CHAPTER 6: CURRICULUM DESIGN

6.1 Introduction
Stage 4 of the extended version of Skilbeck's (1984) curriculum model (appendix B-4) is to establish the methods, asking: "How do we achieve the goal?". This chapter therefore investigates the design and construction phase of the programme, under the headings of curriculum (section 6.2), syllabus (section 6.3), assessment (section 6.4, page 203), and teacher development (section 6.5), showing how instructional[1] infrastructures were derived from the literature reviews (chapter 3) and from the guiding principles and goals (chapter 4), with reference to the preliminary learning needs profile (section 5.3.2). A section on complexity theory (section 6.6) reflects the growing relevance of this branch of contemporary science on education, and on EFL curriculum design.

6.2 The curriculum
The term "curriculum" in this study is seen to include "the entire teaching/learning process, including materials, equipment, examinations, and the training of teachers" (section 3.4.1.2), and other headings in this chapter (syllabus, assessment, teacher development) are therefore subsumed by this definition. This particular section (6.2) concentrates on realisation of the guiding principles (section 3.5; chapter 4) to provide a setting from which other infrastructures (syllabus, assessment, teacher development) might be derived. As was the case with needs analysis (chapter 5) it was necessary to carry out further review of the literature (cf. subsections of 6.2, below) in order to ensure that this realisation was founded in theory and research.

6.2.1 Preliminary questions
In designing a curriculum for the programme under consideration, it was necessary to acknowledge that just as there is no "teacher-proof" methodology (Parlett & Hamilton 1975:153), there is no "participant-proof" curriculum, and that whatever design was adapted, it would depend for its effectiveness on teachers' and learners' perceptions, interpretations, beliefs and expectations (cf. Allwright 1984b; Breen 1987a; Cotterall 1995b:195):

No teaching/learning method however innovative or systematic can succeed without a proper consideration of the two main participants, the student and the teacher. (Hills 1976:28)

... every learner will bring a different set of knowledge and experiences to the learning process, and will "construct" in different ways, their own sense of the situation with which they are faced. (Williams & Burden 1997:96)

It was therefore necessary to involve teachers and students in the process of curriculum design and to allow for individual differences in learners (Breen & Candlin 1980:94), and for changes in self-perceptions of these differences as the courses progressed. In the light of these considerations, important questions about curriculum content had to be addressed:

1. How do the learners perceive themselves as language learners?
2. What effect do their "personal constructs" have upon the process of learning a new language?
3. How do individuals go about making sense of their learning?
4. How can teachers assist learners in making sense of their learning in ways that are personal to them? (Williams & Burden1997:96)

These in turn led to other questions about "person-centred" EFL curriculum design, as posed by Legutke & Thomas (1991):

• Question 1: Is it possible and feasible to turn L2 classrooms into whole-person events, where body and soul, intellect and feeling, head, hand and heart converge in action?
• Question 2: Can L2 learning be a satisfying activity in itself, in the here and now of the classroom? What do we need to do to exploit the psycho-social reality of the L2 classroom and its immediate significance for both teacher and learner? What adventures and challenges are possible under the very conditions of L2 learning?
• Question 3: What needs to be done to regain [children's] creative potential in the L2 classroom? Can we assume a similar potential for adult learners? Do we have to consider individual and cultural differences?
• Question 4: What needs to be done to create situations and scenarios where communication in the target language could be more meaningful? What are the roles of teacher, learners, topic and input in such scenarios? Could even inter- and intra-student discourse be carried out in the target language?
• Question 5: What needs to be done to develop in learners a capacity for critique? How can they become co-managers of their learning and participate in their own teaching? What are the limitations of learner autonomy and self-direction with different groups in different settings? How do we create the learning space so that learners can take initiatives to pursue their own learning for their own benefit, and to discover their own learning styles?"
• Question 6: Can cultural awareness be taught? What forms of teaching and learning would be most suitable for such an endeavour? (Adapted from Legutke & Thomas 1991:7-10)

The problem for the curriculum designer was how to answer these questions with a curriculum which would serve the affective needs and preferences of students and teachers, which would provide ample learning content, which would be amenable to co-operative negotiation, and which would encourage development of the whole person. Williams & Burden (1997), describing a "constructivist" perspective, outline a number of relevant criteria:

1. We must start from a theory of learning that is robust and to which as researchers and teachers we subscribe.
2. Such a theory should enable us to focus upon the uniqueness of individuals as well as helping us to see what they have in common.
3. It should also be a theory of how people change rather than how they stay the same.
4. This should give rise to implications for action and intervention.
5. It should also enable us to support individuals in taking personal control of their own learning.
6. In doing so it must be connected to individuals' views of themselves as learners. (Adapted from Williams & Burden 1997:95)

6.2.2 A model
These criteria (above) were addressed in this study by adapting a model of Van Lier (1996) (cf. figures B19/20, below) for whom the language curriculum is "a process of assisting learning" (1996:4), with basic educational ideals and beliefs as "the central determining factors" (1996:188). His own "AAA" version of this model is based on three fundamental principles (awareness, autonomy, and authenticity), which "allow language education to unfold in a regulated yet creative manner, within a framework of individual and social constraints and resources" (Van Lier 1996:4), and which represent "a unity of epistemological and axiological beliefs ... a fair consensus of our current intellectual knowledge and moral aspirations as language educators" (Van Lier 1996:4). This model adopts the developmental psychology of Vygotsky (1978; 1986), in which learning occurs most effectively in the individual's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)[2] and is driven by social interaction with more capable peers or adults, equal peers, or less capable peers[3] (cf. figure B-18). Thus students can benefit from working with peers of similar levels, as well as with the teacher. This concept is similar to Bruner's (1966b) process of scaffolding, Piaget's (1976) "grasp of consciousness", work on intrinsic motivation by Deci et al. (1985), on achievement motivation by Heckhausen (1977), and on autotelic learning as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). 

Assistance from more Capable peers or adults		Interaction with  equal peers
Self-regulation
Inner resources: knowledge, Experience, memory, strength		Interaction with less capable peers

FIGURE B-18: MULTIPLE ZONES OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (VAN LIER 1996:194).

Figure B19, below) shows how pedagogic and "human values"  (an emphasis on interaction, understanding the learners, knowledge of the learning process, and the values and purposes of the stakeholders), can be built into a curriculum which proceeds from principles (awareness, autonomy, authenticity) to strategies (contingent interaction, scaffolding, critical thinking, learner training), and from strategies to pedagogical action (tasks, field work, portfolios, conversation, negotiation, stories, genre variation, team work) (Van Lier 1996:189), allowing for a consistent and methodical way of describing teaching, focusing on the learning process (or even the learning "moment") rather than the product (however this is defined) (Van Lier:1996:5).

FIGURE B-19: CURRICULUM DESIGN (VAN LIER 1996:189).

Gardner & MacIntyre's (1992:211) socio-educational model of second language acquisition (Gardner 1985) (figure B-20, below), also provides a framework for addressing the learning situation, notable for its inclusion of cultural beliefs, affective/cognitive factors, individual differences, and the socio-cultural milieu. This model, based on the socio-psychological model of Lambert (1974), Carroll's educational model of school learning (Carroll 1963), and those of Bloom (1976), Bruner (1966) and Glaser (1976), identifies at least 10 major attributes that influence how well a learner will learn a second language, grouped into three categories:

1. Cognitive variables: intelligence, language aptitude, learning strategies, previous language training & experience.
2. Affective variables: attitudes, motivation, language anxiety, self-confidence, personality, learning styles.
3. Various factors: age, socio-cultural experiences, etc.

Continue reading Chapter 6: