1
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
TESOL Standards for Adults and College English Curriculum Requirements in China
Ruoqin Wang
Vanderbilt University
2
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
Abstract
In this capstone essay, I will compare College English Curriculum Requirements
(Department of Higher Education of MOE of P.R. China, 2007) and Standards for ESL/EFL
Teachers of Adults (TESOL Inc., 2008). Factors leading to similarities and differences
between the two will be analyzed and presented. This comparative study will result in
informed suggestions for the Chinese standard to better facilitate college English curriculum
reform in China. These suggestions are based on selected ideas from the TESOL standard
that are also applicable to the Chinese context. The TESOL standard is appropriate to
compare with the Chinese standard because it aims at helping ESL/EFL teachers worldwide
to achieve professional excellence, including Chinese college English teachers. The major
focus of this essay is a critical discussion of three shared elements in the two standards: the
learner, content, and assessment. Discussions from these three areas lead to the major
findings of this capstone essay: (1) the differences between the Chinese standard and TESOL
standard can be explained by the specific linguistic and sociocultural contexts from which
they developed; (2) the similarities between the two reflect the fact that they are both derived
from a broader TESOL context; (3) and there are potentially beneficial ideas from the
TESOL standard that can be used to improve the Chinese standard after a careful
consideration of the first two findings.
Keywords: CECR, SETA, TESOL, standards, comparison
3
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
TESOL Standards for Adults and College English Curriculum Requirements in China
In this capstone essay, I will compare two sets of standards developed for teaching
English as a foreign language (EFL). One is the Standards for ESL/EFL Teachers of Adults
developed by TESOL International Association in the US, and the other is the College
English Curriculum Requirements in China. After introducing the development and structure
of the two standards, I will compare them in terms of the three interrelated components of an
EFL curriculum: the learner, content, and assessment. I will do this by identifying relevant
information from different parts of both documents. Discussion based on comparison results
focus on (1) exposing the theoretical or ideological foundations consciously or unconsciously
employed by the two sets of standards, (2) analyzing special characteristics and needs of
China’s college English teaching in the broader ESL/EFL context, and (3) making
recommendations for implementers and developers of the Chinese standard, primarily by
“borrowing” from the TESOL standards.
Rationale
EFL education in China is undergoing reform to keep up with China’s overall
development and globalization (Zuo, 2008). In 2007, the Chinese Department of Higher
Education revised its curriculum requirements of teaching college English (called CE
hereafter) to its newest version, the College English Curriculum Requirements (called CERC
hereafter) (Department of Higher Education of MOE of P.R. China, 2007). Meanwhile,
curriculum requirements that developed out of EFL contexts such as the Standards for
ESL/EFL Teachers of Adults (called SETA hereafter) (TESOL Inc, 2008) are aimed at
supporting teachers worldwide, which I will compare with CERC in my capstone essay.
4
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
The results of the current study will possibly help CE teachers who are using CECR
to develop a deeper understanding of this document, especially some of its limitations. This is
because comparing and contrasting language teaching standards based on different theoretical
frameworks, historical developments, and sociopolitical perspectives can make the
characteristics of either of the standards more salient to readers. On the other hand, this paper
is also written for developers of CECR with suggestions for a better facilitation of the
ongoing CE education reform in China.
Here I will also need to elucidate why I choose to compare CECR with SETA. To
begin with, foreign language education in the US has witnessed huge improvement since the
introduction of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 2lst Century
developed by the American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (Zhou
& Zhang, 2007). Therefore, a lot of English teachers in China, especially those in elementary
and middle schools have made efforts to draw ideas from the ACTFL standard which are
believed constructive for English teaching in China (Xiao, 2002; Zhou and Zhang, 2007;
Kang, 2011 etc.). Compared with the ACTFL standards, SETA is developed exclusively for
teaching English to an age group that is more aligned with CECR, which justifies the
attention paid to SETA in this paper. CECR and SETA are both developed for adult learners.
