi-
cated that the methodological debate which had assumed great promi-
nence during the 1960s and 1970s and which resulted in a number of
large-scale though inconclusive studies may have been based on false
assumptions about the salience of different methodological practices for
classroom teachers. Swaffar etal. concluded from their investigation that:
Communicative Language Teaching - The Teacher's Perspective 29

Methodological labels assigned to teaching activities are, in

themselves, not informative, because they refer to a pool of
classroom practices which are universally used.
(Swaffar, Arens and Morgan 1982:31)

Given the prominence of communicative language teaching in the liter-

ature, a study was designed to investigate the salience of 'communicative'
as opposed to 'traditional' practices for second language teachers.

The Study
Following Quinn (1984) a survey instrument was constructed which
consisted of statements typifying either 'traditional' or 'communicative'
practices. There were also two buffer questions. Teachers were asked to
rate each statement according to a five point scale. (This was adapted
from the Swaffar et al. (1982) study.) The instrument is reproduced
below.
Subjects for the study were 60 full-time and part-time teachers with
the Australian Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP). As we shall
be looking at several studies of AMEP teachers in this work, it might
be as well to make a short digression to describe the context in which
the teachers work.
The AMEP is one of the largest single-language programmes in the
world, with annual enrolments in excess of 120,000, and over 1,500
teachers. Learning arrangements and course types vary greatly, from
full-time intensive to part-time courses. Programme delivery occurs
through face-to-face teaching, self-access and individualised learning
centres, a distance education programme and a home tutor scheme. The
AMEP receives its funding and policy direction from the Australian
Government Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, while the
administration and delivery of courses is managed by eight State and
Territory educational bodies.
While all those taking part in the survey described below were con-
cerned with the teaching of English to adult immigrants, they came from
all parts of the Program and had a wide range of experience. The teachers
were asked to complete the questionnaire in Table 3.2 during the course
of an in-service workshop. The workshop was not concerned with com-
municative methodology, so the subjects were not 'primed' to respond
to the items on the questionnaire in a particular way.
30 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development
TABLE 3 . 2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON TRADITIONAL' AND 'COMMUNICATIVE'
ACTIVITIES

Instructions:
Please rate each of the statements according to the following key:
1 Virtual non-use. This principle or activity forms little or no part of
my teaching methodology.
2 Trivial incidental use. This principle or activity forms a limited part
of what I do, but I tend to reject its use more than I favour its use.
Somewhat disagree with use.
3 Neutral.
4 Important supplementary use. This principle forms an important
supplementary part of my teaching. Somewhat agree with use.
5 Essential use. This is essential to what I do, and it forms an essential
part of my practice. Use or agree with use.

1 Drills involving manipulation of formal aspects

of the language system are used.
2 The development of fluency is more important than formal
accuracy.
3 Activities focus on whole-task rather than part-skill practice.
4 Comprehension activities precede activities requiring
production.
5 'Grammar' is explicitly taught.
6 Learner errors are corrected.
7 Activities are selected because they are interesting/enjoyable
rather than because they relate to course objectives.
8 Activities are derived in consultation with the learner.
9 Activities are developed which require the learner to simulate,
in class, behaviours needed to communicate outside class.

Comments:
 Communicative Language Teaching—The Teacher's Perspective 31

Results
Each item in the survey form was rated according to the mean score,
and an appropriate designation given. Ratings and item type are indicated
in Table 3.3:

TABLE 3 . 3 RATINGS FOR ITEMS ACCORDING TO MEAN SCORE

Item Type Rating

1 Traditional Trivial, incidental use

2 Communicative Essential use
3 Communicative Important supplementary use
4 Communicative Important supplementary use
5 Traditional Trivial, incidental use
6 Traditional Trivial, incidental use
7 Buffer Trivial, incidental use
8 Buffer Important supplementary use
9 Communicative Essential use

Discussion
The results demonstrate quite clearly that, for the group of teachers
surveyed, the concept of 'communicative language teaching' is salient,
with the three non-communicative and one of the buffer statements being
accorded 'trivial incidental use'. While these results might, on the surface,
appear to conflict with that obtained by Swaffar et al^ it is important
not to read too much into them. In the first place, the study was designed
to determine only what teachers said they did. It should not be assumed
that their actual classroom practice followed these principles. (While
this comment might seem to imply dishonesty or lack of awareness on
the part of teachers, there is evidence that teachers do not, in fact, always
do what they say or think they do. This evidence, which has implications
for teacher development, is presented in Chapter 9.)
Another point which needs to be made and which could call into
question the results is the fact that many of the teachers who commented
on the survey criticised the use of questionnaires for data-collection
purposes. Most of them wanted to qualify their responses in some way.
a significant number stated that the response they gave would depend
upon, and could vary according to, the type of students they had. Disquiet
at the use of questionnaires for data-collection purposes was also expres-
sed in other studies reported here, including the major study which forms
the basis of the final chapter. It seems that, in general, teachers are loathe
to give unequivocal responses on matters relating to professional practice.
32 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

The buffer statement which rated well (8) relates to the learner-centred
view of involving learners in selecting activities.
In developing a learner-centred philosophy for the AMEP Ingram
stated that:
Rather than being an arbitrary academic exercise, the course
followed should be responsive to the learner's needs emanating
from his stage of language development and his personal interests
and aspirations. Thence, it must capitalise on the learner's natural
and acquired learning strategies and ensure, through community
involvement, that any bridge between the learner and the Australian
community is bridged and any sense of undesirable alienisation is
reduced.
(Ingram 1981:4)

More recently Brindley (1984) has built on the work of Ingram and
others. After surveying the literature, he provides a blueprint and a
framework for introducing learner-centred principles into adult ESL.
The strength of Brindley's work is that it brings together theory and
practice. This work is analysed in Chapter 4, and many of the practical
suggestions incorporated into that chapter owe a considerable debt to
Brindley.

3.5 The Concept of Language Proficiency

It is generally considered desirable for language curricula to contain
explicit statements about the nature of language and language learning.
While some assumptions about these concepts are inherent in any cur-
riculum, they are not always explicitly stated. This lack of explication
may well be due to a lack of certainty on the part of theoretical and
applied linguists. There is certainly no widespread agreement within the
profession about the nature of language and learning.
This confusion can be seen in relation to the concept of language
proficiency. Not only is there confusion about concepts, linguists seem
incapable of agreeing on terminology. From an inspection of the litera-
ture, one quickly comes to the conclusion that linguists are obsessed
with conceptual universes in which creatures come in pairs. Thus, we
have iangue' and 'parole', 'competence' and 'performance', 'use' and
'usage', 'form' and 'meaning', 'context' and 'cotext', 'cohesion' and
'coherence'. It was Chomsky (1965) who gave prominence to the com-
petence—performance distinction (although the theoretical distinction
between the terms was not Chomsky's). For Chomsky, 'competence'
refers to mastery of the principles governing language behaviour. 'Perfor-
mance' refers to the manifestation of these internalised rules in actual
language use. The terms have come to be used to refer to what a person
 The Concept of Language Proficiency 33

knows about a language (competence) and what a person does (perfor-

mance). More recently, the term 'communicative competence' has gained
currency. This refers to knowledge of the rules of use and appropriacy
and includes linguistic competence. While this might seem reasonably
straightforward, there are a number of complicating factors. To begin
with, there is nothing like universal agreement on what is meant by
'knowing'. Does 'knowing the rules of language' mean being able to
recite them? If so, most native speakers must be classed as incompetent.
According to Chomsky, however, native speakers are, by definition,
competent.
Diller suggests:
Linguists are sometimes hesitant to say that ordinary people 'know'
the rules of their language, because linguists themselves have such
a hard time trying to formulate these rules explicitly.
(Diller 1978:26)

He points out that children can create phonological rules for nonsense
words through a process of analogy, although they are unable to give a
formulation for these rules. He goes on to ask:
But if children are not able to formulate the rules of grammar which
they use, in what sense can we say that they 'know' these rules?
This is the question which has bothered linguists. The answer is
that they know the rules in a functional way, in a way which relates
the changes in abstract grammatical structure to changes in meaning.
Knowledge does not always have to be formulated. Children can
use tools before they learn the names for these tools.
(op cit.:26-27)

For Diller then, knowledge need not be conscious but may manifest itself
in the ability to use the language. However, this would seem to render
the competence—performance distinction rather uncertain.
Krashen (1981, 1982) further confuses the issue by suggesting that
knowledge of linguistic rules is the outward manifestation of one
psychological construct (learning), while the manifestation of these rules
in use is the manifestation of another construct (acquisition). Rea (1985)
has since questioned the need for a 'competence' construct by suggesting
that as we can observe only instances of performance, not competence,
the competence—performance distinction is redundant. She brings this
view into line with communicative language teaching by proposing yet
another bifurcation; communicative performance and non-communica-
tive performance.
It would seem, therefore, that we have reached a point where linguistic
knowledge is to be defined in terms of what an individual is able to do
with that knowledge. This is reinforced by a recent movement in ESL
34 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

in the United States; competency-based ESL. As though there were not

enough confusion over terminology, this movement is using 'competence'
to refer to things learners can do with language; that is, it is used in
roughly the same sense as 'performance' in the earlier competence—per-
formance distinction. The concept of competency-based education (CBE)
has been brought in to ESL from the field of adult education where it
is used to specify the skills needed by adults to function in today's society
in areas such as communication, computation, problem solving and
interpersonal relationships.
In ESL, 'a competency is a task-oriented goal written in terms of
behavioural objectives' (CAL 1983:9). The following characteristics of
CBE as it relates to ESL have been articulated:
Teaching ESL to competencies requires the instructional focus to be
on functional competencies and life-coping skills. It is not what
the students know about language but what they do with the
language.
Assessment is built in. Once the competency has been identified, it
also serves as a means of evaluating student performance. Since
it is performance based, assessment rests on whether the student
can perform the competency or not. The only problem is to estab-
lish the level at which the student can perform the competency.
Competencies are based on an assessment of student needs.
{op cit.: 11-13)

Within the literature, some writers use the term 'proficiency' as an alter-
native to 'competency' (see for example Higgs 1984). Richards, on the
other hand, makes a clear distinction between 'competence' and 'profi-
ciency', although he characterises the concept of proficiency in the same
way as CBE characterises competency. This can be seen in the following
quote:
1 When we speak of proficiency, we are not referring to knowledge
of a language, that is, to abstract, mental and unobservable
abilities. We are referring to performance, or, that is, to observ-
able or measurable behaviour. Whereas competence refers to
what we know about the rules of use and the rules of speaking
of a language, proficiency refers to how well we can use such
rules in communication.
2 Proficiency is always described in terms of real-world tasks, being
defined with reference to specific situations settings purposes
activities and so on.
3 In encapsulating the notion of skill, proficiency statements must
always include a criterion.
4 It is assumed that proficiency in a given linguistic task involves
the incorporating of a number of sub-skills or sub-tasks.

Richards goes on to say:

 Towards a Generalised Language Curriculum Framework 35

A proficiency-oriented language curriculum is not one which sets

out to teach learners linguistic or communicative competence, since
these are merely abstractions or idealisations: rather, it is organised
around the particular kinds of communicative tasks the learners
need to master and the skills and behaviours needed to accomplish
them. The goal of a proficiency-based curriculum is not to provide
opportunities for the learners to 'acquire' the target language: it is
to enable learners to develop the skills needed to use language for
specific purposes.
(Richards 1985a:5)

The foregoing discussion demonstrates the confusion surrounding a

number of key concepts relating to the nature of language. This confusion
is due partly to the inconsistent application of terms to concepts and
partly to confusion over the nature of the concepts themselves.
If the Richards line is followed, proficiency, simply put, refers to the
ability to perform real-world tasks with a pre-specified degree of skill.
For the moment we shall accept this definition, although it must be
pointed out that problems arise when the concept is probed a little more
rigorously. This will have to be done when we turn to the issue of the
assessment of language proficiency in Chapter 8. We shall see there that
the psychological reality of the construct 'proficiency' is itself problema-
tic.

3.6 Towards a Generalised Language Curriculum

Framework
In a recent study of curriculum processes Bartlett and Butler (1985)
propose a generalised curriculum framework which sets out five interde-
pendent but distinct categories. They call these categories the 'designed'
curriculum, the 'developed' curriculum, the 'enacted' curriculum, the
'received' curriculum and the 'assessed' curriculum. The designed cur-
riculum contains a statement of the general philosophy and policy guiding
the curriculum. The developed curriculum consists of materials and the
articulation of processes which are meant to operationalise the designed
curriculum. The enacted curriculum consists of all the transactions bet-
ween teachers and learners which are based on the materials and learning
processes derived from the developed curriculum. The received cur-
riculum represents the outcomes of the curriculum process (what the
student actually learns).
It is often assumed that there exists a one-to-one relationship between
the planned, implemented and assessed curriculum. In other words, it
has been assumed that what is planned will be what gets taught, and
36 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

that what gets taught will be what is learned. This assumption grossly
over-simplifies what is, in fact, an extremely complex set of processes.
The assumption has been criticised by Parlett and Hamilton in the
following way:
An instructional system, when it is adopted, undergoes
modifications that are rarely trivial. The instructional system may
remain as a shared idea, abstract model, slogan or shorthand, but
it assumes a different form in every situation. Its constituent elements
are emphasised or de-emphasised, expanded or truncated, as
teachers, administrators, technicians and students interpret and
reinterpret the instructional system for their particular setting. In
practice, objectives are commonly reordered, redefined, abandoned
or forgotten.
(Parlett and Hamilton 1983:14)

By assuming that 'planning equals teaching equals learning', curriculum

designers have focused on the planned, and, to a certain extent, the
assessed curriculum, and have tended to ignore the implemented cur-
riculum. It is only fairly recently that the balance has started to be
redressed and that curriculum designers have become interested in class-
room-based research. Such research is beginning to reveal to us the
complexities of the curriculum in action.

3.7 The Teacher and the Curriculum

The Bartlett and Butler study introduced in the preceding section inves-
tigates the attempt to develop a learner-centred curriculum model at a
national level. In order to capture the complexities of the processes set
in train by the decision to embrace a learner-centred philosophy, Bartlett
and Butler find it necessary to add a new element which they call the
negotiated curriculum. The negotiated curriculum refers to those cur-
riculum activities which involve negotiation and consultation between
teachers and students. It includes such processes as needs analysis, jointly
conducted goal and objective setting exercises by teachers and learners,
negotiation of preferred methodology, materials and learning activities,
and the sharing of evaluation and self-evaluation procedures.
The research questions which Bartlett and Butler set out to explore
are as follows:
How are Adult Migrant Education Programs selected and arranged?
How are curriculum decisions made and implemented in the AMEP?
What support structures are available to personnel in the AMEP?
How is a needs-based approach to curriculum planning enacted in the
classroom?
 The Teacher and the Curriculum 37

Data for the study were derived from a number of diverse sources which
included documents, interview data, telephone consultancy data and
data collected through the distribution of a questionnaire. Results of the
data were ordered into an eight (States and Territories) by six (learning
arrangements) by three (levels of decision making — national, state, local)
matrix.
As a result of their study, Bartlett and Butler concluded that the learner-
centred curriculum created a great deal of stress, that teachers were
required to have a range of new skills if the ideals of the learner-centred
curriculum were to become a reality, and that teachers required assistance
and support in a number of areas. In particular, they concluded that
assistance was required in the following areas:
Needs assessment skills. The teachers require instruments and pro-
cesses by which they can efficiently gather and prioritise student
needs.
Course guidelines. Teachers are asking for a broad framework within
which they can negotiate the curriculum. They need to know what
the students have done before and what will come after — in a
form that does not stifle the negotiated curriculum.
Course planning skills. The teachers are asking for planning skills
that help them to negotiate a coherent, achievable set of objectives
for a course, and then to plan a sequence of lessons to assist the
students to attain the objectives.
Bilingual help in negotiating the curriculum. The information
exchange that is so crucial to the negotiated curriculum requires
bilingual assistance in many classes.
Continuity in the Programme. The needs-based model can easily
give rise to a fragmented programme. Some teachers are caught
in this bind and are asking for some form of programme manage-
ment so that they feel their students are on a direct path to their
goals.
Educational counselling. In a needs-based model the size of the prob-
lem that confronts any individual teacher is directly related to the
range and diversity of student needs. Teachers report that the
negotiated curriculum becomes an impossible project if the student
needs are very divergent. This is a key area where the teacher
stress in negotiating the curriculum can be reduced — by forming
a class group with a narrow range of needs. This requires the
most efficacious use of educational counsellors, people who may
themselves be curriculum developers, and who can direct students
on a continuing basis into groups that match their needs.
Conflict resolution. The opening up of the curriculum to negotiation
will inevitably lead to some instances of conflict. The teachers
reported in a survey that such conflict had arisen and many
teachers had found suitable processes for resolving it.
Teacher role specifications. The task of continually negotiating the
curriculum with the students puts enormous strain on the teachers
as is clearly evidenced in the survey.
{op cit.: 112-113)
38 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development

One of the issues raised by the Bartlett and Butler study, and, indeed,
an issue underlying the adoption of a learner-centred approach to cur-
riculum development with its implication of a greater professional burden
on the classroom teacher, is the extent to which teachers see themselves
as being responsible for the range of curriculum processes and activities
that have been articulated in the preceding pages. In order to obtain
supplementary evidence to that produced by Bartlett and Butler a survey
was conducted of 35 teachers from a range of centre-based programmes
in the Adult Migrant Education Program. The aim of the survey was to
determine who, in the opinion of a representative group of teachers,
should be principally responsible for carrying out initial and ongoing
needs analysis, goal and objective setting, selecting and grading content,
grouping learners, devising learning activities, instructing learners,
monitoring and assessing learner progress and course evaluation.
 The Teacher and the Curriculum 39

The Study
Data were collected through the distribution of the survey form in Table
3.4.

TABLE 3 . 4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CURRICULUM TASKS: SURVEY FORM

Indicate by giving a rating from 1 to 6 (1 = most important) who, in

your opinion, should be primarily responsible for carrying out the
following curriculum tasks. Give a rating from 1 to 6 for each curriculum
task.

Key:
A Counsellor
B Bilingual resource person
C Curriculum advisor
D Teacher-in-charge of centre or program
E Classroom teacher
F Outside curriculum specialist

Curriculum processes A B C D

Initial needs analysis

Goal and objective setting
Selecting/Grading content
Ongoing needs analysis
Grouping learners
Devising learning activities
Instructing learners
Monitoring/Assessing progress
Course/evaluation

Results
Rankings, from most to least important, for each of the curriculum tasks
are set out in Table 3.5.
40 Learner-Centred Curriculum Development
TABLE 3 . 5 RESULTS OF SURVEY

Initial needs analysis Devising learning activities

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher
Bilingual resource person Curriculum advisor
Teacher-in-charge Outside curriculum specialist
Counsellor Teacher-in-charge
Curriculum advisor Bilingual resource person
Outside curriculum specialist Counsellor

Goal and objective setting Instructing learners

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher
Curriculum advisor Bilingual resource person
Teacher-in-charge Outside curriculum specialist
Counsellor Curriculum advisor
Bilingual resource person Teacher-in-charge
Outside curriculum specialist Counsellor

Selecting and grading content Monitoring!Assessing progress

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher
Curriculum advisor Teacher-in-charge
Teacher-in-charge Counsellor
Bilingual resource person Curriculum advisor
Counsellor Bilingual resource person
Outside curriculum specialist Outside curriculum specialist

Ongoing needs analysis Course evaluation

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher
Teacher-in-charge Teacher-in-charge
Bilingual resource person Curriculum advisor
Counsellor Outside curriculum specialist
Curriculum advisor Bilingual resource person
Outside curriculum specialist Counsellor

Grouping learners
Teacher-in-charge
Classroom teacher
Counsellor
Curriculum advisor
Bilingual resource person
Outside curriculum specialist
 Summary 41

These data show quite clearly that the teachers surveyed saw themselves
as having primary responsibility for all of the curriculum tasks except
that of grouping learners. This reflects the fact that most teachers are
simply not involved in the grouping process, which is unfortunate, as
deriving appropriate groupings is one of the keys to successful learner-
centred curriculum development.
The most important individuals after the classroom teacher were seen
as the teacher-in-charge, and centre-based curriculum advisor. The scep-
ticism of the classroom teacher towards outside curriculum specialists
is evident from the generally low ranking given to such a person for
most of the curriculum tasks.
It should be pointed out that the teachers who took part in this survey,
unlike some others within the Adult Migrant Education Program, do
not have access either to counsellors or bilingual resource persons, which
may account for the comparatively low ratings given to them for some
of the tasks. The fact that curriculum advisors did rather well, despite
the fact that the teachers did not have access to such personnel either,
suggests that the teachers perceive the need for 'on the ground' assistance
in the curriculum area.

3,8 Summary
In this chapter, we have examined some of the theoretical and empirical
foundations of a learner-centred approach to language curriculum
development. These include theories of adult learning, communicative
language teaching and the concept of language proficiency.
The chapter reports on three recent empirical investigations of teacher
attitudes towards curriculum planning and communicative language
teaching. For the group of teachers investigated, the concept of com-
municative language teaching is a salient one. The Bartlett and Butler
study demonstrates some of the practical difficulties of developing a
learner-centred model and indicates areas where teachers need assistance.
The follow-up study indicates that teachers have accepted, in principle,
the centrality of their place within an extended curriculum model.
4 Pre-Course Planning
Procedures

4.1 Introduction
As we saw in the preceding chapter, the learner-centred curriculum has
among other things a utilitarian rational: skills and knowledge are taught
because the learner wishes to utilise them for some purpose beyond the
learning environment itself, not simply because they happen to be part
of a subject or academic discipline. This is not to say that those (princi-
pally foreign) language courses which do not have a utilitarian rationale
are necessarily precluded from embracing principles of learner centred-
ness, merely that applications to such programmes is often less apparent.
It has been suggested that content in the learner-centred curriculum
should be justified in terms of relevance and motivational potential for
the learner. A subject-centred approach to curriculum design often results
in very similar content specifications for learners with widely differing
needs. However, planning procedures within learner-centred systems
need to be developed which have the potential for generating differen-
tiated curricula for different learner types. In a sense, each course, gen-
erated as it is for a specific group of learners, is unique.

4.2 The Starting Point

The starting point for learner-centred curriculum development is gener-
ally the collection of various types of biographical data. These may
include current proficiency level, age, educational background, previous
language courses, nationality, marital status, the length of time spent in
the target culture and previous, current and intended occupation. It may
also include language, educational and life goals. Information can also
be collected from learners on such subjective factors as the preferred
length and intensity of a course, the preferred learning arrangement
(whether the learner wants to engage in classroom or non-classroom
based instruction), preferred methodology (which will include the types
of materials and activities preferred by the learner), learning styles and
general purpose in coming to class.
The first task in conducting a needs analysis is to decide on just what

42
 Needs Analysis 43

data need to be collected, when they should be collected, by whom,

through what means and for what purpose or purposes.
Some information can be collected before a class starts. These data
will probably include biographical information such as language profi-
ciency, age, educational background and so on. They can be collected
either by the teacher or by an educational counsellor through an interview
which, with learners of low proficiency levels, will need to be conducted
in the learner's first language, and will be used for initial grouping
purposes. More subjective information, relating to methodology, learn-
ing-style preferences and materials, can generally be collected only once
a given learning arrangement has been initiated.

4.3 Needs Analysis

During the 1970s, needs-analysis procedures made their appearance in
language planning. While such procedures have a long tradition in other
areas of adult learning, their use in language teaching became widespread
with their adoption and espousal by The Council of Europe's modern
language project. The principal proponents of the use of needs analysis
were Richterich and Chancerel (see for example Richterich 1972, and
Richterich and Chancerel 1978). In these Council of Europe documents
needs analysis is used as the initial process for the specification of
behavioural objectives. It is from these objectives that more detailed
aspects of the syllabus such as functions, notions, topics, lexis and struc-
tural exponents are derived.
Richards suggests that needs analysis serves three main purposes: it
provides a means of obtaining wider input into the content, design and
implementation of a language programme; it can be used in developing
goals, objectives and content; and it can provide data for reviewing and
evaluating an existing programme (Richards 1984:5).
According to Richards, needs assessment has developed within a polit-
ical climate which demands accountability and relevance in educational
programmes. From this perspective, it can be seen as something which
was foisted on the teaching profession, and which has little to do with
educational values. There is some evidence that the technological rhetoric
and systems thinking which accompanied needs-based programming has
alienated some teachers, and in recent years it has been the pedagogical
rather than the political value of undertaking needs analysis which has
prompted its use in educational institutions.
Against this must be set Widdowson's (1987) suggestion that syllabuses
which specify ends fulfil a training function and result in restricted com-
petence. He contrasts such syllabuses with general-purposes syllabuses
44 Pre-Course Planning Procedures

which, he claims, are process or means oriented, are educative in function

and lead to general competence. It should be pointed out that these
criticisms are basically logico-deductive rather than empirical. As yet,
we simply do not know the extent to which ends-driven syllabuses are
likely to facilitate or impede learning transfer.
Brindley addresses the issue of needs-based syllabus design from a
rather different perspective, taking up a distinction made by Richterich
(1972) between objective and subjective needs:
The 'objective' needs are those which can be diagnosed by teachers
on the basis of the analysis of personal data about learners along
with information about their language proficiency and patterns of
language use (using as a guide their own personal experience and
knowledge, perhaps supplemented by Munby-type specifications of
macro-skills), whereas the 'subjective' needs (which are often
'wants', 'desires', 'expectations', or other psychological
manifestations of a lack) cannot be diagnosed as easily, or, in many
cases, even stated by learners themselves.
(Brindley 1984:31)

Objective needs analysis results in content specifications derived from

an analysis of the target communicative situations in which learners are
likely to find themselves. Being derived from an analysis of the target
language situation, they can be carried out in the absence of the learner.
Subjective needs, on the other hand, are derived from the learners them-
selves. While there is a tendency to equate objective needs with the
specification of content, and subjective needs with the specification of
methodology, the two need not be seen as synonymous. This is made
clear in the following quote:
While objective needs analysis and content are commonly linked,
as are subjective needs and methodology, . . . it is, in fact, also
possible to have a content/subjective needs dimension (learners
deciding what they want to learn) and a methodology/objective
needs dimension (teachers deciding how content might best be
learned). The dimensions themselves are represented as a series of
graduations rather then discrete categories.
(Nunan 1985a:5)

The many and varied criticisms of needs-based planning, which include

both ideological as well as practical objections, are reasonable enough
as far as they go (some are more reasonable than others, some go further
than others). However, recent critics have generally failed to appreciate
the significant shift which has occurred over the years, and still tend to
equate needs analysis with the sort of narrow-band ESP approach which
typified the work of people such as Munby. For example Widdowson
 Participants in Pre-Course Planning Procedures 45

(1983, 1987) suggests that needs-based courses will tend to result in

formulaic 'phrase book' English, and will not develop in learners the
ability to generate spontaneous communicative language.
However, as I pointed out in relation to the educative or training
potential of means- and ends-driven syllabuses, whether or not courses
developed to teach learners skills related to specific situations and events
do result in language which is 'non-generative', or at least, less generative
than courses in which input is selected on some other criteria, is a matter
for empirical investigation. To my knowledge, such investigation has,
as yet, to be carried out. In any case, the generative potential or otherwise
of a given course would seem to rest more with the type of methodology
employed than the criterion for content selection.
A second, more general, criticism is that needs analysis, or indeed any
other form of pre-course planning and specification, is rather irrelevant
because the planned curriculum will be transformed in its implementa-
tion. What really counts, therefore, in the development of second-lan-
guage skills is the process of engaging learners in interesting and mean-
ingful classroom experiences (see for example Krashen and Terrell 1983).
While one would not want to deny the importance of such experiences,
it would seem that there is a better chance of these being interesting and
meaningful if they are related in some way to the purposes to which
learners wish to put their language skills.
In summary, needs analysis is a set of procedures for specifying the
parameters of a course of study. Such parameters include the criteria
and rationale for grouping learners, the selection and sequencing of
course content, methodology, and course length, intensity and duration.
In a learner-centred system, course designers will engage in extensive
consultation with learners themselves in deriving parameters. Techniques
for subjective needs analysis will therefore figure as prominently as
techniques for objective needs analysis in such systems.

4.4 Participants in Pre-Course Planning Procedures

Ideally the key participants in pre-course planning should be the teachers
who are to direct a course, and the learners who are to take part in it.
Depending on the type of educational system and the resources available
to it, other participants will include curriculum planners or advisors,
counsellors and bilingual assistants. Each of these will be involved in
collecting different types of information at different points in the life
cycle of a course.
With learners who have little or no previous language-learning experi-
ence, information relating to learning preferences can be collected only
once the course has begun and learners have had the opportunity of
46 Pre-Course Planning Procedures

experiencing a variety of approaches. Such information is probably best

collected informally by the teacher. With both experienced and inexperi-
enced learners, it is desirable for the teacher to constantly monitor learn-
ers for changing needs and preferences. As learning should provide the
opportunity for growth and development, all learners should be exposed
to new methods, materials and approaches from time to time. However,
this exposure should be carefully monitored, and learners should never
be forced to engage in learning experiences to which they object. Such
objections need not necessarily be articulated, and can often take the
form of passive resistance. By building new learning experiences into
courses, students will be sensitised to the learning process itself, and will
have greater appreciation of what it is to be a learner. This, in turn,
should facilitate the growth of learner autonomy. (An example of the
important role which monitoring and negotiation can play in curriculum
development is provided in the case study described in Chapter 10.)
Research is also currently being conducted to determine the extent to
which exposure to new approaches, methods and materials is able to
modify learners' preconceptions about appropriate learning activities.
There are indications that developing more flexible and adaptive learning
strategies is by no means as straightforward as it might at first seem,
and that learners are more likely, initially at least, to adapt materials to
their own learning schemata than to allow their schemata to be adapted
by innovative materials and methods (Burton and Nunan 1986).

4.5 Grouping Learners

The sort of Munby-type needs analysis already described has an almost
exclusive preoccupation with the 'objective' specification of course con-
tent. Other aspects of the curriculum development process such as learner
groupings, methodology and evaluation are given very little attention.
These aspects are either taken as given, or assumed to flow automatically
from the specification of content.
One of the 'givens' in the Munby model is the learner. That is, it
assumes that learners with particular needs will have been pre-identified
or pre-specified by agents or processes outside the syllabus-design model
itself. The key question for the curriculum designer thus becomes, 'Given
a Spanish-speaking head waiter who is seeking work in an English-speak-
ing restaurant', or, 'Given a Turkish engineer who wishes to undertake
postgraduate study in an American university, what content should form
the basis for an appropriate course?'
Such givens may or may not be adequate for narrowly-focused ESP-
type courses. However, most second language teaching institutions have
relatively heterogeneous client groups. Any student intake may include
 Grouping Learners 47

learners who range from tertiary graduates to learners who are illiterate,
even in their own language. In such institutions, the major initial purpose
for collecting learner data is to group learners in appropriate ways. At
present, it seems that proficiency level on intake is the most commonly
used grouping criterion. It is assumed by teachers (and learners) that
effective language learning can only take place in classes that are relatively
homogeneous in terms of student proficiency level. (Recent research into
second-language acquisition in the classroom is beginning to question
this conventional wisdom; see for example Long and Porter 1985.) How-
ever, the fact remains that teachers consistently nominate mixed profi-
ciency groups as the most difficult to plan for adequately (Watts 1985).
In order to derive more sensitive learner groupings, it is important to
see beyond the '20 student syndrome'. This syndrome equates 'classes'
with 20 to 30 students, all meeting as a group for a predetermined
number of hours a week. While such thinking is convenient from an
administrative perspective, it severely limits the potential of the teaching
institution. This is particularly true in smaller language schools or centres
which may only have the equivalent of six or seven full-time classes.
While the larger the centre the greater the potential for more sensitive
learner groupings, it is possible to innovate in smaller centres (Brink et
al. 1985).
In a language centre in which class groupings are based on the tradi-
tional '20 plus' lines according to proficiency level, a given student is
likely to spend most of his week in a single class with 20 or so other
learners. In a more flexible learning arrangement, however, he is likely
to be placed in a range of classes during the day or week and will thus
come into contact with a greater range of teachers and fellow learners.
At the beginning of each day, for instance, the student might be in a
'home' group based on proficiency level. At other times however, he
might be in groups selected on the basis of intended occupation, learning
style preference, or macro-skill focus. In one small programme which
changed recently from a traditional to a learner-centred curriculum, it
was found that, instead of having five class groups for its 120 students,
there were 23 'classes' in the weekly timetable. Needless to say, this
greatly complicated the business of timetabling, and had implications
for staffing, room availability and so on. The experiment did demon-
strate, however, that more flexible groupings are possible and that
administrative obstacles can be overcome.
It should be obvious that a learner-centred curriculum can succeed
only with the support of programme administrators, and with decisions
on grouping learners being made at centre or school level, rather than
at individual teacher level. A teacher working alone, and trying to derive
more sensitive within-class grouping, will experience severe difficulties
and will be able to succeed only to a limited extent. The more teachers
48 Pre- Course Planning Procedures

and students who are involved in developing the curriculum, the more
successful it is likely to be. This is not to say that within-class groupings
are not important, merely that curriculum decision making will be much
more effective if it is a joint venture undertaken by teachers and adminis-
trators at centre level.
While initial data collection is used for grouping learners, both initial
and ongoing data collection are used for content selection and the selec-
tion of learning materials and experiences. In specifying and grading
content, consideration will need to be given to such things as language
skills, structures, functions, notions, topics, themes, situations and inter-
locutors. If these are selected according to the needs of the learner, there
is likely to be some variation from learner group to learner group. Content
selection and grading will be considered in detail in the next chapter.
Ongoing data collection, which will most often take the form of infor-
mal monitoring and teacher observation, can be used to select materials
and learning experiences which accord with the needs and interests of
the learners. These are considered in greater detail in Chapter 6.
In this section we have looked at the uses to which data gathered
through needs analysis are put. The major purposes are in grouping
learners at centre level, in organising sub-groups within classes, in deriv-
ing language content and in selecting appropriate materials and learning
activities.

4.6 Resources for Planning

Techniques for data collection and course planning can be ranged on a
continuum from formal to informal. Formal techniques include standar-
dised interviews and proficiency assessments, while informal techniques
include such things as classroom observation and self-rating scales for
use by learners in evaluating learning activities. Some of these techniques
are presented here, while others are presented in Chapter 8.
It is highly desirable in educational systems which have significant
numbers of low-proficiency learners, that a range of bilingual and first-
language resources be available. In the study described in Chapter 10,
many of the problems attributed to the curriculum were, in fact, due to
the lack of information available to learners about the learning experi-
ences they were undergoing.
In one recent study into the use of the learner's first language in
second-language learning, O'Grady and Kang found that:
The provision of a learner-centred system which assists clients to
define their educational goals and offers courses in response to their
expressed needs.. . can be effected only through clear channels of
communication between learner and course provider. .. . The
 Resources for Planning 49

achievement of a learner-centred system is dependent on a

mechanism whereby LI access is available as a matter of course to
define clients' needs and to facilitate their ongoing control of their
learning.
(O'Grady and Kang 1985:23)

Forms such as the one in Table 4.1 are useful at centre level for document-
ing and keeping track of data-collection procedures:
TABLE 4 . 1

For what
Data When collected? By whom? How? purpose?

Proficiency level
Age
Educational background
Previous courses
Nationality
Marital status
Time in country
Occupation
First language
Other languages
Preferred course length
Preferred learning arrangement
Preferred methodology
Learning style
Language goals
Life goals

It will be noted that the information solicited falls naturally into two
different categories. The first is essential biographical information, while
the second is more personal, relating to the learners' preferences and
perception of need. The first would normally be collected during pre-
course interviews, while the second would generally be collected infor-
mally by the teacher during the first weeks of the course.
There are many different interview formats available for identifying
learner needs. Some of these are more comprehensive than others. In
order to provide some idea of the sorts of detailed information which
can be collected for planning purposes see the Appendix.
At the initial data-collection stage, most classroom teachers would
probably wish to collect only a fraction of the data listed in the Appendix.
As a minimum, however, it would probably be desirable to collect infor-
mation on target communication tasks and situations and preferences
regarding learning activities, macro-skill focus and within-class group-
ings.
50 Pre-Course Planning Procedures

One teacher who habitually solicits preferences from her students

provided the data set out in Table 4.2. She obtained the data from her
students at the beginning of a class by getting them to complete a ques-
tionnaire according to a four-point scale. The results enabled her, in the
initial stages of the course, to plan activities which were in line with the
learners' expressed needs.

TABLE 4 . 2 SUBJECTIVE LEARNING PREFERENCES OBTAINED FROM ONGOING

STUDENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF A LEARNING ACTIVITY. (ACTIVITIES ARE RANKED IN
ORDER OF DESCENDING IMPORTANCE.)

A. For what communicative situations and tasks do you wish to learn

English?
1 Talking in formal situations (e.g. to the doctor)
2 Understanding the radio and television
3 Filling in forms
4 Understanding native speakers
5 Reading newspapers
6 Understanding the Australian way of life
7 Writing letters
8 Talking to friends and neighbours

B. What learning activities do you prefer?

1 Learning grammar rules
2 Pronunciation
3 Learning new words
4 Studying a textbook or coursebook

C. Which skills are most important for you?

1 Speaking
2 Listening
3 Writing
4 Reading

D.What sort of groupings do you prefer?

1 Practising with the whole class
2 Practising in small groups
3 Practising in pairs
4 Studying alone
 Investigating Needs-Analysis Procedures 51

The data were important for the teacher for a number of reasons. For
example, the low rating given by learners to the use of pair work was
something the teacher had to address as it had been her intention to
base most communicative classroom practice on such pair work.

4.7 Investigating Needs-Analysis Procedures

In 1984, a major investigation of the needs-analysis and objective-setting
practices within one state Adult Migrant Education Service was carried
out by Brindley and Bagshaw. In this section we shall look at some
aspects of the study which is reported in detail in Brindley (1984).

Background
The study was established with the following brief:
— to identify the general issues and principles of needs analysis and
objective setting consistent with current understanding of adult lan-
guage learning and with AMEP methodology in particular
— to document existing practices in the areas of needs analysis and
objective setting
— to propose a system for categorising the long-term language goals of
learners
— to investigate mechanisms for translating these long-term goals into
specific short-term objectives that are attainable within the scope of
one course or learning arrangement
— to identify processes by which these objectives could be identified and
articulated by the learner and agreed to by learner and teacher
— to identify the implications for teacher training and materials develop-
ment in implementing such a system or systems
— to identify areas of further research.

Methodology
Methodology for the study included a literature study; quantitative data
collection from various stake-holders in the educational enterprise includ-
ing learners, teachers, administrators and bilingual information officers;
and finally, comparison of current practices and attitudes with the general
principles extracted from the literature.
Learner variables which were hypothesised to 'affect the awareness
of learners and the extent to which they are able to articulate their
language-learning needs' included the following:
— first language
— sex
52 Pre- Course Planning Procedures

— ethnicity
— age
— education
— occupational background
— length of residence in the target culture
— intended residence in the target culture
— status of the individual within the family
— urban/rural background.

Results
There is no space here to provide a comprehensive summary of either
the study or the results obtained. For our purposes, the following results
are pertinent.
In general, and contrary to a great deal of popular opinion, learners
were able to articulate long-term goals, and to provide instrumental
reasons for attending language classes. Many of them also had clear
(and fairly fixed) ideas about what it was to learn a language, and what
were legitimate activities in the language class. The fact that many of
these appear to be at odds with current communicative practices is taken
up in Chapter 6.
Finally, comprehensive and systematic data-collection processes for
the purposes of deriving content and methodology did not seem to charac-
terise the educational system under investigation. In this regard, the
study concluded that:
Although it appears that most teachers are attempting to cater for
learners' needs in some way, the fact that they hold these differing
views of needs means that there is little uniformity in the way in
which information about learners is collected and used in
programming. Similarly, the extent to which learners are involved
in formulating their own objectives varies widely, ranging from
courses planned in consultation to those planned entirely by the
teacher with no input from learners.
(Brindley 1984:iv)

4.8 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have looked at some initial pre-course planning
procedures. The central processes here are initial data collection and the
deriving of learner groupings. Deriving appropriate learner groups is a
critically important task. In Chapter 10, it will be seen that one of the
greatest problems for the teacher as curriculum developer is having to
construct a coherent programme for inappropriately grouped learners.
 Conclusion 53

It has been claimed that one important outcome of involving learners

in ongoing curriculum development is that not only does it increase the
likelihood that the course will be perceived as relevant, but learners will
be sensitised to their own preferences, strengths and weaknesses. They
will become more aware of what it is to be a learner, will develop skills
in 'learning how to learn' and will be in a better position to negotiate
the curriculum in the future. The empirical study reported in the body
of the chapter indicates that learners are, in fact, capable of becoming
involved in the planning of their own learning experiences.
The adoption of a more subjective orientation will necessitate a shift
away from the sorts of 'technocratic' procedures inherent in the Munby
needs-analysis model to less formal procedures for both sensitising learn-
ers and obtaining input from them for developing the curriculum. These
procedures should be conducted continually throughout a given learning
arrangement, rather than occurring only in the initial stages.
In the next chapter, we shall look at some of the ways in which initial
planning and data collection can be utilised in specifying content.
5 Planning Content

5.1 Introduction
There are many possible starting points for deriving course content.
Rowntree suggests that these can be divided into informal (or intuitive)
approaches and systematic (or analytical) approaches. He goes on to say:
Broadly speaking, the intuitive approaches are those that give us
most help in thinking up possible content in the first place. The
analytical techniques, on the other hand, tend to be most useful
once we have generated a few ideas and are ready to see how they
hang together and can be extended. In reality, of course, we are
thinking both intuitively and analytically at all stages of course
planning. Sometimes one predominates, however, and sometimes
the other.
(Rowntree 1981:35)

Examples provided by Rowntree of intuitive approaches to content

specification include:
— sitting and reviewing one's own knowledge of the proposed sub-
ject
— asking other teachers and subject-matter experts
— analysing similar courses elsewhere
— reviewing textbooks aimed at students working at about the
same level as ours will be
— reading more advanced books and scholarly articles on the sub-
ject
— reviewing films, radio and television tapes, newspaper and popu-
lar journal articles, etc. relating to the proposed subject
— asking prospective students what they would like to see the course
include
— discussing with students their existing conceptions of, and
attitudes to, the key concepts of the subject matter
— choosing books (or other source material) around which the
course will be organised
— thinking of essential activities that students need to engage in as
part of the course
— considering how student attainment on the course might most
sensibly be assessed

54
 Content Selection — An Empirical Investigation 55

— studying an examination syllabus, the question papers, and

examiners' reports from previous years, and so on.
(op cit.:35-36)

5.2 Content Selection - An Empirical Investigation

In this section, we shall look briefly at a study set up to determine how
teachers operating in a learner-centred system determine input for their
courses.

Background
Evidence from other subject areas (such as those cited by Rowntree)
suggests that teachers use a variety of sources for deriving course content.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that for most language teachers whose learn-
ers do not vary significantly from one course to the next, content selection
is largely a matter of refining input from course to course rather than
starting from scratch every time. The input selection phase of curriculum
planning is thus an evolutionary one.
Ideally, in a learner-centred system, content should be derived through
a process of consultation and negotiation with the learners, the principal
consideration being the communicative needs of the learners. (We looked
at procedures for determining such needs in Chapter 4.)

The Study
In an investigation into how teachers actually do select content, a group
of adult ESL teachers (n = 28) were asked to nominate the procedures
they followed in identifying course content. The teachers, who were all
highly experienced, were asked to complete a questionnaire during the
course of an in-service programme on course design.

Procedure
In order to prompt the teachers to review the means whereby they
selected input, they were asked to imagine that they had just been assigned
a group of learners whose data profiles were different from any learners
they had ever worked with before. The questionnaire is set out in Table
5.1:
56 Planning Content
TABLE 5 . 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Which of the following learner groups have you never worked with
before? (Circle the appropriate number.)

A. Zero proficiency learners who are illiterate in their own language.

B. Advanced students who want a pre-tertiary course.
C. Learners who are studying in the English-in-the-Workplace
program.
D. Fast track On-Arrival students.
E. Mixed level students in the Community Program.

Imagine you have been assigned one of the groups you have circled.
How would you go about determining course content? Select three of
the following options.
1 Devising learning activities and tasks
2 Drawing on knowledge of language and language learning
3 Consulting other teachers with relevant experience
4 Selecting a coursebook
5 Determining post-course communication needs
6 Analysing other relevant language courses
7 Selecting appropriate materials
8 Consulting and negotiating with learners on course content

Results
Rankings for the questionnaire items are set out in Table 5.2:

TABLE 5 . 2 RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON CONTENT SELECTION

Item Rank

1 Devising learning activities and tasks 5

2 Drawing on knowledge of language and language learning 3
3 Consulting other teachers 2
4 Selecting a coursebook 7
5 Determining post-course communication needs 1
6 Analysing other relevant language courses 8
7 Selecting appropriate materials 6
8 Consulting and negotiating with learners 3
 Analytical Approaches to Content Specification 57

Discussion
From the data, it would seem that teachers who are accustomed to
working within a learner-centred system do indeed take as their starting
point the learners and their communicative needs. Whether, in fact, they
actually do consult learners and carry out communicative needs analyses
is another question. The fact that they were prepared to place Items 5
and 8 relatively high on their list of priorities indicates that the concept
of a learner-centred approach to content selection was taken seriously
by the teachers who took part in the study. In actual fact, these data
conflict to a certain extent with data yielded in the interviews carried
out as part of the study reported in Chapter 10. There, teachers who
had actually been confronted with unfamiliar students stated that they
either consulted more experienced colleagues or looked to a coursebook
for ideas on content. (See also the case study in Chapter 10.)
In a follow-up discussion, the teachers, when questioned on the degree
to which they would actually do what they said, affirmed that they
would. However, they also registered the familiar objection to forced-
choice questionnaires, stating that they might, in fact, use all eight means
of determining content. During the course of the study reported in Chap-
ter 10, it became apparent that teachers objected to providing data that
was easily quantifiable on the grounds that it forced them to distort the
reality of their day-to-day curriculum practices. The implications of this
attitude for curriculum research and evaluation is discussed in the final
chapter.

5.3 Analytical Approaches to Content Specification

According to Rowntree, analytical approaches to content selection
include such things as task, concept and competency analysis. These
approaches would be used by someone following the Munby approach
to course design. Also included as an analytical approach is the use of
objectives. While acknowledging the difficulty many teachers have with
the 'objectives first' approach, Rowntree says:
I still believe they [objectives] are extremely valuable in course
development. Asking oneself what students should be able to do
by the end of the course that they could not do (or not do so well)
at the beginning can be highly illuminating. Many teachers (and I
am one) would claim their teaching has been far better since they
were introduced to objectives.
(op cit.:35)

However, he acknowledges that one need not necessarily start with the
58 Planning Content

specification of objectives and that this may, in fact, be one of the last
tasks undertaken in course planning.
Traditional subject-centred approaches to language course design have
selected input on the basis of some form of linguistic content analysis.
Such analyses result in lists of structural and lexical items which are
graded according to linguistic notions of complexity and difficulty, and
counts of lexical frequency.
The development of functional—notional syllabuses represented more
a broadening of focus than a paradigm shift. While such syllabuses pay
more attention to the purposes to which language is put, they are still
basically subject- rather than learner-centred, with content specification
resulting from the introspection of linguists rather than on empirical
investigation of the uses to which users actually do put language in
different contexts. This broadened focus has, however, made content
selection and grading much more complex than hitherto. One com-
prehensive document, Threshold Level English (van Ek and Alexander
1980), specifies the following components:
— the situations in which the foreign language will be used, includ-
ing the topics which will be dealt with
— the language activities in which the learner will engage
- the language functions which the learner will perform
- topics, and what the learner will be able to do with these
— the general notions which the learner will be able to handle
— the specific (topic related) notions which the learners will be able
to handle
- the language forms the learner will be able to use
- the degree of skill the learner will be required to display.

Many teachers have found that a useful means of generating integrated

and relevant content is by using as a starting point the data derived from
learners at the initial planning stage. For this procedure to work, however,
it is necessary to have a reasonably homogeneous group of learners to
start with.
Much of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the specification
of content stems from the proliferation of input parameters. We have
just seen that the authors of Threshold Level English identify at least
eight such parameters. Given this proliferation, the key problem is one
of knowing where to start. Many recent courses and syllabus outlines
start with a listing of functions, and fit the other components around
this. The problem with such an approach is that it generally results in
a syllabus which is little more than a listing of discrete items which are
graded either according to the syllabus designer's intuitive notions of
simplicity and complexity, or according to utilitarian notions of what
is likely to be of most use to the learner. Such syllabus listings are open
 Analytical Approaches to Content Specification 59

to many of the criticisms which have been levelled against structural

syllabuses.
By starting with learner goals, and using these to derive content, much
of the disorganisation entailed in the functional approaches can be
obviated. In such a procedure, the specification of functions, structures,
lexis and so on are derived as a result of the prior specification of the
communicative goals which the learner will need to master in the given
domains of language use. They are therefore an end product, rather than
a starting point in the design process.
One of the most contentious issues in course planning concerns the
use of objectives. There are many different ways in which the objectives
of a course of study can be stated. They can be set out in terms of what
the teacher plans to do in class, in terms of the general goals and
philosophy of the teaching institution, in terms of course content, or in
terms of what the learner is expected to be able to do at the end of a
course of study. In a survey of current objective-setting practice, Brindley
discovered that, 'The overwhelming majority of examples given were
expressed as teacher objectives' (Brindley 1984:56). Examples of the
types of objectives articulated by teachers are as follows:
Instructional Goals: to develop learners' confidence in speaking and
listening
Course Descriptions/Descriptions of Language Content: to provide
input in real, relevant and realistic Australian English
Learning Materials: to present an episode of 'The Man Who
Escaped'.
{op cit.:56-57)

Most of the controversy in general education has concerned the use of

behavioural or, as they are now more commonly known, performance
objectives. These have been defined in a number of different ways. Valette
and Disick (1972) suggest that they should stress output rather than
input and that such output should be specified in terms of performance.
It has been suggested that precise statements of what the learner is to
be able to do at the end of a course is an essential step in the curriculum-
design process which greatly facilitates a number of other steps. It forces
the designer to be realistic about what a given learner or group of learners
can hope to achieve. It also helps guide the selection of appropriate
materials and learning activities, and is an essential prerequisite to evalu-
ation.
Gronlund suggests that performance objectives will help a teacher
strike the correct balance in developing a course. He states that:
All too frequently, little attention is paid to determining precisely
and specifically what type of pupil performance is desired at the
end of an instructional sequence. As a result, one of two extreme
60 Planning Content

situations typically exists. In the one case, intended outcomes are

limited to the learning of material covered in a textbook and teaching
and evaluation procedures are primarily concerned with the
retention of textbook content. At the other extreme, overly
ambitious goals are set for a course — goals so general and so
idealistic that they are impossible either to achieve or evaluate. The
reason that these two situations are so common is probably because
the task of clearly defining instructional objectives appears
gargantuan and therefore overwhelming. It need not be, despite
some admitted complexities. Furthermore, rewards in terms of more
effective teaching, learning and evaluation are great.
(Gronlund 1981:29)

In the field of general education, the use of performance objectives has

come under heavy criticism (see for example Macdonald-Ross 1975 and
Stenhouse 1975). These criticisms, however, need to be seen in the socio-
political and educational context within which they were made. Thus
the criticisms of Stenhouse are made within an educational system where
structure and coherence are provided by the traditional subjects in the
school curriculum. His criticisms are also aimed at the use of objectives
in subjects which have as their aim the development of knowledge and
aesthetic sensibilities and, in fact, he suggests that for language learning
the use of objectives may well be a valid procedure.
Studies in mainstream education indicate that most teachers simply
do not plan their courses by starting with the generation of objectives
(Shavelson and Stern 1981). However, those teachers who have
homogeneous enough groups to utilise objectives find they have all the
advantages suggested by Gronlund. One teacher, working in an English
in the workplace programme, who took part in the study reported in
detail in Chapter 10, stated that:
We can see the value of setting objectives that are attainable, and
we have built time into the programme to do this.
The operative word here, of course, is 'time'. It takes time to plan
coherent courses, and it is probably lack of time, rather than ideological
objections, which prevents teachers developing clear objectives.
A procedure which some teachers have found useful is to start by
deriving tasks and skills from learner goals. These skills provide an
integrative framework, and appropriate topics, contexts and materials,
which are derived from an analysis of learner data, can be incorporated
into the framework. A sample number of performance objectives can
then be derived from the resulting planning grid. These are extremely
useful when it comes to assessing learner progress. (An example of how
this procedure might work is provided in the next section.)
In a learner-centred curriculum, specifying course objectives, can, if
 Analytical Approaches to Content Specification 61

these are conveyed to the learners, play an important part in the process
of sensitising learners to what it is to be a language learner. By making
explicit course objectives, the following benefits can accrue:

Learners come to have a more realistic idea of what can be achieved in

a given course.
Learning comes to be seen as the gradual accretion of achievable goals.
Students develop greater sensitivity to their role as language learners
and their rather vague notions of what it is to be a learner become
much sharper.
Self-evaluation becomes more feasible.
Classroom activities can be seen to relate to learners' real-life needs.
The development of skills can be seen as a gradual rather than an
all-or-nothing process.

It is generally considered that objectives need to include a task statement,

a conditions statement and a standards statement (see for example Valette
and Disick 1972; Mager, 1975; Gronlund 1981). The task statement
specifies what the learner is required to do, the conditions statement
specifies the conditions under which the task will be performed and the
standards statement specifies the standard to be achieved
The focus of the task can vary, as can be seen in the following examples:

Grammatical focus: Learners will use Wh-questions in controlled drills.

Functional focus: Learners will express agreement and disagreement.
Macro-skill focus: Learners will identify the main point in a spoken text.
Learning skills focus: Learners will monitor and rate their performance
on spoken tasks.
Cognitive focus: Learners will extract relevant information from a spo-
ken text and label the accompanying diagram.
Cultural focus: Learners will compare behaviour in an interview situa-
tion with that in their native country.
Topical focus: Learners will obtain relevant information about public
transport.

Tasks can also be classified according to whether they refer to perfor-

mance in the real world (the learner will complain about an unsatisfactory
purchase) or the classroom (the learner will listen to an aural text and
note down key words). Another distinction which is sometimes made is
between product-oriented tasks, which specify what learners will be able
to do as a result of instruction, and process-oriented tasks, which specify
the activities to be undertaken during instruction.
In the next section, we shall examine one way in which skills can be
derived from learner data, and how these, in turn, can be used to produce
62 Planning Content

specific performance objectives for learner assessment. The remainder

of the chapter will be devoted to the problem of grading content.

5.4 Deriving Content from Learner Data

In this section, we shall look at a procedure for deriving content from
learner data. There are two different ways in which the process to be
described can be utilised. One of these is to treat each intake of learners
as unique, and to construct a programme anew, from the ground up, as
it were, for each group. A more realistic approach is for a language
centre to identify recurring learner types and to prepare general course
outlines which can be utilised with successive intakes of students. For
any centre following this second procedure, it would be necessary to
add and delete course outlines as the client profile changed.
The first step in the process is to examine learner data and extract
information relating to the purposes for which learners are attending
the course and which can be translated into communicative goals. This
information will more often than not be expressed in fairly general,
functional terms. Examples of the sorts of goals which are commonly
expressed are as follows:
I would like to be able to:
— talk to my neighbours
— find out about Australian culture
— read newspapers
— understand TV and radio
— fill out forms
— read signs and notices
— talk to my daughter's teacher
— read stories in English to my grandchildren
— undertake tertiary study in English
— understand people in the workplace.
If the curriculum is being developed at a centre level, this information
can be used to develop modules or teaching strands. If it is being used
at an individual classroom level, the teacher will need to decide on which
goals take priority. Ideally, the learners themselves should be involved
in prioritisation through a process of consultation and negotiation.
The second step in the process is to specify the communicative tasks
and enabling skills which learners will need to be able to perform in
order to achieve their language goals. These can often be generalised
across goals, courses or modules. For example, three of the goals iden-
tified above relate to the real-world task of having a conversation (talk
to my neighbours, talk to my daughter's teacher, understand people in
 Deriving Content from Learner Data 63

the workplace). For a given proficiency level, each of these would con-
ceivably have similar subordinate task and enabling skill specifications.
At a post-beginner level these could include the following:
— identify topic of conversation
— signal lack of comprehension
— exchange greetings/leave-taking
— comprehend requests for personal information
— provide personal details
— indicate likes and dislikes
— request factual information
— describe objects/entities
— offer and ask for help
— check that one had comprehended correctly
— check that one had been correctly comprehended.

While some of these tasks are similar to the headings commonly found
in functional syllabuses, they differ from such syllabuses in that they are
drawn together under a particular goal statement. They therefore provide
a more coherent framework than is provided by general functional syl-
labuses.
The next step is to provide contextualisation for the tasks by deciding
on such things as topics, settings, interlocutors and so on. These data,
which can be derived from needs analyses, serve to differentiate goals
for different learner groups.
The specifications derived at this stage can be combined with the list
of tasks and skills to produce planning grids. The sample grid in Table
5.3 utilises the elements already specified for the development of conver-
sational skills (overleaf).
The next step in the content specification process is to decide on
linguistic elements (i.e. the notions, structures, lexis and so on) which
will need to be taught in order for learners to be able to operationalise
the pre-specified skills. There is, in fact, some debate as to whether this
step is necessary. It could be argued that, if we specify and teach to
communicative tasks, the linguistic exponents will look after themselves.
This, along with so many of the issues raised in this work, is a matter
which demands empirical investigation.
There are, in fact, two issues here. One is a syllabus-design issue, the
other is basically methodological. The syllabus-design issue is whether
or not a course should be grammatically structured. The methodological
issue is whether or not grammatical structures should be consciously
taught. Any of the four following conditions could obtain:
1 The course is grammatically sequenced and the grammatical points
are explicitly taught.
64 Planning Content
TABLE 5.3

Contexts
1 2 3 4 5 6

Identify topic of conversation

Signal lack of comprehension

Exchange greeting/leave-taking

Comprehend requests for personal

information

Provide personal details

Indicate likes and dislikes

Request factual information

Describe objects and entities

Offer and ask for help

Check comprehension

KEY:
1 Classroom 3 Neighbourhood 5 Child's school
2 Interview 4 Supermarket 6 Post office
 Deriving Content from Learner Data 65

2 The course is grammatically sequenced but the grammatical points

are not explicitly taught.
3 The course is not grammatically sequenced, but grammatical points
are explicitly taught as they arise.
4 The course is not grammatically sequenced, and no explicit teaching
of grammar occurs.
The question of whether or not courses should be structurally graded is
a complex one, and one which will certainly not be solved here. The
name most commonly associated with the non-graded or 'natural'
approach is Krashen (1981, 1982), who based his arguments on the
assertions that grading is unnecessary because classroom input which is
interesting, meaningful and relevant will automatically be at an approp-
riate order of difficulty, and that a graded syllabus will lead to a focus
on meaning not form (he is arguing, in effect, that Situation 2, where
we have a graded course, but no focus on form will not obtain). These
arguments are comprehensively critiqued in Pienemann (1985). To
repeat, arguments as to whether structurally-graded courses and explicit
grammar teaching lead to more effective learning will only be settled in
the long term by empirical investigations rather than the sorts of theoret-
ical arguments advanced by some applied linguists. Common sense would
suggest that explicit instruction will be beneficial for some learners but
not others.
The final task in the procedure described here is to produce a sample
number of specific objectives which are related, via tasks/skills, to learner
goals. By producing such objectives, one will have a set of ready-made
criteria for judging the effectiveness of the learning process. This step
therefore provides a convenient bridge into the assessment and evaluation
phase of the curriculum-development process.
It was pointed out earlier in the chapter that specific objectives contain
three elements: tasks, conditions and standards. The task statement indi-
cates what it is that the learner is to do; the conditions define the cir-
cumstances under which the task will be carried out; and the standards
specify the degree of skill to be exhibited.
Here are two examples of specific objectives derived from the preceding
specifications.
Enabling Skill: Exchange greetings/leave-taking
Specific objective: In a classroom role play, students will exchange
greetings with the teacher. Utterances will be comprehensible to
someone used to dealing with a second language speaker.
Task: exchange greetings with the teacher
Conditions: in a classroom role play
Standards: utterances to be comprehensible to someone used to deal-
ing with a second-language speaker
66 Planning Content

Communicative Task: Request factual information

Specific objective: In an authentic interaction, students will request
prices of shopping items. Questions will be comprehensible to a
sympathetic native speaker.
Task: request prices of shopping items
Conditions: in an authentic interaction
Standards: utterances to be comprehensible to a sympathetic native
speaker.

In fact, it may not always be necessary to specify conditions and standards

for every single performance objective. An alternative is to specify sets
of conditions and standards for a given module, teaching strand or class
which will apply to all objectives. (For further details on this see Nunan
1985b.)

5.5 Grading Content

Once the content for a course or module has been specified, it needs to
be sequenced. This creates a whole new set of problems. These problems,
and possible solutions to them, are examined in this section.
One alternative to the problem of grading is to have no sequence at
all, to treat each lesson as a self-contained unit or module. This, in fact,
is an alternative which is forced upon teachers who operate in institutions
with an open entry/exit policy (that is, a policy which allows students
to enter or leave a given course at any time).
Most curriculum designers, however, operate on the assumption that
a course will consist of a sequence of lessons which need to be structured
and graded in some way, and that their client group of learners will be
relatively stable for the duration of the course.
In his general consideration of course structuring, Rowntree has this
to say:
Our interest in sequence arises because the student cannot learn
everything at once. If he is to learn A and B, he must either learn
A and then B, or B first and then A. Unless he can learn a little bit
of A and then B (but how much and in what order?). . . But these
may not be equally viable alternatives. For any given student, one
of these sequences may be better — more 'learnable' than others.
. . . So, in enquiring about sequence, we are really asking whether
one way of ordering the content of a course will be more helpful,
educationally, than any other possible order.
(Rowntree 1981:106)

The issue of sequencing was less complicated (but by no means unprob-

lematic) when course content was largely derived from linguistic struc-
 Grading Content 67

tures. Decisions about whether to teach A before B were made according

to linguistic notions of simplicity and complexity. If item A were consi-
dered to be simpler linguistically than structure B, then it was taught
first. (Recent investigations by second-language acquisition researchers
have demonstrated that, in fact, these notions were not particularly
accurate, and that there are discrepancies between what is difficult in
terms of a given grammatical model, and what learners actually find
difficult in terms of their psycholinguistic processing capacity. Thus the
'third person -s' morpheme is grammatically simple but psycholinguisti-
cally complex.)
With the adoption of a communicative orientation, the tasks of struc-
turing and grading become much more complex. It will be recalled that
this view conceives of language learning as a process of learning to do
things with language. It is therefore behavioural and task-based. Grading
tasks, from this perspective, means specifying degrees of skill as well as
describing performance. Levels of skill and task complexity consist of
complex clusters of factors. These will include the following:
— the degree to which the language event is embedded in a context
which facilitates comprehension
— the degree to which the language event makes cognitive demands on
the learner. (Presumably, identifying a named item by pointing to it
is cognitively less demanding than describing it.)
— the degree to which the background knowledge of the language user
can be utilised to assist in comprehension
— the amount of assistance provided to the language learner. (It is reason-
able to assume that conveying a message to a native speaker who is
sympathetic towards, and used to dealing with, second-language learn-
ers is easier than attempting to convey the same message to an
unsympathetic interlocutor.)
— the processing difficulty of the language. (This is the only factor on
which we have a reasonable amount of empirical evidence.)
— the degree of stress experienced by the learner in taking part in a
language event. (Presumably, conveying a message to a friend is less
stressful than making a speech in front of 500 people.)
The role of factors such as those listed above in determining task difficulty
is discussed in Clark (1985b).
Brindley (in Nunan 1987a) has suggested that learner, task and text
factors will interact to determine task difficulty. He suggests that the
factors in Table 5.4 will need to be considered in grading objectives:
68 Planning Content
TABLE 5.4

1 Learner factors Questions to consider Comments/Examples

Confidence How confident does Some tasks may

the learner have to be require high levels of
to carry out the task? confidence, e.g.
Does the learner have initiacing interaction
the necessary level of with a member of the
confidence? public as part of a
community interaction
activity.

Motivation How motivating is the Some learners may be

task? unmotivated to
undertake certain
kinds of tasks which
do not appear to be
personally relevant or
interesting, e.g. drills
or games.

Prior learning Does the task assume Some tasks may

experience familiarity with certain assume familiarity
learning skills? with particular ways
Does the learner's of learning, e.g. skills
prior learning in inducing general
experience provide the rules from examples.
necessary learning
skills/strategies to
carry out the task?

Learning pace How much learning Learning pace will

material has the obviously vary from
learner shown s/he is individual to
capable of handling? individual and is not
Is the task broken related to proficiency
down into manageable level.
parts?
 Grading Content 69

1 Learner factors Questions to consider Comments/Examples

Observed ability What is the learner's Proficiency

in language skills assessed level in the descriptions (ASLPR,
skill(s) concerned? AMES, ACTFL, etc.)
Does this assessment give a general
conform to his/her indication of the
observed behaviour in characteristics of
class? language behaviour at
In the light of the different levels of
teacher's assessment, ability. The
what overall level of descriptions can assist
performance can in deciding the sort of
reasonably be language behaviour
expected? that can be expected at
a given level.
Cultural Does the task assume Some tasks assume a
knowledge! cultural knowledge? If good deal of cultural
awareness so, can the learner be knowledge (e.g.
expected to have it? interpreting
Does the task assume newspaper headlines),
knowledge of a others (depending on
particular subject? the learner's cultural
background) may not
be so culture bound.
Familiarity with
subject helps
understanding.

Linguistic How much linguistic Some tasks may

knowledge knowledge does the assume a certain
learner have? (i.e. amount of linguistic
knowledge of the knowledge on the part
systems and structures of the learner,
of English, not particularly those
necessarily the ability which have a
to mobilise this grammatical focus,
knowledge). e.g. a written exercise
What linguistic requiring the learner
knowledge is assumed to identify or
by the task? manipulate certain
grammatical structures.
70 Planning Content

2 Task factors Questions to consider Comments/Examples

Relevance Is the task relevant and Needs analysis can

meaningful to the determine the areas in
learner? which learners want
and need to operate.
(For sample
procedures see
Brindleyl984;Nunan
1985a.)

Complexity How many steps are It seems reasonable to

involved in the task? assume that learners
How complex are the move from being able
instructions? to perform short,
What cognitive manageable tasks to
demands does the task longer and more
make on the learner? complex ones, e.g.
How much from recognising only
information is the key words in a text to
learner expected to understanding details.
process in performing
the task?

Amount of context How much prior As proficiency

provided prior to knowledge of the develops, reliance on
task world, the situation or context seems to
the cultural context is lessen, e.g. at
assumed in the way beginning stages,
the task is framed? learners often need to
How much see a person speaking
preliminary activity is to understand, but
allowed for to they later develop the
introduce the task and ability to understand
set the context? without the help of
context (e.g. telephone
conversations).

ProcessibiVty of Is the language that Recent research into

language of the learners are expected psycholinguistic
task to produce in line with processing constraints
their processing in second language
capacity? acquisition
 Grading Content 71

2 Task factors Questions to consider Comments/Examples

(Pienemann 1985;
Johnston 1985) gives
an indication of
syntactic structures
which learners might
be expected to produce
at different
developmental stages.

Amount of help How much assistance At beginning stages,

available to the can the learner get learners may require
learner from the teacher, more help, e.g. in
other learners, books conversation, the
or other learning aids ? interlocutor may have
In the case of to supply words and
interactive tasks, is the interpret learners'
interlocutor utterances.
sympathetic? Does
s/he provide help?

What is his/her
tolerance level to non-
standard language?
Degree of How 'standard' does Different types of
grammatical the task require tasks may require
accuracy! context- learners to be? greater or lesser
ual appropriacy What is the desired degrees of accuracy,
'effect on the e.g. giving detailed
interlocutor'? Does instructions would
s/he expect or demand probably require
accuracy? greater accuracy than
an everyday exchange
of personal
information.

Time available How long does the 'Time on task' has

learner have to carry been shown to be a
out the task. highly significant
factor in learning.
72 Planning Content

3 Text factors Questions to consider Comment siExamples

Size and density How long is the text? Density and

of text How much complexity of texts
information does it may be reflected in
contain? such factors as length
How concentrated is of chunks to be
the information? processed, complexity
How much repetition/ of utterances (e.g.
recycling of the number of coordinate
information is allowed and subordinate
for? In spoken text, clauses), amount of
how fast is the speech specialised
rate? In written texts, vocabulary, etc.
how dense/complex is
the structure of the
text? How clearly are
the main ideas
expressed?

Presentation! How is the text Presentation of text

format of text presented in terms of can significantly affect
layout/format? learner performance,
Is the format e.g. amount of
appropriate to the text background noise on
type? recorded material
What is the quality of affects learner
print/recording? comprehension. Use
of 'authentic' format
can also influence
learner performance
(e.g. use of newspaper
cuttings rather than
typed versions).

