A.    Functional Syllabuses

McKay also indentified a identified a category of syllabuses that she called “ nation syllabuses, “ whish focus on “semantic uses.” I will call such syllabuses functional syllabuses because this label more correctly designates the principle around which such materials are typically organized: semantic uses, or meaning packets, called functional (after van EK & Alexander 1980). For instance, an English course in an adult school in Utrecht, Holland, might be designed to teach general-purpose social English, and be organized around language functional like seeking information, interrupting, greeting, changing atopic, saying good-bye, giving information, introducing someone, greeting, [people, and the lake.

Authors select functions on the basis of their perceived usefulness to the students and then sequence them on the basis of some idea of chronology, frequency, or hierarchy of usefulness of the functions. For instance, a more logical sequence for the functional listed above might be greeting people, introduction someone, seeking information, giving information, interrupting, changing topics and saying goo-bye .

A few of the heading from the table of continents of Jones and Baeyer (1983) will exemplify typical functional syllabuses:

1.      Talking about yourself, starting a conversation, making a date

2.      Asking for information question techniques, getting more information.

3.      Getting people to do things: requesting, attracting attention, agreeing and refusing.

4.      Talking about past events: remembering, describing experiences, imagining What if.

5.      Conversation techniques: hesitating, preventing interruptions and interrupting politely, bringing people together.

B.     National Syllabuses

A related class of syllabuses, not mentioned by McKay. That could best be labeled national syllabuses is organized  around abstract conceptual categories called general nation (again, after van EK & Alexander 1980). General nations include concepts like distance duration, quantity, quality, location, size, and so on, this type of materials  organization is related to functional organization and on occasion serves as a general nations based on their perceived utility, and then sequence them according to chronology, frequency, or the utility of the nations involved.

A sample of the unit headings from the table of contents of Hall & Bowyer (1980) suggests what a national syllabuses looks like:

Unit 1 Properties and Shapes

Unit 2 Location

Unit 3 Structure

Unit 4 Measurement I (of solid figures)

Unit 5 Process I Function and Ability

Unit 6 Actions in sequence.

Note that using the phrase national syllabuses in this way with the common perception that national syllabuses, functional syllabuses, and national-functional syllabuses are all the same thing. The phrases national syllabuses and functional syllabuses are being used separately here to represent toe distinct, though related, types of syllabuses: one organizes around general nations and the other organized language functions.

C.    Skills-Based Syllabuses

A number of different skills-based syllabuses have also emerged over the years. An author who uses a skills-based syllabuses organizes materials around the language or academic skills that he or she things the students will mos’ need in order to uses and continue to learn the language. For instance, a reading  course might include such skills as skimming a reading for the general idea, scanning a reading for specific information, guessing vocabulary from context, using prefixes, suffixes. And roots, finding main ideas, and the like. The selection of skills is based on the author’s perception of their usefulness, while their sequencing is usually based on some sense of the chronology, frequency, or relative usefulness of the skills.

Some of the main headings from the table of contents of Barr, Clegg, and Wailace (1983) will provide an example of a skill based syllabuses:

Scanning

Key Words

Topic Sentences

Reference Words

Connectors

……………….

D.    Task-Based Syllabuses

Recently. Task-based syllabuses have began to appear. Authors who favor   task-based syllabuses organize materials around different type of tasks that students might be required to perform in the language. Such tasks might include reading job ads, making appointment, writing a resume, filling our job application, Being interviewed, solving problem, and so on .An author’s selection of the tasks to be included in a tasks-based syllabus is typically based on their perceived usefulness to the students.

A sample of the headings from the table of contains of Jolly (1984) provides an example of a tasks-based syllabus:

1.      Writing notes and memos

2.      Writing personal letters

3.       Writing descriptions.

4.      Writing descriptions

5.      Reporting experiences

6.      Writing to companies and officials

E.     Mixed Or Layered Syllabuses

Reader need only look at the table contents of some of the language textbook on their bookshelves to verify the existence of the seven type of syllabuses. I have just discussed. But in the process of reviewing these table of contents, the may notice that some materials appear to diverge from the seven patterns described here. Such divergences will usually occur in one of two ways: sometimes two or more type of syllabuses may be mixed together into what appears to be a different type of syllabuses, and other times there may e secondary or tertiary syllabuses operating in layers underneath the primary syllabus.

