Curriculum Renewal at MCU / ELC
Proposal - February 12, 2016
The given proposal to the Curriculum committee is made in light of the official
Taiwan government line and rhetoric on principles underpinning the curriculum
(Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2000) aiming at “instilling a basic communicative
ability in English, preparing students to take a global perspective, and to give
individuals confidence in communicating in the global area” (Nunan, 2003).
The proposal consists of four major features to be incorporated into the future
language curriculum. The latter is aimed at delivering English instruction to NonEnglish major students. The proposed four features are as follows:
i). Incorporate a framework reflecting the Program Vision at the highest
invariable level of program planning hierarchy;
ii). Create a dynamic interface between the Program Vision and lower
levels of program planning in the form of strategic goals;
iii). Reconstruct the organization of materials of the currently used PE
course series (its 8 proficiency levels and 7 topic-based units) with more
comprehensive units of syllabus analysis and later instructional materials.
iv). Replace Norm / Criterion-referenced model of reporting students’ test
scores with that of Self-referenced. This change should result in a radical
switch from the idea of evaluating students’ performance in view of their
possible promotion up to ‘higher’ levels of the program (the current value)
to the idea of evaluating the quality of the language program instead (the
proposed new value).
I. Vision of English Program Development
Framework
The proposed ELC Program Vision may consist of two elements: 1). statement of
purpose and 2). four fundamental values of the program.
ELC faculty’s Statement of Purpose
To meet constantly changing and unpredictable English learning needs of Ming
Chuan students.
This statement can be used as a timeless general open-ended direction for ELC
program in order to carry out short-term tactical and long-term strategic planning,
development and improvement in quality of instructional materials and
methodological skills of language instructors.
1
Fundamental values of ELC faculty:
1. Learners’ self-study skills or the process of autonomous language learning
2. The English language conceived as a vehicle of communication and
environment for social interaction
3. Continuous primary innovations on the part of language instructors
4. Diversity of outcomes in the process of language learning
The four values are answers to <How-to> questions at the highest level of the
program operation while continuously aiming to serve the infinite and timeless
purpose (mentioned above) as its invariable core dimension. Both the statement
of purpose and the fundamental values make the permanent core of the ELC
curriculum for Non-English major students at MCU. More detailed explanation of
the four fundamental values is given below.
Value 1. While completing the four-year long course work, MCU Non-English major
students should acquire skills that can help them approach the task of language learning
with greater extent of independence from the instructor, language program as well as
make the language learning process more effective, meaningful, and enjoyable. Students
should be able to articulate their language learning goals, objectives, reflect on the
process of language learning and plan it according to their individual learning needs.
(Wenden & Rubin, 1987).
Value 2. Language learning activities should be designed and delivered by ELC faculty
in a way that organically incorporate and stress the concept of time-bound language input
(exposure) and real-time process of operating on the input. Outcomes of language
activities should be meaningful to the situations in which the language input is embedded.
Activities with the focus on meaning should have non-linguistic outcomes. Students
should learn how to complete language tasks in groups and how to help one another.
(Richards & Rogers, 1986; Breen, 1989)
Value 3. ELC faculty should be engaged in continuous and observable research aiming
at enhancing the quality of i). instructional materials, ii). methodological skills, and iii).
Pedagogical values (primary type of innovations). This value should give rise to critical
problem-oriented climate which can favor continuous discussion of pedagogical and
methodological issues in the ELC faculty (Markee, 1997).
Value 4. Both language materials and methodologies used to deliver them should aim at
bringing about wide diversity of learning outcomes and change in learner’s knowledge.
Teaching objectives should by no means limit potentials of learning situations nor narrow
the diversity of learning outcomes. Both teaching methodologies and materials should
facilitate and allow for learners’ contributions to the language learning process and
negotiation about what to study, how, and why. (Breen, 1989).
The same framework can also control other aspects, areas of the program, and
all levels of program planning. See the drawing below.