Contextual Does the text contain Presence of extra-

clues non-linguistic clues linguistic clues (e.g.
which support photos, drawings,
meaning? sound effects, etc.) can
significantly affect
learner performance,
e.g. a listening activity
supported by video is
probably easier than
 Grading Content 73

3 Text factors Questions to consider Comments/Examples

one in which an audio
recording is used.

Content of text What is the subject Content familiarity

matter of the text? has been shown to
How abstract/concrete assist learners to
is it in relation to process information.
learners' experience?
Is the information
organised in a logical
sequence?

An alternative suggestion to the sequencing problem is made by Corbel.

This is to sequence input according to the logic dictated by a sequence
of linked actions. This action-sequence approach has four steps:
1 Identify the learners' areas of interest and need in broad thematic
terms.
2 Identify a series of communication situations related to that
theme and link them to form an action sequence.
3 Select or devise materials appropriate to the situations in the
action sequence.
4 Choose language points to focus on from the materials.
(Corbel 1985:74)

Corbel illustrates the action sequence approach as in Table 5.5:

74 Planning Content

TABLE 5.5

Teaching points
Action sequence Description example

1 A person arrives at a Meeting strangers I'm Ron.

party. Introductions He's Ken.
First names She's Sandra.
2 She is introduced to Socialising This is my wife.
others by the host. Introductions Would you like
Offering a drink?
Accepting/Declining
Days of the week
3 She and the hostess Socialising Where's Terry?
discuss the absence of Location Is Judy here?
the guest of honour. The time At work. At the
pub.
Meanwhile—
4 The guest of honour Giving personal information What's your
has been stopped by the to officials family name?
police. Family names What is it again?
Asking for repetition
Alphabet/Spelling
5 The person talks to Socialising Where are you
others at the party. Nationality from?
Correcting No, I'm from
Months Ireland.
6 Meanwhile the guest of Giving personal information What's your
honour is still talking to to officials address?
the police. Address Is that seventy?
Checking No, seventeen.
Correcting What's your date
Dates of birth?
7 The person talks to Socialising Who's that?
others at the party. Identity Who are they?
8 Finally the guest of Surprise/Relief Be careful!
honour arrives. Socialising Don't drop it!
Warning

{op cit.:7S)

At present, there is little empirical evidence to guide our decision making

on task difficulty. Such decisions will therefore be largely intuitive and
subjective. Unfortunately, such intuitive decision making is not always
particularly reliable. To complicate matters, not all factors will have an
equal bearing on determining task difficulty or complexity with all learn-
ers. Some will be relatively efficient in bringing their background know-
ledge to bear in comprehending a given message, other will rely more
 Conclusion 75

on their knowledge of syntax and lexis. Despite these difficulties, the

curriculum designer has to make decisions about what will be taught
early in a course and what will be taught later. Subjective decisions will
need to be made, based on the factors listed above, and programmes
will need to be trialled and revised in the light of experience. It would
seem that, for the foreseeable future at least, the grading of communica-
tion tasks in a communicative curriculum will be largely intuitive.

5.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have examined some of the factors which need to be
taken into consideration in the selection and grading of content. A pro-
cedure is described for deriving course content from an analysis of learner
data. It has been argued that the specification of language goals is an
important component of a learner-centred curriculum, particularly when
such goals are couched in terms that learners understand, because they
will then convey to learners important messages about learning processes.
One argument commonly advanced against the involvement of the
learner in the selection of content is that learners themselves are incapable
of articulating needs. However, one group of teachers who have had
considerable experience in learner-centred curriculum development have
found that:
At the 1+ (Intermediate) level most learners can state their needs
reasonably clearly if given the right opportunity. I'm convinced that
if learners feel that you have listened sympathetically to their
perceived needs and discussed your views of the situation with them
then they have a far more committed and active role in the learning
process — they are, in fact, in control of their own learning,
particularly if the consultation process is ongoing.
(Brink et al 1985:9)
 Methodology

6.1 Introduction
Traditional approaches to language teaching have tended to separate
considerations of syllabus design from methodology. Broadly speaking,
syllabuses specify the 'what' of teaching whereas methodology specifies
the 'how'. Applied linguists, particularly those working within the British
and European tradition, have tended to focus on syllabus design, whereas
teachers, who are more concerned with the day-to-day aspects of teach-
ing, have tended to be more interested in methodological considerations.
In recent times, the shortcomings of this lack of integration have
become apparent, and there have been calls for a more integrated
approach to language curriculum development and course design by
applied linguists such as Richards (1984), Long (1985) and Nunan
(1985a). In his proposal for an integrated approach, Nunan suggests that:
Traditional models tend to restrict themselves to objectives
specification, content selection, grading and evaluation. It is felt by
some syllabus designers that there ought to be a rigid separation
between syllabus design and methodology, in other words, that
considerations of what to teach ought to be kept separate from
how to teach. Such a separation has led in the past to such
aberrations as the teaching of courses whose input was specified in
functional—notional terms through an audiolingual methodology.
In the model proposed here, all the elements are in interaction
and each may influence the other. Objectives may be modified,
altered or added to during the teaching—learning process. Decisions
about what goes on in the classroom will be influenced, not only
by pre-specified objectives, materials and activities, but also by
needs, constraints (what is feasible, say, in the learning mode and
environment) and by the evaluation feedback which emerges during
the course itself.
(Nunan 1985a:2-3)

This change in perspective has been prompted more by the development

of communicative language teaching than anything else. While the rise
of functional—notionalism prompted a widening of the content base, it
was realised that for communicative language teaching to become a
reality, there was a need for methodologies to reflect curriculum goals.

76
 Introduction 77

Another more recent impetus for change has been the development of
classroom based acquisition studies. These are reviewed in some detail
in the body of this chapter, and their practical implications are discussed.
In a recent dictionary of applied linguistics, methodology is defined
as 'the study of the practices and procedures used in teaching, and the
principles and beliefs that underlie them'. Methodology is said to include
the following:
(a) study of the nature of language skills (e.g. reading, writing,
speaking, listening) and procedures for teaching them
(b) study of the preparation of lesson plans, materials, and
textbooks for teaching language skills
(c) the evaluation and comparison of language teaching methods
(e.g. the audiolingual method)
(Richards, Plan and Weber 1985:177)

Richards and Rodgers (1986) define methodology in terms of approach

(which provides theories on the nature of language and learning), design
(specifying objectives, learning-teaching activities, learner and teacher
roles, and the role of instructional materials) and procedure (dealing
with classroom techniques and procedures).
Most teachers tend to think of methodology in terms of one or other
of the '-isms' which are described in most general teaching texts. These
include situational, audiolingual and communicative language teaching,
as well as the 'fringe' methods such as Total Physical Response, Silent
Way, Community Language Learning, the Natural Approach and Sugges-
topedia. These methods are analysed by Richards and Rodgers (1986)
in terms of the approach/design/procedure framework, where the 'fringe'
methods perhaps attract more attention than they deserve.
Here, we shall be looking at methodology from a communicative
perspective, and the focus is upon learning and teaching activities which
are consonant with this view.
Also to be examined is a central dilemma for those who subscribe
both to communicative language teaching and to the learner-centred
philosophy outlined in Chapter 3. It was suggested there that all aspects
of the curriculum process, including methodology, be informed by data
about and from the learner. However, research suggests that many adult
learners are antipathetic towards classroom techniques and activities
which can be broadly described as 'communicative'. In consequence,
communicative language teachers who also subscribe to a learner-centred
philosophy, find themselves on the he jns of a dilemma when confronted
by learners who have 'traditional' attitudes and beliefs about what are
appropriate classroom activities. It is suggested that the way out of this
dilemma must lie in extensive consultation, negotiation and information
exchange between the teacher and the learners. This is confirmed in the
78 Methodology

empirical study which forms the basis for much of the final chapter of
this book.

6.2 Methodology and Communicative Language

Teaching
In Chapter 5 a procedure was outlined for using learner goals and com-
municative tasks as the point of departure for curriculum design. In that
chapter, a distinction was drawn between real-world tasks and pedagogic
tasks. One of the central issues which needs to be dealt with by curriculum
designers who use tasks as the basis for selecting content and developing
learning activities is that of transfer of learning. A basic assumption is
that learners will be able to transfer knowledge and skills developed in
the rather artificial environment of the classroom to new contexts and
situations in the real world outside (Nunan 1988).
Assumptions about learning transfer have not always been borne out
in practice. One of the major reasons for widening the scope of language
content beyond grammatical structures, lexis and pronunciation, to func-
tions, notions, settings and so on, was the fact that most learners seemed
relatively inefficient at applying their grammatical knowledge to com-
municative language use outside the classroom.
The same thing happened with methodology. The assumption that
grammatical paradigms, which had been internalised through various
forms of classroom drill, could be put to communicative effect outside
the classroom, seemed overly optimistic. The transfer of skills from the
classroom context to other contexts did not occur as readily as was
hoped. The result has been the development of activities which are meant
to approximate in the classroom what happens in genuine communica-
tion outside. Teachers are exhorted to develop information-gap activities,
and one- and two-way tasks in which learners must negotiate with each
other to redress imbalances in the distribution of knowledge. Thus, in
addition to the various drills and controlled language practice designed
to develop accuracy, we have the whole panoply of communicative
activities, including games, simulations and role plays which are meant
to foster fluency.
In the communicative view of language which was described in detail
in Chapter 3, language learning was characterised as a process of develop-
ing the ability to do things with language (as opposed to learning about
language). In fact, there is not one but a cluster of approaches which
parade under the general label 'communicative', all of which characterise
language learning as the development of communication skills. Recent
approaches recognise the limitations of language transfer, and suggest
that at some stage learners should be encouraged to engage in class in
 Methodology and Communicative Language Teaching 79

some of the behaviours they will be required to use outside. While

part-skills practice might involve some non-communicative activities
such as drills, learners will also be expected to engage in substantial
whole-skill practice.
Needless to say, it is not possible to simulate all behaviours in class.
Neither is it necessary if we assume that some transfer will take place.
Yet to be determined are the classroom tasks and activities most likely
to facilitate skills transfer to the real world. The key questions which
need to be determined by empirical research are:
To what extent does the ability to perform Task X in class correlate
with the ability to perform Task X in real communication beyond
the classroom?; and
To what extent does the ability to perform Task X in class correlate
with the ability to perform Task Y and Z in real communication
beyond the classroom?
In the traditional ends—means (or objectives—methodology) model, class-
room activities are tied to performance objectives in a one-to-one
relationship. However, as already intimated, such a relationship is neither
necessary nor always desirable. It has been suggested that:
. . . there is no reason why rehearsing the final performance is
necessarily the only or even the best way of reaching the [stated]
goal. Indeed, there may be very good reasons for not spending a
great deal of class time in actually carrying out terminal tasks related
to performance objectives.
(Nunan 1985a:15)

However, to reiterate, some real-world tasks will be rehearsed in class.

Until we have firm evidence on the relationship between classroom learn-
ing and non-classroom communication, between pedagogic tasks and
real-world tasks, classroom teachers and instructional designers will have
to rely on judgement, experience and intuition, even though these have
not always served the profession particularly well in the past.
Some proponents of communicative methodologies see the prior
specification of objectives as redundant, believing that any classroom
activities which engage the learner in any sort of communicative language
use will provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for learning (see
for example Krashen and Terrell 1983). However, such a belief would
seem to rest on the now largely discredited 'unitary competence
hypothesis' (Oiler 1979). What happens in class should relate, in some
principled way, to what was planned to happen, even though it is unlikely
that there will ever be a neat one-to-one relationship between intention
and reality.
There have also appeared in the methodology market place comprehen-
80 Methodology

sion-based communicative methodologies which have as their central

article of faith the belief that comprehension is both necessary and suf-
ficient for successful second-language acquisition (see for example Winitz
1981). Some of these also claim the empirical support which is so notably
absent from most other methods. Asher (1977), for instance, claims that
experimental students following his comprehension-based Total Physical
Response method significantly out-perform control students in regular
classes. Such claims, however, have to be treated with a good deal of
caution, as there are suggestions that the post-treatment tests were by
no means programme-fair:
Asher (1972) and Asher, Kusudo and de la Torre (1974) investigated
the effect of the Total Physical Response (TPR) method compared
with a 'regular' programme. In the 1972 report, one of the stories
used in classroom training in the TPR group is presented as an
example; it is entitled 'Mr. Schmidt goes to the office'. Later in the
report, we are informed that one of the criterion measures used to
compare experimental (TPR) and control (regular) groups is a
listening test involving a 'story entitled "Mr. Schmidt goes to the
office'"(p. 136). In view of this, it is hardly astonishing that the
experimental students dramatically out-performed controls (p =
.0005). (On a reading test, no significant differences were found.)
(Beretta 1986b:432)

In addition, there is research which suggests that learners need the oppor-
tunity for both comprehensible input and output (Long 1981; Nicholas
1985).
One criticism which could be levelled at a methodology in which
real-world communication tasks are taken as the point of departure is
that it will enable learners to do only the sorts of things which have
been specifically taught in class; that such a methodology will not facili-
tate transfer of learning; and that it will, in effect, be a form of training
rather than education. We saw in Chapter 4 that such a criticism is made
by Widdowson in his critique of narrow-band ESP courses. He suggests
that courses which aim to teach learners to carry out pre-specified tasks
will produce speakers who are incapable of transferring that training to
carrying out communication tasks which have not been pre-specified.
General Purpose English courses (whatever these might be), on the other
hand, will aim at the development of generalised and transferable com-
municative competence (whatever that might be). He suggests that:
ESP is essentially a training operation which seeks to provide
learners with a restricted competence to enable them to cope with
certain clearly-defined tasks. These tasks constitute the specific
purposes which the ESP course is designed to meet. The course,
therefore, makes direct reference to eventual aims. GPE, on the
other hand, is essentially an educational operation which seeks to
 Acquisition in the Classroom 81

provide learners with a general capacity to enable them to cope

with undefined eventualities in the future. Here, since there are no
definite aims which can determine course content, there has to be
recourse to intervening objectives formulated by pedagogic theory.
These objectives represent the potential for later realisation and
are, so to speak, the abstract projection of aims.
(Widdowson 1983:6)

However, as has already been pointed out, the degree to which courses
of one type or another do or do not equip the learner to react approp-
riately in situations which have not been specified in advance is a matter
for empirical investigation rather than speculation. Until such evidence
is forthcoming, it is not unreasonable to allow learners to practise in
class those skills which are directly relevant to the purposes for which
they have come to learn English in the first place. Certainly, until the
construct of 'general purpose English' has been more fully articulated,
verified by research, and operationalised, it would be well to develop
methodologies which are consonant with learners' communicative pur-
poses.

6.3 Acquisition in the Classroom

It has been repeatedly suggested in these pages that we need to place
curriculum development on more secure empirical foundations. This is
no less true for methodology than for other curriculum elements. We
need methodologies which are psychologically and psycholinguistically
motivated, and which do not violate what we already know about lan-
guage development. Unfortunately, much research has been either mis-
leading or misused, leading to scepticism on the part of practitioners.
However, some promising avenues have opened up in the area of class-
room-based acquisition research.
Second-language acquisition (SLA) has been a growth area in applied
linguistics research in recent years. A name commonly associated with
SLA is Stephen Krashen (1981, 1982). In fact, he is viewed by some
classroom practitioners as the high priest of the profession despite the
fact that comparatively little of his theoretical speculations are based on
his own empirical research, and that his practical suggestions are either
self-evident (make learning 'interesting'), or are based on unreasonable
extrapolations from such data as are currently available. However, he
has put SLA on the practitioner's agenda, and should be given credit for
that.
Krashen's Monitor Model suggests that there are two discrete
psycholinguistic processes operating in second-language development:
82 Methodology

conscious learning and subconscious acquisition. According to the model,

long-term language development occurs only through subconscious
acquisition (or, to be more precise, that acquisition is central, while
learning is peripheral to language development), and acquisition occurs
when learners understand language which is a little beyond their current
competence. A great deal of methodological speculation has been
spawned by this comprehensible-input hypothesis.
The model further suggests that the classroom is one of the few places
where comprehensible input is available to the learner. Such input is
facilitated by the use of foreigner talk, by focusing on meaning rather
than form, and by ensuring that the learners affective 'filter' is low.
In recent years, Krashen's work has been subjected to some searching
criticism (see for example Gregg 1984;Johnston 1985;Pienemann 1985).
These criticisms notwithstanding, second-language acquisition has
developed as an important area of applied linguistics. The work of resear-
chers such as Pienemann, Johnston, Ellis and Long, to name just a few,
is of interest because it is based on data rather than speculation. There
is by no means universal agreement by these researchers on the nature
of the psycholinguistic processing operations underlying second-language
acquisition. However, most share an interest in exploring the potential
of the classroom as an environment where acquisition can be fostered.
Second-language acquisition research and its implications are of par-
ticular interest to practitioners who subscribe to the principles of com-
municative language teaching. Both focus on the development of mean-
ing, and both recognise the importance of the negotiation of meaning
as a stimulus to language development. Implicit in both is the belief that
language development can occur through means other than sequential,
step-by-step processing.
A central article of faith in Krashen's model is the belief that com-
prehension is the only factor necessary for successful language acquisi-
tion; the notion that speaking practice and the conscious learning of
grammar are necessary is rejected. In support of his position he places
a great of faith in the results of Asher's research.
. . . those methods that provide more of the input necessary for
acquisition, and that 'put grammar in its place' are superior to older
approaches.
(Krashen 1982:155)

In view of the questions surrounding Asher's empirical work, Krashen's

comment is rather sanguine to say the least.
An alternative to the comprehensible-input hypothesis is the 'com-
prehensible-output' hypothesis, which stresses the importance of giving
learners the opportunity of practising the target language (Swain 1985).
It has been further suggested that learners need not only the opportunity
 Acquisition in the Classroom 83

of producing the target language, but that they also need the opportunity
of being able to 'negotiate the new input, thereby ensuring that the
language which is heard is modified to exactly the level of comprehen-
sibility they can manage' (Long and Porter 1985). The negotiation of
meaning through speech modifications and conversational adjustments
is justified as follows:
. . . if it can be shown that linguistic and/or conversational
adjustments promote comprehensibility, and that comprehensibility
promotes acquisition, it can be deduced that the adjustments
promote acquisition.
(Long 1985)

Long and Porter suggest that small-group work in the language classroom
provides the optimum environment for negotiated comprehensible out-
put. In fact, validity is claimed for group work on both pedagogical and
psycholinguistic grounds. Pedagogical arguments include the following:
Group work increases the opportunities for learners to use the language.
Group work improves the quality of student talk.
Group work allows greater potential for the individualisation of instruc-
tion.
Group work promotes a positive affective climate.
Group work has been found to increase student motivation.
In providing a psycholinguistic rationale for group work, Long and
Porter cite both Krashen's comprehensible-input and Swain's comprehen-
sible-output hypotheses. Group work provides an environment in which
learners can comprehend, it gives them opportunities for production and
it provides contexts within which meaning can be negotiated.
Long and Porter also cite the second-language acquisition research on
foreigner talk. Such talk consists of language in which syntax and interac-
tion patterns have been modified. These modifications increase the
amount of comprehensible input to which the learners are exposed,
which, it is hypothesised, increases the rate at which they learn.
A number of classroom studies have also demonstrated other benefits
from interactions between second-language learners. Porter (1985) was
able to demonstrate that learners actually talked more in pair work with
other second-language learners than with native speakers, and that, con-
trary to expectation, learners did not appear to learn each other's errors
to any significant extent. A study by Varonis and Gass (1983)
demonstrated that there are advantages in arranging pair work between
learners of different proficiency levels, that such unequal dyads result in
more negotiation of meaning than either native speaker—non-native
speaker interactions or interactions between learners of the same profi-
84 Methodology

ciency level. Research such as this is reassuring for teachers who do not
have the relative luxury of homogeneous classes.
The literature on language acquisition is substantial, and it is impos-
sible to deal adequately with the subject here. Interested readers are
referred to Day (1985), Ellis (1985) and Hyltenstam and Pienemann
(1985) for more comprehensive accounts of the field. Ellis, in particular,
provides a readable synthesis of SLA theory and research.

6.4 Stimulating Classroom Acquisition

Long and Crookes (1986) have been experimenting with techniques for
stimulating acquisition in the classroom. They have found that 'two-way
tasks', in which two participants must share information in order to
complete a task or solve a problem, are effective in stimulating the
development of communication skills. In particular, such activities pro-
vide an environment for the development of fluency and the negotiation
of meaning (postulated by Long to be an important activity for acquis-
ition). They also stimulate learners to mobilise all their linguistic
resources, and push their linguistic knowledge to the limit.
Learners also seem to be prompted to mobilise all their linguistic
resources when teachers increase the number of referential rather than
display questions they ask. (Referential questions are those to which the
teacher does not have the answer.) Compare the two following extracts
taken from the same class using the same materials (a picture sequence
of 'an accident'). In the first extract the teacher asks display questions,
while in the second she involves the learners by asking referential ques-
tions. The second extract is, communicatively, much richer than the first.
1
T: What's the name of this? What's the name? Not in Chinese
Ss: Van. Van.
T: Van. What's in the back of the van?
Ss: Milk. milk.
T: A milk van.
S: Milk van.
T: What's this man? (Driver)
S: Driver.
T: The driver.
S: The driver.
T: The milkman.
S: Millman.
T: Milkman.
Ss: Milkman.
T: Where are they?
Ss: Where are they?
 Stimulating Classroom Acquisition 85

T: Where are they? Inside, outside?

S: Department.
T: Department?
S: Department store.
T: Mmm. Supermarket.
2
S: My mother is by bicycle. By bicycle, yes, many, many
water.
T: She had an accident?
S: In China, my mother is a teacher, my father is a teacher. Oh,
she go finish by bicycle, er, go to . . .
S: House?
S: No house, go to . . .
S: School?
S: No school. My mother . . .
T: Mmm
S: Go to her mother.
T: Oh, your grandmother.
S: Grandmother. On, yes, by bicycle, by bicycle, oh is, um,
accident, (gestures)
T: In water?
S: In water, yeah.
T: In a river?
S: River, yeah, river. Oh, yes, um, dead.
Ss: Dead! Dead! Oh!
T: Dead? Your mother? (General consternation)
Long has proposed a task-based curriculum for ESL which is not dissimi-
lar to the procedure outlined in Chapter 5. A task is defined as:
. . . a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely, or
for some reward . . . examples of tasks include painting a fence,
dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making
an airline reservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving
test, typing a letter, weighing a patient... In other words, by 'task'
is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at
work, at play, and in between.
(Long 1985:89)

Long's task-based syllabus has been developed by Long and Crookes

(1986). At first sight, their suggestions look to be no different from the
'general communicative approaches' based largely on information-gap
and problem-solving tasks. Underlying these approaches, however, is an
assumption that the specific nature of the task and the content on which
it is based are unimportant, that, as long as learners are productively
engaged in a task, they will be acquiring the target language. In other
words, these approaches seem to rest on what looks suspiciously like
the unitary-competence hypothesis which asserts that there is a single
86 Methodology

language construct underlying all language ability, and that the develop-
ment of skills in one domain will transfer maximally to all other domains.
This hypothesis has now been discredited, and it is generally accepted
that skills transfer is likely to be more restricted than was previously
thought. Recognition of this fact has been one reason for the development
of learner-centred approaches to curriculum design.
Long's approach, however, does not rest on any notion of unitary
competence. Rather, he tries to develop principles in which pedagogic
tasks are systematically related to real-world tasks. He thus stresses the
importance of basing classroom tasks on the prior identification of
learner needs, and it can be seen from the following steps and examples
how close his curriculum model is to the one proposed here. (His 'target
tasks' and 'type tasks' are similar to the learner goals which are the point
of departure for content specification as set out in Chapter 5.)
Long and Crookes propose the following steps:
1 Use learner needs identification to identify target tasks.
2 Classify target tasks into task types.
3 From task types, derive pedagogical tasks (second-language acquisi-
tion opportunities).
4 Sequence pedagogical tasks to form task syllabuses.
5 Evaluate achievement using task-based criterion-referenced tests.
The distinction between types of task is exemplified in Table 6.1:

TABLE 6.1

Target tasks Task type Pedagogical tasks

Buying/Selling bus, train, Buying/Selling tickets Matching dialogue

airline and theatre tickets excerpts 1 -way input/L
Matching requests with
ticket availability 1-way
input/L
Informing customer of
seat availability 2-way/PW

Key
L: lockstep
PW: pair work

There still remains a great deal of empirical work to be done, particularly

in terms of establishing difficulty levels for task types and in establishing
the degree of learning transfer from one task type to another. However,
at this stage, the methodological implications of task syllabuses look
promising in that they attempt to integrate insights from classroom-
 Stimulating Classroom Acquisition 87

acquisition research and principles of learner-centred curriculum design.

So far, it has been suggested that a task-oriented communicative cur-
riculum will develop a methodology which takes the learner towards
the classroom rehearsal of tasks and skills needed for communicating
outside the classroom. Acquisition studies suggest that classroom com-
munication can foster language acquisition, particularly if learners are
given opportunities for productive language use and the negotiation of
meaning in small-group work. This research also suggests that sequential,
step-by-step learning, in which tasks and skills are carefully built up
from simple to complex, can be supplemented by whole task activities
in which a variety of skills are integrated.
Various task types have been developed to stimulate genuine whole-
task practice in the classroom. These include information-gap tasks,
language games, simulations and so on. While such tasks have their
place in the communicative classroom, they do not always stimulate
enthusiastic learner participation, nor is their relevance to the real world
always apparent.
One activity which can be used to simulate the sorts of communication
tasks which learners will be required to perform in the real world is role
play. Richards presents a rationale for the use of role play, along with
practical suggestions as to how role play can be utilised in class. He
suggests that collaborative communication activities such as group work,
problem-solving tasks, role plays and simulations exhibit the following
characteristics:
They provide opportunities to practice strategies for opening,
developing, and terminating conversational encounters.
They require learners to develop meanings collaboratively.
They necessitate the use of turn-taking rules.
They practice use of conversational routines and expressions.
They involve learners in different kinds of roles, necessitating use
of different styles of speaking.
They require negotiated completion of tasks.
They involve information sharing.
They focus on comprehensible and meaningful input and output.
They require a high degree of learner participation.
(Richards 1985b:83)

The procedure described by Richards for utilising role play with inter-
mediate learners is as follows:
1 Learners participate in a preliminary activity in which the topic
and situation are introduced.
2 They then work through a model dialogue on a related topic
which provides examples of the type of language which will be
required.
3 Assisted by role cards, learners perform the role play.
88 Methodology

4 Learners listen to recordings of native speakers performing the

role play with the same role cards.
5 Follow-up activities exploit the native-speaker performance.
6 The entire sequence is then repeated with a second transaction
on the same topic.
(op cit.:$7-&$)

By selecting topics and settings from the information obtained from

learners through needs analysis, the classroom role plays can be made
relevant to the perceived needs of the learners.
The most interesting suggestion in the Richards procedure is the use
of native-speaker versions of the role plays. These act as 'master per-
former' models for the learners.

6.5 Methodology in a Learner-Centred Curriculum

It has thus far been argued that a communicative curriculum will use as
its basic building block pedagogic tasks which, while they might not
necessarily replicate, will be linked in principled ways to the real-world
tasks learners might be required to engage in outside the classroom. It
has also been suggested that classroom-based acquisition studies might
provide psycholinguistically-motivated learning tasks. While accuracy-
based activities such as drills and controlled practice will not be pros-
cribed, prominence will be given to activities which promote fluency.
Further, it would seem that small groups are probably the most effective
way of grouping learners for communicative language work. Perfor-
mance-based activities such as role play will also be promoted. These
suggestions would seem to be supported by both pedagogical and
psycholinguistic research.
So far, however, the most important actor in the drama, the language
learner, has been left standing in the wings. In a learner-centred cur-
riculum, methodology, as much as any other element in the curriculum,
must be informed by the attitudes of the learners. What, then, do learners
think are legitimate learning activities, and how do these compare with
the perceptions of the teachers who instruct them?
In this section we shall attempt to answer this question by examining
a number of studies which explore the perceptions of teachers and learn-
ers. While these studies do not directly compare teachers and learners,
they provide the background for a study which does.

Background
Eltis and Low (1985), in a national survey of teaching processes within
 Methodology in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 89

the Adult Migrant Education Program, questioned 445 teachers on the

usefulness of various teaching activities. The rank ordering of these
activities according to their perceived usefulness is set out in Table 6.2:
TABLE 6 . 2 RANK ORDERING OF TEACHING ACTIVITIES
ACCORDING TO PERCEIVED USEFULNESS (ELTIS AND LOW
1985).

Activity

Students working in pairs / small groups 80

Role-play 56
Language games 51
Reading topical articles 48
Students making oral presentations 46
Cloze (gap filling) exercises 45
Using video materials 40
Student repeating teacher cue (drill) 34
Exercise in free writing 27
Setting and correction of homework 25
Listening and note-taking 25
Repeating and learning dialogues 20
Students reading aloud in class 21
Exercises in conference writing 18

Teachers were asked to choose the two activities which they found to
be most valuable in their teaching. The activities which were rated as
significant were:
— students working in pairs / small groups
— language games
— role play
— reading topical articles
— close (gap-filling) exercises.
In general, the Eltis and Low study supports the communicative language
teaching study reported in Chapter 3. Both studies indicate that the
teachers investigated favour activities and tasks which can be broadly
typified as 'communicative'.
Alcorso and Kalantzis (1985) studied the perceptions of students.
While they did not canvass exactly the same activities as Eltis and Low,
there are enough similarities in the survey instruments to make compari-
sons. Their findings on the most useful parts of lessons according to a
representative group of learners are set out in Table 6.3.
90 Methodology

TABLE 6 . 3 MOST USEFUL PARTS OF LESSON ACCORDING

TO STUDENTS (ALCORSO AND KALANTZIS 1985).

Activity %

Grammar exercises 40
Structured class discussion/conversation 35
Copying written material, memorising,
drill and repetition work 25
Listening activities using cassettes 20
Reading books and newspapers 15
Writing stories, poems, descriptions 12
Drama, role-play, songs, language games 12
Using audio-visuals, TV, video 11
Communication tasks, problem-solving 10
Excursions with the class 7

Data from the Eltis and Low and Alcorso and Kalantzis studies indicate
that while those teachers surveyed seem to rate 'communicative' type
activities highly, learners favour more 'traditional' learning activities,
the one exception being 'structured conversation'. In follow-up inter-
views with learners who took part in the survey, Alcorso and Kalantzis
(1985) report that:
There seemed to be a common view about the importance of
grammar across respondents with different levels of English and
from diverse educational backgrounds . . . In explaining their
preferences, the learners said they saw grammar-specific exercises
as the most basic and essential part of learning a language.
(p.43)

. . . conversation was another frequently mentioned activity

considered useful for learning English . . . Typically what people
meant by the word 'conversation' was speaking with the teacher,
group and class discussions and question and and answer sessions
with the teacher.
(P-44)

These activities [games, singing and dance] were among the most
contentious since most students had firm views about their
usefulness or uselessness. Again the divergence of opinion seemed
to relate to people's educational background and socio-economic
position. The most common comment from high-school or tertiary-
educated migrants was that, in general, dance, singing and games
were a waste of time.
(p.48)
 Methodology in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 91

In a major study of the learning styles of adult ESL students, Willing

(1985) investigated the learning preferences of 517 learners. His survey
instrument contained 30 questions relating to class activities, teacher
behaviour, learning group, aspects of language, sensory-modality
options, and 'outside-class' activities. Learners, who were provided with
bilingual assistance where necessary, rated each of these on a four-point
scale.
A factor analysis of the data revealed patterns of variation in the
responses with evidence for the existence of four different learner types.
These are as follows:
'Concrete' learners: These learners preferred learning by games, pictures,
films and video, talking in pairs, learning through the use of cassette
and going on excursions.
'Analytical' learners: These learners liked studying grammar, studying
English books, studying alone, finding their own mistakes, having
problems to work on, learning through reading newspapers.
'Communicative' learners: This group liked to learn by observing and
listening to native speakers, talking to friends in English, watching
TV in English, using English in shops etc., learning English words by
hearing them and learning by conversations.
'Authority-oriented' learners: These students liked the teacher to explain
everything, writing everything in a notebook, having their own
textbook, learning to read, studying grammar and learning English
words by seeing them.
Despite the variation, there were some activity types which rated very
highly overall. These were pronunciation practice, explanations to the
class, conversation practice, error correction and vocabulary develop-
ment. Others receiving low or very low ratings included listening to or
using cassettes, student self-discovery of errors, learning through pictures,
films and video, pair work and language games.
As already indicated, studies such as those be Alcorso and Kalantzis
and Eltis and Low, while providing interesting indications, are not
directly comparable. In order to provide data on learner and teacher
perceptions which could be directly compared, a study was conducted
using a survey instrument based on ten of the most and least popular
student learning activities from the Willing study.
The Study
Sixty teachers from the Adult Migrant Education Programme were asked
to complete a questionnaire which required them to rate the following
activities on a four-point scale according to their degree of importance:
— pronunciation practice
— explanations to class
92 Methodology

— conversation practice
— error correction
— vocabulary development
— listening to / using cassettes
— student self-discover of errors
— using pictures, film and video
— pair work
— language games.
Items were rated and scored in an identical fashion to the Willing study.
A comparison was them made between the two sets of data.

