IN. PORTUGUESE HIGHER EDUCATION. INSTITUTIONS. Kerwin A. Livingstone. Estudante de Doutoramento em Ciências da. Linguagem/Didática de Línguas.
INVESTIGATING FOREIGN LANGUAGE CURRICULUM PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
IN PORTUGUESE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Kerwin A. Livingstone Estudante de Doutoramento em Ciências da Linguagem/Didática de Línguas Orientador Prof. Dr. Rogelio Ponce de León Romeo Co-Orientador Prof. Dr. Nicolas Robert Hurst 20 de Julho de 2015.
INTRODUCTION Foreign language learning and teaching (FLLT) is a world-wide phenomenon.
Students dedicate time to learning a new language. Teachers devote time to curriculum planning, design and development. Curriculum is an outline of a didactic process. “Most simply put, it is a guide for learning” (Prevedel 2003, p. 8). Curriculum comes from the Latin word “currere” meaning race course: the process of movement to achieve aims and objectives. An instructional programme which reflects an institution’s educational aims.
Since the 1960’s, the FLLT process has undergone changes with the emergence of different kinds of approaches and methods, due to language learning and teaching (LLT) not effectively addressing learners’ linguistic and communicative competence (Richards, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Willis & Willis, 2007; Livingstone, 2014a).
FLLT has experienced, in recent times, a number of influences and directions (Richards, 2013). Influence of the Bologna Process (B.P.) of 1999. Intensified calls for reforms in all higher education (HE) curricula (Tudor, 2005). Reforms in HE language teaching to address (1) language and academic mobility, (2) language and employability, (3) lifelong language learning, and (4) HE language policy. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) launched in 2001 (Council of Europe, 2001). Effective curriculum design = Effective language pedagogy “The visibility gained by Language Didactics in Portugal has justified its constitution as a disciplinary field institutionalised within higher education” (Alarcão 2010, p. 61). FL curriculum development must meet the needs of 21st century communities.
Aim Investigate curriculum planning, design and development for English and Spanish as foreign languages (FL) in Portuguese HEIs.
Research Questions What kind(s) of curriculum planning, design and development practices are used? Does course curriculum design incorporate the four mandatory areas (Objectives, Content, Method and Evaluation)? Are these clearly and sufficiently expressed? Are objectives and content relevant and properly defined? What kind(s) of methods and evaluation practices are employed? To what extent do Portuguese HE foreign language curricula adhere to the principles established in the CEFR? Are Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) considered in the curriculum development process? To what extent can a ‘national’ HE foreign language curriculum be identified?
Objectives Investigate curriculum development practices.
planning,
design
and
Study the components of the curriculum documents. Examine the kinds of objectives and content used. Analyse the kinds of methods and evaluation practices employed. Recommend the integration of newer and current curriculum approaches and the use of ICTs in the FLLT process. Propose the restructuring of course curriculum documents on the basis of the research findings.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTUALISATION Political and socio-economic changes in Portugal in the 1970’s. With the April 25, 1974 Revolution (Boal, 1999; Sousa, 2000) came the end of the colonial regime and the establishment of democracy. Implementation of structural reforms in all sectors, including education. Portuguese Constitution was approved on April 2, 1976, emphasising equal opportunities and access to education. Education seen as tool for economic, social and cultural cohesion, democracy, and tolerance (Sousa, 2000). Two important events in 1986 in Portugal (Sousa, 2000): (1) Approval of the Education Act
(2) Portugal’s integration into the European Union (EU). Integration into the EU allowed for multilateral cooperation with other EU countries, and particularly in the field of education.
Influence of the B.P. of 1999 in European HE landscape. The focus of this process was on “the development of a coherent and cohesive European Higher Education Area by 2010” (Berlin Communiqué 2003 [cited by Tudor 2005, p. 2]). This process allowed for consistency in European HE pedagogy, including foreign language didactics. This would foster interculturalism, multiculturalism, and plurilingualism among EU member countries, given the ‘importance of foreign languages for a global age’ (Kramsch, 1992). As earlier mentioned, the CEFR document was introduced in 2001 (Council of Europe, 2001). Framework for the creation of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines and exams across Europe. Transformative reflection and reformation in FL pedagogy. Changes to Portugal’s HE curricular landscape due to the B.P. and the CEFR document. Curriculum development changes in the field of Education (Moreira, 2008; de Oliveira & de Castro Guimarães, 2010; Leite, 2013; Leite & Fernandes, 2013; Leite & Ramos, 2014), and in the field of Language Didactics (Alarcão, 2010; Alarcão & Araújo e Sá, 2010; Pinto, 2012; Vázquez & Ellison, 2013).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY A pioneer study, the first of its kind to be done in Portugal. No documented evidence of such research having ever been done. Evidence of one documented study in 1991 dealing with the analysis of 34 language curriculum documents (Portuguese as a first language (L1) and English, French and German as FL for language teacher trainees from different Portuguese teacher training institutions (Andrade, Araújo e Sá, Moreira, Sá & Vieira, 1992). This research can serve as a guide for HEIs desirous of undergoing FL curricular reforms.