Mixed syllabuses occur when authors choose to mix two or more type of syllabuses tog ether into what looks like a different type of syllabus-at least in the table of contents. Consider, for example, mixture of situational and topical  syllabuses that is drawn from my old Spanish textbook (Turk &Espinosa 1970). This syllabus was basically situational in design (for instance, en un restaurant espanol, en un botel mexicano, la casa y la familia de Maria) but also had topics mixed in on regular basis ( for example, fiestas, los deportes, explorodares  y misioneros). In the process of developing the materials, the authors clearly used situations and topics as separate organizational principles: situation were used to organize the individual lessons, and topics were used to organize the regular readings sprinkled throughout the book. The point I wish to make is that organization of some materials may involve interspersing element from two or more type of syllabuses. Such syllabuses can be best labeled with mixed descriptions like a situational-topical syllabus, or predominantly a situational syllabus mixed with a topical syllabus.

Other authors may choose to uses layered syllabuses, secondary or tertiary syllabuses in layers that operate underneath the primary syllabus. Indeed, most materials have some sort of structural syllabus buried somewhere below the primary syllabus. For instance, closer examination of the subheadings from the example of a situational syllabus I used (Brinton & Neuman 1982) will reveal that underneath the overall situational syllabus ( Introductions, Getting acquainted, At the housing office, and so  on) is a structural syllabus used to organize the materials within and between lesson. Consider the subheadings for the first chapter.

Introductions.

Nouns

Cardinal Number

The present tense of the Verb Be statement from

Subject Pronouns

Contraction whit be

Article Usage: an Introduction

Basic writings Rule, Part 1

Other syllabuses that are primarily functional. National, task-based, or skills-based may have underlying topical or situational syllabuses For instance, the subheadings from the example I used for a skills-based syllabus (Barr, Clegg, & Wallace, 1983) indicate that underneath the overall skills-based syllabus used to organize the material within the units:

Scanning

Unit One A Place of Your Own

Section 1 Leaving Home

Section 2 A roof Over Your Head

Section 3 An Englishman’s Home

Section 4 No Place like Home

Key Words

Unit Two People Who Matter

Section 1 Falling in Love

Section 2 Problem Page

Section 3 For Batter, For Worse

Part A – Marriage

Part B – Divorce

Section 4 A Death in the family

Notice the secondary topical syllabus in itself layered into there levels: broad categories of topic for Units one an two, topic for the individual sections, and subtopics as shown in Pars A and B.

The point I wish to make is that some materials may be organized into layered syllabuses, which should be labeled with more complex descriptive labels. Perhaps the Brinton an Neuman (1982) example would most accurately be referred to as a situational-structural syllabus, while the Barr, Clegg, And Wallace

(1983)example would best be labeled as predominantly a skill-based syllabus with a topical syllabuses.

There is nothing wrong the complexity that results from mixing or layering syllabuses. Certainly, the fact such syllabuses exist does not invalidate the other seven, pure forms of syllabuses I discussed. In fact, the mixing or layering of syllabuses underscores the fact that the seven type outlined here do exist, and knowing about them can help in disentangling and understanding any syllabuses that we encounter-whether thy involve simple or complex organizational patterns.

All of the syllabuses discussed here are being used in today’s language teaching, a truth demonstrated by the fact that all of the example texts (except Turk & Espinoza,1970) were published in the 1980s or 1990s. however, my list teaching is a dynamic field, and new ways of organizing our materials and teaching will undoubtedly surface in the future. In addition, the organizing principles presented here may ebb and flow in importance within the field. Perhaps tasks will eventually replace functions as the most typical way of organizing language teaching increases in significance. Regardless of how many of which kinds of syllabuses are currently in fashion, the term syllabuses will always be used in this book to refer to ways of organizing courses and materials.

F.     WAYS OF PRESENTING:TECHNIQUES

Techniques, simple put, are ways of presenting the language to students. Techniques form a category of teaching activities that seems relatively independent from approaches and syllabuses. For instance, a variety of techniques might be used to present a structural syllabus based on the direct approach  . Of course, the approach used to define learners needs and the syllabus selected for organizing the materials will affect which techniques are chosen by individual language teacher for presenting the language to the students,

Typical, technique are chosen because they represent ways of presenting language material which the teacher feels are going to do the most good for the largest number of students-that is, teacher usually want to maximize efficiency in learning. There is considerable disagreement about how to go about maximizing this complex process, which explains why a number of different technique have surfaced over the years.