Results
Results of the comparison are set out in Table 6.4:

TABLE 6 . 4 A COMPARISON OF STUDENT AND TEACHER RATINGS OF

SELECTED LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Activity Student Teacher

Pronunciation practice very high medium

Explanations to class very high high
Conversation practice very high very high
Error correction very high low
Vocabulary development very high high
Listening to / using cassettes low medium high
Student self-discovery of errors low very high
Using pictures/films/video low low medium
Pair work low very high
Language games very low low

These results indicate that only in one instance is there a match between
the ratings of students and teachers, that is, in the importance accorded
to conversation practice. All other activities are mismatched, some
dramatically so, in particular pronunciation practice, error correction,
listening to / using cassettes, student self-discovery of error and pair
work. The results are represented diagrammatically in Figure 6.1:
 Methodology in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 93

very high i Teachers

high

medium high

medium

low medium

low Students

very low
1 8 9 10
KEY
1 Conversation practice 6 Language games
2 Explanations to class 7 Using pictures/films/video
3 Vocabulary development 8 Listening to / using cassettes
4 Pronunciation practice 9 Student self-discovery of errors
5 Error correction 10 Pair work
FIGURE 6 . 1 TEACHER AND LEARNER RATINGS OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES: A
COMPARISON

Discussion
The data presented above reveal clear mismatches between learners' and
teachers' views of language learning. The comparative study reported
above demonstrates mismatches in all but one activity investigated, and
quite significant mismatches in half of the activities. There is some dif-
ficulty in interpreting some of the Alcorso and Kalantzis and Eltis and
Low data because of differences in the activities investigated. However,
where comparisons are possible, mismatches are evident. Thus Alcorso
and Kalantzis demonstrate that learners give a high rating to conversation
practice and a low rating to the use of cassettes, audiovisuals, TV, video
and language games. Eltis and Low confirm that teachers give a medium
rating to the use of pictures, films and video, and a very high rating to
pair work. The only area of conflict in the data occurs in the case of
language games which received a high rating in the Eltis and Low study
and a low rating in the comparative study.
Brindley (1984), in a series of interviews with teachers and learners,
uncovered what seemed to be two mutually incompatible sets of beliefs
94 Methodology

about the nature of language and language learning by teachers and

learners, and which would appear consistent with the studies reported
on in the preceding section. He suggests that:
It is clear that many learners do have rather fixed ideas (in some
cases culturally determined) about what it is to be a learner and
what it is to learn a language. These ideas, not always at a conscious
level, run roughly thus:
Learning consists of acquiring a body of knowledge.
The teacher has this knowledge and the learner has not.
The knowledge is available for revision and practice in a textbook
or some other written form.
It is the role of the teacher to impart this knowledge to the learner
through such activities as explanation, writing and example. The
learner will be given a programme in advance.
Learning a language consists of learning the structural rules of the
language and the vocabulary through such activities as memorisa-
tion, reading and writing.
(op cit.:97)

The teachers' views, on the other uand, seemed to be as follows:

Learning consists of acquiring organising principles through encoun-
tering experience.
The teacher is a resource person who provides language input for
the learner to work on.
Language data is to be found everywhere — in the community and
media as well as in textbooks.
It is the role of the teacher to assist learners to become self-directing
by providing access to language data through such activities as
active listening, role play and interaction with native speakers.
For learners, learning a language consists of forming hypotheses
about the language input to which they will be exposed, these
hypotheses being constantly modified in the direction of the target
model.

These beliefs are reflected in the comments made on the sorts of learning
activities preferred by learners. Teachers made comments such as the
following:
All they want is grammar.
I tried to get them to watch a video, but they didn't like it.
They didn't want to go on excursions. They wanted to stay in the
classroom and do grammar exercises.
They kept asking for a textbook.

Statements from learners seemed to confirm these views:

Without the grammar, you can't learn the language.
I don't want to clap and sing. I want to learn English.
 Negotiating Learning Activities 95

I want something I can take home and study. We do a lot of speaking,

but we never see it written down.
{op cit.:96)

It would seem that differences between learners and teachers are to be

accounted for in terms of the sociocultural background and previous
learning experiences of the learners, and the influence on teachers of
recent directions in communicative language learning and teaching. Such
differences are likely to influence the effectiveness of teaching strategies
and need to be taken into consideration in the development and applica-
tion of teaching methodologies.

6.6 Negotiating Learning Activities

The data presented in the previous section, which have been taken from
a number of different research studies, suggest that adult ESL learners
may have fairly fixed ideas about which activities are appropriate for
the classroom. Not all of these ideas are consistent with a communicative
methodology, and there is evidence of conflict between the views of
teachers and learners.
What happens, then, in the case of a teacher discovering that her
students subscribe to 'traditional' rather than 'communicative' princi-
ples? It would seem that such a teacher, assuming she is committed both
to a communicative methodology and also to a learner-centred
philosophy, is in something of a dilemma. One the one hand, she could
ignore the wishes of the learners and adopt a 'doctor knows best' attitude
by insisting on communicative activities in the classroom which learners
may not feel are valid. In so doing, she would be abandoning any hope
of being learner-centred. On the other hand, she could abandon her
communicative principles and allow the learners to engage in activities
such as memorising grammar rules, which she may feel are not really
assisting the learners to develop their communicative skills. (Of course,
the dilemma is compounded by the fact that we simply do not, as yet,
have conclusive empirical evidence one way or another on whether or
not 'non-communicative' activities such as the learning of grammatical
rules do or do not facilitate the development of communicative skills.)
There are, in fact, other alternatives. One could begin by setting trad-
itional learning activities, and gradually try and move learners towards
an acceptance of more communicative activities. The danger here is that
the initial activities may inculcate a learning set which will be difficult
to overcome later. For this reason, some teachers prefer to make their
expectations quite clear from the beginning. Whatever choice is made,
it would seem imperative to provide the maximum amount of informa-
96 Methodology

tion to learners, through bilingual assistance where necessary and/or

possible, and to set up mechanisms to facilitate the maximum amount
of negotiation and consultation.
However, this can create another problem which is that learners gen-
erally do not cast themselves in a consultative role. As Brindley discovered
in his study of teachers and learners:
The principle of consultation with learners is fundamental to a
learner-centred system. However, many teachers expressed doubts
regarding the feasibility of consultation, pointing out a number of
potential obstacles: the conflicting ideas held by teachers and
learners about their respective roles; the resultant problems of
reconciling learner-perceived needs with teacher-perceived needs;
the learners' inability to state their needs clearly.
(Brindley 1984:95)

(See also the experience of 'Sally's' class in the case study reported in
Chapter 10.)
These data would tend to reinforce one of the central themes developed
here, that for learners to take part in curriculum processes, particularly
for them to make informed choices on appropriate methodology, they
need to be taught what it means to be a learner. The curriculum therefore
needs to have dual aims, one set relating to the teaching of language,
the other to the teaching of learning skills.
This becomes particularly crucial when mismatches such as those
reported in the previous section occur. Somehow or other, the teacher
who is committed to communicative language teaching needs to convince
learners of the value of communicative activities.
In fact, it is not the case that learners are antipathetic to all communica-
tive learning strategies. The Willing study (1985) revealed some interest-
ing data on learner attitudes in this regard:
It appears very strongly in the data that the general 'communicative'
trend in language teaching has a highly-valued aspect, and also a
considerably less-valued aspect, in the estimation of the majority
of learners.
'Conversation in class', 'talking to friends', and 'learning by
observing and interacting with Australians' were all rated very
highly. In interviews and discussions it was clear that, in particular,
methods which encourage 'real' conversational practice and
discussion (with teacher intervention with suggestions and error
correction) is the single most highly-valued learning modality.
On the other hand, it appeared that what might be called the
'artificial' side of the communicative approach is relatively
unpopular. Listening activities using cassettes; activities involving
pictures, films and video; and (especially) 'games' all received quite
low ratings.
(Willing 1985:66)
 Conclusion 97

6.7 Conclusion
If by 'real' conversational practice is meant learners being themselves
and simulating in class the sorts of communicative activities which are
required of them outside, it would seem that the sort of approach advo-
cated here is validated by the data. Real-life and psycholinguistically-
motivated pedagogic tasks seem to be both pedagogically and psycholin-
guistically sound, and also appear to have the general support of the
learners themselves.
7 Resources for a Learner-
Centred Curriculum

7.1 Introduction
At the classroom level, materials often seem more prominent than any
other element in the curriculum. This no doubt is largely due to the fact
that materials are the tangible manifestation of the curriculum in action.
They are, in fact, omnipresent in the language classroom and it is difficult
to imagine a class without books, pictures, filmstrips, realia, games and
so on. Even the most austere classroom will have some sort of materials.
The Community Language Learning class will have a tape recorder,
while in the Silent Way class rods and charts will be the focus of attention.
Inexperienced teachers very often look to materials first for assistance
in planning their courses and also for teaching ideas. There is evidence
that experienced teachers also look to materials when confronted with
an unfamiliar class or learner type.
Materials are, in fact, an essential element within the curriculum, and
do more than simply lubricate the wheels of learning. At their best, they
provide concrete models of desirable classroom practice, they act as
curriculum models, and at their very best they fulfil a teacher development
role. Good materials also provide models for teachers to follow in
developing their own materials.
Materials come in many shapes and formats. The most obvious distinc-
tion is between local materials produced by a teacher for her class, and
those which are commercially produced. A survey conducted of several
hundred teachers in one large ESL programme revealed that 73 per cent
of teachers regularly used materials produced by themselves, while only
50 per cent used commercially-produced materials (Eltis and Low 1985).
Commercial materials may be complete, sequentially developed
courses with teachers' books, students' books, audiotapes, filmstrips and
photographs. One of the most comprehensive sets of materials, Chal-
lenges, contains all these components as well as films and videotapes.
Many published materials are not sequential, but consist of discrete units
which may supplement teacher-produced materials.
The advent of sophisticated, user-friendly computer packages such as
those produced for the Apple Macintosh allow teachers to adapt commer-
cial materials, or create their own, with a highly professional finish.

98
 Materials in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 99

One of the problems with comprehensive, structured course materials,

particularly those with a strong methodological bias, is that they can
sometimes dictate what goes on in the classroom, leaving teachers with
little opportunity to exercise their own creativity (although there is evi-
dence that many teachers have an independent streak, and tend to modify
materials to suit themselves).

7.2 Materials in a Learner-Centred Curriculum

Within a learner-centred system, experienced teachers report that they
find certain sorts of materials more useful than others. In general, a
range of materials which can be exploited in a variety of ways is more
useful than a comprehensive package. As the focus will be on assisting
learners to do in class what they will need to be able to do outside, the
materials should reflect the outside world. In other words, they should
have a degree of authenticity. This authenticity should relate to the text
sources as well as to student activities and tasks. The materials should
also foster independent learning by raising the consciousness of the learn-
ers and making them more aware of the learning process. This can be
done in a variety of ways, such as building self-evaluation and assessment
exercises into the materials themselves. Recognising the inevitability of
mixed groups of learners (both in terms of proficiency and also in terms
of preferred learning styles), materials should be designed so that they
are capable of being used in a variety of ways and also at different
proficiency levels. As already indicated, they should also be suggestive
rather than definitive, acting as a model for teachers to develop their
own variations. The materials should also reflect the sociocultural con-
text within which they will be used.
Some of these characteristics will now be discussed in greater detail.
The points which have been made are exemplified by some recently
published materials which have been developed within a learner-centred
context.

Authenticity
The concept of authenticity is one which has aroused a great deal of
debate since it was first introduced. The term itself is open to a number
of interpretations. The most commonly accepted one can probably be
articulated as follows:
4
Authentic' materials are usually defined as those which have been
produced for purposes other than to teach language. They can be
culled from many different sources: video clips, recordings of
authentic interactions, extracts from television, radio and
newspapers, signs, maps and charts, photographs and pictures,
100 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

timetables and schedules. These are just a few of the sources which
have been tapped.
(Nunan 1985a:38)

Those who take a hard line on authenticity insist that these should not
be edited in any way. However, teachers find that very often the quality
of audio recordings is so poor (and the task, in any case, is so much
more difficult than comprehending in face-to-face interactions) that these
have to be re-recorded or simulated (Slade 1986).
Despite the difficulties associated with the use of authentic materials,
they are justified on the grounds that specially scripted texts are artificial.
The problem is that comprehending and manipulating scripted dialogues
does not readily transfer to comprehending and using language in real
communicative situations.
Just how different 'textbook' language is from real language can be
seen in the following extracts. The first is a specially-written dialogue
from a high quality coursebook, while the second is from a coursebook
based on authentic interviews and conversations:

Interview with a Pop Star

Interviewer: First question, Chris. What makes you happy?
Chris: Seeing my records in the charts.
Interviewer: And what makes you sad?
Chris: Violence and poverty, war and suffering.
Interviewer: What was your most embarrassing moment?
Chris: When I missed the bus to my first concert.
Interviewer: What is your earliest memory?
Chris: A holiday in Spain with my parents and my sister when
I was three and a half. We saw some fishermen.
Interviewer: What do you think of your fans?
Chris: I love them, don't you?
Interviewer: Who was your first girlfriend?
Chris: Which first girlfriend?
Interviewer: What would your ideal girl be like?
Chris: She would have blue eyes and long legs. She'd have a
warm friendly personality and — she would have to
like my mum.
(Candlin and Edelhoff 1982:128)

Pat is talking about jobs that her friends do.

Bronwyn: Tony wants to be a pilot—he's wanted — he's wanted
to be a pilot—he's adopted—he's wanted to be a pilot
ever since he came to me
Gary: mm
Bronwyn: he's never wavered from that
Pauline: mm
 Materials in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 101

Pat: a friend of mine, he was um . . .

Pauline: well, I hope he gets it
Bronwyn: mm
Pat: he was doing oh — just joy-rides around the islands,
flying all the people — he only has to work six months
of the year
Bronwyn: mm
Gary: yes
Pat: because that's all his contract is, six months a year but
he gets such a high wage
Pauline: yes
Bronwyn: he has a holiday for six months (laugh)
Pat: that he has a holiday for six months and um another
ah guy Mark went to school with drives a speed boat
from island to island, dropping passengers off here and
there and everywhere
Bronwyn: and they all get really good money
Gary: they do
Pauline: yes but it might get boring after a while
Bronwyn: it does — you ask Helen
(Economou 1985:102)

While the written transcripts do not reveal differences in intonation and

articulation, a cursory inspection reveals just how different they are in
terms of syntax, discourse patterns and patterns of interaction. While
non-authentic language has a place in the classroom, learners should
not be denied the opportunity of exploring authentic language. Specially
scripted dialogues and 'real' conversation are not mutually exclusive, as
some might maintain; they simply have different pedagogical purposes
in the classroom.
While authenticity is generally thought of in terms of the materials
used in a given teaching activity (the materials might be radio or television
advertisements, newspaper extracts, casual conversation, etc.), there are,
in fact, other equally important types of authenticity. Candlin and
Edelhoff suggest that there are at least four types of authenticity which
are important for language learning and teaching. These are authenticity
of goal, environment, text and task. In contrasting their view of authen-
ticity with that of other coursebook writers, they assert that:
Often writers of textbooks assume that it is enough if a few
photographs or bits of newspaper extract are interspersed among
sets of traditional language teaching exercises, not integrated or
interrelated with them, but merely serving as a kind of veneer of
Englishness to what is still a traditional book of
drills . . . CHALLENGES offers an alternative to this and one which
focuses on the authenticity of the tasks that the materials offer as
possibilities to the learner and to the teacher.
(Candlin and Edelhoff 1982:9)
102 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

Another important type of authenticity (perhaps the most important of

all) is what might be called 'learner authenticity'. By this is meant the
realisation and acceptance by the learner of the authenticity of a given
text, task, set of materials or learning activity. For learners to authenticate
materials, these need, minimally, to fulfil two conditions. In the first
place, they need to be recognised by learners as having a legitimate place
in the language classroom. Secondly, they must engage the interests of
the learner by relating to his interests, background knowledge and experi-
ence, and, through these, stimulate genuine communication.
The problem is that these two conditions can sometimes be mutually
exclusive. In the studies of learners reported in the previous chapter, it
was found that many learners come to the language class prepared only
to legitimate such 'non-authentic' activities as drill and practice and the
learning of grammatical rules and paradigms. One teacher found her
learners rejected lessons based on extracts from television because they
were not prepared to legitimate the use of television in the classroom.
In such cases, teachers have found a process of negotiation through
which learners are gradually sensitised to a broader perspective on the
nature of language and language learning is the most effective means of
resolving conflict (see, for example, the case study in Chapter 9). In cases
where materials and/or learning activities violate deeply-held or cultur-
ally-based beliefs, the materials should be abandoned.
An example of how learners can authenticate materials when their
background knowledge is stimulated is presented in the preceding chapter
where extracts from a lesson based on a picture sequence about an
accident are presented. As soon as the teacher stopped asking display
questions and started asking questions which prompted learners to acti-
vate their background knowledge learner language and interactions
changed dramatically.

Levels of Difficulty
Traditionally, difficulty has been defined in linguistic terms, and levels
of difficulty has been controlled for by controlling the difficulty of linguis-
tic input to learners.
An alternative approach is to control the difficulty of the tasks required
of the learners. Long contrasts difficulty, as traditionally determined,
and difficulty as determined in his task-based syllabus design as follows:
Grading is determined [in a task-based syllabus] by the degree of
difficulty of the pedagogical tasks themselves (from simple to
complex), as well as such normal considerations as variety, pace
and duration. 'Difficulty', here, however, does not mean difficulty
in terms of the linguistic demands of the full version of a given
target task which indirectly motivated selection of a particular
 Materials in a Learner-Centred Curriculum 103

pedagogic task. Rather, it refers to the difficulty of pedagogical

tasks in such aspects as th^ number of steps involved in their
execution, the number of parties involved, the assumptions they
make about presupposed knowledge, the intellectual challenge they
pose, their location (or not) in displaced time and space, and so
on. Thus, of two pedagogic tasks involving one person selling
another an airline ticket, the version in which the ticket was the
last available would be ordered, all other things being equal, before
a situation in which several options were open, e.g. between aisle
and window seats, and in smoking and non-smoking sections.
(Long 1985:93)

(See also the discussion of task difficulty in Chapter 5.)

The example in Figure 7.1, taken from a listening comprehension
course, demonstrates the setting of learning activities at different levels
of difficulty within the one unit. This enables the course to be used with
a class where the students are at different proficiency levels. Once again,
the source texts are authentic.

FIGURE 7 . 1 TEXT: SHOPPING AROUND - GRACE BROS. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcement
'Customers, while you're in the store today, you could be the winner of
ten thousand dollars worth of beautiful prizes from Philips and Grace
Bros. For every Philips' electrical product that you purchase today, you
receive an entry form in this beautiful Philips' competition. Ten thousand
dollars worth of prizes, and you could be the winner. Full details are
available right now from the small appliances department located on
the ground floor of our homemaker store.'

Difficulty level I
Where are the small electrical appliances in Grace Bros.?
Tick the right answer.
Second floor
First floor
Ground floor

Difficulty level 2
Tick the right answer.
There's a competition at Grace Bros, today.
If you're lucky, you could win $ 10
$1,000
$10,000
104 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

If you buy an electrical product, you can enter the competition

enter the fashion store
win a ticket to the movies

To buy an electrical product, you go to the fashion store

the homemaker store
the children's department

Difficulty level 3
Number the statements 1—6 according to the order in which they were
made.
'For every Philips' electrical product that you purchase today'
'From the small appliances department located on the ground floor
of our homemaker store'
'You could be the winner of ten thousand dollars worth of beautiful
prizes'
'Customers, while you're in the store today'
'Full details are available right now'
'You receive an entry form in this beautiful Philips' competition'
(Jones and Moar 1985: 35-43)

In a professional development workshop for senior teachers involved in

the selection and development of materials, participants were asked to
select from a set of options the criteria they looked for in materials. The
group (n = 27) were asked to rank a set of criteria from most to least
important. Table 7.1 presents a composite ranking of criteria from most
to least important.

TABLE 7 . 1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING TEACHING MATERIALS FOR CLASSROOM USE

1 The materials make clear the link between the classroom and the
wider world.
2 The materials foster independent learning.
3 The materials focus the learner on the learning process.
4 The materials are readily available.
5 The materials accord with the learners' expressed needs.
6 The materials can be used at more than one level of difficulty.
7 The pedagogical objectives of the materials are clear.
 The Community as a Resource 105

The ranking given by the group provides insights into their attitudes
toward language teaching. The highest-ranking item, that the materials
make clear the link between the classroom and the wider world, indicates
adherence to the sort of utilitarian task-based approach to language
teaching articulated in Chapter 3. Items 2 and 3 are also interesting in
the light of data yielded by studies reported in other chapters. The
desirability of fostering independent learning and of developing within
learners skills of 'learning how to learn' are important characteristics in
a learner-centred system. However, there is little evidence that these are
being actively promoted at the classroom level. The fact that teachers
recognise the need for resources for the development of learning skills
is clearly articulated in the major study which forms the basis of the
final chapter.

7.3 The Community as a Resource

A key aim of a learner-centred curriculum is to assist learners use the
target language for communicative purposes outside the classroom. One
of the justifications for using authentic materials is to generate classroom
activities which simulate genuine communication in the classroom in the
hope that this will facilitate transfer of learning.
No matter how carefully such simulations are developed, however, it
is highly unlikely that conditions of communicative classroom use can
be developed which replicate all aspects of communication outside the
classroom. In order to maximise the potential of the classroom, it is
necessary to develop student autonomy and meta-awareness. It is also
important to encourage students to make links between classroom learn-
ing and outside language use, and to stimulate them to use the language
as much as possible outside the classroom.
One obvious way of developing this focus outwards from the classroom
to the community, is to encourage learner involvement in the community.
Many teachers attempt to do this by taking students on excursions,
bringing in guest speakers from the outside community and so on. The
difficulty here is in convincing learners of the value of activities which
take them outside the classroom. There is evidence that many learners
do not rate the opportunity of engaging in outside activities such as
excursions very highly (see for example Nunan 1986a). There is a feeling
among these learners that excursions and similar activities are not valid
language-learning activities. It is therefore important for the teacher to
consult with learners, and to structure outside activities in such a way
that the benefits are tangible and their relationship to the language-learn-
ing process is evident. This kind of involvement in the community is
clearly only possible in situations where the community language is the
106 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

target language, i.e. generally in ESL situations. But even in EFL situations
opportunities may be found for bringing learners into contact with the
target language in the wider community.
Obviously, some learner goals are easier than others to reconcile with
an outside-oriented classroom. Vocationally-oriented courses, for
instance, very often include work placement, and it is not unusual for
students to rate these placement opportunities as the most valuable aspect
of their language course. One such course is the Crossover Course,
developed to improve learner proficiency in relation to the job-seeking
process. Two teachers who co-ordinated this course described its aims
as follows:
The aims of the Crossover course were to develop communicative
language competence by providing the opportunity for interaction
and communication in a real life situation (i.e. work place) and by
providing a context for extrapolating and discussing any
communicative problems encountered, highlighting the language
skills needed and developing appropriate strategies . . .
(Burnett and Hitchen 1985:i)

In evaluating the Crossover course, the co-ordinators discovered that:

. . . the course was very successful. There was a high degree of
correlation between participants' expectations and the stated aims
of the course, and the course met or surpassed their expectations.
{op cit.:3S)

Montgomery and Eisenstein, in an attempt to forge links between class-

room language work and the use of language outside the classroom,
developed an experimental oral communication course (OCC). The
course was structured around a series of weekly field trips which took
the learners out of the classroom to environments in which language
had to be used for communication. Community sites were chosen on
the basis of the expressed needs and interests of the learners. The excur-
sions were related to classroom work through the following steps:
1 Students listen to a tape recording related to the focus for the
week and complete listening comprehension exercises.
2 Students, in small groups, work through a variety of oral exer-
cises.
3 These exercises lead into the development of a task related to
the forthcoming field trip. (Tasks can include interviews,
hypothesis testing, the gathering of evidence, etc.)
4 The field trip is undertaken. During the trip, learners encounter
a range of natural language and engage in a question and answer
session with a host from the site.
5 Students complete an evaluation sheet to determine how much
they have understood.
 The Community as a Resource 107

6 In class, the questions and answers for the trip are reviewed.
Follow-up activities include role plays, debates and 'the develop-
ment of a plan of action to address a particular problem'.
(Montgomery and Eisenstein 1985:321)

The OCC was evaluated by comparing the students who took part in
the programme with a control group of students taking part in a tradi-
tional ESL class. Students in the control and experimental groups were
matched for proficiency, native language, length of time in the target
country and socioeconomic status. All students were given an oral pro-
ficiency rating at the beginning and end of the course and were compared
on accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
The results demonstrated gains by both groups, with the OCC group
outscoring the control group on all measures. According to the resear-
chers, the most interesting result was the fact that the area of strongest
improvement for the experimental group in comparison with the control
group was in grammatical accuracy. In commenting on this, they say:
[The result] was surprising since there was no formal teaching of
grammar in the OCC course and minimal error correction. One
possible explanation is that the OCC programme enhanced the
acquisition of English for the learners. Krashen (1978) defines
acquisition as an unconscious process which occurs when the
learner's focus is on meaning rather than on linguistic form, exactly
the case for the OCC students. All students in the evaluation were
exposed to a formal linguistic environment providing rule isolation
and feedback. The data indicate for the OCC learners, however, a
combination of form-oriented and meaning-oriented language
teaching was more beneficial than form-oriented teaching alone.
An experience such as that provided by the OCC may be particularly
crucial for the development of grammatical accuracy in individuals
who have little out-of-class contact with English.
(op cit.:329)

The two experiments cited demonstrate that, when appropriately man-

aged, building community-based learning experiences into a language
course can lead to significant language gains. Such out-of-class experi-
ences also seem to be highly regarded by most of the participating stu-
dents. This result seems to conflict with other studies which demonstrate
an aversion on the part of students to out-of-class activities. However,
it may well be that the negative reactions have come from learners for
whom few links have been made between in-class learning and out-of-
class activities and with whom there was no attempt either to negotiate
or rationalise the activities. In both of the experiments described here,
such links were clearly made.
108 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

7A The Teacher as Developer of Resources

In this section, we shall look at a study set up to gain insights into the
processes by which teachers transform teaching resources (the 'raw mate-
rials' of the classroom) into units of work.

Background
In recent years, the growth of classroom-based research has begun to
provide us with more data on what teachers actually do in class, as
opposed to what applied linguists and curriculum specialists say they
ought to do (see for example Dinsmore 1985; Long and Sato 1983;
Long and Crookes 1986; Nunan 1987). However, most of this research
has focused more on aspects of classroom interaction than on programme
planning and implementation. Other studies have focused on the teacher
as methodologist (see for example Swaffar, Arens and Morgan 1982).
In general education, conventional wisdom has it that formal prepara-
tion, including post-graduate study, is perceived by teachers as being
markedly inferior to classroom experience in professional development.
Lawton, for instance, reports that:
Students leaving college and entering schools are sometimes advised
by practising teachers to 'forget all that theory and get on with the
real teaching'.
(Lawton 1973:7)

The following study was undertaken in order to gain insights into the
processes by which teachers with varying degrees of experience transform
materials into units of work.
The research question for the study was as follows:
What differences are discernible between teachers with different
degrees of experience (as indicated by years of teaching experience) in
transforming learning resources into a unit of work and in implementing
the unit in the classroom?

Subjects
One way of setting up the study would have been to identify a group
of TESOL teachers with a range of experience, give them a set of mate-
rials, and ask them to take part in a 'what if. . .' introspective study.
'What would you do with these materials if you had a class of X, Y and
Z?' However, given the frequent misperceptions between what teachers
think they do and what they actually do, it was felt desirable to have
teachers plan and implement a unit of work with a real class. This meant
 The Teacher as Developer of Resources 109

identifying teachers working with students at the appropriate proficiency

level for the materials (i.e. Initial Proficiency - Ingram 1984). In the
event, 26 subjects were finally located who had students at this level
and who were willing to take part in the study. Table 7.2 shows the
breakdown of subjects into four groups according to years of experience.

TABLE 7 . 2 BREAKDOWN OF SUBJECTS

ACCORDING TO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Group n Years of experience

A 9 4-
B 7 4-6
C 5 6-8
D 5 8+

Procedure
Each teacher was provided with an authentic taped message and a set
of worksheets. The materials were 'innovative' in that they were designed
to teach listening skills, based on authentic sources, to low-level students.
The teachers had not come across the materials before. Teachers were
instructed to prepare and teach a unit of work (the term 'unit' rather
than 'lesson' was used as it is less specific in terms of time) based on
the materials to their regular class and to provide detailed information
on the following:
— the aims of the unit
— the length of time it took to teach the unit (including the time allocated
to different learner configurations)
— an indication of how the unit was introduced
— a description of the steps in the lesson
— a description of any changes that were made to the materials
— an evaluation of student reaction to the material
— an indication of intention to use similar materials in future
— an indication of the best features of the materials
— an indication of the least liked features of the materials
— an estimation of the suitability of the materials for the designated
group.

Results
The data collected from the teachers are set out in Tables 7.3—7.12.
110 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum
TABLE 7 . 3 STATED AIMS OF THE UNIT AS TAUGHT

Group
Aims A B c D

Listening for gist 2 0 2 1

Vocabulary development 3 2 2 2
Identifying key words 1 1 1 1
Listening for specific information 6 2 2 1
Revision ofprevious language points 2 0 0 1
Developing fluency 0 1 0 0
Encouraging prediction 0 1 0 0
Promoting discussion 0 0 1 0
Developing function skills 0 0 0 1
Introducing theme 'shopping' 1 2 1 1
Developing listening skills 1 1 2 1

From Table 7.3 it can be seen that there is a large measure of agreement
about appropriate aims for the materials. The 46 aims nominated by
the teachers were collapsed into eleven groups, and of these, seven
accounted for 34 of the responses. There is nothing in the data to suggest
that responses from more experienced teachers cluster around aims which
are different from those selected by inexperienced teachers.

TABLE 7 . 4 LENGTH OF UNIT AND STUDENT CONFIGURATION (IN MINUTES)

Groups
A B C D
mean % mean % mean % mean %

Teacher-fronted 40.6 41.2 34.2 42.7 76.0 70.3 105 64.0

Small-group 12.5 12.6 15.8 19.8 19.6 18.1 24.0 14.6
Pair-work 17.5 17.8 13.3 16.6 0 0 15.0 9.1
Individual 28.1 28.6 21.8 17.5 12.4 11.5 20.0 12.2

Total 98.75 80.0 108.0 164.0

Table 7.4 provides the mean lengths of units, and also the amount of
time taken for whole-class (teacher-fronted), small-group, pair and indi-
vidualised work. Here, there does seem to be a pattern, with the more
experienced teachers tending to get more out of the materials.
However, when the amount of time devoted to different learner group-
 The Teacher as Developer of Resources 111

ing is examined, it can be seen that the amount of time spent by students
in classes of less experienced teachers is more evenly distributed between
the different possible configurations than was the case in classes taught
by more experienced teachers. The more experienced teachers tended to
spend the bulk of their time in teacher-fronted activities (70.3% and
64.00% respectively for the two most experienced groups). This could
indicate that experienced teachers felt the materials, given their innova-
tive nature, needed more teacher mediation, explanation and support.

TABLE 7 . 5 INTRODUCING THE UNIT OF WORK

Group
A B C D

Introduction of key vocabulary 5 3 0 0

General discussion of theme 1 0 2 3
Studying poster/picture 4 0 1 0
Starter (guessing/brainstorm, etc.) 1 2 3 1
Teacher explanation 1 3 1 0
Revision activity 1 1 0 1
No introductory activity 0 0 0 1

In terms of introductory activities, Table 7.5 shows that the less experi-
enced teachers tended to use the more predictable activities of vocabulary
introduction and picture contextualisation before introducing students
to the materials themselves, while there was more variety in the activities
developed by the more experienced teachers. The data are interesting in
that they demonstrate a relative lack of attention to meta-activity (e.g.
teacher explanation and revision activities) by all teachers.

TABLE 7 . 6 MEAN NUMBER OF STEPS IN THE UNIT

Group
A B C D
7 6 5 4.4

Table 7.6 shows the mean number of steps in the unit of work. There
was a wealth of detail provided by teachers on the steps and activities
in the unit of work which they developed. Unfortunately, there is no
room to present these here. The table does show that as experience
increased there is a decline in the number of activities undertaken. Taken
with the data from Table 6.4, this indicates that, not only are more
112 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

experienced teachers better able to get more mileage out of a given set
of materials, but that they are able to sustain activities for longer periods.

TABLE 7 . 7 CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO MATERIALS

Group
A B C D

No modifications 4 4 2 2
Key word put on language master 1 1
Use of department store poster 3
Creation ofpre-unit vocabulary activity 1 1
Use of supplementary materials 2 2
Changed order of activities 1 1
Simplified worksheets 1
Changed some vocabulary items 1 1

From Table 7.7 it can be seen that almost half the teachers were satisfied
with the materials as they stood and saw no need to make any modifi-
cations. One of the more experienced teachers indicated that she would
have simplified the worksheets, while two other experienced teachers
reported that they would have changed some of the vocabulary items if
they were using the materials on a regular basis.

TABLE 7 . 8 STUDENT REACTION AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS

Group
A B C D
3.3 3.75 3.78 4.0

KEY
1=unfavourable
5=favourable

Table 7.8 shows student reaction as perceived by the teachers. Interpret-

ing these second-order rating scales is always difficult, as one never
knows how accurately the second party is reflecting the views of the
first. From the data, there is a clear growth in the perceived approval
ratings from least to most experienced teachers, with the most experi-
enced teachers indicating the highest approval rating by students. How-
ever, it should not be inferred from this that more experienced teachers
are able to make materials more interesting and relevant to their students,
 The Teacher as Developer of Resources 113

for the reason already given. It has been suggested that the data may
indicate more confidence by experienced teachers in their own teaching
(Burton personal communication).

TABLE 7 . 9 INTENTION TO USE SIMILAR MATERIALS IN FUTURE

Group
A B C D

Yes 8 7 5 5
No 1 0 0 0

From Table 7.9 it can be seen that only one of the 26 teachers taking
part in the study did not intend to use similar materials in future, and
additional comments made by the teachers were highly favourable. Com-
bined with the data in Table 7.10, it would indicate that teachers were
almost universally favourably disposed toward the use of authentic mate-
rials in class. This is interesting, given the resistance of many low-profi-
ciency students to such materials.

TABLE 7 . 1 0 BEST LIKED FEATURES IN THE MATERIAL

Group
A B C D

Authenticity 6 5 4 3
Clear worksheets 1 2 2
Attractive pictures!illustrations 4 2 2 3
Recycling vocabulary 1
Selective listening activities 3 1 2
Cultural authenticity 2 1 1 1
Clear instructions 1 2

TABLE 7 . 1 1 LEAST LIKED FEATURES IN THE MATERIAL

Group
A B C D

Background noise I tape quality 5 2 2 2

Irrelevant content, e.g. Sydney setting 2 2
Too many handouts 1 1 2
No preliminary chart 1
114 Resources for a Learner-Centred Curriculum

Group
A B C D

Unsuitable vocabulary 1 1
Tape too fast and difficult 1 1 1
No script available 1
No clear demarcation between activities 1
Need extensive preparation for 0+ 1
Too few tasks per activity 1
Need extension worksheets 2

Tables 7.10 and 7.11 were intended to elicit information from teachers
on the good and bad features of the materials. Here there is a large
measure of agreement about what was good about the materials but less
agreement about the negative aspects. There seems to be no particular
pattern differentiating experienced from inexperienced teachers.

TABLE 7 . 1 2 SUITABILITY FOR DESIGNATED PROFICIENCY LEVEL

Group
A B C D

Yes 7 5 4 5
No 2 2 1 0

Finally, from Table 7.12, it can be seen that there was general agreement
about the suitability of the materials for the designated proficiency level,
with only five teachers out of the 26 indicating that the materials were
too difficult.