2
Core Curriculum: Framework
Fundamental
value 2
Fundamental
value 3
Fundamental
value 1
Fundamental
value 4
Indefinite future
Purpose of the program
Strategic
Goals
Tactical planning
Operational planning
Program
Areas
END OF FRAMEWORK DESCRIPTION
II. Strategic level of planning: goals
The interface between the core curriculum dimensions or Program Vision
framework, on the one hand, and teaching practices, stakeholders of the
program, on the other hand, can be conceptualized in terms of long-term
strategic goals. This feature of the future curriculum can be generated from the
abovementioned framework and specified through implementation or executive
tasks by task forces or the work of long-term committees, concrete persons those
tasks are assigned to, evaluation measures, and deadlines. All strategic goals
are to be generated as the result of interaction between constantly changing
reality and the curriculum framework. Some of strategic goals are demonstrated
below as examples.
Examples:
Goal 1: Design, develop and implement an extensive and constantly updated
database of instructional materials for language learning that facilitates rich
exposure to authentic, meaningful, time-bound input and real-time process in the
target language (English).
3
Task 1A: Form a task force referred to as Materials Production Committee (MPC)
in order to manage faculty-wide process of selecting, grading, designing new
language tasks, and also maintain the database of all in-house produced
language tasks.
Assigned to
Names, positions
Measure
1. Assign each Materials committee members to manage
tasks design and submission process by certain groups of
ELC faculty.
2. Develop selecting, grading, and sequencing criteria.
Make them available on the ELC website.
3. Conduct 3 faculty-wide workshops on the process of
designing language tasks, features of tasks, and delivery
skills.
Timeline
May 15th,
2004
May 20th,
2004
May 25th,
2004
Task 1B: Compile a temporary version of PE book, referred to as PE +. The new
edition should be based on a different structure and pedagogically viable
instructional units, further referred to as ‘tasks’
Assigned to
Measure
Timeline
May
15th,
1.
Collect
4
language
tasks
specified
in
the
goals
from
Names, positions
each faculty member. The submitted tasks should reflect
individual teacher’s vision about what make an effective
task format and process of delivering it. Each task format
should be backed with the pedagogical rationale.
2004
2. Compile the PE + book by using the submitted tasks
and organizing them according to task formats. Answer
keys, audio versions of input, and Teacher’s notes should
be made available on the ELC website.
June 15th,
2004
Task 1C: ……………………………
Goal 2: Adopt self-referenced model of reporting test results.
Task 2A: Constantly communicate by all means possible clear and consistent
reasons for turning away from Norm / Criterion-referenced model of reporting
test-results to that of Self-referenced.
Assigned to
Names, positions
Measure
Timeline
1. Form a Testing and Program Evaluation Committee.
2.
3
Task 2B: …………………………………………………………
Assigned to
Measure
Names, positions 1.
4
Timeline
Strategic goals should be made available to all stakeholders of the program on
the ELC website.
Apart form the time-bound strategic planning, the curriculum vision statement
should be used as a framework to ensure flexible and consistent process of
decision making at the tactical (syllabus design) and operational (classroom
interactions) levels allowing for diversity of language teaching methods and
learning outcomes to be congruent with the Program Vision. The figure below
demonstrates relationship between strategic, tactical, and operational levels of
program planning and evaluation.
Program
Vision -Framework
Strategic goals
Tactical objectives to be reflected in each
teacher’s syllabus
Operational level of planning to be based on negotiation between
students and the instructors
Tactical level of conceptualizing our program
At the level of syllabus design, each ELC instructor is expected to design and
implement his / her own syllabus which should reflect current strategic goals of
the program. Teachers of the ELC English program should be able to design any
types of syllabus, i.e., either analytic or synthetic, deliver any kind of language
activities, tasks, or exercises as long as they are found congruent with
corresponding strategic goals and implement the vision of the program.
Regardless of the nature of the syllabus design, such as language, learner or
learning-centered, teachers’ syllabi should specify logistical aspects of each
course and reflect pedagogical rationale of each teacher. It should
1. Be consistent with the curriculum framework and current strategic goals
2. Make their personal methodological features explicit
3. Outline assessment policy, describe assessment tools, teacher - student
responsibilities
4. Specify selecting and grading criteria for instructional materials
5. List features and types of formats of instructional materials
5
6. Syllabus evaluation procedure
Workshops on syllabus design are to be conducted on the regular basis and
organized by the Curriculum Committee in order to facilitate consistent and
principled syllabus design process and maintain the feature of diversity in syllabi
design. Syllabi should be made available to students and other teachers through
web-based resources to facilitate professional exchange and critical climate in
the faculty.