Another reason for selecting SETA is the fact that it is well grounded in theories after wide
consultation of TESOL experts around the world (Gao, 2009). Therefore, it is highly possible
some theory-informed teaching principles in SETA will be applicable to CE education in
China as well.
Introduction of Two Standards
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
5
The SETA is a 187-page book developed with the mission of ensuring excellence in
English language teaching to speakers of other languages. It tries to answer this question for
teacher candidates in the TESOL profession: What is effective teaching? The main audience
of this book would be teachers, teacher trainers and administrators (SETA, p. vii). On the
other hand, the CECR is a concise document for teaching English to non-English majors in
colleges in China. Pursuing higher teaching quality is only one of the many objectives of this
document as it was developed with a view to “…keeping up with the new development of
higher education in China, deepening teaching reform, improving teaching quality, and
meeting the needs of the country and society for qualified personnel in the new era.” Even
though CECR does not identify its targeted audience at the beginning, I would argue that
college teachers, administrators as well as students are all presumed readers.
Development
The SETA. SETA for ESL/EFL is developed by the global association of TESOL as
part of a series of standards for ESL/EFL teachers. It was originally developed for teachers of
adult ESL learners in the US back in 1999. Based on research and feedback from
professionals, TESOL realized the applicability of this set of standards outside of the US and
revised it for teachers from diverse backgrounds including workplace, college, intensive
English Programs (IEPs) and EFL programs (SETA, p.vi).
The CECR. CECR came in effect in 2007 and is currently used for China’s CE
education. Before that, the CE teaching standards in China have gone through several times
of revision and reform. In 1986, College English Syllabus (CES) was published for the first
time as a nation-wide framework of standards for CE teaching. The required areas of teaching
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
6
listed in the syllabus are pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, reading, listening, writing and
speaking. Among them, reading is decided to be the primary focus of college English
teaching (Ruan& Jacob, 2009) yet basic requirements for all seven areas are forced upon
every college to achieve (Cai & Xin, 2009). The syllabus was not given modification until the
year of 1999, the turn of the century, when it was revised to stress only the four basic skills,
reading, listening, writing and speaking. Then in March 2004, the Syllabus was replaced by
the College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) in response to the Project of
Improvement and Transformation of Curriculums of Higher Education initiated by the
Ministry of Education (Ruan & Jacob, 2009). In CECR (2004), colleges are given the
freedom to create their own syllabi with reference to CECR. The 2004 version of CECR is
actually a pilot edition. When the 2007 version of CECR came out, colleges are given further
freedom to modify the teaching requirements in the light of their own resources and needs
(Cai & Xin, 2009).
Structure
The SETA. The standards in SETA are organized under eight topics: Planning,
Instructing, Assessing, Identity and Context, Language Proficiency, Learning, Content and
Commitment and Professionalism. In order to set forth clear guidelines for ESL/EFL adult
teachers, SETA follows this format of presenting each individual standard: description of the
standard, theoretical justification of it, performance indicators showing desired learning
performances and well-structured illustrations called vignettes showing the standard being
implemented in real classrooms. Since SETA aims at offering effective teaching principles
that can be immediately helpful for classroom teachers (SETA, p. v), each standard consists
7
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
of sub-standards that are performance-based and organized by bulletin points. One example
would be “ uses a variety of formal and informal assessment tools appropriate for the context
and desired results”.
Appendix A and C of the book list some resources as extensions of the theoretical
justification that is explained within each standard. Those are academic articles on which the
development of the book is based and a recommended reading list of similar articles.
Appendix B offers a guide for self-review for teachers.
The CECR. As a comprehensive guiding manual for each department of college
English teaching and learning, CECR is not as dedicated as in giving classroom teaching
suggestions. It first briefly introduces the characters and objectives of college English in
China. Then, the Teaching Requirements section sets up three English proficiency levels that
would be achieved by college students upon graduation. From basal to ceiling, the levels are
basic, intermediate and advanced. Within each level, there are detailed descriptions of learner
performances presented as teaching goals in the areas of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
translation and vocabulary. Required performances in each skill area are as detailed as how
many words learners at each stage have to process during listening per minute.