Discussion
It would be an error to read too much into what was essentially a
preliminary investigation of the programme planning and implementa-
tion activities of teachers with varying degrees of experience. One of the
major reasons for caution is the small sample size. A second is that it
was impossible, given the nature of the study, to control for other subject
variables such as formal TESOL training. Nevertheless, the investigation
does tend to indicate that classroom experience may not, of itself, be a
significant variable in professional development.
The implication for teacher training is that, in terms of materials
development and exploitation, experience needs to be coupled with other
 Conclusion 115

aspects of professional development. ('Classroom experience is more

than duration (endurance!); it is variety and intensity. Professional
development programmes are about structuring and evaluating that
experience.' Burton personal communication.) In addition to experience,
teachers need the time, opportunity and support to reflect on that experi-
ence through a variety of professional development activities which
should include professional development programmes, collegiate consul-
tations and action research projects. This issue is taken up and developed
in Chapter 9, and again in Chapter 10.

7.5 Conclusion
In a language programme committed to the direct development of the
sorts of skills required by learners outside the classroom, it is of vital
importance to create as many links as possible between what happens
in the classroom and what happens outside.
In developing these links, resources for learning have a vital part to
play. As far as possible, community resources should be exploited as a
basis for the development of authentic classroom materials. Where
appropriate, learning activities should also be developed which require
the learners to practise their developing language skills in the community
itself.
Whatever the attitude, however, materials, no matter how comprehen-
sive, should never be seen as a panacea, nor should they be seen as
substitutes for professional classroom practitioners. Experience from
other areas has demonstrated time and time again that materials are
only as good as the teachers who use them, and that the attempt to
produce 'teacher proof materials is both futile and undesirable.
 Assessment and Evaluation

8.1 The Place of Evaluation in the Curriculum

No curriculum model would be complete without an evaluation compo-
nent. While it is universally recognised as an essential part of any educa-
tional endeavour, it is the component about which most classroom prac-
titioners generally claim the least knowledge, and is the one area of the
curriculum about which many teachers express a lack of confidence. In
this chapter it will be argued that in a learner-centred curriculum model
both teachers and learners need to be involved in evaluation. It will also
be argued that self-assessment by learners can be an important supple-
ment to teacher assessment and that self-assessment provides one of the
most effective means of developing both critical self-awareness of what
it is to be a learner, and skills in learning how to learn.
Evaluation can, in fact, occur at various levels. At a macro-level
national and state programmes can be evaluated. At this level evaluation
will probably focus on administration and be carried out largely by
personnel with evaluation expertise. Local, or centre-level, evaluation
will be more circumscribed and involve administrators and teachers.
Micro-evaluation is conducted at the classroom level and involves
teachers and learners.
Here we shall be principally concerned with evaluation at the micro-
level, and the relatively informal evaluation techniques and procedures
described in the latter part of this chapter are designed for use by teachers
and learners at the classroom level.
As evaluation is intimately tied to the rest of the curriculum, it will
be affected by changes to other curriculum elements. For example, any
change to the goals and objectives of a given programme must be reflected
in the evaluation procedures which are used within that programme. A
vivid example of the way changes in goals and philosophies must also
be reflected at the level of evaluation can be seen in relation to the
development of communicative language teaching. Here, changes at the
levels of syllabus design and methodology had a marked influence on
evaluation as it was unsatisfactory to evaluate courses designed to
improve students' communicative abilities by continuing to administer
tests of linguistic knowledge.
This need for a change in focus has been voiced in the following way:

116
 The Place of Evaluation in the Curriculum 117

The distinction between usage and use is of great importance for

teaching and testing. It implies that a test cannot be based on a
selection of items chosen on linguistic grounds alone, and that to
devise an effective test, it is necessary to specify how a testee requires
to use the language. The criterion for success lies not in formal
correctness but in communicative effectiveness ... Changing the
emphasis from usage to use means also changing ideas concerning
the specificity of tests. From the usage point of view, a language
can be seen as a unified entity with fixed grammatical patterns and
a core of commonly-used lexical items. Equipped with a mastery
of these language patterns, it is hoped the user will learn to cope
with the situations he finds himself in. Therefore, a single test of
the learner's language proficiency based on formal usage should
prove an adequate indication of ability to cope with real situations.
But from the point of view of the role of language in communication,
such a view is greatly over-simplified. Different patterns of
communication will entail different configurations of language skill
mastery, and therefore a different course or test content. From the
use point of view, language loses its appearance of unity and must
be taught and tested according to the specific needs of the learner.
(Carroll 1981:7-8)

Carroll has been quoted at some length because behind his statement
are two important points. The first of these is that any evaluation or
assessment procedure will be underpinned by views on the nature of
language and language learning. These views need not be explicitly stated.
The evaluator may not even be able to articulate them, but they will be
there just the same. This point will re-emerge when we come to consider
the construct validity of proficiency scales.
The second point worth noting is that, in communicative testing, the
testing procedures should relate directly to the objectives of the course.
In other words, they should aim to test what has been taught. This point
is not as obvious as it might at first sight seem. In fact, a case can be
made for relatively indirect means of assessment. Testing communicative
skills directly can be a very awkward process; in some situations it may
be almost impossible. If it can be shown that there is a high correlation
between the ability to perform communicative tasks and performance
on, say, a pencil and paper test of grammar, a case could be made for
the use of grammar tests, which are much easier to administer and assess.
This, essentially, is the argument used by Oiler (1979), who advocated
the use of non-communicative tests such as cloze and dictation on the
grounds that they correlated highly with other more communicative
tests. However, there are a number of reasons why such an approach is
unsatisfactory. In the first place, the construct, or concept, of language
underlying Oiler's work has not stood the test of time. Secondly, it is
desirable, for a number of reasons, for a test to appear to test what has
118 Assessment and Evaluation

been taught, that is, it is desirable for the test to have high face validity.
Finally, as assessment procedures inevitably seem to have a major influ-
ence on what happens in the classroom, it is desirable for these procedures
to mirror what curriculum designers feel should be going on. The proce-
dures, in Morrow's words, should have 'washback' validity (Morrow
1985).

8,2 Some Key Concepts in Evaluation

This section is devoted to an exploration and clarification of some key
concepts, in particular, the concepts 'assessment' and 'evaluation'. These
terms are often used interchangeably, when, in fact, they mean different
things. Here, assessment is taken to refer to the set of processes by which
we judge student learning. It is generally assumed that such learning has
come about as the result of a course of instruction. Within the curiculum
framework delineated here, the term refers to procedures for measuring
the extent to which students have achieved the objectives of a course.
Evaluation, on the other hand, is a wider term, entailing assessment,
but including other processes as well. These additional processes are
designed to assist us in interpreting and acting on the results of our
assessment. The data resulting from evaluation assist us in deciding
whether a course needs to be modified or altered in any way so that
objectives may be achieved more effectively. If certain learners are not
achieving the goals and objectives set for a course, it is necessary to
determine why this is so. We would also wish, as a result of evaluating
a course, to have some idea about what measures might be taken to
remedy any shortcomings. Evaluation, then, is not simply a process of
obtaining information, it is also a decision-making process.
I am aware that this conceptualisation, which links assessment and
evaluation to course goals and objectives, can be interpreted as a narrow
ends—means one which may preclude the generation of insights and
hypotheses about what is really going on in the curriculum process. (I
am grateful to Alan Beretta (personal communication) for pointing this
out to me.) However, the articulation of goals and assessment has par-
ticular value in a learner-centred curriculum, in which one set of goals
will relate to the development of meta-cognitive skills on the part of
learners. It is hypothesised here that making the intentions of the educa-
tional endeavour explicit to learners, and, where feasible, training them
to set their own goals and assess their own learning outcomes, will make
them better learners in the long run. In addition, I do not believe it is
the case that a system in which, at some level, goals are related to
outcomes, must necessarily be blind to unintended outcomes, nor that
it must necessarily preclude illuminative forms of evaluation.
 Some Key Concepts in Evaluation 119

In mainstream education, the development of course goals and objec-

tives has generally been seen as an important part of the process of
assessment on the grounds that if we have not articulated what it is we
want our learners to be able to do at the end of a course, it is difficult
to judge whether we or they have succeeded or failed. Those who take
this instrumental view argue that by articulating goals and also, ideally,
performance objectives, we are in a much better position to judge the
degree to which the assessed curriculum is consonant with the planned
curriculum.
One evaluator who argues strongly for such a view is Gronlund, who
offers the following definition:
Evaluation may be defined as a systematic process of determining
the extent to which instructional objectives are achieved by pupils.
There are two important aspects of this definition. First, note that
evaluation implies a systematic process, which omits casual,
uncontrolled observation of pupils. Second, evaluation assumes that
instructional objectives have been previously identified. Without
previously determined objectives, it is difficult to judge clearly the
nature and extent of pupil learning.
(Gronlund 1981:5)

Gronlund is here using 'evaluation' in the sense in which I am using

'assessment'. However, he goes on to suggest that evaluation should
involve both quantitative descriptions based on measurement and qual-
itative, non-measurement, descriptions. These data are used for making
value judgements about the efficiency of a course of instruction.
It is important at this point to note that evaluation is not something
which only takes place summatively, at the end of a course of instruction.
Informal monitoring should, in fact, be happening right through the
course.
Any element in the curriculum process may be evaluated, as any may
affect learner progress, and it is up to individual teachers and curriculum
personnel to decide how widely they should cast the net. Some obvious
candidates for evaluation are initial planning procedures, programme
goals and objectives, the selection and grading of content, materials and
learning activities, teacher performance and the assessment processes
itself as well as learner achievement. The evaluation of these different
curriculum elements is considered in greater detail in 8.3.
The concepts of validity and reliability are crucial to assessment. Val-
idity refers to the extent to which assessment procedures actually do
what they were designed to do. Reliability refers to the consistency of
assessment procedures. Tests, for instance, are of little use if they give
different results each time they are administered. In addition, assessment
procedures at the micro-level must be practical.
120 Assessment and Evaluation

Of all these qualities, validity is probably the most complex and dif-
ficult to conceptualise as well as to achieve. There are various types of
validity. Gronlund documents three of these, content validity, criterion-
related validity and construct validity, in the manner shown in Table 8.1:

TABLE 8.1

Type Meaning Procedure

Content validity How well the sample Compare the test tasks
of tasks represents the to the test
domain of tasks to be specifications
measured describing the task
domain under
consideration

Criterion How well test Compare test scores

related validity performance predicts with another measure
future performance or of performance
estimates current obtained at a later date
performance on some (for prediction) or
valued measures other with another measure
than the test itself of performance
obtained concurrently
(for estimating present
status)

Construct validity How test performance Experimentally

can be described determine what factors
psychologically influence scores on the
test

Of these, construct validity is the most problematic. This is because

constructs are abstractions, pschological qualities which are assumed to
underly various forms of observable human behaviour. The construct
'intelligence', for instance, can not be seen, but is inferred from the ability
of individuals to solve various sorts of verbal, numerical and spatial
problems. This creates a dilemma for the test constructor. What happens
if results on a test do not bear out the predictions of the construct which
is assumed to underly the test? Is the test at fault, or the construct, or both?
In the field of language testing there are many unresolved questions
relating to the construct 'communicative skill'. Some of these questions
are as follows:
 Some Key Questions in Evaluation 121

Does the construct consist of a single psychological factor, or a number

of factors?
If it does consist of more than one factor, to what degree are these
separate, and to what degree are they related?
What are these factors?
How do they combine in communicative performance?
What sort of variation is there from one learner to another?
In order to answer these questions, work needs to proceed on two fronts.
On the one hand, we need empirical data on the development and use
of language for communication by both native speakers and second-lan-
guage learners. On the other hand, we need adequate theoretical models
which account for the empirical data in the most parsimonious way
possible. Without such data and models, the development of satisfactory
tests of communicative performance is difficult, and the interpretation
of data yielded by such tests becomes almost impossible.
These issues will be discussed in greater detail when we come to
examine the construct validity of proficiency rating scales.

83 Some Key Questions in Evaluation

In this section a number of key questions relating to evaluation are
explored. These are the 'what', 'who', 'when' and 'how' questions. The
evaluator needs to consider which elements in the curriculum should be
evaluated, who should conduct the evaluation, when the evaluation
should take place, and by what means.
As indicated in 8.2, any element in the curriculum may be evaluated.
Some of the questions relating to each of these elements which an evalu-
ation may wish to address are shown in Table 8.2:

TABLE 8.2

Curriculum area Sample questions

The Planning Process

Needs analysis Are the needs analysis procedures effective?
Do they provide useful information for course
planning?
Do they provide data on subjective and objective
needs?
Can the data be translated into content?
122 Assessment and Evaluation

Curriculum area Sample questions

Content Are the goals and objectives derived from needs

analyses?
If not, from where were they derived?
Are they appropriate for the specified groups of
learners?
Do the learners think the content is appropriate?
Is the content appropriately graded?
Does it take speech processing constraints into
account?

Implementation
Methodology Are the materials, methods and activities
consonant with the prespecified objectives?
Do the learners think the materials, methods and
activities are appropriate?

Resources Are resources adequate/appropriate?

Teacher Are the teacher's classroom management skills
adequate?
Learners Are the learning strategies of the students
efficient?
Do learners attend regularly?
Do learners pay attention, apply themselves in
class?
Do learners practise their skills outside the
classroom?
Do the learners appear to be enjoying the course?
Is the timing of the class and the type of learning
arrangement suitable for the students?
Do learners have personal problems which
interfere with their learning?

Assessment Are the assessment procedures appropriate to

and evaluation the prespecified objectives?
Are there opportunities for self-assessment by
learners? If so, what?
Are there opportunities for learners to evaluate
aspects of the course such as learning materials,
methodology, learning arrangement?
Are there opportunities for self-evaluation by the
teacher?
 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency 123

In considering the 'who' question, a number of candidates emerge.

Depending on the size and scope of the evaluation, all or some of these
may play a part. In the first instance, outside authorities such as govern-
ment bodies or funding agencies may play a role. Programme adminis-
trators at a local level (such as heads of centres or teachers-in-charge)
may be involved. Teachers, and, in learner-centred systems, the learners
themselves will certainly be involved. Other participants may include
outside experts, observers or interested parties. Teachers may wish occa-
sionally to involve their colleagues in peer observation of lessons, or
parts of lessons.
As already indicated, evaluation as a process in its own right, rather
than as a final product of the curriculum process, may take place at any
time, from the planning stage onward. In a learner-centred curriculum,
where much of the curriculum activity will be conducted at a local level,
the bulk of the evaluation should take the form of informal monitoring
by the teacher with the cooperation of the learners.
The tools and techniques for evaluation will be many and varied. They
may include standardised tests of various sorts, along with question-
naires, observation schedules of classroom interaction, interview
schedules, learner diaries and so on. The most important thing is that
the tool selected should be appropriate to the task. In the final section
of this chapter, we shall look at some of the techniques for stimulating
self-assessment of their own progress by learners, and also tools for the
evaluation by learners of materials, learning activities and learning
arrangements. (For an overview of the range of instruments available
for various sorts of assessment and evaluation see Brindley 1986.)

8.4 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency

We now turn to an area of assessment which is rather controversial.
This is the assessment of second-language proficiency. In so doing, we
shall raise a number of central issues in language teaching and testing.
This section builds on the discussion in 8.2 relating to the construct
validation of language tests and also to the discussion of proficiency in
3.5. Acknowledgement is made to Brindley (1986) for his evaluation of
the assessment of second-language proficiency.
It was noted in 3.5 that proficiency is essentially about being able to
do things with language. This rather programmatic definition becomes
problematic when we turn to the issue of proficiency assessment.
In order to assess any area of human behaviour, it is necessary to have
some idea of what it is we are trying to assess. What is it that testers of
proficiency are trying to assess? We can get some idea by looking at the
instruments they have developed. One such instrument is the proficiency
124 Assessment and Evaluation

rating scale. What follows is the generic description of speaking profi-

ciency at an intermediate-high level. It is taken from the American Coun-
cil on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Provisional Proficiency
Guidelines.
Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social demands.
Shows some spontaneity in language production but fluency is very
uneven.
Can initiate and sustain a general conversation but has little under-
standing of the social conventions of conversation.
Developing flexibility in a range of circumstances beyond immediate
survival needs.
Limited vocabulary range necessitates much hesitation and circum-
locution.
The commoner tense forms occur but errors are frequent in formation
and selection.
Can use most question forms.
While some word order is established, errors still occur in more
complex patterns.
Cannot sustain coherent structures in longer utterances or unfamiliar
situations.
Ability to describe and give precise information is limited.
Aware of basic cohesive features such as pronouns and verb inflec-
tions, but many are unreliable, especially if less immediate in refer-
ence.
Extended discourse is largely a series of short, discrete utterances.
Articulation is comprehensible to native speakers used to dealing
with foreigners, and can combine most phonemes with reasonable
comprehensibility, but still has difficulty in producing certain
sounds in certain positions or in certain combinations, and speech
will usually be laboured.
Still has to repeat utterances frequently to be understood by the
general public.
Able to produce some narration in either past or future.
(Cited in Savignon and Berns 1984:228-229)

In introducing the Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating Scale

(ASLPR), Ingram defines proficiency as the mobilisation of linguistic
knowledge to carry out communication tasks. Statements of proficiency
must therefore be made in behavioural terms. According to Ingram, the
scale is designed to measure a construct he calls 'general proficiency'.
Such a construct is defined and defended in the following way:
. . . language occurs only in situations, and, if the proficiency
descriptions are related to particular situations, one could be accused
of measuring only proficiency in specific situations i.e. one would
not be measuring general proficiency, but proficiency in specific
registers. On the other hand, language varies from situation to
situation; it varies according to who is using it, to whom and about
 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency 125

what subject... in other words, it would seem as though one cannot

speak of general proficiency so much as proficiency in a language
in this situation or that, in this register or that. Yet such a view
would seem to be counter-intuitive. If we say that X speaks Chinese
. . . we do not mean that X can only give a lecture on engineering
in Chinese . . . Rather, when we say that someone can speak a
language, we mean that that person can speak the language in the
sorts of situations people commonly encounter. That is, there are
certain everyday situations in which we, as human beings living in
a physical and social world, are necessarily involved . . . General
proficiency, then, refers to the ability to use the language in these
everyday, non-specialist situations.
(Ingram 1984:10-11)

Here, then, is an applied linguist who is prepared to be quite explicit

about the concept of proficiency. Ingram is postulating the existence of
an underlying, unobservable construct called 'general proficiency' which,
because it is unobservable, must be inferred from learners' performance
in specific situations. However, it is not to be confused with the ability
to perform in specified situations (i.e. it is more than an achievement
test): 'the ASLPR seeks to measure the underlying general proficiency
rather than the fulfilment of an absolutely specified task in an absolutely
specified situation' {ibid.). Learners must therefore be given the oppor-
tunity of performing in situations and contexts with which they are
familiar.
What precisely is it that we are assessing in making our rating of a
given learner? We know that it is not specific situational or contextual
knowledge, so presumably this lets out lexical knowledge and the ability
to discuss certain topics or themes. What is left when these are taken
away are global, impressionistic judgements of the learner's current stage
of development in a number of areas including morphological and syn-
tactic development, fluency, pronunciation, sociocultural knowledge,
mastery of discourse and so on. All proficiency scales have this same
mixture of factors from diverse domains. Carroll (1981), for instance,
lists size, complexity, range, speed, flexibility, accuracy, appropriacy,
independence, repetition and hesitation. These are generally all rendered
down into a single numerical index or descriptor such as '1 + ' or 'Novice-
Low'. The 'general language ability' underlying proficiency scales look
suspiciously like Oiler's (1979) unitary competence construct, a construct
which is dealt with later.
Ingram defines 'general proficiency' in terms of the ability of the
learner to carry out tasks in 'certain everyday situations in which we,
as human beings living in a physical and a social world are necessarily
involved . . .' General proficiency then, refers to the ability to use the
language in these everyday, non-specialist situations. However, it could
126 Assessment and Evaluation

be argued that this ability does not necessarily represent an ability which
all language learners have but is, in fact, simply another register.
Another difficulty with proficiency scales is related to the means
whereby learners are assessed. This is generally through some form of
oral interview. However, it is difficult to see how such interviews can
allow one to make valid judgements about the learner's ability to carry
out real-world tasks.
Let us look in greater detail at the sample description taken from the
ACTFL scale. According to the scale, the learner, at 'Intermediate—High'
level is able to satisfy survival needs and limited social needs. At this
level, the learner's performance will be characterised by the following
features which are extracted from the list set out on p. 124:
— can satisfy some survival needs and limited social demands
— shows some spontaneity
— fluency is very uneven
— can initiate and sustain a general conversation
— has little understanding of the social conventions of discourse
— has limited vocabulary range
— commoner tense forms occur, but errors are frequent in formation
and selection
— can use most question forms
— basic word order is established
— errors occur in more complex patterns
— cannot sustain coherent structures in longer utterances
— has limited ability to describe and give precise information
— is aware of basic cohesive feature
— extended discourse is largely a series of short, discrete utterances
— articulation is comprehensible to native speakers used to dealing with
foreigners
— can combine most phonemes with reasonable comprehensibility
— has difficulty in producing certain sounds in certain positions or in
certain combinations
— speech will usually be laboured
— has to repeat utterances frequently to be understood by the general
public
— can produce some narration in either past or future
The vague, impressionistic speech features are indicators of the postulated
'general proficiency' which is driving the user's communication skills.
These features manifest themselves in tasks such as the following:
— coping with less routine situations in shops, post office, bank
(e.g. asking for a larger size, returning an unsatisfactory purchase)
and on public transport (e.g. asking passenger where to get off
for unfamiliar destination)
 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency 127

— explaining some personal symptoms to a doctor

— communicating routine needs and basic details of unpredictable
occurrences.
(Ingram 1984:43)

The use of such scales is fraught with hidden dangers. The scales them-
selves tend to take on ontological status (that is, there is a tendency to
assume that such a construct as 'survival proficiency' really exists, rather
than being something constructed to account for observable or hypothet-
ical features of learners' speech). The scales themselves have not been
empirically validated to determine if learners really do act in the ways
described by the scales, nor have the task types been validated. For
example, is the task of 'returning an unsatisfactory purchase' of the same
order of difficulty as 'explaining some personal symptoms to a doctor'
as suggested by the scale? Do the two tasks draw on the same linguistic
and communicative resources? How do we test for these things? As
already pointed out, most ratings are conducted through an oral inter-
view. While these will provide us with information on the learner's ability
to take part in interviews, they are unlikely to tell us much about the
learner's ability to 'explain personal symptoms to a doctor', or to 'ask
passenger where to get off for unfamiliar destination'.
To summarise, then, proficiency refers to the ability to perform certain
communicative tasks with a certain degree of skill. Degree of skill will
be determined by mastery of a complex set of enabling skills which will
include syntax and morphology, fluency, socio-cultural knowledge,
phonology, and discourse. Whether or not these can or should be taught,
or whether they will emerge spontaneously as a function of learning to
perform certain communicative acts is a hotly-debated issue at the present
time.
A popular means of assessing proficiency is the use of rating scales.
A subjective and impressionistic assessment of the learner's current 'gen-
eral proficiency' level is made through an oral interview. Level of profi-
ciency is set by such performance factors as fluency, mastery of syntax
and so on. These are assumed to correlate with the ability to perform
real-world tasks. However, the link between performance factors and
task difficulty has never been empirically validated. In addition, the
degree to which skills mastered in one domain transfer to another is
open to dispute. We must assume that some transfer occurs (otherwise
there would hardly be any point in teaching).
The only performance factors to have been subjected to extensive
empirical validation are syntax and morphology. Here, it has been found
that proficiency descriptions are at odds with what learners actually do
at different stages (Johnston 1985).
It would seem that the construct of general proficiency must draw a
128 Assessment and Evaluation

large part of its theoretical rationale from an assumption that the con-
struct itself is a single psychological entity, in much the same way as the
construct of 'verbal intelligence' is assumed to be a single psychological
entity. Without this assumption, it is difficult to see how claims about
the comparability of different performance factors and task types could
be made.
In fact, unlike proficiency scales, the question of whether or not a
single construct underlies the ability to use language has been empirically
investigated, and it is to these investigations that we now turn.
The name most commonly associated with research into the factorial
structure of language proficiency is John Oiler. Oiler suggested that a
single psychological construct underlay language proficiency. He called
this construct a 'pragmatic expectancy grammar', and characterised it
in the following manner:
Language use is viewed as a process of interacting plans and
hypotheses concerning the pragmatic mapping of linguistic contexts
onto extralinguistic ones. Language learning is viewed as a process
of developing such an expectancy system.
(Oiler 1979:50)

Oiler put his theory to the test by utilising procedures similar to those
used in intelligence testing. He analysed the scores of language learners
on a wide range of tests to determine the degree of correlation between
them (correlation refers to the degree to which subject scores on one
test co-vary with scores on another test).
Oiler's aim was to test which of three possible hypotheses about lan-
guage learning were supported by the data. These hypotheses were as
follows:
Hypothesis 1: The Divisibility Hypothesis: Language proficiency con-
sists of a number of discrete skills.
Hypothesis 2: The Indivisibility Hypothesis: Proficiency consists of a
single skill.
Hypothesis 3: The Partial Divisibility Hypothesis: In addition to a gen-
eral skill, common to all areas of language use, there will be skills
uniquely related to various language modalities.
In order to test these hypotheses, Oiler set himself the task of finding:
. . . testing procedures that will generate variances that are unique
to tests that are supposed to measure different things. Either the
indivisibility hypothesis or the partial divisibility hypothesis allows
for a large general factor (or component of variance) common to
all language tests. The difference between these alternatives is that
the indivisibility hypothesis allows only for a general component
of test variance. Once such a component is accounted for, the
 The Assessment of Second-Language Proficiency 129

indivisibility hypothesis predicts that no additional reliable variance

will remain to be accounted for.
(Oiler 1979:425)

By subjecting his data to factor analysis, Oiler found that, 'once the
general factor predicted by the indivisibility (or unitary competence)
hypothesis was extracted, essentially no meaningful variance was left in
any of the tests' (op cit.:429). The indivisibility hypothesis was thus
upheld.
In non-statistical terms, the results suggested that performance on tests
of, say, reading, draw on the same underlying language skill as tests of
listening; or that aspects of a macro-skill (such as pronunciation, fluency,
control of syntax and vocabulary for 'speaking') are all part of an under-
lying 'proficiency'.
The implications of such a finding for language teaching were
unequivocal. If all language performance derived from a single underlying
psychological construct, then differentiated curricula (including needs-
based courses) were redundant, and efforts to develop such courses a
waste of time. The only thing needed would be a series of learning tasks
which engaged the learner's interest and which were at the appropriate
level of difficulty.
Emboldened by his findings, Oiler went so far as to suggest that:
Implications of the foregoing findings for education are sweeping.
They suggest a possible need for reform that would challenge some
of the most deeply seated notions of what school is about - how
schools fail and how they succeed. The potential reforms that might
be required if these findings can be substantiated are difficult to
predict. Clearly they point us in the direction of curricula in which
the focus is on the skills required to negotiate symbols rather than
on the 'subject matter' in the traditional sense of the term. They
point away from the medieval notion that psychology, grammar,
philosophy, English, history and biology are intrinsically different
subject matters. Physics and mathematics may not be as reasonably
distinct from English literature and sociology as the structure of
universities implies.
(Oiler 1979:457)

As it turned out, follow-up research has not substantiated Oiler's find-

ings. In 1983, Vollmer and Sang were able to demonstrate that, on
statistical grounds alone, Oiler's results were suspect. Since then, research
such as that reported by Bachman and Mack (1986) suggests that pro-
ficiency consists of a number of factors which are related to each other
in extremely complex ways. At present the consensus seems to be that
proficiency is a multidimensional construct. Brindley (1986) suggests
that the unitary/divisibility debate:
130 Assessment and Evaluation

. . . has now been substantially resolved in favour of a

multidimensional view, allowing, however, for the existence of a
weaker general factor than was originally postulated.
(Brindley 1986:11)

8.5 Techniques for Self-Assessment

A major reason for carrying out assessment and evaluation is to determine
whether learners are progressing satisfactorily or not, and, if they are
not, to diagnose the cause or causes and suggest remedies.
In a learner-centred system, learners can be sensitised to their role as
learner, and can also be assisted to develop as autonomous learners by
the systematic use of self-assessment. Self-assessment techniques also
help learners identify preferred materials and ways of learning. They can
be involved in evaluating most aspects of the curriculum, including their
own progress, the objectives of the course, the materials and learning
activities used, the learning modes and so on, although there is some
evidence that the development of self-assessment and self-monitoring
may be quite difficult for some learner types such as those with little
formal education (Burton and Nunan 1986).
In order for students to assess their own performance, they must know
what it is they are being taught. For this reason, if for no other, the
objectives of the course should, at some stage, be formulated and made
available to the learners in a way they can understand. One value of
objectives, formulated in terms of real-world and pedagogic tasks and
communicative skills, as described in Chapter 5, is that learners can
identify with them more readily than with objectives formulated in lin-
guistic terms. Such objectives would not necessarily be couched in the
same terms as they appear in a teacher's programme. They may take
the forms shown in Tables 8.3 and 8.4, and may also be translated into
the learner's first language.
 Techniques for Self- Assessment 131

TABLE 8.3

Self-assessment of proficiency
1 I can ask for factual information. YES NO
2 I can provide personal details. YES NO
3 I can understand weather forecasts on the radio. YES NO
4 I can read public notices. YES NO

Imagine you are watching a television show in English with subtitles.

Suddenly the subtitles disappear.

How much would you understand?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I | | | | | | | | |
Nothing Everything

(Adapted from: Oskarsson 1980)

TABLE 8.4

Self diagnosis of reading difficulties

I have problems
— understanding the general meaning
— picking out the main information
— because I find too many words I don't understand
— because I always feel I am missing some of the information
— following the points in an argument
— understanding the details
— following instructions
— reading newspapers
— reading stories or novels
— understanding official letters or forms
132 Assessment and Evaluation

The students' self awareness as learners can also be developed through

being encouraged to undertake systematic self-evaluation of activities,
materials and learning arrangements. Low-key self-evaluation scales such
as those shown in Tables 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7 can be developed and used
by classroom teachers for this purpose.

TABLE 8.5

Self-Evaluation of learning activities

Tick the box

Activity Hike It's OK I don't like

Listening to authentic conversations

Watching the TV news

Singing songs

Doing grammar

Doing pronunciation

Doing drills in the language lab

Doing group work

Doing role-plays

Playing games

Writing letters

Reading the newspaper

 Techniques for Self - Assessment 133

TABLE 8.6

Self-Evaluation of materials
Tick the box
Activity Hike It's OK I don't like

Worksheets

Videotapes

Cassette recordings

Strategies

Streamline

Listen to Australia

Situational English

TABLE 8 . 7

Learning arrangement rating scale

Directions: Rate the following learning arrangements according to the

following scale 5 — 1 like this very much, 4 — 1 like this a lot, 3 — it's
OK, 2 - I don't like this much, 1 - I don't like this at all.

Full-time day classes 1 2 3 4 5

Part-time day classes 1 2 3 4 5
Part-time evening classes 1 2 3 4 5
Learning at home 1 2 3 4 5
Learning by correspondence 1 2 3 4 5

In class, I prefer
—whole class work 1 2 3 4 5
—small group work 1 2 3 4 5
—pair work 1 2 3 4 5
—learning alone 1 2 3 4 5
134 Assessment and Evaluation

In order to foster out-of-class language use, learners should be encour-

aged to monitor the degree to which they manage to use the target
language in the community, and also the types of encounters where they
used the language. Learner diaries can be constructed for such purposes.
These need not be elaborate, as the Table 8.8 demonstrates.

TABLE 8.8

Learner diary
Directions: Complete one diary sheet each week

This week I studied

This week I learned

This week I used my English in these places

This week I spoke with these people

This week I made these mistakes

My difficulties are

I would like to know

My learning and practising plans for next week are

8.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have looked at the place of assessment and evaluation
in a curriculum model based on a learner-centred view of language
learning. The chapter addresses some key theoretical and conceptual
issues relating to evaluation, which is seen as a crucial element within
any curriculum process. It is argued that, in any system claiming to be
learner-centred, localised evaluation process involving both teachers and
learners need to be developed. Learners need to assess their own progress,
and also need to be encouraged to evaluate, from their own perspective,
other elements within the curriculum including materials, activities and
learning arrangements. Such learner-centred evaluation will assist in the
development of a critical self-consciousness by learners of their own role
 Conclusion 135

as active agents within the learning process. This, as we saw earlier, is,
along with the development of language skills, one of the twin goals of
the learner-centred curriculum. Suggestions are made in the two final
sections of the chapter on how low-key evaluations and assessment by
teachers and learners might be carried out.
This chapter is also concerned with examining some of the problems
associated with the assessment of language proficiency, an important
concern in any teaching programme which conceives of language in
performance, or behavioural, terms. While acknowledging the impor-
tance of proficiency rating scales for making broad generalisations about
where a learner is situated on a scale from non-user to equivalent to
native speaker status, criticisms are made of the current state of profi-
ciency assessment. It is suggested that the construct of 'general profi-
ciency' needs clarification, and assessment measures need to be validated
against what learners can actually do at any given stage of development.
One of the central problems of such scales, if one rejects a view of
proficiency as a unitary construct, is that there will be variability amongst
learners at any given time. Thus, learners will vary, not only in terms
of the tasks they are able to carry out, but also on broader measures,
relating to mastery of macro-skills and individual components of profi-
ciency (such as fluency, mastery of syntax and morphology, ability to
operationalise sociocultural knowledge, conversational tactics and so
on). Obviously, a great deal of further research needs to be done in this
area.
9 Evaluation and Professional
Development

9.1 Introduction
Within a learner-centred system, the teacher has a central role to play
in all aspects of the curriculum. In systems based on traditional cur-
riculum models, the teacher is very often reduced to the role of servant
to a centralised curriculum process in which decisions about what will
be taught, how it will be taught and how learner assessment and course
evaluation will be conducted are made, not by teachers, but by some
authority remote from the point of course delivery.
In a learner-centred system, such centralised direction is undesirable.
It is also hardly feasible, as a central assumption of the learner-centred
philosophy is that differentiated curricula will have to be developed to
respond to differentiated learner needs, the differentiation occurring
along many different dimensions. Even curricula which share common
linguistic content may well be differentiated in terms of topics, themes,
situations, methodology, materials, learning tasks and activities, learning
arrangements, means of assessment and so on.
In this work, I have attempted to view curriculum processes from a
number of different perspectives. Minimally, the curriculum can be seen
as a plan of action (the planned curriculum), as a description of what
actually happens in classrooms (the implemented curriculum), and as an
analysis and description of what learners actually learn (the assessed
curriculum). (See also Bartlett and Butler's (1985) comprehensive cur-
riculum model.) The planned curriculum relates to what is set down in
curriculum documents and plans; the implemented curriculum is what
actually happens during the teaching learning process; and the assessed
curriculum is what the learners actually learn. In an ideal world, these
three curricula would be identical. In other words, what was planned
would be what actually got learned, there would be no unanticipated
outcomes, and learners would learn everything they were taught.
To assume that this is the way things work in reality is hopelessly
naive. One thing we do know about the curriculum at present is that
teaching does not equal learning. However, this does not mean that we
should not strive to bring the planned, the implemented and the assessed
curriculum into alignment. In this chapter we shall look at some of the
ways in which we might work towards this ideal.