Table 1.5 offers a list of some of the techniques that are found in Rivers and Temperley (1981) these techniques are only meant to serve as examples. There are many other ways to go about presenting language to students, perhaps a teacher will choose to use jazz chants(Graham 1978) to begin each, then shift to lecturing about language, then shift to lecturing, do a dictocomp for listening and writing flu envy, and carry on with project involving, drama, jazz chants, lecturing

Table 1.5 technique

Technique: ways of presenting

Bridging activates idea frame Discussion Idea freme Object –centre lessons

Directed dialogue Grammar demonstration Lecture on rule of Oleh raga Verb-centered Selong.

Dictocomp, and drama are all ways of presenting language. Many more teaching activities exist that could technique, all of which are ways of presenting language material to the students.

WAYS OF PRACTICING THE LANGUAGE EXECISE

The line between techniques and exercise, that is, between ways of presenting and ways of practicing language, is sometimes a fine one, in good teaching, presentation and practice may be indistinguishable, at last of the students involved, as the teacher presents the language to them and the students play with it or practice it, and hopefully learn or acquire something new in the process, nevertheless, we are in the language teaching business and can therefore profit from thinking about classroom activities in terms of these two distinct categories in order to batter match the ways that we present language with the ways we have our students practice it.

Perhaps the best way to separate the two types of activities is to think of exercise as those types of activities that could probably be used to test or assess the students after the lesson or units is    finished. While technique would probably not be usable in assessment. However there will be times when exercises will be used in presenting and in practicing language as with a cloze procedure used to demonstrate predictability as a reading strategy and then used to practice that strategy. The fact that techniques and exercises are no 100 percent discrete categories does not lessen the value of looking at them as two different types of activities.

     The different ways of practicing language are even more numerous and diverse than the ways of presenting it. Table 1.6   list some types of exercises discussed in rivers and Temperley  (1981). Such exercise might actually well include other activities like dictations, pair work, group work, problem solving, doing task, and the like.

Table 1.6 Exercises

EXERCISES: WAYS OF PRACTICING WHAT HAS BEEN TOUGHT

Autonomous interaction	Chain dialogue
Cloze procedure	Conversion
Copying	Expansion
Fill-in	Matching
Multiple-choice	Patten drill
Proofreading	Replacement
Response drill	Restatement
Rosetta procedure	Sentence combining
Sentence modification	Speed writing
Substitution drill	Transformation drill
Translation	Thrue-false

“PACKAGED” PEDAGOGIES

A group of teaching activities that are sometimes labeled “innovative approaches” does not fit neatly into any of my four categories. I will refer to these activities as “packaged pedagogies”   as table 4.7 shows, packaged pedagogies include counseling-learning, the Dartmouth pedagogy the natural way, the silent way, suggestopedia, and total physical response. The label “packaged pedagogy” will be used here instead of “innovative approaches” for four reasons. First, since the term “approach” is being used in this book in a restricted way, using the phrase “innovative approaches”  would create confusion. Second, most of these techniques could no longer be considered truly innovative since they have all been around for some time. Third, they are “packaged” in that, in most cases, we can contact enthusiasts of each an buy packaged materials that follow the particular pedagogy in question. Fourth, each pedagogy is complete in a sense, including its own approach and some form syllabus, as well as its own types of techniques and exercises.

Table 1.7 Packaged Pedagogies

PACKAGED PEDAGOGIES	AUTHOR
Counseling-learning	Curran
Dartmouth Pedagogy	Rassias
Natural Way	Krashen
Silent Way	Gattegno
Suggestopedia	Lozanoy
Total Physical response	Asher

Despite their packaged nature, however, packaged pedagogies are often most closely associated in our minds with the idea of techniques, as defined above. This  is so because the central focus of each pedagogy is on ways of presenting language material to students in order to maximize learning. Thought wrapped up in elaborate rationales, and thought sometimes backed up by research, the central argument in all cases is that presenting language “in such and such a way” will have the students to learn more effectively, easily, or enjoy ably. Counseling-learning (Curran 1972, 1976) requires the students to be comfortably seated in group, while the teacher remains outside of group as a facilitator-helping with language only when requested to do so. Suggestopedia  (Lozanov 1978) use breathing and   relaxation exercise and slow baroque music in presenting language. Total physical response (Asher 1983) use a command based approach for presenting language to students. The silent way (Gettegno 1972), the natural way (Krashen &    Terrell 1983), and the Dartmouth pedagogy (Rassias 1986, 1972) likewise require special equipment, seating, or types of input in the presentations of language of students. My aim is not to provide an in –depth review of these package pedagogies, such review exist elsewhere  (Blair 1982;Oller & Richard-Amato 1983; Larsen-Freeman 1986). Rether, my aim is to indicate how these package pedagogies are essentially perceived by member of the language teaching profession as technique, or ways of presenting language to students.