The following parts are Course Design, Teaching Model, Evaluation and Teaching
Administration. In Appendix A, a detailed explanation of computer-based teaching is
supposed to guide teachers through the building of this model while in Appendix B,
recommended protocol for self/peer-assessment given for students’ reference.
Critical Comparisons
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
8
In this section, I am going to compare the standards in learner, content and
assessment. It should be noted that I do not aim at acquiring an exhaustive list of differences
and similarities between the two standards in those three areas. For example, for the
following discussion on the learner, I will put emphasis on how the two standards address
learner differences and perceive independent learning.
Learner
SETA and CECR both pay attention to the role the individual plays in choosing
appropriate teaching approaches and building effective teaching models. Using learners’ own
insights and preferences to inform learner education can be traced to the learner-centeredness
movement in TESOL, which has a central focus on learner autonomy (Tudor, 1996).
The SETA. SETA asks teachers to use a variety of strategies and activities to address
individual differences (SETA, p. 24). Different kinds of learner characteristics are addressed
in SETA: learners’ interests, needs, prior learning, background knowledge, identities, roles,
communities, English level, first language, rates and styles of learning and expertise in
content areas (SETA, p.4; p. 66; p.102; p. 121). In terms of attitudes toward those learner
traits, SETA stipulates that teachers employ them as classroom resources while helping
student develop appreciation toward each other (SETA, p.66).
On the other hand, leaners should be encouraged to engage in decision-making about
their learning with a long-term goal to become independent, lifelong learner (SETA, p.24).
Autonomy, which is defined by Benson (2001) as the ability to take control of one’s learning,
is advocated in SETA and described as something that can be trained through carefully
designed instruction (SETA, p.102).
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
9
The CECR. With learning-centeredness as one of its primary theoretical bases (Ruan
and Jacob, 2009), CE reform in China as well as the newest version of CECR (2007) values
individual learners, promoting a shift from the traditional teacher-centered model (CECR,
Teaching Model). Learner characteristics as well as the type of college are called into
attention in CECR to meet CE’s need of individualized teaching, a proposed response to the
challenge of colleges scattering around a large country (CECR, Teaching Requirements). As
a result, teachers should be mindful of the following things during instruction and assessment:
learner aptitude, initial language competence, college status, types, education goals and
college resources (CECR, Teaching Requirements; Teaching Model).
Meanwhile, CECR encourages the students to engage in individualized learning to
meet their own needs in different specialties (CECR, Course Design). Unlike SETA, in which
collaboration among learners is valued (SETA, p.102), CECR has a salient priority for
learners to be independent without mentioning collaborative learning. Specifically, it asks
students to decide which materials and methods to use based on their own needs with the
ultimate goal of being proficient in autonomous learning, which is possible to be developed
under the guidance of obtained learning strategies (CECR, Teaching Model).
Discussion. The first step in designing a curriculum is to consider who are the
learners. Both standards ask teachers to adapt their teaching to cater to individual differences.
Relatively speaking, SETA proposes a longer list of learner-related factors for teachers to
consider. Interesting enough is the fact that it is SETA but not CECR that calls into attention
learners’ L1 and identity. In SETA, these two factors can actually be used to show the distinct
sociocultural underpinnings of the two sets of standards. On the other hand, it is also
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
10
interesting to notice that SETA and CECR both set up the goal of cultivating lifelong,
autonomous learners, which reflects a possible influence from the broader TESOL world, the
fashionable concept of learner-centeredness.
