Language Curriculum
Development:
Where does it fail
to satisfy learners?
By Prof. Jonathan Acuña
Solano
Sunday, January 10, 2015
Twitter: @jonacuso
Post 209
Some time
ago I had a very interesting conversation with a language learner at the
language school where I work, a middle-aged man who has been working on his
English for much time. After that exchange with the student, lots of ideas came
whirling tempestuously in my mind for quite a bit of time until I decided to
take some time off my agenda to jot down some thoughts to try to clarify my
ideas somehow: If language curriculum development
is meant to help language performers succeed in their learning, where is it
failing to satisfy language trainees’ needs?
Henry, the
learner I was talking to in the library of one of the two
institutions I work for, had had this conversation with me repeatedly
in the past. Henry claimed that he had been studying English for a very long
time and that he felt something was wrong with him. Previously, I had advised
him to work on his fluency, vocabulary, conversational skills, and so on since
I was not certain what exactly was going on with his learning. Still he hadn’t
achieved what he was looking for, something I got to realize on our very last
conversation: to keep up with a conversation during a job interview and
finalize it successfully to try to get a call center position in accounting. No
matter how many times Henry had tried taking a job interview, he had been
constantly failing in any of his attempts. But, why?
From Dr.
Jack C. Richards (2003), I learned that curriculum development “describes an
interrelated set of processes that focuses on designing, implementing, and
evaluating language programs.” But how does this “interrelated set of
processes” aim at aiding Henry’s, as many others’, needs for a position to work
in the target language? Is the language training provided to people like Henry
enough to guarantee the instrumentality now attributed to English to find
vacant positions to work in call centers or similar service industries in a
country like Costa Rica? After giving some thought to try to answer this
question, it dawned on me that from the ADDIE instructional model standpoint,
the “interrelated set of processes” are not being evaluated to really find out
whether students like Henry are getting what they need for the service industry.
Richards
(2003) also provides with a neat set of questions intended to help the
curriculum developer get a curricular framework to develop his/her work easily.
These questions do help us understand why Henry is not being satisfied. Let’s
analyze the following chart where some answers are provided to give some sense
to the uneasy time Henry is undergoing:
Dr. Richards’ Guiding Questions
|
My Answers from a Curriculum Stance
|
·
What procedures can be used to
determine the content of a language program?
|
-
Ideally interviews with employers are
necessary to determine performance profiles needed by candidates in key
positions in a service company.
-
What language students may be learning
in the classroom may not always be compatible with what is needed in the job
market and does not add to the learner’s possibility to apply for a job in
the target language.
|
-
Conventionally what is done by curriculum
developers is to see what publishing houses offer assuming they already know
what the content of a language program needs to teach learners. This is quite
good for regular courses where students just want to master a language for
traveling purposes and the like.
|
|
·
What are learners’ needs?
|
-
Pupils’ needs are many. They need to be
trained on how to use 21st Century skills such as critical
thinking. But now, will program be able to cater for all types of job-related
performance needs in working positions? The answer to this question is highly
debatable and does not really tell me much when many different kinds of
student needs are present in a single classroom.
|
-
Many language courses are meant to
teach conventional English to go shopping, asking for directions, and so on.
And this kind of English is useless for learners like Henry whose needs are
very particular and specific. Bearing in mind performance profiles in various
types of positions where English is a must cannot guarantee but a homogeneous
course that does not train learners towards those working profiles.
|
|
·
How can learners’ needs be determined?
|
-
Needs have to be determined by
performance profiles expected from a learner when s/he finishes a language
program.
-
This should be done similarly to what
is actually done with EAP profiles and courses used to meet university
standards.
|
-
It is perfectly reasonable to believe
that students’ needs are neither determined nor stated by CEF standards.
-
Just because someone hold a B2 level
does not guarantee s/he is entitled to work in the target language.
-
It is perfectly understandable to
consider that employers are not accurately using CEF standards to measure
learners’ language level of performance.
|
|
·
What contextual factors need to be
considered in planning a language program?
|
-
Beyond what is commonly planned today
for a language program, such as what book to be used, its costs for the
institution and the learners, etc., the reasons why students are to enroll in
the school must be identified; these reasons define the instrumental
motivation pupils have.