However, package pedagogies differ from the other techniques discussed above in a number of ways: (1) packaged pedagogies are available as elaborate package including built-in approaches, syllabus, technique and exercise. (2). Packaged pedagogies are usually identified with a single personality (Counseling-learning with Curran, The Darmoth pedagogies with Rassias, the natural way with Krashen, the silent way with Gantegno, suggestopedia with Lazanov, and total physic response with Asher); and, (3) packaged pedagogies generally have a central point for distributions of the package in the form of information and materials.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Ultimately, if we accept the notion that approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercise are all happening simultaneously in any given language program and that such activities all interact with each other and affect  one another, we must always remain flexible and leave options open. This kind of informed picking and choosing from among the options available to the teacher has sometimes been labeled eclecticism, which will be fairly narrowly defined here as the practice of (or belief in)    making informed choice among the available approaches, syllabus, techniques, and exercises in order to adapt to a particular group of student in a particular situation for the purpose of most effectively and efficiently helping them to learn language. Because in some circles eclecticism has a bad name (that is, it has, become a label for disorganized teaching composed of an irrational hodgepodge of activities), I wish to emphasize my belief that true eclecticism involves informed and rational choices of approach, syllabus, techniques, and exercise together at a given time almost inevitably makes the teacher eclectic. In some cases, of course, that teacher may abdicate responsibility by accepting a packaged pedagogy or by simply letting the textbook make all the choices.

Another aspect of language teaching that we must recognizes is that making such choices from the extensive menu of all possible teaching activities is a form of political action. Our power and prestige as teacher is brought to bear on students, sometime regardless of their views, to help them learn. If our way defining what student need to learn is communicative, we will probably (though not necessarily) use the functional way of organizing our course and materials. The techniques that we choose may include a variety from those available or may uses only a fie ( for example, a lecture , a video presentation, and a pair work demonstration). In addition, the means that we choose for having the student practices, the language may include    much different type of exercise, or we many prefer to use just problem solving and pair work. The point is that we make decision about all of the activities that go on in language teaching: approaches to defining the needs of the students, syllabuses for organizing the course and materials, techniques for presenting the language to the students, and exercise to help the student’s practices the language.

These decisions are necessarily political because they involve the use of your positions as teachers to make the students do what we think they should do. Yet our task is a very complex one: we must fit all of these different type of activities (approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises) into a framework that will maximize the sufficiency and quality of learning among students who may differ from one another to a staggering degree, both cognitively and affectively (see Brown 1988 for a discussing of how students may vary from each other). Perhaps the very complexity of these tasks is justification enoughfor considering language teaching a professional, one that deserves considerable respect.   

The remainder of this book will be dedicated to providing a framework for curriculum activities that will be more or less independent of the four language teaching activities described above. In other words, the framework provided here can be used to focus curriculums activities regardless of the choices made about approaches, syllabus, techniques, and exercise. From my point of view, these four categories are entirely the responsibility of the language teaching professionals in charge of given program. After all, the teacher and administrators in a particular program are much more likely that anyone else to understand   the specific student’s and situation involved. The framework, as the reader will see, can help teacher and administrators make choices and implement those choice in a viable and flexible curriculum that will assist teachers in doing what they do best teaching.

Given the political nature of what individual teachers do, consider how much more political curriculum development must be since almost inevitably more than one teacher is involved. The view that I wish to promote is that curriculum development is a series of activities that contribute to the growth of consensus among the staff, faculty, administrations and students. This series of curriculum activities will provide a framework that helps teacher to accomplish whatever combination of teaching activities is most suitable in their professional judgment for a given situation, that is, a framework that help the student’s to learn as efficiently and effectively as possible in the given situation. In a sense, the curriculum design process could be viewed as being made up of the people and the paper-moving operation that make the doing of teaching and learning possible.

Historically, models of language curriculum design have undergone considerable evolutions, an evolution reflected in the models of flow chart proposed by various author to represent different curriculum design processes over the last 30 years. While discussion of these models is beyond the scope of this book, the influence of certain author must be acknowledge because of their impact on the model I am proposing here. Readers interested in the development of curriculum design models would profit by referring to the models and associated text in the following: Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens (1964, p. 222), Corder (1973, p.155), Howatt (1974, p.5), Perry (1976, p.80), Stevent (1977, p. 35), Munby (1978, p. 28), Candlin, Kirkwood, and Moore (1978, p. 191), Mackay (1981, p.137), and Ricards and Rodgers (1982, p.165).