L-1 and Learner Identity. Since 1980’s, the popularity of monolingualism and its
dominance in the theories of language education allows its influence to extend from ESL to
EFL countries (Song, 2009). It is not until recently that more and more evidence from
different perspectives is emerging to justify the positive side of using of L1 in L2 teaching
(Atkinson, 1987; Atkinson, 1993; Duff & Polio, 1990; Cummins, 1996 etc.). However, it
seems reasonable for CECR not to advocate using L1 in class as there is already much less
exposure to the English language outside of EFL classrooms compared with those in
English-speaking countries (Duff & Polio, 1990; Polio & Duff, 1994). Moreover, there are
negative sociopolitical implications of using English exclusively in the schools of some ESL
countries (Auerbach, 1993). Pedagogically speaking, many researchers have examined
classroom languages in ESL classrooms, yet relatively few have characterized FL classes
(Polio & Duff, 1994). They may be the reasons why SETA treats L1 more seriously.
In a similar vein, studies concerning identities of English learners tend to focus
predominantly on immigrant learners’ learning experiences in their host countries while few
studies are targeted at EFL learners in their homeland countries (Gu, 2010). This is probably
the reason why identity cannot be found in CECR. The ESL teaching setting in the US is
what SETA was originally designed for. It is highly likely that the culturally heterogeneous
nature of that teaching context calls for a subtler sociocultural understanding of the learner
than the Chinese context.
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
11
Independent Learning & Autonomy. Both standards expect their students to become
autonomous, lifelong learners. While SETA values both individual and collaborative learning,
CECR has explicit requirements only for independent learning.
My conclusion about this distinction is that the worldwide call for a transition from
the teacher-centered to learners-centered classroom may have triggered different reactions
between the developers of CECR and those of SETA. Holliday (2005, p.83) contends that
there is a tendency in education to try to let people develop cultural behaviors they were not
born into. Therefore, the dependent disposition usually associated with learners born into
Confucius cultures are polarized against words such as “independent,” “decision-making”
and “autonomy” when such western originated ideas are introduced into these different
cultures. Given that there is a teacher-guided tradition in EFL teaching in China (Anderson,
1993; Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Braine, 2003 etc.), the rationale for CECR to prefer independent
learning over a mixed approach is probably to remold that widely adopted teaching style
toward a more learner-centered one. The underlying assumption is probably that “dependent”
learners cannot make “qualified personnel in the new era” as desired in the opening statement
of CECR. As is put forward by Ruan and Jacob (2009), one of the theoretical foundations of
CE reform is “…to counter the passivity that is enemy of true learning, students need to
develop their own strategies to become automatic learners….” Two things are problematic
here. Firstly, any empirical evidence can show that those “passive learners” can also be
engaged in true learning. Secondly, they fail to take into account the assumed passivity before
asking students to develop strategies on their own, which reflects the difficulty involved in
efforts to change deeply entrenched culture. Therefore, CE reform in China along with CECR,
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
12
the guiding document of that reform, should be cautious of the pitfalls of promoting
learner-centeredness.
Content
In this part, I will focus on how SETA and CECR perceive the relationship between
content and language learning, which would be a central element in a language teaching
curriculum since it bears heavily on the instruction, assessment, material and teacher training.
From the learners’ perspective, learning goals sometimes have to be negotiated with the
content being taught in language classes. The following analysis serves the purpose of
exposing factors underlying the different content requirement in SETA and CECR as well as
evaluating CECR’s intention to provide appropriate learning content for CE students.
The SETA. Content teaching in SETA is described as the teaching of communicative
competence in a certain content area, which involves the teaching of grammatical, discourse,
sociocultural and strategic competence (SETA, p. 119). In line with this definition of content,
pedagogical and real-world tasks are both needed for teaching content (SETA, p. 121).
SETA defines very clearly the teacher’s role in teaching content with specific pedagogical
suggestions. During preparation, “Teachers may need to inform themselves about the
language associated with the content areas that their students want to learn about.” (SETA, p.
120). In class, there is an emphasis on scaffolding students in that teachers need to provide
“both oral and written language in the content area” and “the linguistic features of the
content-related language” (SETA, p.121), which is called by Ferguson (1997) as the
knowledge of genre and discourse in content teaching. Coping strategies also need to be
taught when other communicative competencies are not developed well enough to acquire
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
13
content. Out of class, there is a requirement for teachers to “collaborate with content
specialists to develop lessons” (SETA, p. 121).
