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
What procedures can be used to determine the content of a language program?
My Answers from a Curriculum Stance -
-
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
-
-
What are learners’ needs?
-
-
How can learners’ needs be determined?
-
-
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. 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. 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.
-
-
-
What contextual factors need to be considered in planning a language program?
-
-
-
What is the nature of aims and objectives in teaching and how can these be developed?
-
It is perfectly understandable to consider that employers are not accurately using CEF standards to measure learners’ language level of performance. 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. 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
-
What factors are involved in planning the syllabus and the units of organization in a course? -
-
-
How can good teaching be provided in a program?
What issues are involved in selecting,
-
-
from the working reality, language trainees will eventually face at work. 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. 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. Once a common core of subjects, thematic units, and the like has been identified, the curricular developers
adapting, and designing instructional materials?
-
-
-
How can one measure the effectiveness of a language program?
-
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. 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.