The models shown in figured 1.2 (adapted from brown1989a) not only draws on the language teaching literature listed above but also firs the more general models use to describe long established system approaches to curriculum design. This model is mean to be applicable to language programs, yet complete and consistent whit the widely accepted system approach use in the educational technology and curriculum design circles, particularly that of dick and Carey (1985). As shall become evident, the model provides both a set of stages for logical program development and component for the improvement and maintenance of an already existing language program. The model is also mean to provide for continuing process of curriculum development and maintenance while accounting for possible interaction among the various components of the design.

The models, the explanation of the model, and the examples I give here should help in developing consensus among teacher about the essential elements of curriculum and how those components interact in particular teaching situations. To that end, let’s next turn to a brief explanation of each of the components of the model so that the relationships among them will be clear. Note, however, that these components also from the titles for the next six chapters of the book. Consequently, only brief overviews are presented here, that is, only those issues are included that maintenance of a sound language curriculum.                  

                      

 Figure 1.2 : systematic Approach to designing and Maintaining Language Curriculum (adapted from Brown 1989a)

NEEDS ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVES

TESTING

E V A L U A T I O N

MATERIALS

                                                                                                              

TEACHING

 

·         NEEDS ANALYSIS

Needs analysis in language programs is often viewed simply as identification of. the language forms that the students will likely need to use in the target language; when they are required to actually understand and produce the language. The analytical focus is or the learners, and their needs are viewed in linguistic terms, In truth, it is logical to make the learners the focus of any sound needs analysis,, Learners are, in a sense, clients and their needs should be served. But at the same time, teachers, administrators, employers, institutions, societies, and even whole nations have needs that easy also have a bearing on the language teaching and learning situation. The view I take in this boob is that the learner should be, the focus of a needs analysis but, as I shall argue in Chapter Two on needs analysis, many other sources and type’s of information must be considered in doing a sound assessment of their needs.

The same principle applies to the language focus af many need analysis. Students have needs and concern other than linguistic ones. This the learners human needs must so be acknowledges alongside of needs anylisis should be broadened to include this wider view of needs. Needs analysis of all relevant information necessary to satisfy the language learning requirements of all relevant information necessary to satisfy the language learning requirements of the students within the context of the particular institutions involved in the learning situation.

·         GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

A logical outcome of determining the needs of a group of language: students is the specification of goals, that is, general  stattements about, what must be accomplished in order to attain and satisfy student’s needs. If, for instance, a group of Japanese student’s were doing English as a foreign Language training in order to prepare for study at American universities, one goal might be to prepare them to be able to write term papers.Producing such papers is one language-related task that students might need once they start their studies in the United States, and this task can be expressed as a goal. Objectives, on the other hand, are precise statements about what content or skills the students must master in order to attain a particular goal. For instance to write a terra paper, the students might first need to develop several essential library skills. One such skill would be the ability to find a book in the library. To do this, the student would need several subskills; finding a particular hook in the card catalog, locating the call number for that book, and finding the book by locating its call number in the stacks. The specification of objectives and the process of thinking through what is involved in achieving the program goals will lead to analyzing, synthesizing, and clarifying the knowledge and skill necessary to meet the students’ language needs. Since the difference between goals and objectives clearly hinges on  level of specificity, the dividing line between the two is not always clear. Nonetheless, the distinction will prove useful in planning and maintaining language programs. Ire fact, any discussion in a program about how to n.cet and satisfy students' language needs ca n only be as clear and precise as the objectives that result. Objectives come in many forms and may differ in degree of specificity even within a given prognun primarily because they eau serve different student needs that themselves vary in level of specificity.

·         LANGUAGE TESTING

The next logical step in curriculum development is the development of tests based on a program's goals and objectives. This is net necessarily a simple step. The goals and objectives of a program may require extensive test development for widely different purposes within a program, for example, placement of students, language proficiency testing, diagnostic testing, and achievment testing-all of which can be very complex to develop. The strategy explained in Chapter Four testing, however, simplifies these processes considerably. The method  I advocate here for test development requires the use of two different types, of tests: norm-refgerenced tests intended to compare the relative performance or students to each other; and criterion-referenced tests intended to measure the amount of course material that each students has learned. These two type of tests can then be used to serve different purposes wthin  the program. Development of such tests can amount to a considerable amount of work.

However, investing resources, time, and energy for the development of a sound testing program is necessary and worthwhile in the long run. For curriculum planning, the dividends are enormous in terms of what we can learn about the previous two steps in the curriculum development  process that is, need analysis and goals/objectives). By learning as much a possible about needs and often expensive, materials development stage that follows.