Operational level of conceptualizing our program
Every language instructor will have an opportunity to follow his / her syllabus, use
his / her own or other teachers’ instructional materials, and implement his / her
methodological and pedagogical principles in accordance with strategic goals
and the Program Vision statement respectively.
Language instructors are expected to design and contribute their own materials
to the faculty database of language materials so that other instructors and
students could have access to them. The amount and qualities of such materials
can be specified through strategic goals and tasks.
Apart from personal contributions, language instructors are encouraged to use
official ELC printed materials as an alternative medium of language input and
instruction. They should also have the right to develop their own grading policy
and classroom procedure to stimulate the diversity of methodological skills,
professional exchanges, and innovations.
There should be no dominant or ‘right’ methodology to adhere to by ELC
instructors.
Diversity of methodological skills is encouraged along with
professional exchange between the instructors provided individual instructors can
validate their methods and teaching objectives with the Program Vision. The
events of professional exchange and results of cooperation are expected to
create conditions for adopting the value of continuous primary innovations in this
program.
III. Instructional materials
In view of the proposed changes at all levels of the program, this section is to
propose the two measures:


The borderlines between levels of PE course materials series ‘East Meets
West’ be replaced with ‘One-book-fits-four-years’ organizing principle.
Replace seven-unit-based organizational model of the book with that of
task-based which is to be organized by task formats. The renewed book
6
can function as a resource of language learning materials, not as a major
course book to be followed in lock-step fashion.
Instead of current topic and vocabulary-based units, there should be sections
featuring certain types and formats of comprehensive packages of tasks. Tasks
can be organized in groups by their types, formats, and learning purposes. Each
task should meet a certain number of quality criteria to be specified by MPC and
reflect corresponding fundamental values of the curriculum, i.e., time-bound
language input and real-time process. These fundamental values should be
adhered to by task designers and integrated into each task-based package. In
this way, students will need only one book for all 4 year of their studies. The latter
feature should allow for recycling of the language input that students will be
exposed to, task formats, and learning procedure. In addition, ‘One-book-fitsfour-years’ solution should stimulate autonomous language learning on the part
of students, provide opportunities for recycling the language, and sharpen
pedagogical and methodological focus of the instructional effort.
The modification of the official printed materials can be accomplished in three
phases:
1. ELC faculty should contribute their own in-house instructional materials in
any form that includes exercises, activities or tasks in accordance with
corresponding goals and the Program Vision. Contributed pedagogical
tasks should reflect teachers’ understanding of ‘good’ materials. The MPC
should manage the process of contributing new language tasks, and
categorize them by formats, types or purposes.
2. The MPC should compile a new edition of the ELC materials based on
‘one-book-fits-four-years’ as a potential replacement of the PE course
series. ELC faculty should pilot and evaluate different language tasks
included in the book and identify realistic formats in view of meeting
objectives set in their personal syllabi (tactical planning), long-term goals
set by the Curriculum Committee, and reflecting the 4 fundamental values
of quality.
3. The MPC should elicit evaluation data from the ELC faculty on the piloted
course materials and re-compile the materials in accordance with the
results. The MPC should prepare rationales for all selected and approved
task formats and types and make them available on the ELC website.
The re-compiled edition of instructional materials should be a better edited
version. In this edition, the task designers and teachers should agree more on
what should go into their classrooms and how certain tasks and formats should
be delivered to language learners. Official instructional materials should be
evaluated by the Curriculum and Materials Production committees from linguistic,
pedagogical and methodological points of view. Individual teachers whose
materials are not included into the official book of language tasks or simply new
are welcome to deposit their latest language tasks into the web-based database
7
of instructional materials. The web-based database of instructional materials will
store more tasks and allow for multimedia language input.
Methodological skills
This aspect of the program renewal effort can be continuously implemented
through various innovative group projects by language instructors and workshops.