136
 Evaluation and the Planning Process 137

In the three sections which make up the bulk of this chapter, we shall
look at evaluation processes in relation to the three aspects of the cur-
riculum process already described. In doing so, a view of 'teacher as
curriculum developer' will be articulated. It will be argued that a central
weakness in most curriculum models is the lack of articulation between
(or, in some cases, even recognition of) the planned, implemented and
assessed curriculum. Lack of articulation means that the possibility of
the implemented and assessed curricula affecting the planned curriculum
is severely constrained.
In addition to being key curriculum development agents in a learner-
centred system, classroom teachers are uniquely placed to integrate the
implemented and assessed curricula with the planned curriculum. How-
ever, they will be in a position to do this only if they have appropriate
skills and techniques for documenting and analysing what is happening
in the classroom during the learning process, and for assessing learner
progress.
In the final section of the chapter, we shall look at the professional
development aspects of the teacher as curriculum developer.

9.2 Evaluation and the Planning Process

One of the themes of this book is the need to see all of the elements
within the curriculum process as interrelated. A major weakness of the
'ballistic' curriculum model, described in Chapter 2, is that each element
within the model is sequential. Succeeding elements are therefore incap-
able of influencing the ones which precede them.
In the model proposed here, while certain activities logically precede
others, there is much greater integration. In particular, the monitoring
and evaluation element needs to be seen as parallel with all other elements
rather than occurring simply as an appendage to the instructional process.
The planning process involves initial data collection from which are
derived goals, objectives and learning content. These processes and their
attendant techniques were described in Chapters 4 and 5.
As we saw in the previous chapter (Section 8.3), the principal purpose
for evaluating the planned curriculum is to determine the efficacy of the
planning procedures employed, and also to assess whether the content
and objectives are appropriate. While such questions can be comprehen-
sively answered only in relation to the implemented curriculum, some
evaluative work can be carried out before a course begins.
At a relatively informal level, survey forms can be circulated to col-
leagues who have had experience in course planning at different levels.
If counsellors are available, they should also be consulted. At a slightly
more formal level, if detailed instruments and questionnaires have been
138 Evaluation and Professional Development

developed, they should be trialled with a range of learners before being

introduced.
Content, including objective grids, can be compared with the specifi-
cations set out for other programmes aimed at similar learner groups.
Grading appropriacy can also be checked against other syllabus outlines
and published coursebooks.

9.3 Evaluation and the Implemented Curriculum

Whereas the planned curriculum is located in the curriculum documents
and statements of intent of curriculum developers, the implemented cur-
riculum is found in the classroom itself, where it is manifested in the
content, resources and processes of learning. It has been suggested that
in an ideal world the planned curriculum will be faithfully reflected in
the teaching—learning situation, but that in the real world, the planned
curriculum will be transformed by such things as the hidden agendas of
the learners, the moment-by-moment realities of the learning process
and the decisions made by teachers on the spur of the moment as they
monitor and react to unfolding classroom events.
It is crucially important to study the classroom and the interactions
which occur within it because for the majority of learners, and also for
many teachers, the classroom represents reality. For them, the
implemented curriculum is the curriculum, and the planned curriculum
is often either invisible or unreal.
We need to study the implemented curriculum for a number of reasons.
The most important of these is that it is the implemented, rather than
the planned curriculum, which will determine the assessed curriculum.
That is, the learners' classroom experiences will be more important than
statements of intent in determining learning outcomes.
Some of the most interesting classroom investigations currently being
undertaken are those by second language acquisition researchers whose
work was referred to in Chapter 5. One such researcher has this to say
about such research:
While still in its youth, if not infancy, classroom-centred research
has already accumulated a substantial body ot knowledge about
what actually goes on in ESL classrooms, as opposed to what is
believed to go on, and as distinct from what writers on TESL
methods tell us ought to go on.
(Long 1983:422)

The point Long is making is that the direct study of classroom processes
reveals data that can not be obtained in any other way. It has been found
that not only is there a disparity between the planned curriculum (what
the curriculum planners suggest should go on) and the implemented
 Evaluation and the Implemented Curriculum 139

curriculum (what actually does go on), but there are also disparities
between what teachers believe happens in class and what actually hap-
pens. For example, Nunan (1986c) studied a number of 'communicative'
classrooms and found that, in fact, there was very little happening in
these classes which could be called 'communicative' language use.
This point can be illustrated by looking at two examples from the
data which were collected.
One of the characteristics of genuine communication is the use of
referential questions (questions to which the questioner does not know
the answer). In the Nunan data, a study of the lesson plans (the planned
curriculum) indicated that the lessons under study were 'communicative'
in the sense that this term is used in Chapter 3. Thus the first lesson
was based on an 'information-gap' activity in which learners had to
share information to complete a problem. The second lesson centred on
a study of a street map. However, when the patterns of interaction,
particularly in the teacher-fronted parts of the lessons are examined, it
is seen that they are basically non-communicative. The teacher nominates
the topics as well as who is to speak, and the questions are almost
exclusively of the display type (questions to which the questioner already
knows the answer).
Here is the teacher in Lesson 1 introducing the class to the information-
gap activity.
T: today, er, we're going to um, we're going to do something
where, we, er, listen to a conversation and we also talk about
the subject of the conversation er, in fact, we're not going to
listen to one conversation, how many conversations are we
going to listen to?
S: three
T: how do you know?
S: because, er, you will need, er, three tapes and three points
T: three?
S: points
T: what?
S: power points
T: power points, if I need three power points and three tape
recorders, you correctly assume that I'm going to give you
three conversations, and that's true, and all the conversation
will be different, but they will all be on the same . . .?
Ss: subject, subject
T: the same . . . ?
S: subject, subject
T: right, they will all be on the same subject
(Nunan 1986c:5-6)

It can be seen that the teacher knows (or thinks he knows) the appropriate
answer to all the questions asked. In terms of the interaction patterns,
140 Evaluation and Professional Development

this extract is typical of the whole lesson. The teacher is firmly in control
of who says what when. This is not a criticism. The teacher in question
is highly experienced, and is a particularly skilled classroom performer.
His elicitation (or corkscrew) technique, which makes the students do
a great deal of the work, is admirable. The point is, however, that the
exchanges are essentially non-communicative, despite the best intention
of the teacher.
The next extract is taken from a lesson on map reading. The class is
at a much lower level than the other, and the teacher is somewhat less
experienced. However, the patterns of interaction are very similar. In
the following extract, we see a rather less successful attempt at elicitation
than in the first.

T: ok, where is John Martin's? Phung? John Martin's?

S: oh, Gawler Pla(ce)
Ss: Gawler Place
T: John Martin's?
S: Gawler Place
T: Gawler Place? no!
S: (inaudible)
T: Charles...?
S: Charles
T: Street
S: Charles Street and, er, Rundle Mall
T: Rundle Mall, yeah, so it's on the ... ?
S: on the, on the corner of, on the corner
T: on the corner of ... ? Charles Street
S: Charles Street
T: and?
S: and
T: Rundle Mall, yeah, yeah? John Martin's is on the corner of
Charles Street and Rundle Mall
Here, the teacher not only does most of the work, he ends up answering
his own original question.
Classroom data such as these demonstrate that there is a gap between
the rhetoric of the planned curriculum and the reality of the classroom,
and that teachers are very often unaware of this gap. While it could be
claimed that they are rather isolated examples from which it is dangerous
to generalise, they do, in fact, accord with several similar studies. Long
and Sato, for instance, found that:
ESL teachers continue to emphasise form over meaning, accuracy
over communication. This is illustrated, for example, by the
preference for display over referential questions and results in
classroom NS-NNS conversation which differs greatly from its
counterpart outside classrooms.
(Long and Sato 1983:283-284)
 Evaluation and the Implemented Curriculum 141

(The reader is also referred to Chaudron (1988) and van Lier (1988) for
two excellent although quite different treatments of classroom-centred
research.)
It has been suggested that the gap between intention and reality is a
result of the powerful constraints which exist within the context of the
classroom. In discussing the differences that exist between language used
inside the classroom and that used outside, Seliger suggests:
These differences are the necessary result of the organisation of
contexts for the formal teaching of language that takes place inside
the classroom. Outside the classroom, however, in naturalistic
environments, language is a means to an end . . . The language
classroom is, by definition, a contrived context for the use of
language as a tool of communication. The bulk of time in a language
class is devoted to practising language for its own sake because the
participants in this activity realise that that is the expressed purpose
of their gathering together in a room with a blackboard and a
language expert, the teacher.
(Seliger 1983:250-251)

The other major reason for the gap between the planned and implemented
curriculum is that very often learners have their own 'hidden agendas'
which run counter to the 'official curriculum'. It has been hypothesised
that these hidden agendas determine output from the learners' perspective
regardless of input (Burton and Nunan 1986).
One way of closing the gap between intention and reality would be
to abandon the planned curriculum altogether. However, this is unlikely
to lead to more systematic and rational approaches to the curriculum.
It would be far better to develop strategies to bring intention and reality
into line.
One way of doing this would be to make the planned curriculum very
explicit to the learners, using bilingual resources where necessary to get
the message across. It could well be that learners develop their own
hidden curricula because they have little idea of the nature of the official
curriculum. This is the view of Candlin and Edelhoff:
We assume that learners learn most when they are quite precisely
aware of what it is that they have to achieve, and, importantly,
how their efforts are to be judged and evaluated. We could add, as
a rider, that learners are more likely to meet this condition when
they have been party to the setting of their goals . . .
(Candlin and Edelhoff 1982:vi)

In addition, the planned curriculum needs to be 'learnable'. While we

are still ignorant of all the constraints on learnability, a body of literature
on the subject is beginning to be developed. Thus Johnston (1985) has
been able to demonstrate that the planned curriculum often fails, in
142 Evaluation and Professional Development

terms of learners' mastery of syntax and morphology, because the learn-

ers are confronted with items which are simply unlearnable at any given
stage (see also Pienemann 1985).

9.4 Evaluation and the Assessed Curriculum

In this section we shall look at some practical techniques for assessing
student progress. One of the most important and useful ways of assessing
achievement in a communicative curriculum is to set performance-based
tests which require learners to demonstrate an ability to carry out those
tasks which have been specified in the planned curriculum. It is to facili-
tate the assessment of communicative performance that the use of perfor-
mance objectives was advocated in Chapter 5. These objectives need not
be formulated before the class begins, but can be constructed during the
course itself, once ongoing needs analysis has provided a more realistic
picture of likely learner achievement levels.
In Chapter 5 it was suggested that performance objectives should
contain three elements: task, conditions and standards. The following
example was provided:
In a classroom role play (condition), students will exchange greetings
with the teacher (task). Utterances will be comprehensible to
someone used to dealing with a second-language speaker (standard).

It is not always feasible, particularly in large classes, to formally test all

learners on a performance basis. In such classes it is useful to involve
learners in assessment by teaching them the sorts of self-assessment
techniques described in the preceding section.
Observation techniques are also useful in assisting teachers to monitor
student progress. However, observation needs to be systematic. This can
be facilitated through the use of various forms of rating scales and
checklists, samples of which are shown in Table 9.1. These can be kept
for each learner in the class, and can be completed at regular intervals
during the course.

TABLE 9 . 1

Sample rating scales

Indicate the degree to which learners contribute to small-group
discussions or conversation classes by circling the appropriate number.

(Key: 5—outstanding, 4 — above average, 3 — average, 2 — below average,

1 — unsatisfactory)
 Evaluation and the Assessed Curriculum 143

1 The learner participates in discussions. 1 2 3 4 5

2 The learner uses appropriate non-verbal signals. 1 2 3 4 5
3 The learner's contributions are relevant. 1 2 3 4 5
4 The learner is able to negotiate meaning. 1 2 3 4 5
5 The learner is able to convey factual information. 1 2 3 4 5
6 The learner can give personal opinions. 1 2 3 4 5
7 The learner can invite contributions from others. 1 2 3 4 5
8 The learner can agree/disagree appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5
9 The learner can change the topic appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5

Rate the learner's speaking ability by circling the appropriate number.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I | | | | | [ | | |

Incapable of Carries out simple

carrying out conversation giving
simple conversation personal information

Rate the learner's listening ability by circling the appropriate number.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I [ L_ I i I | | | |
Incapable of Follows simple
following simple instructions in
instructions classroom setting
Checklist of reading skills
YES NO Recognises Roman script upper/lower case
YES NO Identifies numbers in various formats
YES NO Comprehends key content words/phrases in context
YES NO Retrieves simple factual information from short texts
YES NO Comprehends regular sound/symbol relationships
YES NO Sight reads key function words

YES NO Identifies genre of common texts

YES NO Identifies topic of simple text on familiar subject
YES NO Uses alphabetical indexes
YES NO Follows written instructions

In addition to the sorts of procedures described above, there are many

different discrete-point tests available for assessing and diagnosing learn-
ing problems in phonology, vocabulary, language structures, discourse
and so on. Examples of such tests may be found in the numerous books
on language testing.
144 Evaluation and Professional Development

9.5 Causes of Learner Failure

In this section, we shall take a brief look at a small-scale study designed
to investigate teacher attitudes toward the failure of learners to achieve
programme goals and objectives.

Background
Assessing learner achievement (or lack thereof) is only the first step in
the evaluation process. It is highly unlikely that all learners will make
satisfactory progress all of the time (if they do, it is likely that the course
is too easy for the group). In cases of failure to achieve objectives, the
next step is to diagnose the likely cause or causes, and to suggest remedies.
There are many different possible causes of learner failure. Some of
the more common of these, which have been anecdotally reported by
teachers, are as follows:
— inefficient learning strategies
— poor attention in class
— irregular attendance
— particular macro-skill problems
— difficulty with discrete language points
— failure to use the language outside class
— faulty teaching techniques
— objectives inappropriate for learners
— materials / learning activities inappropriate for learners
— inappropriate learning arrangement
— personal (non-language) problems of learners (including physical dis-
ability.

The Study
In order to obtain more detailed information, the questionnaire shown
in Table 9.2 was circulated to a group of teachers taking part in an
in-service curriculum workshop. Although assessment was not one of
the workshop topics, some discussion of assessment and evaluation did
take place prior to the administration of the questionnaire.
 Causes of Learner Failure 145

TABLE 9 . 2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON CAUSES OF LEARNER FAILURE

Below are listed some possible causes of learner failure. Which of these,
in your opinion, are significant factors in the failure of learners to achieve
course objectives? Circle the appropriate numbers.
1 Inefficient learning strategies
2 Failure to use the language out of class
3 Irregular attendance
4 Particular macroskill problems
5 Inappropriate learning activities
6 Inappropriate objectives
7 Faulty teaching
8 Poor attention in class
9 Personal (non-language) problems
10 Learner attitude

Results
The results of the survey are set out in Table 9.3. Causes attributable
to the teacher are set out separately from those attributable to the learner.

TABLE 9 . 3 SURVEY RESULTS OF CAUSES OF LEARNER FAILURE (n = 3 4 )

Number of teachers
rating this as a cause of
Cause failure %

Causes attributable to the learner

Inefficient learning strategies 26 77
Failure to use the language out of class 26 77
Irregular attendance 15 45
Particular macroskill problems 11 32
Poor attention in class 3 9
Personal (non-language) problems 3 9
Learner attitude 1 4

Causes attributable to the teacher

Inappropriate learning activities 11 32
Inappropriate objectives 9 27
Faulty teaching 8 23
146 Evaluation and Professional Development

Discussion
From the data it can be seen that, in ger.eral, the teachers surveyed placed
responsibility for failure firmly with the learners. However, it is worth
noting that, in relation to causes attributable to the teacher, one third
of those surveyed identified inappropriate learning activities as a possible
cause, and approximately a quarter identified inappropriate objectives
and faulty teaching as having a significant effect on learning outcomes.
Systematic observation is one way in which teachers can diagnose
which of the above reasons are implicated in learner failure. Non-observ-
able problems, such as failure to use language outside class, can be
diagnosed through learner diaries and reports (see the preceding chapter
for a sample diary).
Interviewing learners from time to time can also help build up a picture
of the learner's preferences, strengths and weaknesses (although some
students may not always be forthcoming with their class teachers, and
it may be more useful to have a counsellor or bilingual assistant conduct
interviews). Such interviews can canvass the following issues:
Do you enjoy coming to class?
Which lessons / parts of lessons have been most useful?
What have you enjoyed most?
What things have you learned so far?
What helped you learn?
How do you learn best?
Have your ideas about how you learn changed? How?
Do you enjoy having different teachers?
Which classes give you the things you asked for at the beginning of the
course?
Which lesson / parts of lessons are not useful for you?
Do you come to class as often as you can?
Why have you missed some classes?
Having diagnosed problems, the teacher can develop strategies to over-
come them. These need not always entail changing the learner. It may
well be that objectives, methods, materials and learning arrangements
should be changed to accommodate learners. There are of course some
causes, such as personal problems learners are having outside class,
which teachers may be incapable of changing.
Determining whether or not one s own shortcomings are responsible
for learner failure is a sensitive issue as it may well necessitate the involve-
ment of one's peers in observation and discussion. This is a matter of
professional development and is taken up in the next section.
 Evaluation and Teacher Developmet 147

9.6 Evaluation and Teacher Development

In this section, we take up a key issue implicit in most of this book.
This is the encouragement of self-analysis and evaluation by teachers
of their own classroom work as a means of professional self-development.
As Stenhouse (1975) suggests, it is not enough that teachers work be
studied, they need to study it themselves. Such self-evaluation, when tied
to classroom action research, can also make valuable contributions to
curriculum development.
Techniques and procedures for self-development include team teach-
ing, recording (audio or video) and analysing segments of classroom
interaction, analysis of classes by outside observers and action research.
Many teachers feel threatened by the idea of an outsider observing
their classroom performance. This is unfortunate, as it is one of the most
useful means of obtaining information about what is working and what
is not. The ideal is for two teachers who have mutual trust to observe
and report on each other's classes. (In this context, it is worth noting
that in the major study reported in Chapter 10, many teachers nominated
team teaching as the most valuable means of professional self-develop-
ment, and yet relatively few had ever actually taken part in a team-teach-
ing exercise.)
It is important for classroom observation to be systematic. This can
be facilitated by checklists such as that shown in Table 9.4.
TABLE 9 . 4 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Directions: During, or after the class you have observed or taken part
in, rate the following statements according to hew accurately they reflect
what went on.
Key: 1 — Does not at all reflect what went on
2 — Only marginally reflects what went on
3 - Neutral
4 - Describes rather well what went on
5 — Is a totally accurate reflection of what went on
1 There were no cultural misunderstandings. 12 3 4 5
2 The class understood what was wanted at all times. 12 3 4 5
3 All instructions were clear. 12 3 4 5
4 Every student was involved at some point. 12 3 4 5
5 All students were interested in the lesson. 12 3 4 5
6 The teacher carried out comprehension checks. 12 3 4 5
7 Materials and learning activities were appropriate. 12 3 4 5
8 Student groupings and sub-groupings were appropriate. 12 3 4 5
148 Evaluation and Professional Development

9 Class atmosphere was positive. 12 3 4 5

10 The pacing of the lesson was appropriate. 12 3 4 5
11 There was enough variety in the lesson. 12 3 4 5
12 The teacher did not talk too much. 12 3 4 5
13 Error correction and feedback was appropriate. 12 3 4 5
14 There was genuine communication. 12 3 4 5
15 There was teacher skill in organising group work. 12 3 4 5
16 There was opportunity for controlled practice. 12 3 4 5
17 Students were enthusiastic. 12 3 4 5
18 General classroom management was good. 12 3 4 5

(Adapted from an RSA checklist)

Interest is growing in the use of action research as a tool for teacher and
curriculum development. A practical set of procedures for carrying out
such research is presented by Kemmis and McTaggart. Their concept of
action research is captured in the following statement:
The linking of the terms 'action' and 'research' highlights the
essential feature of the method: trying out ideas in practice as a
means of improvement and as a means of increasing knowledge
about the curriculum, teaching and learning. The result is
improvement in what happens in the classroom and school, and
better articulation and justification of the educational rationale for
what goes on. Action research provides a way of working which
links theory and practice into the one whole: ideas-in-acrion.
(Kemmis and McTaggart 1982:5)

They suggest that there are four essential steps in carrying out a piece
of research, and we can see from these steps that they represent, in
microcosm, the different phases of the curriculum development process.
Step 1: Develop a plan of action to improve what is already happening.
Step 2: Act to implement the plan.
Step 3: Observe and document the effects of action in the contexts in
which it occurs.
Step 4: Reflect on (evaluate) these effects as a basis for further planning,
subsequent action and so on through a succession of cycles.
There are a number of comments worth making about this action-
research cycle. In the first place, it is a constructive, evolutionary process,
rather than a revolutionary one. It seeks to build on what is already
happening rather than tearing down the old and replacing it with the
new. Improvement is also seen as a continuous, rather than as a 'one-ofP
process. Finally, it places responsibility for improvement in the hands
of those who control the implemented curriculum, the classroom
teachers.
While action research could be conducted privately, with only the
 Evaluation and Teacher Development 149
teacher being aware of the experiment in progress, Kemmis and McTag-
gart stress the need for communication between the teacher, other col-
leagues and the students concerned. (In fact, they advocate the develop-
ment of joint projects between teachers working on 'problems of mutual
concern and consequence'.) They suggest that dialogue is essential for
the following reasons:
It encourages the development of the rationale for the practice under
investigation, and for others related to it.
It helps to allow the enquiry to be seen as a 'project' rather than as
a personal and introspective process.
It helps to clarify unforeseen consequences and ramifications of the
work.
It makes defining the issues easier because explaining the project to
others demands clarifying one's own thinking.
It helps to get moral support and to see the limits of support (others
may not be so captivated by the project as oneself).
It allows others to help and become involved in a constructive par-
ticipatory way.
It aids reflection by providing a variety of perspectives on the effects
of action and the constraints experienced.
(op cit.:13)

Action-research projects can vary enormously in size and scope, as is

demonstrated by the following examples. It goes without saying that
issues about which one can do nothing should be avoided.
Starting points for action research projects could be as follows:
I have heard that increasing the use of referential rather than display
questions stimulates students to use more complex language. Will
this work with my students?
I seem to spend too much time talking in class. Can I set up a project
to stimulate and monitor student talk?
I would like to sub-divide my class into smaller groups which are more
responsive to learner needs. Will this improve the quality of learning?
My learners do not seem to use English outside the class. How can I
encourage and monitor language use outside?
Four other teachers at my centre have students at roughly the same
proficiency level. Could we pool our resources to develop a more
responsive curriculum for these learners?
As a monolingual teacher with a heterogeneous class, can I make use
of bilingual strategies and resources? Will these improve learning
outcomes?
There is some controversy about whether or not informing students of
course objectives improves learning. Can I experiment with my stu-
dents to determine the affective and cognitive outcomes of providing
course objectives?
150 Evaluation and Professional Development

From these examples, it can be seen that action-research projects can

vary enormously in size, complexity and the number of individuals
involved in them.

9.7 Conclusion
In this chapter we have looked at the role of the teacher in evaluation.
It has been suggested that in a learner-centred system, the teacher has a
crucial role to play in both student assessment and course evaluation.
It is suggested that evaluation should encompass student outcomes,
causes of learning difficulties and possible remediation. Sample
techniques for student assessment are presented.
The chapter also advocates teacher self-evaluation, and the use of
action research as valuable means of stimulating both teacher and cur-
riculum development.
In the next, and final, chapter we shall take a look at the role of the
teacher as curriculum developer. The chapter reports on a national study
of teachers as curriculum developers, and shows what teachers think of
themselves in such a role.
\ 0 The Teacher as Curriculum
Developer

10.1 Introduction
The central theme of this book has been that, in a learner-centred edu-
cational system, it is the teacher who is the principal agent of curriculum
development. In this final chapter we shall look at how teachers respond
when cast in this role.
Data for this chapter were derived from a national study of teachers
as curriculum developers within the Australian Adult Migrant Education
Program. Within the AMEP, a centralised curriculum model had given
way to a learner-centred one. The initial question prompting the study
was as follows:
What happens when a national language programme abandons its cen-
tralised curriculum for a localised learner-centred model?
It quickly became apparent that the most tangible result of the abandon-
ment of a centralised curriculum was fragmentation and perceived lack
of continuity in the curriculum. The national study was established to
investigate and take steps to remedy perceived shortcomings in the cur-
riculum area. The study thus came to focus on the following questions:
What are the causes of curriculum discontinuity?
What can be done to alleviate these?
Who should be involved in the process of remedying perceived shortcom-
ings in the curriculum?

10.2 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer - A National

Study

Background
The study was based on the Australian Adult Migrant Education Program
which is one of the largest single-language programmes in the world
with annual enrolments in excess of 120,000. In 1980 the AMEP aban-
doned its centralised curriculum in favour of a localised model which,
it was hoped, would facilitate the development of more appropriate
courses for the Program's extremely diverse client group. This change

151
152 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

in policy required the teacher to become the principal agent of curriculum

development.
Within the Program, learners typically attend a given learning arrange-
ment for a 10- or 13-week term, and then either leave the Pro-
gram or apply for another course. Depending on the state where Program
delivery occurs, learners may either be accepted for a second course
immediately, or may have to wait for up to a year for another course.
There is a great diversity of learning arrangements including full-time,
part-time, community classes, courses in industry, self-access courses, a
home tutor scheme and individualised learning arrangements.
The idealised curriculum process is for learners to be grouped accord-
ing to some common criterion or 'need', and for teachers to negotiate
content, materials and methodology with the learners. Each course is
therefore potentially unique.
In an initial survey, a group of teachers within the Program were asked
to nominate who should be primarily responsible for various curriculum
processes. The processes investigated were initial needs analysis, goal
and objective setting, selecting and grading content, ongoing needs
analysis, grouping learners, devising learning activities, instructing learn-
ers, monitoring and assessing progress and course evaluation. All of
the teachers surveyed felt that they should be the ones primarily respon-
sible for selecting and grading content, devising learning activities and
instruction. They also felt that they should be the ones primarily respon-
sible for initial and ongoing needs analysis, goal and objective setting,
monitoring and assessment and course evaluation. The only task to
which teachers did not accord the highest ranking was that of grouping
learners. (The complete set of data from this study are presented in
Chapter 3.)
This study indicates quite clearly that the teachers surveyed see them-
selves as the principal agents of curriculum development. In order to
gain greater insights into the problems teachers were encountering in
this expanded professional role, and to document the solutions which
they see as appropriate, the study detailed in the rest of this chapter was
carried out.

Research Methodology
Because the study was looking for insights into the effect of a curriculum
policy change on teachers (rather than learners), there was no attempt
at the quantification of learning outcomes. Following Beretta, it was felt
that the methodology had to be consonant with the fact that evaluation
is applied enquiry. Beretta suggests that, given the applied nature of such
enquiry:
(a) . . . we conduct our research in the field rather than in artificially
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 153
controlled 'laboratory' settings, (b) we consider the effect of total
programmes rather than isolated components of them, (c) the
duration of the studies should be long-term rather than short-term
and (d) randomisation is not always practicable or crucial.
(Beretta 1986a: 145)

It should also be added that research methods need to be acceptable to

and valid for those involved in programme planning, implementation
and evaluation (in this case, the classroom practitioner).
Parlett and Hamilton, two of the pioneers of naturalistic, field-based
methods in educational evaluation, suggest that a diversity of techniques
is needed within this particular paradigm:
Illuminative evaluation is not a standard methodological package,
but a general research strategy. It aims to be both adaptable and
eclectic. The choice of research tactics follows not from research
doctrine, but from decisions in each case as to the best available
techniques: the problem defines the methods used, not vice versa.
Equally, no method (with its own built-in limitations) is used
exclusively or in isolation; different techniques are combined to
throw light on a common problem. Besides viewing the problem
from a number of angles, this 'triangulation' approach also
facilitates the cross-checking of otherwise tentative findings.
(Parlett and Hamilton 1983:16-17)

A final factor influencing the choice of methods was the desirability of

involving as many of the 1,500 practitioners involved in the Program
as possible.
In the event, the following techniques were used:
— extended interviews and discussions with groups of teachers, adminis-
trators and curriculum support personnel working at all levels and in
all areas of the programme
— individual interviews with selected personnel
— the administration of a questionnaire to all those involved in profes-
sional aspects of programme delivery
— a detailed illuminative case study of one learning arrangement.
In all, just on 300 teachers, administrators and curriculum-support per-
sonnel took part in the interviews and discussions, while 568 question-
naires were completed and returned (although not all respondents com-
pleted all sections of the questionnaire).

Interviews
The data collection procedure adopted in the interviews and discussions
was as follows: sessions were recorded (either on tape or in detailed
154 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

notes); these were transcribed, and summaries were made of the trans-
criptions; summaries were returned to those who had been interviewed
for verification and amendment before being made public.
A great deal of data was yielded by the interviews. The major points
which emerged are reported here.
Although for the six years preceding teachers were supposed to have
been the prime agents of curriculum development, there was a great deal
of confusion about what was meant by the term curriculum. For many
teachers, the term meant a prescriptive body of content. This tendency
to view curriculum as content rather than process meant that anyone
from a centralised agency turning up in a language centre purporting to
deal with 'curriculum' issues was often treated with a great deal of
suspicion.
It was evident that curriculum continuity had suffered as a result of
the adoption of a localised curriculum model, and that this lack of
continuity existed between, as well as within, classes. (Teachers tended
to see the lack of continuity as existing between courses, whereas prog-
ramme administrators tended to see it as a problem within courses.)
Not all teachers saw the lack of continuity as a problem. One teacher
suggested that:
Perhaps lack of continuity between courses at a given level is not
a problem. If the student finishes one course and goes on to another
at the same level, perhaps it is an advantage for them to be
discontinuous.

Most of those interviewed, however, saw lack of continuity for learners

as a major problem.
A recurring theme was the lack of a general framework for teachers
to conceptualise and integrate what they were doing. 'Eclecticism' seems
to have been elevated to the status of an educational movement, as is
illustrated in the following quote:
We have got eclecticism of learners in the class, eclecticism of
methodology and eclecticism of learning ... so when I am faced
with planning my course, I am faced with these bits and pieces.

Some senior administrators saw the lack of accountability as a major

reason for lack of continuity. It was pointed out that the AMEP must
be one of the few large-scale educational institutions where there is no
control at either end of the learning process (i.e. there is neither a cur-
riculum, nor an examination system).
While some teachers blamed the lack of a centralised curriculum for
the lack of continuity, most accepted the fact that a set curriculum could
not hope to cater for the extremely diverse client group within the Pro-
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer - A National Study 155
gram. Most also accepted in principle the desirability and advantages
of having a negotiated curriculum when dealing with adults.
The importance of consultations with colleagues was a recurring theme
during the consultations. When asked what they would do if faced with
a group of students with whom they had had little experience (such as
an unfamiliar proficiency level), teachers generally reported that they
would consult a more experienced colleague. The desirability of team
teaching was also articulated by many teachers, although, in fact, com-
paratively few teachers had ever taught as part of a team or spent any
length of time in another teacher's classroom.
There was a great deal of sympathy at all levels for the plight of the
inexperienced teacher in a system which demanded that the teachers
themselves be curriculum developers. It was felt that they needed more
than philosophical statements to guide them. In fact there was some
difficulty defining the 'inexperienced' teacher. With changing client
groups, most teachers can find themselves to be 'inexperienced' at times.
Another disadvantaged group were the casual teachers who had no
security of employment, who were usually required to take a class at
short notice, who had no consultation time and who had very little
opportunity for systematic professional development.
Teachers also felt that in a learner-centred system they needed support-
ing resources in areas such as counselling, assessment and referral and
curriculum advice.
A widely-articulated view was that effective curriculum development
would occur only as a result of effective teacher development. Curriculum
personnel, in particular, felt that guidelines, and procedures for local
curriculum development, would be effective only if teachers were approp-
riately trained in their use. One curriculum support unit suggested that
the key to professional development was to get teachers to think about
and articulate what they are doing.
An issue which emerged repeatedly was the need for more time for
teachers to engage in curriculum planning. While there had been a change
in philosophy which required teachers to become curriculum developers,
there was no concomitant increase in the time available for teachers to
engage in course planning, to confer with each other and to survey and
counsel students.
Many of the problems encountered, and much of the curriculum dis-
continuity, were not in fact principally problems of curriculum or pedag-
ogy. They were largely problems of administration, management, coun-
selling and so on. Failure on the part of programme planners and adminis-
trators to see all these elements as inextricably intertwined makes rational
problem solving impossible.
156 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

Questionnaire
The questionnaire, shown in Tables 10.1 and 10.2, was divided into
three parts. Part A asked teachers to nominate what they saw as the
appropriate participatory structure for a proposed National Curriculum
Project to produce curriculum guidelines for the programme. Part B
sought opinion on the types of guidelines and other types of curriculum
support which might be developed, and Part C asked teachers to provide
input on their perceptions of problems and possible solutions to cur-
riculum planning and development.