As I will argue in Chapter Four on testing, the processes of developing and refining tests is by no means magical nor is it particularly  easy. Nonetheless, sound tests can be used to unify a curriculum and give it a sense of cohesion, purpose, and control. Tests can be used to drive  a program by shaping the expectation of the students and their teachers. In short, tests are a very crucial element in the curriculum development process.

·         MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

With at least preliminary sets of needs analyses, objectives, and tests in hand, curriculum planners are in the unusual position of being able to deal rationally with the problem of materials. It is relatively easy to adopt, develop, or adapt materials for a program that is well defined in terms of needs analyses, objectives, and tests. In fact, the decision as to which strategy to use (adopt, develop, or adapt) in putting material in place is itself made easier. Can already existing I materials be adopted to fill the needs of the students? Or, if there are no ready-made materials available, should they be created from scratch? Or should existing materials be adapted to meet the students' needs and the program's objectives? And if adaptation must take place, will the process be minor in scale or a major undertaking? Having clear-cut needs analyses, objectives, and tests will be considerable help to planners in the materials or materials development process.

I will not prescrible a particular type of materials or materials based on a particular philosophy of teaching  or theory  of language (although my personal blases may show through). In other words, I believe that decision regarding the approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises should always be left up to the individuals who are on site and know the situation best. What I will advocate is a strategy in which student’s needs, objectives, tests, teaching, and program evaluation will all be related to each other and to and to the materials. As a consequence of these relationships, materials choices and use will be affected by what have an effect of their own on those other components. The main point I wish to  make is that materials can be handled rationally-whether adopted, developed, or adapted perhaps for the first time in some language programs.

·         LANGUAGE TEACHING

Contrary to what might at first seem to be true, the system I advocate for curriculum development allows teachers more freedom than usual in the classroom to teach as they feel appropriate. Of course, the teachers and students should be aware  of what to objectives for a given course are and how the testing will be conducted at the end of the course. To those end, teachers need support and also need to be intimately involved in the process of curriculum development and revision. Drawing on the strength found in numbers, each teacher can be helped by the fact that other teachers, administrators,  and students are drawen into defining students’ need and course objectives. This process has traditionally fallen slolely on the teacher’s shoulders. Teachers have also been responsible for selecting or developing course tests and materials.

In this book, all curriculum processes are described as group efforts. The primary reason for this emphasis is that most teachers, as individuals, are in no position to do such tasks wall, because they lack the time and the expertise to do an adeguate job. Hence, objectives, tests, and materials development should all be group efforts drawing on the expertise, time, and energy available  from everyone involved in the program. This kind of support can help teachers do a superior job at what they are hired for: teaching.

Given a reasonably high level of program support, the teacher can be left alone to concentrate on the most effective means for teaching the courses at hand. The teacher and only the teacher should make judgements about the particular students in a given class. These judgement can be very important as the teacher deals with the myriad cognitive, affective, and personal variables that will be interacting for the particular students at particular time to form the unique characteristics of a given class. By sorting through all of this complexity, whether  consiscusly or not, and modifying the approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises, the treacher can adapt and maximize the learning of the class as a whole, as well as the the learning of most of its individual members. These are such demanding tasks that teachers should not be expected to do their own needs anlyses, set objectives, create tests, and adopt, develop, or adapt materials. Teachers must be supported in their jobs to whatever degree that is possible.

The system of curriculum development and maintenance advocated in this book will provide such support.

·         PROGRAM EVALUATION

Evaluation might be defined as the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement elf the curriculum and to assess its effectiveness within the context of the particular inslitutions involved. Such a definition would be very similar to that given above for needs analysis. Indeed, the evaluation process should be a sort of ongoing needs assessment, but one based on considerably more and better information, A needs analysis is typically conducted in the initial stages of curriculum development and must rely on interview procedures, questionnaires, lingulstic'analyses, conjecture, and a good deal of professional judgment. Evaluation, on the other hand, can take advantage of all the above information and tools to assess the effectiveness of a program, but can also utilize all the information gathered in the processes of (1) developing objectives; (2) writing; and using the tests; (3) adopting, developing, or adapting materials; and (4) teaching.