The latter are to be directly related to the issues and problems of curriculum
renewal. It may be a good idea to create a library of video materials that
demonstrate examples of successfully delivered tasks and effective learner
behaviors.
Instructors are welcome to use their own materials or alternatively the ones from
the official Language Tasks Book. The same tasks can be completed several
times to ensure learners’ understanding of not only linguistic and non-linguistic
content, but also the process and pedagogical purposes of those tasks.
IV. Language assessment
In addition to the abovementioned benefits, ‘one-book-fits-four-year’ solution
addresses the issues of students’ motivation. It would allow for learners’ personal
contributions to the learning process and reinforce their efforts thus promoting
learner autonomy. In order to let the new edition achieve this, I propose that ELC
abandon the idea of assessing students’ achievements for the sake of promoting
them to a higher level of the currently used course series. One of the reasons for
that is that test-based language assessment creates unfavorable conditions for
both teaching and learning efforts, encourages the necessity of ‘teaching to the
test’ and generates fear of change and innovative approaches. To reduce
vulnerability of the program in all its areas as well as its stakeholders, we should
turn our attention to opportunities of evaluating our professional, methodological,
pedagogical efforts and educational products.
Development in this area of MCU / ELC language program should reflect the
turning point in the entire purpose of language assessment. Instead of assessing
students’ achievements, proficiency or general language mastery levels, we can
re-orient our focus on assessing the quality of our program. In the meantime,
ELC uses a hybrid of so-called ‘Norm / criterion-referenced’ scores reporting
model. Thus, the only purpose of the test is to yield ‘consistent’ data in order to
make an evaluative judgment concerning the promotion of each student to an
artificially-contrived absolutely groundless ‘higher’ PE level. It is unanimously
recognized that such score cannot be used for the entire language program
evaluation. Such situation fosters the attitude of the majority of the ELC
instructors ‘to teach to the test’. The fear of not ‘teaching to the test’, on the one
hand, freezes their potential to take on more innovative approaches in
8
methodological skills, syllabus and materials design, on the other hand, more
‘relaxed’ teachers have a good excuse for ignoring the process of curriculum
development. In actuality, all teachers are expected to follow ‘one PE curriculum /
syllabus’ (distinction is never made) which never existed because, for some
reason, they think that ‘the PE book IS the curriculum and syllabus all together’.
In view of all these discrepancies, ELC abandon the current Norm / Criterionreferenced model of reporting test scores that never yields valid assessment of
students’ achievement, and instead implement a new model further referred to as
Self-referenced model (SR model).
Specifically, instead of evaluating students’ achievement the SR model of
reporting test scores can be used during midterms and finals to elicit data to
evaluate the quality of the language program, e.g., materials, methodological
skills, and adherence to the goals and values of the program. For example, while
taking the SR-model-based test, each student will have to perform on a
pedagogical task. The description of the task or so-called specifications along
with sample items can be provided later as a separate document. The major
feature of the SR-model of reporting test scores is that, instead of completing
pedagogical tasks and traditionally receiving a grade for the quality of the output,
students will evaluate their ability to complete their task on numerous
impressionistic Lickert-type of scales. Thus the output of test completion is not
students’ results from a task but their evaluation of their personal abilities to
complete or perform on those tasks.
The yielded data of this nature should be instrumental in order tap students’
degree of motivation, autonomy, ability to process information, comprehend
ideas in the target language. And if our goals are truly communicative language
ability, motivation, autonomy, diversity of outcomes and methods, sensitivity, and
learners’ confidence in using English globally, then as task, syllabus, test
designers and administrators we should experiment with the SR model.
Program evaluation
Program administrators may use the alternative SR-model of reporting test
scores on each Midterms and Final to elicit data from students about their
opportunities to learn English with ELC facilities, materials, and faculty. The
success of certain syllabi, task formats, and methodological skills can be
validated with reference to the Program Vision.
References
9
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.K.
Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge Applied
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 187 – 206.
Markee, N.P.P. (1997). Managing Curriculum Innovation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2003). The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational
Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 4, p. 603.
Richards, J.C. & Rogers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14 – 30
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). (Eds). Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Language Teaching Methodology Series. Prentice Hall International. 3 – 30.
10