TABLE 1 0 . 1 QUESTIONNAIRE - PART A

Who should carry out the work of the proposed Curriculum Project?
Key: 1 — strongly disagree
2 - moderately disagree
3 - neutral
4 - moderately agree
5 - strongly agree
1 A small team of persons with curriculum expertise 1 2 3 4 5
2 Teachers with relevant skills 1 2 3 4 5
3 Steering groups of teachers to oversee projects 1 2 3 4 5
4 A mixture of 1,2 and 3 1 2 3 4 5

The overwhelming consensus from all those responding to this part of

the questionnaire was that a mixture of options, including small teams
with particular expertise, the secondment of teachers with relevant skills
and the utilisation of steering groups made up of teacher representatives,
should oversee any projects or tasks which are set up. While it has always
been anticipated that any Project outcomes will only succeed if they are
derived from instances of successful practice, substantial direct teacher
involvement will be possible only if state and territory Adult Migrant
Education Services are prepared to pay release time for teachers to carry
out tasks and to serve on working parties.
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 157
TABLE 1 0 . 2 QUESTIONNAIRE - PART B

Rate the following outcomes and tasks on a five point scale from 1
(strongly disagree) through to 5 (strongly agree).
1 The development of curriculum guidelines for inexperienced
teachers to follow in developing their courses (the guidelines to be
structured around the macroskills of listening, oral interaction, and
literacy skills)
2 The development of guidelines for teaching learning strategies and
'learning how to learn'
3 The development of alternative methods for organising teaching
and learning (for example, team teaching, peer tutoring, working
with mixed ability groups)
4 The identification and documentation of instances of successful
curriculum practice from within the Program
5 The development of procedures and instruments for carrying out
curriculum tasks (for example, selecting and grading content,
selecting learning activities, assessment and evaluation)
6 The development and trialling of a Certificate of ESL for learners
7 The development and trialling of ways of introducing curriculum
support personnel including counsellors, bilingual assistants and
curriculum advisors
8 The development of curriculum models for different learner groups
(for example, new arrivals, intermediate learners)
9 The development of guidelines for different types of program
delivery (for example, community classes, English in the workplace,
self-access learning)
10 The development and trialling of different procedures for 'micro-
planning' (for example, lesson-planning, modular approaches to
program design)

Respondents were divided into one of the four following groups, accord-
ing to their function within the programme:
Group A: teachers whose principal function is programme administra-
tion
Group B: teachers whose principal function is curriculum, teacher or
materials support
Group C: full-time teachers
Group D: part-time teachers.
The results of the study are set out in Figure 10.1 and Table 10.3. (These
results are based on responses received from 458 individuals. These
158 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

included 39 programme administrators, 19 curriculum support persons,

187 full-time teachers and 213 part-time teachers.)

FIGURE 1 0 . 1 RESULTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE - PART B

2.75
10

TABLE 1 0 . 3 OVERALL RANKINGS OF ITEMS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE - PART B (FROM

MOST TO LEAST DESIRABLE).

1 Learning strategy guidelines (Item 2)

2 Guidelines for teaching macroskills (Item 1)
3 Curriculum models for different learner groups (Item 8)
4 Documentation of instances of successful curriculum pracuce
(Item 4)
5 Ways of introducing curriculum support personnel
(Item 7)
6 Procedures and instruments for carrying out curriculum tasks
(Item 5)
7 Alternative methods for organising teaching/learning (Item 3)
8 Guidelines for different types of program delivery (Item 9)
9 Procedures for 'micro-planning' (Item 10)
10 A Certificate of ESL (Item 6)

There are some interesting differences between the different groups. Both
programme administrators and part-time teachers gave a high priority
to the development of macro-skill guidelines for inexperienced teachers.
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer - A National Study 159

Both groups of teachers, as well as curriculum support personnel, gave

a high priority to the development of guidelines for teaching learning
strategies and 'learning how to learn', which supports the general view
taken in this book that language programmes should have learning goals
as well as language goals. All except the curriculum support group gave
their lowest rating to the need for a Certificate of ESL, indicating that
formalised assessment procedures are seen as less desirable in establishing
curriculum continuity than other measures.
From the data presented in the tables, a number of significant points
emerge. The first is that there was little real opposition to any of the
items listed with the possible exception of Item 10, relating to the develop-
ment and mailing of an Australian Certificate of ESL. This may have
been partly due to the poor wording of the item, which did not clearly
indicate that the certificate was intended for learners not teachers.
In general, Item 2, relating to the development of learning strategies
and 'learning how to learn' was the most popular item, followed by Item
1 relating to the development of macro-skill guidelines for inexperienced
teachers. Once again, due to the construction of the item, it is not
immediately apparent whether teachers were responding to the
'guidelines' or the 'inexperienced teacher' part of the item, or both.
Another item which gained a high rating was Item 8 relating to different
learner groups. It may, in fact, be possible to develop a package which
integrates all three of these items.
While the questionnaire allowed for input from greater numbers of
teachers than would have been possible had data only been collected
through interviews, the results themselves need to be treated with caution.
Follow-up interviews indicated that teachers generally disliked quantify-
ing their responses to what they see as complex issues. One group, in
fact, which had given a low rating to the idea of a certificate, decided,
on discussing the matter in a follow-up interview, that a certificate would
be a good idea after all.

Free Form Responses

Section C, soliciting free form comments, was added to the questionnaire
to allow teachers to give their perceptions on lack of curriculum con-
tinuity and on the notion that teachers were having difficulty implement-
ing the curriculum. It was anticipated that the responses would provide
insights into what teachers saw as reasons for lack of continuity.
Responses were coded into the categories in Table 10.4, a category
being created whenever there was more than one response which could
fit that category. (Sample comments from each category are provided in
brackets.) The results are shown in Tables 10.5 and 10.6.
160 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

TABLE 1 0 . 4 COMPILATION OF FREE-FORM REASONS GIVEN FOR LACK OF

CURRICULUM CONTINUITY

Lack of continuity in the Program is a result of:

1 the philosophy and nature of the Program
(At present, the curriculum is simply a needs-based philosophy and
is interpreted according to the particular needs of students at a
particular time.)
2 lack of funding
(. . . ad hoc arrangements forced by funding demand problems.)
3 lack of appropriate administrative/management support/
coordination ([We need] administrative support for providing
continuity.)
4 problems caused by students (e.g. irregular attendance)
(The stop-start nature of students' attendance creates difficulty.)
5 lack of information for learners about the Program / specific courses
(Students want to know / be told what is coming up on course and
how it connects with their next course.)
6 lack of skills/experience on the part of teachers (including the need
for teacher development)
(We have not really been trained to identify needs.)
7 lack of time for consultation and communication
(Lack of communication between teachers/centres is a major cause.)
8 high teacher turnover
(Massive changes of staff . . . have influenced people to respond as
they have.)
9 lack of information for teachers about content of previous courses
([There is] little evaluation left behind for other teachers to read and
find out what has been covered.)
10 courses are too short
(AME courses are too short.)
11 lack of information and induction for new teachers
(When one begins work with AMES it is very difficult to find out
where everything 'is at'.)
12 rapid changes in TESOL
(The massive theoretical moves in TESOL over the last fifteen years
have left teachers with disparate ideas and models.)
13 lack of support resources (including counselling and bilingual
support)
(Lack of continuity is the result of lack of resources.)
14 lack of curriculum guidelines/models
(A curriculum model with proven effective ideas and methodologies
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 161

and teacher techniques would benefit teachers starting out and may
also be helpful to experienced teachers.)
15 lack of appropriate assessment procedures, including certification
(We need assessment and evaluation and graded classes.)
16 lack of appropriate materials, including coursebooks
(A lack of specific materials available for the Australian
context. . . leads to sporadic programme.)
17 heterogeneous groups and diverse learner types
(. . . you get a large percentage of students who re-enrol as well as
some new students which can lead to repetition and lack of
continuity.)
18 class sizes are too large
(Class sizes are too big, especially for low levels.)

TABLE 1 0 . 5 TOTAL AND PERCENTAGES FOR REASONS PROVIDED

Administration and
curriculum support Teachers Total %

1 7 37 44 9.15
2 3 8 11 2.29
3 8 21 29 6.03
4 4 25 29 6.03
5 4 8 12 2.49
6 10 29 39 8.11
7 5 32 37 7.69
8 1 10 11 2.29
9 4 28 32 6.65
10 8 18 26 5.41
11 0 4 4 0.83
12 3 16 19 3.95
13 5 19 24 4.99
14 11 89 100 20.79
15 2 14 16 3.32
16 2 15 17 3.53
17 3 26 29 6.03
18 0 2 2 0.42
162 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer
TABLE 1 0 . 6 THE FREQUENCY ORDER OF REASONS FOR LACK OF CONTINUITY

1 lack of curriculum guidelines/models

2 the philosophy and nature of the program
3 lack of skills/experience on the part of teachers
4 lack of time for consultation and communication
5 lack of information about previous courses
6 lack of appropriate administrative support
7 problems caused by students
8 heterogeneous groups and diverse learner types
9 courses are too short
10 lack of support resources
11 rapid changes in TESOL
12 lack of appropriate materials
13 lack of appropriate assessment procedures
14 lack of information for learners
15 lack of funding
16 high teacher turnover
17 lack of information and induction for new teachers
18 class sizes are too large

The free form responses largely support the data from Section B of the
questionnaire in that respondents clearly favour curriculum guidelines
(100 commented on the need for curriculum guidelines models, while
nine explicitly stated that they were against the development of
guidelines). However, most of those in favour of guidelines stressed the
fact that these should be flexible and optional. It is interesting that, while
the desirability of developing learning strategies was highly rated in
Section B, the lack of guidelines for the teaching of learning strategies
was not seen as a cause of lack of continuity.
Identification of the learner-centred philosophy as a major cause of
curriculum discontinuity reinforces what was said in interviews. While
some of these comments were critical of the philosophy ('A reaction to
the current "fashion" of needs-based curriculums.' 'The lack of "con-
tinuity" is the result of half-baked attempts to use the AMEP as a "set-
tlement" programme'), most accepted the philosophy and implied that
a certain lack of continuity is simply something that we must live with
(The philosophy of a needs-based, learner-centred approach is accepted,
but confusion exists as to its implementation.' 'Courses designed for a
particular group of learners may not appear to be progressing systemat-
ically because they do not follow a set pattern. Each teacher needs to
ensure that the progression is, in fact, there, and the processes of needs-
based course design are negotiated with the learners . . . ' ) .
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer - A National Study 163

From the data, it would seem that teachers are asking for the following:
non-mandatory curriculum guidelines
a clearer articulation of the practical implications of AMEP policy
greater in-service provision for the development of programme-plan-
ning skills
more structured time for consultation and communication
more documentation of course content
procedures for deriving more homogeneous class groups
administrative and management procedures which facilitate the
implementation of a leaner-centred philosophy
curriculum design procedures which take account of factors such as
the irregular attendance of students
the provision of learning arrangements which transcend 10—13 week
courses
more adequate support resources, particularly in the aueas of counsel-
ling, and bilingual and curriculum support
assistance in dealing with the rapid changes which have taken place
in TESOL in the last few years
more appropriate teaching/learning materials
more appropriate assessment procedures
information for learners about the programme / specific courses
less movement of teaching staff within the programmes
increased funding
information and induction procedures for new teachers
smaller classes.

Sally - A Case Study

In order to provide a sharper focus on curriculum issues as they relate
to the teacher, a case study was conducted which looked in detail at one
teacher as she went about planning her course. It was hoped that the
case study would complement the major points raised in the interviews
which were necessarily rather general. While a single case proves very
little, evidence from a single instance, if it were to support what teachers
were saying in the interviews, and having been provided within a genuine
context, would make the case a good deal stronger. If the teacher's
experience failed to substantiate the major points which emerged from
the interviews, there might be need to examine these more closely.
In searching for a suitable case to illustrate the sorts of problems and
solutions with which teachers have to cope in the curriculum area, I felt
it desirable to find a teacher who was working with learners who rep-
resented an unfamiliar client group. It was assumed that for a teacher
working with a familiar type of learner, curriculum problems would not
164 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

necessarily be particularly salient. In other words, they would not neces-

sarily be recognised as problems.
Fortuitously, at the time that I was searching for a suitable subject, I
was approached by a teacher who expressed the need for assistance
because she had just been given a group of learners with whom she felt
she lacked experience. Data for the case study were provided in a series
of interviews carried out during the course.

The Teacher
In order to preserve confidentiality, the teacher will be referred to as
'Sally'. Sally's qualifications include a BA, a DipEd and a post-graduate
Diploma in TESL. She has been teaching for 13 years, seven of which
have been devoted to the teaching of ESL and EFL to adults. She has
taught in Britain, Asia and Australia.
By all criteria, Sally must be considered one of the most experienced
and best-qualified teachers in the Program. Despite this, she lacks con-
fidence in her own ability, particularly when working with unfamiliar
groups. She has taught on a range of courses, including courses for
advanced-level professionals. Despite this, most of her experience has
been with low-level, on-arrival groups. When asked whether she consi-
dered herself an experienced teacher, she replied, 'Not an experienced
all rounder, experienced with some groups.' She was particularly nervous
of the group she had been given, an intermediate group of students,
most of whom had had several previous courses.

The Class
In order to illustrate the disparate nature of the group, the following
sample learner profiles are provided.
Profile 1 A 49-year-old Polish male with nine years of education
who has been in Australia for four years. He has had three AMEP courses
and is rated at ASLPR 0+ (speaking), 1- (listening). He has not been
rated for reading and writing. Client needs are unspecified.
Profile 2 A 59-year-old Greek woman with 14 years of schooling who
has been in Australia for 31 years. She has been enrolled in four previous
learning arrangements. Her ASLPR ratings are 1 (speaking), 1+ (listen-
ing). She has not been rated for reading and writing. She wants general
language skills, especially conversation, and is classed as a stabilised
learner.

Profile 3 A 27-year-old Chinese male with ten years of education who

has been in Australia for three years. He has had one previous course.
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 165

His ASLPR ratings for speaking and listening are 1-. Client needs are
general language skills, particularly basic conversation.

Profile 4 A 40-year-old Yugoslavian female with eight years of educa-

tion who has been in Australia for seven years. She has had one previous
course, and turned up in the current course three weeks after it had
started. ASLPR ratings are 1 (speaking) and 2 (listening).

Profile 5 A 26-year-old Vietnamese male with no formal education.

He has had three previous courses and is rated at ASLPR 1 for speaking
and listening. He particularly wants speaking skills, and the teacher notes
that his pronunciation is particularly poor.

Profile 6 A 26-year-old Kampuchean male with eight years of education

who has been in Australia for three years. He has had 11 previous
learning arrangements. ASLPR ratings are 1 (speaking), 1+ (listening),
1 (writing), 1 (reading). He can attend only two days a week.

Profile 7 A 24-year-old Vietnamese male with 12 years of formal edu-

cation who has been in Australia for four months. He has had one
previous learning arrangement, and is currently enrolled in two more.
ASLPR ratings for speaking and listening are 1.

Profile 8 A 25-year-old Vietnamese female with three years of formal

education who has been in Australia for 15 months. She has been enrolled
in 20 learning arrangements (many of them concurrent). Her ASLPR
ratings are 2 for all skills except reading which is rated at 1 + . This
student turned up in week six of the course.

Profile 9 A 36-year-old Vietnamese male with eight years of formal

education who has been in Australia for six years. He has had three
previous learning arrangements. ASLPR ratings are 1+ for all skills
except reading which has not been rated.

Profile 10 A 35-year-old Chilean male with six years of formal educa-

tion who has been in Australia for ten months. He has been enrolled in
six learning arrangements. His ASLPR rating is 0+ for speaking and 1-
for listening. He wants to focus on developing his listening skills.

Although the class was characterised as consisting of ongoing, inter-

mediate-level learners, the data reveal that they are, in fact, an extremely
disparate group. The variations are evident on all the data parameters:
there were a range of nationalities; literacy ranged from ASLPR 0+ to
2; some students were reading quite fluently in English while others were
166 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

illiterate; some learners were considered to be stabilised while others

were fast track; some learners were able to attend every day while others,
because they had part-time jobs, could attend only twice a week; length
of residence in Australia ranged from a few months to 30 years; ages
ranged from 26 to 74.

At the Beginning
During the first week of the course the teacher was extremely
demoralised. She had been given the data on her class on Friday and
started with them on the following Tuesday. The unfamiliar learner
profiles, and disparate nature of the group, were making rational plan-
ning impossible. She felt that the variables which caused her the most
problems were language proficiency and level of literacy. Age was not
considered a problem (the 70-year-old was slow while the 68-year-old
was a fast learner). Outlook and attitude, particularly degree of confi-
dence, were considered to be the most important variables.
The greatest single problem was the mixed proficiency level which
made it impossible to use the same language to explain things to the
whole group.
Another major problem was the number of previous courses that
students had undertaken. According to the information provided, one
student had had 20 different learning arrangements.
Sally took over from another teacher who had had the class for a
week. The other teacher provided anecdotal information and lesson
plans. However, during the course of the second week, five new students
were fed in to make up the numbers, so the information initially provided
was not as useful for planning as it might have been. In terms of planning,
Sally reported that she would have liked to have met the students and
talked to them and thdn worked out a plan.
One of the things which concerned Sally was the fact that she found
it impossible to employ her usual planning procedure, which was to
carry out a needs analysis and then develop performance objectives for
the group. When asked at the end of her first week what the major
problem was she said:
I don't know where to go to cater for all the variables. During the
first week, I've also had problems with group cohesion which may
have been solved by forcing more contact. Yesterday, I saw them
sitting there as a group of isolated individuals.

She had limited success with trying to find out what the students wanted
from the course, and felt that there was more chance of getting them to
articulate what they wanted later in the course. In commenting on initial
needs-analysis procedures, she stated that:
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer - A National Study 167

It's useful in a limited way, but it's more useful half-way through
a course, especially with lower level on-arrival students who may
have very broad goals to start, but as they become accustomed to
the teacher and the programme they're able to specify what's
important and necessary. With higher levels . . . I didn't get much
out of this lot.

Sally felt that those responsible for assigning students to the class should
have done more thorough needs analysis. In fact, in some cases, the
students had not even been given an ASLPR rating.
By the end of the first week, Sally was experiencing a great deal of
frustration. She felt lost, and, in her own words, like a beginning teacher.
When asked what sort of assistance she would like, she replied that all
she wanted was someone who would tell her what to do and how to
cope with the complexities of the professional situation in which she
found herself. She wanted to please her students and do what was best
for each of them, rather than pitching her teaching to a middle level
which would make the class too easy for some and too difficult for others.
When asked whether it would be useful to have someone at centre
level to act as an advisor on curriculum matters, she replied that it would,
but that such a person would:
. . . have to be someone with a lot of experience, and a lot of
tolerance for teachers' foibles. Insisting on one particular approach
is only going to alienate a lot of teachers.

She felt that such a person would be able to look at the students and
give an independent assessment, suggest materials, and basically, 'tell
me what to do with them'.
It is ironic that, under normal circumstances, Sally is the type of teacher
who would be seriously considered for the role of curriculum advisor,
and yet here she was experiencing a great deal of difficulty with her own
students.
At this early point in the course, students had been generally unable
to articulate their needs in any useful fashion, and the teacher was unsure
of whether she should begin by revising what she assumed they had
covered. In addition, she did not know whether to adopt a structural,
functional or communicative approach with them. When asked whether
she felt that the idea of a negotiated curriculum was idealistic, she replied:
No, I agree with it. It's worked well with me before. I think of the
curriculum as methodology as well as syllabus, and I've negotiated
syllabus in the past rather than methodology, and successfully too.
It's easier to see if methodology is being successful rather than
syllabus.
Sally also suspected that her problems were compounded by the fact
168 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

that she had been switched suddenly from working with newly-arrived
immigrants to a group of learners who had already had at least one
language programme and were considered to be ongoing. While there
is some debate within the AMEP about the reality of the on-arrival/on-
going distinction, for Sally it was certainly salient.
By the end of the week, Sally had decided that, rather than trying to
negotiate with the learners, she would present them with a plan and ask
them if it was acceptable to them.
A further problem related to student assessment. In the past, Sally had
set objectives and used these to judge the learning outcomes, as well as
evaluating her course. However, given the disparate nature of the group,
and the fact that some of the students had already done many courses,
she found it impossible to set objectives, and felt that the most she could
do was to revise work which the students had already covered. Her
frustration is evident in the following comment:
At last I've got a class who could understand if I gave them a list
of objectives, and I can't do it because of the disparate group — it's
so frustrating! I don't know what they want, they haven't been able
to tell me and I haven't been able to ask them in the right way.
They may have ideas later, but in the meantime I have to do
something.
For the next few weeks Sally decided to work on a weekly basis, giving
out a fairly rigid plan at the beginning of the week, and seeing what the
students thought at the end. At the beginning of each week, the students
would also be given a paper that reviewed the previous week.
When asked at this early stage to nominate who she thought would
be the most successful student at the end of the course, Sally replied:
That's an interesting question. I know who'll be the most successful
student - an ancient Chinese gentleman who was fluent in English
as a youth and is now having it all reactivated. He's desperately
keen to bring it all back, and he loves Australia and is interested
in the culture. Motivation and interest in the target culture and
being outgoing are the most important things.

At the End
By the end of the course, things had changed quite dramatically. Sally
was a great deal more confident, and the students had been moulded
into a much more tightly-knit group.
The composition of the class itself had changed slightly, with two of
the students dropping out. These two had felt the class was too difficult
for them, although Sally had tried to reassure them that this was not
so. She reported that the two students in question had no confidence,
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 169

and that she had been incapable of building up this confidence. Both
apparently also had 'extreme' personality problems.
The most noticeable changes, apart from the more cohesive nature of
the group, were in the attitude and motivation of the students. There
was an interest and motivation in the work which had not been evident
at the beginning of the course.
The change had been brought about by the teacher, in week four,
deciding to conduct a fairly extensive survey of the students' attitudes
towards the content, methodology, materials and class groupings. The
students were asked to indicate what they found easy and what they
found difficult, what they liked and what they disliked. The results
revealed that half the class found things difficult and half found thing
easy. However, none of the students found things either so easy or so
difficult that they wanted to leave the class.
The survey was followed by an intensive counselling session, in which
Sally followed up on the major points arising out of the survey. All
students had given a low rating to pair work. In fact, it was the only
thing they hated enough to want to stop. This was a real problem for
Sally, as a great many classroom activities were based on group and pair
work, so she decided to make pair work the focus of negotiation. She
explained to them that she wanted to give them the maximum amount
of practice and if they had difficulty then this was part of communicating
and learning to communicate, and that they had to work it out.
In reviewing reaction of the students to the consultative process, she
stated that:
At first they were a bit stunned and amused at the teacher wanting
them to give their opinions on content and methodology. I explained
that I'd been worried because of the disparate levels, and that some
things would be difficult for some learners and that I was very
interested to know. They were really pleased to be consulted
. . . Explaining and giving the rationale is crucial.
As a result of the consultation process, all learners were quite prepared
to continue with the pair work. Clarifying the rationale also made 'an
incredible difference to how they went about the pair work. Before, they
were really sluggish and reluctant — just going through the motions.
N o w they really get into it.'
In addition to the survey and consultation sessions, the group settled
down of its own accord, which also greatly improved the classroom
climate.
An additional factor concerned the difficulty level of the materials and
activities set for the class. During the course of the first five weeks, Sally
realised that the level was too high. Having been used to working with
beginners, she assumed that because these were pre-intermediate/inter-
170 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

mediate learners, they should be revising. Once the difficulty level of the
work had been brought down, the classroom climate improved.
Even at the mid point in the course, and despite the fact that the group
had settled down, Sally still had difficulty planning beyond a week ahead.
She planned things on a weekly basis at a fairly general level and then
did the detailed planning on a daily basis. As someone who generally
liked to be well planned, she attributed this to her inexperience with the
group, plus the disparate proficiency levels. At this point, she stated that
the most important lesson she had learned in terms of curriculum was
that it is not always possible to be completely well planned. She went
on to state that:
At first I found this very upsetting. I hate not knowing where I'm
going, and in the past I've always had detailed plans with objectives
and all the rest.
Despite the improvement in the group, Sally still found it impossible to
write objectives. Given the disparate nature of the group, she found that
different students got different things from a given task or activity.
The experience with the group confirmed her opinion that any sort
of useful needs analysis could only be carried out once some sort of
rapport had been established with the group, and that this might take
five or six weeks. She felt that quite formal analysis with surveys and
questionnaires were at least as useful as informal monitoring at this late
stage in the course.
In terms of materials, at this stage she was finding the lack of suitable
reading and writing materials for learners with low literacy skills a real
problem.
When asked what was the most surprising or unexpected thing that
she had learned during the course, she replied that she had never been
so aware of the importance of affective factors to learning, that motiva-
tion and extra work on the part of some learners had led to incredible
improvement. 'Two students work ten hours a day on their English and
give me unsolicited homework. One student who was having literacy
problems has improved out of sight.'
During the course, Sally spent about six hours in planning for her ten
contact hours. A great deal of time was spent thinking. 'Once I've got
my thoughts organised, I'm off. The thinking's the hard part.'
In general, she did comparatively little about developing the students'
learning strategies, although she reported that they were all 'obsessed
with their lack of ability to remember'. Thus, the focus for both teacher
and students remained firmly on the development of language rather
than learning skills.
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 171

Results and Conclusions

This study was designed to examine what happens when a national
language programme abandons its centralised curriculum for a learner-
centred model which requires the classroom practitioner to be the prin-
cipal agent of curriculum development. The short answer to the research
question posed at the beginning of the chapter is that such a move is
likely to lead to a fragmentation of the curriculum, particularly when
there are not concomitant changes to other aspects of the system such
as professional development opportunities, administrative arrangements,
counselling assessment and referral and general principles of curriculum
management.

Conclusions Concerning Curriculum

One of the points which emerged most strongly from the study was the
fact that continuity in language programmes is not just a curricular or
pedagogical problem. It is an administrative, management and organisa-
tional problem as well as a counselling and curriculum-support problem.
Many of the reasons advanced in interviews, and also comments made
by teachers in Part C of the questionnaire on lack of continuity, are
related to organisational constraints. In the case study, the teacher's
difficulty in ensuring within-course continuity was due largely to the
organisational decisions (and perhaps the lack of adequate or appropriate
assessment and referral procedures) which led to the formation of an
extremely disparate group. (In fact, it must be said that such disparate
groups, while not the norm, are by no means unusual, particularly in
smaller language centres.)
It also seems fairly obvious that if teachers are to be the ones responsible
for developing the curriculum, they need the time, the skills and the
support to do so. Support may include curriculum models and guidelines.
It should also include counselling and bilingual support, and may include
support from individuals acting in a curriculum advisory position. The
provision of such support cannot be removed from, and must not be
seen in isolation from, the curriculum.
If teachers are to be the principal agents of curriculum development,
they need to develop a range of skills which go beyond classroom man-
agement and instruction. Curriculum development will therefore be
largely a matter of appropriate staff development.
In many institutions, it is customary to identify teachers as 'experi-
enced' or 'inexperienced' according to the number of years they have
been teaching (a common cut-off figure seems to be four or five). How-
172 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

ever, it may well be that there is no such thing as an 'experienced' teacher,

if by experienced is meant a teacher who can, at a moment's notice and
with minimal support, plan, implement and evaluate a course in any
area of the Program. This was demonstrated by the experience of Sally.
It also emerged in interviews where only one or two per cent of teachers
indicated that they would be able to teach in an unfamiliar area without
support.
In general, there is a great deal of confusion over the term 'curriculum'.
Many teachers see 'the curriculum' as a set of prescriptive statements
about what 'should happen'. This makes any reference to curriculum
matters by outsiders quite threatening. There is a need for the scope of
curriculum to be expanded to include not only what 'should happen',
but also what 'does happen'. Curriculum practice should thus be derived
as much from successful practice as from statements of intent.
This, in fact, returns us to the point that the relationship between
planning, teaching and learning is extremely complex. The notion that
there is a simple equation between these three components of the cur-
riculum (i.e. that 'what is planned' = 'what is taught' = 'what is learned')
is naive, simplistic and misleading. It is crucial for those involved in
course and programme evaluation to be aware of this complexity.
In terms of the provision of support, other teachers have the highest
credibility in the eyes of practitioners. The practice of removing compe-
tent teachers from the classroom to be administrators or advisors results
in an immediate drop in credibility. It may be more desirable to target
practitioners who have expertise in a limited domain, e.g. 'literacy' or
'assessment', than as 'experts' across the total field of curriculum activity.
The amount that a teacher working alone can achieve is strictly limited.
The best teacher-based curriculum development occurs as the result of
team efforts, when groups of teachers with similar concerns or with
similar students work together to develop a programme or course. Such
collaboration may or may not include team teaching. While team teaching
is recognised by teachers as being highly desirable, many reported that
they were prevented from adopting a team approach by administrative
and bureaucratic inflexibility.
In the past, within the AMEP, there has been a tendency for initiatives
which have curricular implications to be introduced on a grand scale in
an unsystematic way with very little monitoring and evaluation. The
adoption of a learner-centred approach to curriculum is a case in point.
Other examples include the development of self-access centres and the
introduction of bilingual information officers. The same may well be
said of plans to introduce counselling services, bilingual assistants and
curriculum advisors. There is a great deal to be said for curriculum
development to occur through small-scale case studies and action
research projects which are adequately planned, closely monitored and
 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer — A National Study 173

properly evaluated, rather than through large-scale national initiatives.

Teachers are certainly inclined to adopt an innovation which is the result
of successful practice than an untested idea which is thrust upon them.
Many of the problems which are attributed to lack of curriculum
continuity flow directly from the adoption of a learner-centred
philosophy and the requirement, inherent in this philosophy, that the
classroom practitioner be the principal agent of curriculum development.
It may well be that a certain amount of discontinuity is inevitable; the
price we pay for the chosen philosophy. There is certainly no single or
simple solution.
In fact, lack of continuity manifests itself in many different ways which
are partly a reflection of local conditions. As such, no national initiative
can hope to ensure continuity. In a learner-centred system, where pro-
grammes will vary according to client needs, this has to happen at a
local level. The best that educational administrators can hope to do is
to provide a range of resources which may be utilised by individual
centres for their own ends.

Conclusions Concerning Research

In this section, I should like to make a number of observations on the
task of carrying out curriculum research and evaluation.
The first point to be made is that research and evaluation in the
curriculum area is a high risk / high threat activity, stressful for both
the researcher and those being researched. In order for the activity to
be acceptable to those being researched, there is a need for openness on
the part of the researcher. In particular, there is a need for objectives
and methodology to be as explicit as possible. Those who provide data
through interviews, questionnaires and so on should retain control of
the data, even if, at times, this means that some of the data are unable
to be used.
It is generally accepted that research and evaluation projects are under-
taken to provide useful information for practitioners. If it is intended
that the results of research be reflected in future curriculum activity, the
research methods which are adopted have to have validity in the eyes
of practitioners. In the case of the present study, it was the case that
qualitative methods had much more validity than quantitative methods.
In fact, a variety of data-gathering procedures need to be employed
if anything like a complete picture is to emerge. The data obtained from
one method sometimes conflicts with that of another, and a balanced
and accurate view will result only if all the results are seen in concert
(see also Lett and Shaw 1986).
It is also necessary to obtain information for a variety of sources. In
the present instance, a very different picture of curriculum issues, prob-
174 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

lems and solutions emerged from different stake-holders within the Pro-
gram. Thus, senior administration and management tended to locate
problems of continuity within courses, whereas teachers tended to iden-
tify discontinuities between courses. In another instance, one group of
teachers gave a low rating on the questionnaire to the suggestion that a
certificate of ESL be developed as a way of systematising the curriculum.
However, the same group in an interview were much more positive about
the certificate suggestion. When challenged on this, they rationalised it
in terms of their negative reaction to the questionnaire.

Summary
We have seen through this study of teachers as curriculum developers a
reinforcement of many of the points made in the preceding chapters.
We have seen that, in a learner-centred system the teacher must, of
necessity, be the principal agent of curriculum development. We have
also seen that, without appropriate time, skills and support, teachers
will have a great deal of difficulty fulfilling their potential as curriculum
developers. Finally we have seen the complexity of the curriculum
development process in action.

10.3 Future Directions

For most of its history, language teaching has been at the mercy of
pronouncements from self-styled experts. It has suffered from the misap-
plication and misinterpretation of theory and research from other discip-
lines. In recent years, these other disciplines have included theoretical
linguistics and its various applied offspring, behavioural, cognitive and
humanistic psychology, first- and second-language acquisition, sociol-
ogy, information theory, systems theory and educational technology. It
has also been at the mercy of numerous applied linguists who have
foisted their frequently untested or inadequately tested theories on the
profession. This has led to a number of undesirable outcomes. Instead
of a cautious programme of research and development, the profession
has been characterised by a series of fads and fashions. Armchair specu-
lation has spawned competing untested (and sometimes untestable) asser-
tions about the nature of second-language development inside and out-
side the classroom.
The general lack of systematic study of classroom learning and the
sorts of classroom-centred research advocated in the previous chapter
have led, amongst other things, to the proliferation of competing
methodologies. These include 'mainstream' methodologies such as
audiolingualism and communicative language teaching as well as 'fringe'
 Future Directions 175

varieties such as Total Physical Response, the Silent Way, the Natural
Approach, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning and SCAV.
These 'work' to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the attitudes of
the students, the competence of the teacher and the context in which
the teaching—learning occurs. In fact, we have yet to devise a methodology
which is incapable of teaching anybody anything, so claims by devotees
that Method X 'works' are of little real value.
The point is that these methods, more often than not, are based on
the misapplication of theories from other fields, have not been systemat-
ically validated over an extended period, and have been developed partly
in reaction to what has gone before. Thus, we have the familiar 'pen-
dulum' effect.
While most teachers are highly professional, as the studies documented
in these pages attest, the 'fads and fashions' approach has led many
teachers to adopt an extremely suspicious attitude towards theoretical
pronouncements of any kind. There is also the contrasting type of teacher
who enthusiastically embraces one approach and defends it valiantly
against all criticism and challenge.
The most urgent need is for the profession to adopt a more rigorous
approach to the planning, implementation and evaluation of the cur-
riculum. An important aspect of this will be the generation and testing
of hypotheses about language learning and teaching.
The sceptic might claim that this was tried and found wanting in the
1960s, when large-scale, but largely inconclusive, 'method' comparisons
were attempted. However, the failure of these experiments does not
necessarily mean that experimentation, particularly that of the illumina-
tive kind, has nothing of value to contribute to curriculum development.
In fact, it may well have been that a qualitative dimension to the research
conducted in the 1960s would have revealed uncontrolled variables con-
taminating the research (see for example Long 1983).
Perhaps the most pressing need is to develop a more rigorously-formu-
lated and empirically-based approach to language proficiency. This is a
daunting task because it will involve quantifying a variety of linguistic
and non-linguistic variables each of which interact in complex ways. (It
may, in fact, transpire that these interactions are idiosyncratic and there-
fore ultimately non-quantifiable.)
The complexity of quantifying language proficiency is captured in the
following extract from a paper on proficiency profiles.
There has been talk of late about the development of 'proficiency
profiles', as an alternative to the relatively imprecise proficiency
rating scales (Campbell 1985). However, unless such profiles are
empirically derived, they are unlikely to be any more satisfactory
than the rating scales they are intended to replace. From the
discussion in the preceding section, we know that proficiency
176 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

consists of a plurality of factors, which interact in complex ways.