Program evaluation, then, might be defined as the  ongoing process of information gathering, analysis, and synthesis, the entire purpose of which is to constantly improve each element of a curriculum on the basis of what is known about all of the other elements, separately as well as collectively. Such a continuing process of evaluation makes possible the assessment of the quality of a curriculum once it is put in place as well as the maintenance of that curriculum'on, an ongoing basis. Curriculum that is viewed as a product is inflexible once finished. Curriculum that is viewed as a process can change and adapt to new conditions, whether those conditions be new types of students, changes in language theory, new political exigencies within the institution, or something else, This process is known as systematic curriculum development.

·         EXAMPLE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

Near the end of each chapter in this book, I will offer examples to illustrate the concepts discussed in the chapter. These examples will be drawn from two organizations: the Guangzhou English Language Center at Zhongshan University and the English LanguaSe Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. These two programs were selected because they both have systematically designed curriculum; because I have intimate knowledge  of both them; and because they represent two distinct types of institutions. One is an English as a foreign language institution and other is in English a second language setting. These two programs will be briefly described here in order to provide back ground for the discussions presented in later chapter. 

·         GUANGZHOU ENGLISH LANGUAGE CENTER,  ZONGSHAN UNIVERSITY

The Guangzhou English Language Center (GELC) was located on the campus of Zhongsan University, known in China as Zhongsan Daxue, or simply Zhongda. Zhongda is in the city of Guangzhou in guandong Provice in the southern part of the city of Guangzhou Province in southern part of the People’s Republic og China (PRC). GELC was established in 1980 as a cooperative project between the UCLA/China Exchange Program, Zhongda, and the PRC Ministry of Education. GELC was set up as an independent unit separate from the Foreign Language Departement at Zhongda though there was considerable cooperation between the two institutions. GELC was initially staffed by nine Americans hired and sent by UCLA to work with seven Chinese faculty members selected from the foreign department. GELC wa set up as five-year puul-out program: two Chinese teachers would attend UCLA each year to pursue further graduate-level training in ESL, and would then return to Zhongda ti replace two of the Amireican teachers. The goal wa to end up with an all-Chinese faculty after five years (with one Amirican remaining to serve as a resident native speaker informant and EFL consultant).

During the two years that I was at GELC, 1980 to 1982, the primary function of GELC was to provide English language instruction to Chinese scientists who were bound for the United States or other English-speaking countries, either as visiting scholars or as graduate students. The emphasis in the program was on the use of English for science and technology in academic settings. The approach was generally communicative and the syllabuses were generally organized around the functions and skills that: students mould need to effectively use English in their studies, The techniques and exercises used to achieve these goals ware worked out by the teachers, individually and in groups. GELC offered courses in five skill areas: listening, speaking, reading, wriring, and culture. These courses were: conducted at three levels (cleverly labeled A, B, and C) which we considered low intermediate, intermediate, and advanced (see Figure 1.3). Notice that there was no component labeled grammar. While grammar was included as needed within each of the skill courses, this lack of a course called grammar was a direct expression of our vie-,v of the communicative approach.

Initially, only students with scores on the Test of Englisla as a foreign Language (TOEFL) above 450 were accepted into, GELC; one of our goal was ensure that: GELC would bring their overall proficiency levels level up to 550 or higher on the TOEFL  so that the students could satisfy North American university English requirement. In Figure 1.3, the TOEFL score range is shown to the left of the course. Notice that the TOEFL range extends down as lour as 400 because, as the program progressed, the overall proficiency of the incoming students dropped to about: 400 (with a few arriving at a much lower level). The declining proficiency levels were a reality with which we had to deal.

TOEFL                                                             SKILL AREA

550             LISTENING       SPEAKING        READING       WRITING           CULTURE

LEVEL C

LEVEL C

LEVEL C

LEVEL C

LEVEL C

.

.

LEVEL B

LEVEL B

LEVEL B

LEVEL B

LEVEL B

.

.

.

LEVEL A

LEVEL A

LEVEL A

LEVEL A

LEVEL A

.

.

400

lnitiallv, we attempted to place students at various levels in the program, but, because the Coll irnttnicativc skills amt strategics that we taught were so new to the students, we soon found ourselves placing all new students into the A Level and requiring theta all to progress through the three levels of the program.

Assigtmnent to GELC courses was mandatory. Each of the five courses required 50 minutes per day (with 10 minute breaks), five days per week. A min imum of one hour per day of language laboratory was expected of each student: and liberal amounts of homework were assigned. Each term lasted 10 Weeks (300 hours of instruction including the language laboratory time), and il took three terms to complete Levels A, B, and C (for a total of 900 hours of instruction). In general, the courses were taken very seriously by the students; froth the Western perspective, these students were an unbelievably dedicated, hardworking, and talented group of individuals.