SETA’s comprehensiveness in addressing the different aspects of content teaching
reflects to a certain degree the teaching context it draws theoretical underpinnings from. At
this moment, an analysis of how CECR perceives content in English teaching might confirm
my position that the two sets of standards under study are derived from distinct social and
cultural environments.
The CECR. Relative to SETA, CECR has a less structured content requirement. In its
Teaching Requirement part, SETA does not address content adequately because only the
requirements for listening and reading imply to a certain degree the content to be taught. In
its performance criterion for listening, CECR requires learners to be able to understand
English radio and TV programs. For reading, learners are required to read English newspaper
and magazines on familiar topics and textbooks in the area of their specialty. It is clear that
teacher’s role in content teaching is far from specified.
Meanwhile in a vague way, the Course Design section of CECR requires teaching
content to be related to students’ specialties by building a course system that encompasses not
only general English courses but also courses in “language and culture” and “English of
specialty” with the purpose of to cultivating students’ cultural awareness and communicative
ability (CECR, Course Design).
Discussion. Content-based instruction has been touted as effective in a wide range of
educational contexts (Cummins, 1980; Snow, Met & Genesee,1989; Byrnes, 2002;
Cammarata, 2009 etc.). In China, the development of courses for non-English majors
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
14
categorized as English for Special Purpose (ESP) is argued by many to have great potential in
enhancing CE reform (Fan, 1995; Cammarata, 2009;Cai, 2010 etc.). In line with this
movement, College English Syllabus (1999), the predecessor of CECR first brought attention
to the importance of teaching English for professional development (Cai & Xin, 2009).
However, the feasibility of this intention is questionable. First, even CECR (2007), the
newest CE curriculum requirement is very vague about the approaches to promoting
content-based curriculum. Apart from asking colleges to build a comprehensive course
system, which few colleges in China have done so far, CECR “…encourage(s) students’
individualized learning so as to meet the needs of their development in different specialties.”
In other words, CECR fails to specify the role of teachers in teaching content or
implementing the recommended course system.
On the contrary, SETA is clearer about the nuances of implementing content-based
teaching as evidenced by its comprehensive pedagogical suggestions. A possible historical
connection is that in US schools and colleges, subject areas are taught in English, which leads
to a more comprehensive pedagogical framework supported by adequate ESL
content-teaching resources and researches. Therefore, it might benefit CECR developers to
provide guidelines as clear as those in SETA in their next step of promoting ESP. They
should also remain cautious of the possible challenges arising from limitations of resources in
their specific contexts because SETA may be too broad to address the specific needs of any
single country.
Assessment and Evaluation
Assessment is attached with great importance in both SETA and CECR. SETA uses
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
15
Standard 3: Assessing to provide teachers with guidelines in assessing learners. Meanwhile,
assessment information can be found in CECR’s Evaluation section and the self-peer
assessment rubric in the Appendix.
To have a more informed discussion later, it is better to take a look at the most
influential college English test for non-English majors in China. CET is short for College
English Test. It consists of CET Band 4 and 6 and is required for non-English majors in
China, which has participants of around 10 million every year. They are primarily summative
assessments yielding quantifiable examination results (Xiong & Xiao, 2012). A pass in CET
Band 4 is one of the prerequisites for college students to get a Bachelor’s degree or an
undergraduate diploma (Cai & Xin, 2009). CET is characterized by the predominance of
multiple-choice questions (Han, Dai & Yang, 2004; Liu, 2007) and lack of mandatory
speaking test (Gu & Liu, 2005). Theses are good reasons to question CET’s validity in
assessing the ability to use English. On the other hand, CET has such merits as objectiveness
and a wide coverage of English knowledge (Gu & Liu, 2005).