Profiles would need to identify and articulate these diverse factors
and give some indication of how they interrelated in real
communication.
(Nunan 1987b: 166)

At the very least, it is likely that proficiency profiles would need to

be constructed along two dimensions. One dimension would be what
might be called 'subject factors' (i.e. factors relating to the learner) and
would include such things as syntactic and morphological mastery, pro-
nunciation, fluency, sociocultural knowledge, lexical knowledge, subject-
matter knowledge, and so on. The other dimension could be termed
'task factors' and these would be located within the task itself. They
would include degree of contextual support, cognitive demand, amount
of assistance provided, psycholinguistic processing difficulty and degree
of stress.
If those advocating the development of profiles intend that they be
stable indices of the learner's current state of development, then there
is bound to be disappointment. Given the complex interaction between
'subject' and 'task' factors, the profiles themselves are likely to be highly
unstable. Thus, the 'subject profile' for a given learner might look quite
different from one task to another, according to the degree to which
'task' factors influence the ability of the learner to carry out the task.
In order to clarify this point, let us consider an example. Let us assume
that reasonably precise instruments for measuring the mobilisation of
the subject factors of syntactic mastery, pronunciation, fluency, dis-
course, sociocultural knowledge and subject-matter knowledge have been
developed and empirically validated. The instruments are then used to
measure the performance of Subject A on Task X, which results in the
profile shown in Figure 10.2:
 Future Directions 177

FIGURE 10.2

KEY
1 syntax
2 pronunciation
3 fluency
4 discourse
5 socio-cultural knowledge
6 subject-matter knowledge

100

80

60

40

20

On Task Y, however, in which the task factors such as processing diffi-

culty and contextual support are different, Subject A may have the profile
shown in Figure 10.3.
178 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

FIGURE 10.3

100

80

60

40

20

The hypothesis suggested here, then, is that proficiency profiles

must take into consideration two sets of factors which will interact
in complex ways to make the profile for any given learner unstable.
This hypothesis needs to be empirically tested to estimate the degree
of instability. The variability of different learner profiles also needs
to be computed. If there is reasonable correlation in the direction
and magnitude of variability across tasks, generalisations can start
to be made.
(Nunan 1987b: 167-8)

10.4 Conclusion
In this concluding section I shall review some of the major points which
have emerged during the course of this study, and shall attempt to draw
together the major themes.
 Conclusion 179

The work has essentially been about the development of language

curricula within the general learner-centred philosophy which emerged
as an offspring of communicative language learning. A central tenet of
the work is that a learner-centred philosophy entails differentiated cur-
ricula for different learner types, and that within educational systems
subscribing to such a philosophy it is the classroom practitioner who
will bear the major burden for curriculum development. During the
course of the study, we have seen how teachers have responded to the
challenge of being involved in all phases of curriculum development.
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the book as a whole. In Chapter
2, some general curriculum models were described, and a model was
argued for which is both integrative and systematic. It was suggested
that, minimally, such a model would include principles and procedures
for planning, implementing and evaluating the following curriculum
elements: initial and ongoing needs analysis; content selection and gra-
dation (including goal and objective setting); methodology (which will
include the selection and gradation of learning activities and materials);
and, finally, monitoring, assessment and evaluation. It was further
suggested that decisions relating to each of these elements may be made
during the course of programme delivery (i.e. a 'ballistic' approach to
curriculum development was specifically rejected.
Another major issue to emerge was the complexity of the relationship
between planning, teaching and learning. In the past, particularly with
the dominance of Tyler's (1949) 'rational curriculum model', it was
assumed that there was a simple equation between planning intention,
teaching reality and learning outcome. Such an assumption greatly over-
simplifies and distorts what really happens in the teaching—learning pro-
cess, and leads to unrealistic expectations. It also engenders a sense of
failure and frustration in teaching when what is planned is not always
translated into learning outcomes. While it is desirable to attempt to
bring planned objectives and learning outcomes into alignment, a mis-
match between intention and reality should not necessarily be attributed
to shortcomings on the part of the teacher. In fact, only some of many
alternative reasons for learning failure have been documented in the
preceding pages. In addition, as Allwright (1986) has pointed out, the
fact that what has been taught is not always learned does not mean that
the effort on the part of teachers and learners has been wasted. In fact,
unanticipated outcomes may sometimes be as valuable as those which
were anticipated.
In addition to the development of language skills, it has been argued
that a learner-centred approach will be concerned with the development
of and sensitisation of learners to their role as learners. In consequence,
while one set of goals and objectives will relate to the development of
language skills, a parallel set will relate to the development of learning
180 The Teacher as Curriculum Developer

skills. A focus on the development of learner autonomy and independent

learning skills will be particularly important in systems which can offer
the learner only short-term courses.
Within this work, I have been concerned to develop a comprehensive
view of curriculum. The curriculum is thus seen as much more than a
set of initial planning procedures and content specifications (the 'what
should be'). It is an integrated system which gives prominence to what
actually happens during the course of programme delivery. The cur-
riculum is thus seen as an amalgamation of intention and reality.
In order to provide a sounder basis for curriculum development, I
have advocated a greater use of empirical research, particularly class-
room-centred research. In the current work, numerous small-scale studies
were conducted specifically to illustrate the points under investigation,
and to give a sharper focus to the work as a whole. These culminate in
the large-scale investigation of the 'teacher as curriculum developer', the
results of which are set out in this final chapter. The study demonstrates
that, in a language programme based on a learner-centred philosophy,
teachers have been prepared to redefine their roles and to take on many
of the tasks previously seen as the province of curriculum specialists.
However, the study also demonstrated the complexities and difficulties
inherent in this redefined role, and underlined the crucial importance of
having adequate support resources, particularly appropriate administra-
tive and managerial support, if a localised curriculum model is to operate
effectively. Thus, while teachers are prepared to accept responsibility for
curriculum development, and to see themselves as prime agents in the
curriculum process, they can face great difficulty if the added burden of
their redefined role is not recognised.
Above all, I have tried to take an educational perspective on the
development of language curricula. While theoretical linguistics will con-
tinue to be an important base discipline, it is important that it not be
seen as the only discipline which has anything of value to contribute to
decision making on what, how and when to teach. While the learning
of a second language has unique aspects, it is not so unique as to have
nothing to gain from general educational theory, practice and research.
Finally, in the preceding section, a call is made for more empirical
research into language learning and teaching. While there is by no means
universal agreement amongst them, some second-language acquisition
researchers have provided us with useful methodological models in their
theoretically- and empirically-motivated investigations. Hopefully, simi-
lar work in the future will provide us with a firmer foundation than the
speculative approach which has thus far dominated much of the literature
on the language curriculum.
References

Alcorso, C. and M. Kalantzis (1985) The Learning Process and Being a Learner
in the AMEP, report to the Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant
Education Program, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Can-
berra.
Allwright, R. (1986) 'Making sense of instruction: What's the problem?', PALM,
1, 2, University of Michigan.
Asher, J. (1977) Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete
Teacher's Guide. Los Gatos, Ca.: Sky Oaks Productions.
Bachman, L. and M. Mack (1986) 'A causal analysis of learner characteristics
and second language proficiency', paper presented at the Twentieth Annual
TESOL Convention, Anaheim, California.
Bartlett, L. and J. Butler (1985) The Planned Curriculum and Being a Curriculum
Planner in the Adult Migrant Education Program, report to the Committee
of Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program, Department of Immi-
gration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra.
Beretta, A. (1986a) Toward a methodology of ESL program evaluation', TESOL
Quarterly, 20, 1.
Beretta, A. (1986b) 'Program-fair language teaching evaluation', TESOL Quar-
terly, 20, 3.
Breen, M. and C. Candlin (1980) 'The essentials of a communicative curriculum
in language teaching', Applied Linguistics, 1, 2.
Brindley, G. (1984) Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant
Education Program. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.
Brindley, G. (1986) The Assessment of Second Language Proficiency: Issues
and Approaches. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Brink, A., H. Frazer, H. Mullins and H. Reade (1985) Let's Try to Do it Better,
report to the Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program,
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra.
Brumfit, C. (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The
Roles of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brundage, D.H. and D. MacKeracher (1980) Adult Learning Principles and
their Application to Program Planning. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education.
Burnett, L. and J. Hitchen (1985) Crossover Course. Sydney: NSW Adult Mig-
rant Education Service.
Burton, J. and D. Nunan (1986) 'The effect of learners' theories on language
learning', Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Annual Conference,
Adelaide University, August 1986.

181
182 References

CAL (1983) From the Classroom to the Workplace: Teaching ESL to Adults.
Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Candlin, C. and C. Edelhoff (1982) Challenges: Teacher's Guide. London:
Longman.
Carroll, B. (1981) Testing Communicative Performance. Oxford: Pergamon.
Carver, D. and L. Dickinson (1982) 'Learning to be self-directed', in M. Geddes
and G. Sturtridge (eds), Individualisation. Modern English Publications.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T.
Press.
Clark, J. (1985a) 'Curriculum renewal', Keynote Address to the Australian
Association of Applied Linguistics, Griffith University, Brisbane, August
1985.
Clark, J. (1985b) The Australian Language Levels Project: Working Papers.
Adelaide: Multicultural Education Centre.
Corbel, C. (1985) 'The "action sequence" approach to course design'. Prospect,
1,1.
Day, R. (ed.) (1985) Talking to Learn. Rowley: Newbury House.
Diller, K. (1978) The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley: Newbury
House.
Dinsmore, D. (1985) 'Waiting for Godot in the classroom', ELT Journal, 39,4.
Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain (1986) Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Economou, D. (1985) Coffee Break: Understanding Australian Casual Conver-
sation. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Eltis, K. and B. Low (1985) A Review of the Teaching Process in the Adult
Migrant Education Program, report to the Committee of Review of the Adult
Migrant Education Program, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
Canberra.
Gregg, K. (1984) 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor', Applied Linguistics,
5,2.
Gronlund, N. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation in Education. New York:
Macmillan.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975) Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Higgs, T.V. (ed.) (1984) Teaching for Proficiency, the Organising Principle.
Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.
Howatt, A. (1984) A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hunkins, F.P. (1980) Curriculum Development: Program Improvement. Colum-
bus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
 References 183

Hyltenstam, K. and M. Pienemann (1985) Modelling and Assessing Second

Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ingram, D. (1981) Methodology. Canberra: Department of Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs.
Ingram, D. (1984) Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings. Canberra:
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
Johnston, M. (1985) Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learner
English. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
Jones, M. and R. Moar (1985) Listen to Australia. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant
Education Service.
Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart (1982) The Action Research Planner. Victoria:
Deakin University Press.
Kerr, J. (ed.) (1968) Changing the Curriculum. London: University of London
Press.
Knowles, M. (1983) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learn-
ing. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. and T. Terrell (1983) The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lawton, D. (1973) Social Change, Educational Theory and Curriculum Plan-
ning. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Lett, J. and P. Shaw (1986) 'Combining qualitative and quantitative program
evaluation: A research report', paper presented at the Twentieth Annual
TESOL Convention, Anaheim, California.
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: an Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M.H. (1981) 'Input, interaction and second language acquisition', in H.
Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York:
New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M.H. (1983) 'Process and product in ESL program evaluation', TESOL
Quarterly, 18, 3.
Long, M.H. (1985) 'A role for instruction in second language acquisition', in
K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and Assessing Second
Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M.H. and G. Crookes (1986) 'Intervention points in second language
classroom processes', Working Papers, 5, 2. Department of English as a
Second Language, University of Hawaii.
Long, M.H. and P. Porter (1985) 'Group work, interlanguage talk and second
language acquisition', TESOL Quarterly, 19, 2.
Long, M.H. and C. Sato (1983) 'Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and
functions of teachers' questions', in Seliger and Long (eds), 1983.
Macdonald, B. and R. Walker (1975) 'Case study and the social philosophy of
educational research', Cambridge journal of Education, 5, 1.
Macdonald-Ross, M. (1975) 'Behavioural objectives: a critical review', in M.
Golby (ed.) Curriculum Design. London: Croom Helm.
184 References

Mager, R. (1975) Preparing Instructional Objectives. Paolo Alto: Fearon Pub-

lishers.
Montgomery, C. and M. Eisenstein (1985) 'Real reality revisited: an experimen-
tal communicative course in ESL', TESOL Quarterly, 19, 2.
Morrow, K. (1985) The evaluation of tests of communicative performance'.
Prospect, 1, 2.
Munby, J. (1978) Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Nicholas, H. (1985) 'Interactive strategies, "input" and "output"', ATESOL
4th Summer School Proceedings: Volume 1. Sydney: ATESOL.
Nunan, D. (1985a) Language Teaching Course Design: Trends and Issues.
Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Nunan, D. (1985b) 'Using objective grids in planning language courses', Pros-
pect, 1, 2.
Nunan, D. (1986a) 'Communicative language teaching: the learner's view', paper
presented at the RELC Regional Seminar Singapore, 21—26 April 1986.
Nunan, D. (1986b) 'The learner-centred curriculum: principles and procedures',
Working Papers, 5, 2. Department of English as a Second Language, Univer-
sity of Hawaii.
Nunan, D. (1986c) 'Can the language classroom ever be truly communicative?',
Distinguished Scholar Series, University of the Pacific, California, March
1986.
Nunan, D. (1987a) Guidelines for the Development of Curriculum Resources.
Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Nunan, D. (1987b) 'The ghost in the machine: an examination of the concept
of language proficiency', Prospect, 2, 3.
Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. and G. Brindley (1986) 'A practical framework for learner-centred
curriculum development', paper presented at the Twentieth Annual TESOL
Convention, Anaheim, California.
O'Grady, C. and G. Kang (1985) Use of the Learner's First Language in Adult
Migrant Education. Sydney: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Oiler, J. (1979) Language Tests at School. London: Longman.
Omaggio, A., P. Eddy, L. McKim and A. Pfannkuche (1979) 'Looking at the
results', in J. Phillips (ed.), Building on Experience: Building for Success.
Skokie: National Textbook Company.
Oskarsson, M. (1980) Approaches to Self-Assessment in Foreign Language
Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Parlett, M. and D. Hamilton (1983) 'Evaluation as illumination', in L. Bartlett
and S. Kemmis (eds), Naturalistic Observation. Victoria: Deakin University
Press.
Pienemann, M. (1985) 'Learnability and syllabus construction', in K. Hyltenstam
and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquis-
ition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Porter, P. (1985) 'How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in
task-centred discussions', in R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversations
in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Prabhu, N. (1983) 'Procedural syllabuses', paper presented at the RELC Regional
Seminar, Singapore, April 1983.
 References 185

Quinn, T. (1984) 'Functional approaches in language pedagogy', Annual Review

of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rea, P. (1985) 'Language testing and the communicative language teaching
curriculum', in Y.P. Lee, C.Y.Y. Fok, R. Lord and G. Low (eds), New Direc-
tions in Language Testing. Oxford: Pergamon.
Richards, J. (1984) 'Language curriculum development', RELC Journal, 15,1.
Richards, J. (1985a) 'Planning for proficiency', Prospect, 1, 2.
Richards, J. (1985b) 'Conversational competence through role play activities',
RELC Journal, 16, 1.
Richards, J., J. Platt and H. Weber (1985) A Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.
London: Longman.
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richterich, R. (1972) A Model for the Definition of Language Needs. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Richterich, R. (1975) 'The analysis of language needs: illusion — pretext —
reality', in Modern Language Learning by Adults, Education and Culture
No. 28, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Richterich, R. and J-L. Chancerel (1978) Identifying the Needs of Adults Learn-
ing a Foreign Language. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Rivers, W.M. (1983) Communicating Naturally in a Second Language. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowntree, D. (1981) Developing Courses for Students. London: McGraw Hill
(UK).
RSA (1983) The Communicative Use of English as a Foreign Language. London:
Royal Society of Arts.
Savignon, S. and M. Berns (eds) (1984) Initiatives in Communicative Language
Teaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Seliger, H. (1983) 'Learner interaction in the classroom and its effect on language
acquisition', in Seliger and Long (eds), (1983).
Seliger, H. and M.H. Long (eds) (1983) Classroom Oriented Research in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Shavelson, R.J. and P. Stern (1981) 'Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts,
judgments and behaviour', Review of Educational Research, 51, 4.
Shaw, J. and G. Dowsett (1986) The Evaluation Process in the Adult Migrant
Education Program: The Report of the National Course Reporting Study.
Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Slade, D. (1986) Teaching Casual Conversation. Adelaide: National Curriculum
Resource Centre.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
London: Heinemann.
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985) 'Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development', in S. Gass and C.
Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury
House.
Swaffar, J., K. Arens and M. Morgan (1982) 'Teacher classroom practices:
redefining method as task hierarchy', Modern Language Journal, 66, 1.
186 References

Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York:

Harcourt Brace.
Tyler, R. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Valette, R. and R. Disick (1972) Modern Language Performance Objectives
and Individualisation. New York: Harcourt Brace,
van Ek, J. and L.G. Alexander (1980) Threshold Level English. Oxford: Perga-
mon.
van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner. London:
Longman.
Varonis, E. and S. Gass (1983) 'Target language input from non-native speakers',
paper presented at the Seventeenth Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto.
Vollmer, H. and F. Sang (1983) 'Competing hypotheses about second language
ability: a plea for caution', in J. Oiler (ed.), Issues in Language Testing
Research. Rowley: Newbury House.
Watts, B. (1985) Being a Teacher in the AMEP, report to the Committee of
Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program, Department of Immigration
and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra.
Wheeler, D. (1967) Curriculum Processes. London: University of London Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983) Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1987) 'Aspects of syllabus design', in M. Tickoo (ed.), Lan-
guage Syllabuses: State of the Art. Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
Wilkins, D. (1972) Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wilkins, D. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.
Willing, K. (1985) Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Sydney: NSW
Adult Migrant Education Service.
Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981) The Comprehension Approach to Foreign Language
Instruction. Rowley: Newbury House.
Yalden, J. (1983) The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and
Implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Young, M. (1971) Knowledge and Control. London: Collier Macmillan.
Appendix

The following questionnaires have been adapted from Brindley (1984)

We would like you to tell us which of the following uses of English are important
for you.
Please put an X in the box beside each to tell us if you think it is 'Very Useful',
'Useful', 'Not Useful'.

Very Not
Useful Useful Useful
Do you want to improve your
English so that you can:
1 Tell people about yourself. Q D ED
2 Tell people about your family. | | | | | |
3 Tell people about your job. Q D Q
4 Tell people about your education. [ 1 1 0 0
5 Tell people about your interests. I II II I
6 Use buses/trains/ferries. | | | | | |
7 Find new places in the city. | | | | | |
8 Speak to tradespeople. | | | | | |
9 Speak to your landlord or real
estate agent. Q O O
10 Buy furniture or appliances for
your home. I II II I
11 Deal with door-to-door salesmen. | | | | | |
12 Communicate with your children/
grandchildren | | | | | |
13 Receive telephone calls. | | | | | |
14 Make telephone calls. D CD Q
15 Do further study. D D D
16 Get information about courses,
schools etc. • • •
17 Enrol in courses. EH [H CD
18 Get information about the NSW
Education System. CD CD •
19 Help children with school work. CD CD CD
20 Apply for a job. CD CD CD
21 Get information about a job. CD CD CD
22 GototheCES. D D D

187
188 Appendix

23 Attend interviews. • O •
24 Join sporting or social clubs. | | | | | |
25 Join hobby or interest groups. l~~l f~1 1 I
26 Watch TV. D D D
27 Listen to the radio. CH [U O
28 Read newspapers/books/magazines. | | | | | |
29 Give/accept/refuse invitations. CH Q D
30 Make travel arrangements. [~1 I I I I
31 Talk to your boss. EH [H D
32 Talk to doctors/hospital staff. E] • •
33 Talk to neighbours. D D D
34 Talk to your children's teachers. CH D O
35 Talk to officials, e.g.
Immigration/CES. [~1 I I I I
36 Talk to English-speaking friends. | | | | | |
37 Get information about goods you
want to buy and services. O D D
38 Complain about or return goods. I II II I
39 Arrange credit/hire-purchase/lay-by. | | | | | |

*From this list choose five you want to learn first.

1
2
3
4
5

How do you like learning?

Put a circle around your answer.

a) In class do you like learning

1 individually? YES/NO
2 in pairs? YES/NO
3 in small groups? YES/NO
4 in one large group? YES/NO

b) Do you want to do homework ? YES/NO

If so, how much time have you got for homework

outside class hours?
. hours a day

or . hours a week
 Appendix 189

How would you like to spend this time?

1 Preparing for the next class? YES/NO
2 Reviewing the day's work? YES/NO
3 Doing some kind of activity based on your personal
experience, work experience or interests? YES/NO

c) Do you want to
1 spend all your learning time in the classroom? YES/NO
or...
2 spend some time in the classroom and some time practising
your English with people outside? YES/NO
3 spend some time in the classroom and some time getting
to know your city and the Australian way of life, e.g. by
visiting Parliament, government offices, migrant resource
centres, places of interest, work entertainment and so on? YES/NO

d) Do you like learning

1 by memory? YES/NO
2 by problem solving? YES/NO
3 by getting information for yourself? YES/NO
4 by listening? YES/NO
5 by reading? YES/NO
6 by copying from the board? YES/NO
7 by listening and taking notes? YES/NO
8 by reading and making notes? YES/NO
9 by repeating what you hear? YES/NO
Put a cross next to the three things that
you find most useful.

e) When you speak do you want to be corrected

1 immediately, in front of everyone? YES/NO
or...
2 later, at the end of the activity, in front of everyone? YES/NO
3 later, in private? YES/NO

f) Do you mind if other students sometimes correct your

written work? YES/NO
Do you mind if the teacher sometimes asks you to
correct your own work? YES/NO
190 Appendix

g) Do you like learning from

1 television/video/films? YES/NO
2 radio? YES/NO
3 tapes/cassettes? (e.g. language lab, language masters,
cassette players) YES/NO
4 written material YES/NO
5 the blackboard? YES/NO
6 pictures/posters? YES/NO

h) Do you find these activities useful?

1 Role play YES/NO
2 Language games YES/NO
3 Songs YES/NO
4 Talking with and listening to other students YES/NO
5 Memorising conversations/dialogues YES/NO
6 Getting information from guest speakers YES/NO
7 Getting information from planned visits YES/NO

i) How do you like to find out how much

your English is improving?
By
1 written tasks set by the teacher? YES/NO
2 oral language samples taken and assessed by the teacher? YES/NO
3 checking your own progress by making tapes, listening
to them critically and comparing them? YES/NO
4 devising your own written tasks for completion by
yourself and other students? YES/NO
5 seeing if you can use the language you have learnt in
real-life situations? YES/NO

j) Do you get a sense of satisfaction from:

1 having your work graded? YES/NO
2 being told that you have made progress? YES/NO
3 feeling more confident in situations that you found
difficult before? YES/NO
Index

Subject Index Australian Second Language

Proficiency Rating Scale
accountability, 154
(ASLPR) 123-7
accuracy, 78, 107
acquisition versus learning, 33, 81—2 authenticity see materials —
action research, 14, 148-50 authenticity
activities see also tasks
conflict between teachers and Bangalore project, 17, 19
learners, 6 behavioural objectives see objectives
conversation, 90, 91 bilingual assistants, 6, 37, 45, 48-9
drills, 78 biodata see learners — biodata
evaluating, 132
grading, 103-5 Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL),
learner preferences, 90—2 34
mismatches between teachers and Classical Humanism, 15, 16
learners, 91—5 classroom-centred research, 36, 108,
role play, 87-8, 89 138, 141, 174, 180
teacher preferences, 89, 91—3 communicative
traditional versus communicative, competence, 33-4
28-31 contexts, 63^4
within a communicative curriculum, goals, 59, 63
25-8 language teaching, 24—32, 96
adult learning, 22-4 language teaching - strong and
Adult Migrant Education Program weak versions, 25—6
(AMEP), 29, 36, 89, 91, 151-80 needs, 6
American Council on the Teaching of performance, 35
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) tasks see tasks
Guidelines, 124, 126 testing 116-17
assessment Community Language Learning, 18,
Certificate of ESL, 159 77, 175
definition, 118 competency-based ESL, 33-4
and objectives, 118-19 conflict resolution, 6, 95—6
proficiency, 123—30 construct validity see evaluation -
profiles see learner — proficiency validity
profiles consultation and negotiation, 6—7,36,
self-assessment, 116 55, 62, 95-6, 102
self-assessment techniques, 130-4 content
teacher, by 142-6 analytical approaches, 57—62

191
192 Subject Index

derived from leaner data, 62—6 educational perspective on language

grading, 40, 66-75 teaching, 1—2, 17
planning, 54—75 English
selection, 40, 55-7, 63 General Purpose, 43-4, 126-30
content validity see evaluation — Specific Purpose, 44-5, 80-81
validity in the workplace 105—6
conversation, 62-4 error correction, 92—3
Council of Europe, 16, 24, 25, 43 evaluation
counselling, 37, 45 curriculum components to evaluate,
criterion-related validity see evaluation 121-3
— validity curriculum implementation, 138-44
curriculum curriculum planning, 137—8
administration and management, definition, 118, 119
47-8, 155, 163, 171, 180 formative, 119
advisors, 45, 163, 171 illuminative, 153, 175
aims, 3 key questions, 121—3
'ballistic'model, 11, 179 learner self-evaluation, 7, 130-4
centralised, 21 macro- versus micro-
complexity, 13, 136, 179 professional development,
continuity, 154, 159-62, 171 136-50
cyclical model, 12, 19 programme, 19, 40, 151-80
definition, 13, 14, 172 scope, 7
differentiated, 3, 179 teacher self-evaluation, 147-50
ends—means model, 2, 16 validity, 119-21
gap between planned and within the curriculum process, 7,
implemented curriculum, 13, 14, 116-18
35-6, 45, 140-1
generalised model, 35—6 first-language
guidelines, 37, 157-8, 163 resources, 6, 37, 48-9
interactive model, 12, 16, 19, 76 use in the classroom, 48—9
negotiated, 2, 36, 167-9 fluency, 78
planning, 10-11, 42-53 foreigner talk, 83
process model, 12 formal instruction, 63, 78, 81-2
processes, 4-7, 17, 10-20 functions see language — functions
renewal, 15
research, 151—74 goals see communicative — goals;
school-based, 21 learning - goals
subject-centred, 12-13, 16, 21, grading see syllabus - grading
58 group work, 83, 87, 169
teacher's perspective, 1 grouping learners see learner -
traditional, 10-12 grouping
traditional versus learner-centered,
5,6 information gap see tasks — infor-
mation gap
education language
adult see adult learning competence, 32
theory and practice, 9-10, 11 complexity, 15, 72
 Subject Index 193

construct, 120-1, 123-30, 175-8 learner—centred curriculum, 99

functions, 58, 63 selection critera, 104-5
needs see needs analysis meaning
notions, 58, 63 negotiation of, 82—3, 87
performance, 32 methodology
proficiency, 18, 32-5, 47, 123-30, and communicative language teach-
175 ing, 78-81
proficiency assessment, 123—30 definition, 77
proficiency profiles, 175—8 learner preferences, 89—91
testing 116-35 learner/teacher conflict, 6, 91-5
learnability, 15, 141-2 objectives, 79
learner syllabus design, 76
ability to articulate needs, 52, 75 teacher preferences, 88—9
affective factors, 22-4, 68, 169 traditional versus communicative,
attitudes to methodology, 77,89-95 28-32
autonomy, 46 methods, 18, 77, 80, 174-5
biodata, 4, 42, 49 monitoring learner progress, 142—3
characteristics and task difficulty,
68-9 Natural Approach, 77
failure, 144-6 needs analysis
goals see learning — goals; initial, 4, 17, 24, 27, 40, 42-5,
communicative — goals 48-53, 62, 167
grouping, 40, 46-8, 164-6 narrow-band 24, 44, 80
motivation see learner — affective objective, 4, 24, 44, 50, 52
factors on-going, 5, 6, 167—9
needs see needs analysis subjective, 4, 5, 24, 44, 50, 52
sample profiles, 164-6 task design, 86
self-assessment see assessment — notions see language — notions
self-assessment techniques
types, 91 objectives, 5, 57-8, 59-61, 142, 166,
learning 168, 170
arrangement, 5,19,29,47,152,163
beyond the classroom 105-7 performance objectives see objectives
goals, 40, 59-62
planning grids, 63—4
independent, 99
proficiency see language - proficiency
meta-awareness, 5, 60—1
Progressivism, 15, 17
skills and strategies, 3, 61, 75, 91,
158-9, 179-80
traditional versus communicative rating scales, 123-7
views, 26—8 Reconstructionism, 15, 16
transfer, 78, 79, 80-1, 85-6, 105 research methods see also action
learning-how-to-learn see learning — research; classroom-centred
skills and strategies research
case study, 163
materials illuminative, 153, 175
and teacher development, 98 qualitative versus quantitative, 153
authenticity, 99-102 questionnaires, 31
evaluation, 107-15 teacher attitude, 31, 57, 175
194 Subject Index

resources difficulty, 70-1

bilingual, 37, 45, 47-9, 163 grading, 70-1, 103-4
community as resource 105—7 information-gap, 78, 139
counselling, 37, 45, 155, 163 one-way and two-way, 78, 84, 86
curriculum advisors, 45, 155 pedagogic, 61, 78, 79, 88
learner-centred curriculum, 98—115, proficiency profiles, 176—7
155 promoting acquisition, 84—8
teacher development, 98, 107-15 real-world, 22, 34, 61, 78, 79, 97
planning, 48—51 transfer of learning, 80-1
role play see activities — role play teacher
as curriculum developer, 3, 20, 37,
second language acquisition, 67, 38-41, 151-78
70-1, 80, 81-7, 141-2, 180 as materials developer, 107—15
Silent Way, 18, 77, 175 as needs assessor, 45
Situational English, 21 collegiate support, 154-5, 172
situations, 58 development, 14, 98, 147-50, 155
speech processing, 15, 67, 70—1 experience, 107-15, 155, 171-2
Suggestopedia, 19, 77, 175 objectives, 59
surrender value, 3 roles, 20, 21, 37, 38, 151-80
syllabus self-evaluation, 147—8
components, 58, 63 support needs, 37
definition, 14 teaching grammar see formal
functional-notional, 2, 18, 58, 63 instruction
grading, 63-4, 65, 66—75 team teaching, 155, 172
grammatical, 63—5, 66—7 testing see language — testing
process/procedural, 17, 19, 43-4 texts
structural, 18 authentic versus pedagogic, 99—101
task-based, 19 difficulty, 72-3
versus curriculum, 14 theoretical linguistics, 1, 15, 174
Threshold Level, 24, 58
tasks see also activities Total Physical Response, 19, 77, 80
action sequence, 73—4
as components of objectives, 61
authenticity, 101 unitary competence hypothesis, 79,
complexity, 67, 70 85-6, 128-30
definition, 85
derived from learner data, 60,62—6,
86 validity see evaluation — validity
Index

Author Index Economou, D., 101

Edelhoff, C , 101, 141
Alcorso, C , 89-90, 91, 93
Eisenstein, M., 106—7
Alexander, L., 25, 58
Ellis, R., 82, 84, 93
Allwright, R., 1, 179
Eltis, K., 88-9, 90, 91, 98
Arens, K., 28, 108
Asher, J., 80, 82
Gass, S., 83
Gregg, K., 82
Bachman, L., 129 Gronlund, N., 59, 60, 61, 119-20
Bagshaw, B., 51
Bartlett, L., 14, 35, 36, 37, 38, 136 Hamilton, D., 36, 153
Beretta, A., 118, 152-3 Higgs, T., 34
Berns, M., 124 Hitchen, J., 104
Breen, M., 17, 20 Howatt, A., 25
Brindley, G., 6,23,24,32,44,51,52, Hunkins, F., 2
59, 67, 93-6, 123, 129-30 Hyltenstam, K., 84
Brink, A., 47, 75
Bmmfit, C , 17 Ingram, D., 32, 109, 124-7
Brundage, D., 22, 23
Burnett, L., 106 Johnston, M., 15, 82, 127, 141
Burton, J., 1, 46, 113, 115, 130, 141 Jones, M., 104
Butler, J., 14, 35, 36, 37, 38, 136
Kalantzis, M., 89-90, 91, 93
Campbell, J., 175 Kang, G., 48
Candlin, C , 17, 20, 101, 141 Kemmis, S., 14, 148-9
Carroll, B., 117, 125 Kerr, J., 12
Chancerel, J-L., 43 Knowles, M., 22
Chaudron, C , 141 Krashen, S., 33, 45, 65, 79, 81-2, 83
Chomsky, N., 32, 33
Clark, J., 15, 16, 17, 67 Lawton, D., 11, 12, 108
Corbel, C , 73, 74 Lett,J., 173
Crookes, G., 17, 84, 85, 86, 108 Littlewood, W., 26
Long, M., 17, 47, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85,
Day, R., 84 86, 103, 108, 138, 140, 175
Diller, K., 33 Low, B., 88-9, 90, 91, 93, 98
Dinsmore, D., 108
Disick, R., 59, 61 MacDonald, B., 9
Dowsett, G., 7 MacDonald-Ross, M., 60
Dubin, F., 2 Mack, M., 129

195
196 Author Index

MacKeracher, D., 22, 23 Sato, C , 108, 140

Mager, R., 61 Savignon, S., 124
McTaggart, P., 14, 148-9 Seliger, H., 141
Moar, R., 104 Shavelson, R., 3, 60
Montgomery, C , 106—7 Shaw, J., 7
Morgan, M., 28, 108 Shaw, P., 173
Morrow, K., 118 Skilbeck, M., 15
Munby, J., 24, 44, 46, 53 Slade, D., 100
Stenhouse, L., 12,13,14,16,60,147
Nicholas, H., 80 Stern, R , 2, 10
Nunan, D., 1, 2, 17, 19, 44, 46, 66, Stern, P., 3, 60
76, 79, 99, 105, 108, 130, Swaffar, J., 28,29, 31, 108
139-40, 141 Swain, M., 82, 83

O'Grady, C , 48 Taba, H., 2, 16

Oiler, J., 79, 117, 125, 128-9 Terrell, T., 45, 79
Olshtain, E., 2 Tyler, R., 11, 14, 16, 179
Ommagio, A., 19
Oskarsson, M., 131
Yalden, J., 2
Young, M., 16
Parlett, M., 36, 153
Pienemann, M., 65, 82, 84, 142
Platt, J., 77 Valette, R., 59, 61
Porter, P., 47, 83 van Ek, J., 25, 58
Prabhu, N., 17, 19 van Lier, L., 141
Varonis, E., 83
Quinn, T., 26, 29 Volmer, H., 129

Rea, P., 33 Walker, R., 9

Richards, J., 2,17,18,34,35,43,76, Watts, B., 47
77, 87-8 Weber, H., 77
Richterich, R., 4, 43, 44 Wheeler, D., 12, 19
Rodgers, T., 77 Widdowson, H., 25,43,44,45,80-1
Rowntree, D., 54, 55, 57, 66 Wilkins, D., 25
Willing, K., 23, 91, 96
Sang, F., 129 Winitz, H., 80