·         ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

The English Language Institute (ELI) is a subunit of the Departement of English as a Second Language and is located on the 300-acre Campus of the University of Hawaii in the Manoa Valley, a residential section near the state capital and Waikiki, on the island of Oahu. The University of ILawaii at Manoa (UHM) is a public educational institution (founded in 107) and currently has an enrollment of more than 20,000 students. The ELI was established more than 35 years ago. In recent years, 350 to 4,00 students from more than 50 countries have accounted for over 800 ELI course enrollments yearly.

The primary function of the ELI is to provide English language instruction to those nonnative speakers of English who have been officially admitted to UHM and who are judged to be in need of further training in the English used in academic: settings. In this program too the emphasis is on communicative language use organized around the tasks, functions, and skills that students will need to perform effectively in academic settings. The techniques and exercises that will most effectively accomplish these goals are worked out among the teachers. As Figure 1,4 demonstrates,  the offers courses at different levels in listening comprehension, reading, the and writing;. These courses are taught by graduate assistants, lecturers, and faculty members of the Department of English as a Second Language.

The ELI courses arc designed for undergraduate and gradaute students who are fully adtnitted to UHM. Since UHM has a minimum entrance score on the TOEFL of 500, 500 is typically the lowest score encountered in the ELI. In the case of certain students (for example, graduate students who lave TOEFL scores higher than 600), the ELI exempts them from further English language training. All other students, however, are tested by the ELI for English placement. After the test results have been analyzed, the students are either exempted from instruction in the ELI or are assigned to one or more of the courses offered. Assignment to ELI courses is mandatory.

Figure 1.4: ELI Course Structure

TOEFL              RECEPTIVE SKILL                                PRODUCTIVE SKILLS

LISTENING       READING                   SPEAKING             WRITING

ELI 100

ELI 83

ELI 81

600

ELI 82

ELI 80

.

.

.

.                                                                                                          GRADS.        UNDER-

.                                                                                                                                 GRADS

ELI 73

ELI 72

ELI 70

.

.

.

.

500

ELI 71

All ELI courses and ESL 100 follow the University of Hawaii's regular 15-week-semester schedule. A course, which equals three credits, meets three times a week for 50 minutes each class.

Briefly, the courses in the ELI areas follows:

ELI 70 Listening Comprehension I

ELI 80 Listening Comprehension II

ELI 17 2 Reading for Foreign Students

ELI 82 Advanced Reading Foreign Students

ELI 81 Advanced Speaking for International Teaching Assistants

ELI 71, Fundamentals of Writing for Foreign Students

ELI 73 Writing for.Foreign Students

ELI 83 Writing for.fvoreign Graduate Students

ESL 100  Expository Writing

All ELI courses, with the exception of ESL, l00 (Which satisfies the freshman composition requirement for nonnative speakers of English), are creditequivalent courses, which means that they satisfy financial aid and visa enrollment requirements, but do not count fur l;raulta,ttion, hot more information on this program, see the other chapters in this book or contact the English Language Institute, University of Hawaii at Manna, 1.890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI, 96822.

·         SUMMARY

The various teaching activities described at the beginning of this chapter (approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises) were depicted as being the responsibility of the language teachers and administrators involved. However, regardless of the choices made about approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises, the systems framework for curriculum development was shown to be useful in making._choices and implementing a cogent curriculum. Thus the teaching and curriculum activities were viewed as related, but fundamentally independent. Figure 1.5 shows the relationships among teaching and curriculum activities.

The teaching activities included in Figure 1.5 arc shown as more or less discrete categories, indicated by the lack of arrows between boxes, whereas clear interrelations are shown among the curriculum activities, indicated by bidirectional arrows. In fact, the arrows are meant to show that each component affects al_1 others. In addition, the reader should recognize that all teaching activities

Figure 1.5; Inteface of Teaching and Curriculum Activities

TEACHING ACTTVITIES                                             CURRICULUM ACTIVITIES

APPROACHES

TECHNIQUES

NEED ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVES

TESTING

MATERIALS

TEACHING

E V A L U A T I O N

EXERCISES

SYLLABUSES

and curriculum activities are also likely to interact in real language programs even if I fail to supply arrows in Figure 1.5.

The chapter ended with brief descriptions of the Guangzhou English T ,nguage Institute at Zhongsh.an University and the English Language Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manna. These descriptions serve as background icr examples that will be used in the: remaining chapter.

·         CHECKLIST

The following checklist is designed to help you decide what types of approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises arc Favored in a particular language teaching situation.