-
Once reasons have been clearly defined,
and assuming most language trainees intend to work in the service industry,
common core standards for all workplaces need to be thought of to provide
what the textbook will not provide for the students and the language
trainers.
|
-
Each particular nation and their
individual regions may present different contexts that can affect the way in
which a language course is perceived by learners. Pupils are not meant to
know what to concretely expect to learn from a language program. Their sole
intention is to maximize their possibilities to find a job where English is
used.
-
Neither teachers nor language
performers are meant to know what companies expect from candidates. It is the
curricular developers’ job to find out what these expectations are, so
teacher in-house training programs can be planned to cater for these needs.
|
|
·
What is the nature of aims and
objectives in teaching and how can these be developed?
|
-
The nature of aims and objectives must
be grounded on people at work, along with CEF standards, of course. One thing
should not be divorced from the other. Both should work together to shape up
what the program exit profile should be. The student needs a certain level of
English (CEF) but a set of competencies based on the learner’s potential needs
at work.
|
-
What seems to be mostly done by language
institutions is to base their programs on what the publishing house tells
them what the expected performance of language performers should be merely in
terms of CEF standards, which are by far very generic and away from the
working reality, language trainees will eventually face at work.
|
|
·
What factors are involved in planning
the syllabus and the units of organization in a course?
|
-
In Costa Rica, at least in the public
education system, language trainers are provided with the program to be
covered along the school year. In language schools, the program is already
preset by the institution. Is spite of the differences, the program is not
usually thought in term of the end product to be achieved with the
organization of syllabus and its units.
-
The planning of the syllabuses and
their thematic units need to be done by planning backwards. That is, the
curriculum developers need to be aware of what competencies are to be
acquired by the school’s pupils and to produce a program aiming at developing
those competences. Bearing the end in mind is easier to design and develop a language
program that fully satisfy the language performers’ working needs.
|
-
By paying attention to what is commonly
done in my country, teachers are provided with a set of objectives to achieve
without having a textbook where to “ground” their teaching.
-
What’s wrong with this? Instructors are
clueless at times because they do not know what to do with that information
to organize the course syllabus and the thematic units to be covered.
|
|
·
How can good teaching be provided in a
program?
|
-
Aside from the fact that a group of
coaches are needed, or some sort of an active supervisor, in-service
trainings are a must. Whether this is in a school circuit and/or district or
in a language school, training is the way to unify practices across the
program(s).
|
-
Somehow, it is important to recognize
the fact that a university degree is not enough. Degrees are indeed necessary
because they give teaching professionals a common ground to grow
professionally. However, a degree does not guarantee that a newly graduate
educator is what the system is looking for to teach.
|
|
·
What issues are involved in selecting,
adapting, and designing instructional materials?
|
-
Once a common core of subjects, thematic
units, and the like has been identified, the curricular developers can start
creating standardized materials for various types of jobs or working
performances.
-
Standardization is a good way to work
with the production of material that can be used with many different types of
possible job positions in the service industry, for example.
|
-
Not recognizing the fact that there is
a vast array of language trainees’ needs and interests is a problem. Not
finding a homogeneous program to cater for common core needs is another
problem for students.
|
|
·
How can one measure the effectiveness
of a language program?
|
-
From a very personal point of view, the
success of a language program needs to be measured based on the employability
of its learners. If the institution, organization, school district, or similar
affiliations is able to maximize the probabilities of its pupils to get a job
in the target language, the program has been successful.
|
-
Assuming that an exit exam based on a
TOEIC score linked to a CEF standard is not a logical measurement for the
effectiveness of a language program. They are good indicators of the level a
pupil holds but not the competencies the language performer has or needs to
acquire to be fully competent in a job position.
|
Language
trainees like Henry do not need to be interviewed on trifling conversation. An
examiner from a company is not interested in what the candidate did last
weekend or where he went on his last vacation; the examiner is interested in
knowing whether the candidate can explain a client over the phone the tangible
problems on his/her credit card monthly statement, for instance. An examiner is
not going to be questioning an examinee why he takes size 8 for a pair of red
sneakers; he wants to know whether the examinee is able to provide the
requested help a client is requesting over the phone. Today’s language programs
should aim at teaching language trainees on the competences and the language
needed to perform his job satisfactorily.
People like
Henry are on a dead-on street. If language programs do not get to change on the
way they are conceived and then materialized, the “Henrys” that people the
public or private language programs that abound around all of us will simply
teach them how to have trivial and bookish conversations that do not help them
get a working position.
References
Richards, J. (2003). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (2003). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunday, January 10, 2016