The SETA. SETA advocates the use of “multimodal, systematic and purposeful”
assessment tools (SETA, p. 44). Specific types of assessment include those“…that are
instructor generated and standardized” as well as “…a variety of formal and informal
assessment tools…(SETA, p. 44).” Whatever assessment tool is used, the goal is to evaluate
the ability of students applying “acquired knowledge and skills in realistic contexts” (SETA,
p. 43).
In SETA, teachers are stipulated to examine test quality as part of their responsibility
in administrating tests. They should be able to know the advantages and disadvantages of
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
16
different types of assessments. All types of assessments should be “instructor generated and
standardized” for the consideration of validity and reliability. In that regard, cultural
sensitivity is also one element to be examined by teachers (SETA, p. 43).
The CECR. In CECR, a comprehensive system of assessment consisting of both
formative and summative assessments is recommended for everyday teaching. Manifestations
of formative assessments can be self-assessment, peer assessment and those conducted by
teachers and administrators (CECR, Evaluation). There is a detailed rubric for self/peer
assessment containing requirements for listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating
in the Appendix. This rubric aims at helping students monitor their learning on a regular basis
(CECR, Evaluation), which corresponds to the Requirement’s goal to promote independent
learning. Summative tests should include final tests and proficiency tests. It is articulated that
apart from reading, writing and translating, listening and speaking should also be tested in
summative tests because the goal is to assess students’ all-around communicative competence
(CECR, Evaluation), which probably reflects an underlying wish to improve CET.
Discussion
The absence in CECR of asking learners to be assessed in “realistic contexts”
probably reveals the unfamiliarity with teaching English for real-life problem solving in
China’s English education. It seems unrealistic to include tasks in CE assessments such as an
oral interview for the citizenship exam or writing a resume, which are listed in SETA as
real-world tasks in Standard 7: Contend (SETA, p.120). Instead, it sets up the goal of
assessing communicative ability yet still fails to define that in a pedagogically constructive
way. What is communicative competence? To answer this question, people have to bear in
17
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
mind that different cultures have different connotations and expectations for being
communicative (Chowdhury, 2003). Similarly, Holliday (2005, p. 155) points out the
differences between the way communicative is interpreted between western countries where
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) originated and EFL countries where cultural
factors often arguably hinder the application of “standard” CLT (Holliday, 2005, p.144).
Based on those arguments, I think it is appropriate to contemplate further what should be
assessed for CE students in China based on their sociocultural contexts and learning
objectives. If the students do not all need to deal with real-life tasks in English after they
graduate, the question remains what the English tests in College should assess. If that is
communicative ability, what are the contexts to assess this ability? Given that there is lack of
generally accepted measures of communicative competence in China (Liu, 2007), answering
those questions may help CE to solve that problem.
Another difference is the level of attentions paid to the quality of tests. CECR does
not ask the teachers to take an active role in examining the validity and reliability of
assessments as SETA does. One possible explanation is that traditionally English teachers in
China are not accustomed to examining the standardized tests they are assigning to test
students. However, national standardized tests such as CET are not perfect regarding
reliability and validity, a problem which is catching more and more attention in China (Yang
& Weir, 1998; Han, Dai & Yang 2004; Gu & Liu, 2005; Wang, 2010). Therefore, it seems
appropriate to entitle CE teachers to evaluate the quality of tests as well.
General Discussion
There are two underlying assumptions in my previous discussions on the learner,
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
18
content, and assessment. The first is that language standards are not born in a vacuum. Nunan
(2007) has put forward that every standard contains some ideological imprints unique to a
particular social and cultural context (Nunan, 2007). SETA, which was drafted first for ESL
teachers in the US and then revised to be applicable to the international setting, remains
ESL-oriented in many of its expectations and methodologies. Of the 40 vignettes in SETA, 28
are set in the United States (Gao, 2009), which leads to questions of the validity of using
SETA in a particular EFL country with different linguistic and sociocultural realities.
Nonetheless, one success of SETA is its relative transparency in presenting theoretical
foundations, which allows readers to dig deeper into the rationale behind SETA’s positions. In
CECR, the absence of theoretical justifications may undermine its potential to be used in
colleges of great diversity around China.
At the same time, attention should also be paid to the shared ideas in the two
standards. For example, CECR asks students to select materials and methods on their own
and engage in independent learning related to their specialties. They are manifestations of a
certain type of autonomy that is usually discussed in western literature, which is known as the
“proactive autonomy” (Littlewood, 1999). On the other end is “reactive autonomy” where
teachers initiate the direction for students to engage in autonomous learning and this seems to
fit the expectations for “dependent eastern learners” better. Even though it is masking
individual differences to assume that Chinese students are more likely to accept autonomy on
the reactive end, CECR, as a national standard, may need to improve the way it promotes
autonomy to be more context-sensitive.
My second assumption is that CECR development would benefit from “borrowing”
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
19
because an idea with its ideological origin in the English-speaking western TESOL does not
mean it would be inappropriate in other contexts. Well-conceived adaptations are needed for
CECR to reconcile some potentially constructive pedagogical practices from standards
developed in other contexts such as SETA. Earlier in this essay, SETA’s stress on L1 use and
learner identity has been used to expose embedded social and ideological differences.
However, L1 is not irrelevant to EFL as the use of L1 in EFL classrooms is unavoidable
(Song, 2009; Duff & Polio, 1990), and proper use of it entails desired learning results (Cook,
2001; Turnbull, 2001; Duff & Polio, 1990; Atkinson, 1987 etc.). In fact, based on CECR’s
suggestion of building course systems that integrate subject learning with English learning, I
predict that L1 use will become more attractive and popular in the future. In the process,
CECR development may benefit from referring to literatures developed in ESL countries with
a concurrent aim to accommodate CE’s needs in making recommendations for using Chinese.
The same can be said with identity. The language classroom is the place where teachers and
students are involved in identity reconstruction (Colins and Blot, 2003). With China’s
increasingly important status, it has become critical for Chinese college students to resolve
the contradictions between how they view themselves and stereotypes from the outside (Duff
& Uchida, 1997) as well as to reconcile their “China identities” and “global identities” (Gu,
2010). These are reasons for CE to bring in the discussion of identity.
Although not all ideas in an ESL-based standard reflect western TESOL ideology,
standard implementers should still make efforts to achieve a “cultural continuity” (Holliday,
2005, p. 147). This holds true for SETA, an ESL/EFL standard developed in the US. For
example, as I have argued above, CE might develop in a direction with more and more
20
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
collaboration between subject teaching and language teaching. On the one hand, the relatively
comprehensive content-based teaching framework presented in SETA might be a good source
of reference. On the other hand, China’s institutional culture in education should not be
neglected. Bernstein (as cited in Holliday, 1994) proposes two distinct paradigms of
professional-academic culture, collectionism and integrationism. The collectionist culture
features strong subject boundaries. In contrast, integrationist culture has “blurred” boundaries.
China’s education tends to belong to the integrationist model. Therefore, it might seem
intimidating to assign colleges with the task of teaching “English of Specialty” (CECR,
Course Design), as verified by the current failure of this proposal in CE. The implication for
this essay is that as important as introducing to CE educators the content-teaching strategies
in SETA, so too is taking into account the readiness of them for accepting those ideas.
In sum, it is not problematic for a standard developed in an English-speaking country
to be used in various contexts, but it is a serious problem if standard implementers ignore the
richness, diversity and dynamism in the context in which it is used. This holds true for CE
educators using SETA.
Conclusion
In this essay, I compared the two standards regarding their perspectives on the learner,
content, and assessment and have offered several suggestions for both readers and developers
of CECR. The differences between the two are employed not only to show some limitations
of using SETA for a specific EFL teaching context but also to reveal a space for reconciliation.
Meanwhile, the similarities has shown to a certain degree the broader TESOL context of
which CE is a part and led me to consider whether there is a need for CECR to become more
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
21
context-sensitive. In a word, this comparative study would potentially benefit CE educators in
China for similar reasons that collaborative development programs would benefit the TESOL
profession worldwide. Whether they are referring to CECR or exported standards, they
should be mindful of the standards’ theoretical and sociocultural underpinnings and make
efforts to decide whether the standards fit the specific teaching contexts. CE developers
likewise would benefit from comparative studies of this kind because they will have a deeper
understanding of the standard they have developed and generate thoughts about the direction
of future improvement.
22
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
References
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China?
Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471-480.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?. ELT journal,
41(4), 241-247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes. London: Longman.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32.
Benson, P. (2001). Autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Longman.
Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach: A study of peer
feedback in Hong Kong writing classes. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 13(2), 269-288.
Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate
foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419-437.
Cai, J. (2010). Implications of Taiwan's ESP for the Mainland's College English Reform [J].
Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 6, 007.
Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers' learning
experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La
Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 65(4), 559-585.
Chowdhury, M. R. (2003). International TESOL training and EFL contexts: The cultural
disillusionment factor. Australian Journal of Education, 47(3), 283-302.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
23
Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402-423.
Collins, J., & Blot, R. K. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1980). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. NABE journal, 4(3),
25-59.
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information
technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537-548.
Cummins, J., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of English language
teaching. New York: Springer.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign
language classroom?. The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154-166.
Duff, P. A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities and
practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. Tesol Quarterly, 31(3), 451-486.
Gao, X. (2009). Standards for ESL/EFL Teachers of Adults. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (3),
560-562.
Gu, W. & Liu, J. (2005). Test Analysis of College Students’ Communicative Competence in
English. Asian EFL Journal, Volume 7, Issue 2.
Gu, M. M. (2010). Identities constructed in difference: English language learners in China.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 139-152.
Han, B., Dai, M. & Yang, L. (2004). Problems with College English Test as emerged from a
survey. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 179, 17-23.
Higher Education Department, Ministry of Education, China. (2004). College English
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
24
curriculum requirements. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Holliday, A. (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International.
Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 739-761.
Liu, J. (2007). Developing a Pragmatics Test for Chinese EFL Learners. Language Testing,
2007, 24 (3).
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied
linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.
Nunan, D. (2007). Standards-based approaches to the evaluation of ESL instruction.
International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 421-438). Springer US.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313-326.
Ruan, Y., & Jacob, W. J. (2009). The transformation of college English in China. Frontiers of
Education in China, 4(3), 466-487.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 23(2),
201-217.
Song, Y. (2009). An investigation into L2 teacher beliefs about L1 in China. Prospect. An
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
25
Australian Journal of TESOL, 24(1), 30-39.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2008). Standards for ESL/EFL
Teachers of Adults. Alexandria: TESOL Inc.
Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching,
but…. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues
vivantes, 57(4), 531-540.
Wang, W. (2010). Investigating the Washback Effect of the New CET Listening
Comprehension Subtest on Language Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 33 No. 5.
Xiong, L & Xiao, W. (2012). On Significance on Building Formative Assessment System in
College English Teaching. 2012 2nd International Conference on Future Computers in
Education. Lecture Notes in Information Technology, Vols 23-24.
Yang, H., & Weir, C. (1998). Validation study of the national college English test. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Yi, F. (1995). ESP: Reasons for its existence. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3,
007.
Zuo, L. (2008). A recent history of teaching EFL in China. TESOL (Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.). Essential Teacher, 5(2), 1–6.
蔡基刚, & 辛斌. (2009). 大学英语教学要求的统一性与个性化——关于《 大学英语程
教学要求》修订的思考. 中国外语: 中英文版, 6(2), 4-10.
CAPSTONE
Ruoqin Wang
26
康璐. (2011). 美国外语学习标准对我国大学外语教学的启示. 青年与社会: 中外教育研
究, (3), 94-95.
肖建芳. (2002). 美国外语教育改革及其启示. 中小学外语教学, 5, 287.
周芬, & 张智华. (2008). 美国外语学习标准与我国英语新课标异同分析及教学启示. 西
华大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 26(6), 98-100.