FOCUS OF THE STUDY The focus is only on curriculum planning, design and development for English and Spanish as FL. The focus is not on curriculum delivery and implementation (which would include methodology and evaluation practices).
Issues regarding methodology and evaluation will be addressed in this study, since methodology and evaluation are two of the four core components of the curriculum. Core Curriculum Components (Objectives, Content, Method, and Evaluation).
LITERATURE REVIEW /STATE OF THE ART Syllabus vs Curriculum Syllabus – content to be taught and tested; content selection, coverage and grading (Nunan, 1993; Rahimpour, 2010). Syllabus is a small part of the curriculum (Richards, 2001). Curriculum is more comprehensive. Curriculum – a learning plan (Lange, 1994). Its focus is on planning, design, development, implementation, evaluation, management, and administration of learning programmes (Candlin, 1984; Rahimpour, 2010). Course design, transformation of course content into learning-teaching plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006; Richards, 2013). Curriculum and Curriculum Development Educational aims achieve concrete expression in a curriculum. Tyler (1949) is largely responsible for curriculum development. His four questions summarise what the curriculum is all about:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided, that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effective organised?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? The above questions refer to objectives, content, method, and evaluation, the four core components of any curriculum development initiative. Other curriculum specialists (Nichols & Nichols, 1972; Inglis, 1975; Biggs 1999a, 1999b; Biggs & Tang, 2011) endorse Tyler’s (1949) curriculum development proposal.
Steady curriculum restructuring in 1990’s, because it was too teacher-centred and did not address student learning diversity (Prevedel, 2003; Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006). A more student centred curriculum was desired (Ramsden, 2003; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Livingstone 2014b, 2014c).
Curriculum focus should be on “what the student does” (Shuell 1986, p. 429). Learner needs and interests to be considered. As such, a needs analysis/needs assessment is mandatory for curriculum design (Ellis, 2003; Maki, 2004; Estaire, 2009; Livingstone, 2014a). Curriculum Design/Development Models Curriculum development - an ongoing process, constant mutation, seeking relevance and significance in a learning context. There have been many curriculum development models (CDMs) over the year. Smith (2000) offers four models: 1. curriculum as a body of knowledge 2. curriculum as a product 3. curriculum as a process 4. curriculum as praxis Predevel (2003) discusses three curriculum development approaches: 1. traditional approach 2. learner-driven approach 3. critical approach
The models of Smith (2000) and Prevedel (2003) are not contradictory. These models complement each other. Curriculum Development Models Smith (2000)
Prevedel (2003)
Body of Knowledge
Traditional
Product Process
Learner-Driven
Praxis
Critical
These models are important to curriculum design. The objective is to select the best characteristics of each model to craft a curriculum relevant to a specific educational context. In order to develop a learner-centred curriculum, those CDMs that embrace learner-centredness must be considered. Learner-Centred CDMs Learner-Driven Approach & Critical Approach (Prevedel, 2003) Process Model & Praxis Model (Smith, 2000)
Language Curriculum Organisation of language learning and teaching. Since it is a roadmap for learning, the four core curriculum components (Tyler, 1949) must be included in its design and development. Language Curriculum Development
Language curriculum development (LCD) originated in the 1960’s, with the notion of ‘syllabus design’ (Richards, 2001). Syllabus design issues emerged long before the 1960’s as a major factor in the LLT process. Eventually, focus moved from syllabus design to curriculum design. The concept of method in didactics is still influential on classroom practices and is still a major concern to all concerned parties. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000) and Richards (2001), there have been a number of methods since the start of the 20th century, in search of the elusive “best method”. These include: (1) Grammar-Translation Method (1800-1900) (2) Audiolingual Method and Situational Method (1950-1970) (3) Communicative Method (1970 - present)
Richards (2001) and other language curriculum specialists (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Willis & Willis, 2007; Graves, 2008; Basturkmen, 2010; Coonan, 2012; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), endorse Tyler’s (1949) curriculum components and his position on curriculum design and development. Language curriculum development is crucial in these times. EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Type of Research Method(s) A case study (Thomas, 2011) is the research paradigm. A mixed methods approach (Creswell 2009, 2012). A purposive sampling technique (Palys, 2008). Investigative Site(s) Four Portuguese state universities: (1) University A (2) University B (3) University C (4) University D (The names of the Universities have been excluded to preserve anonymity until the study’s completion). Each university is representative of Portugal, in geographical terms. The Programme First Cycle Programme in Languages, Literatures and Cultures (LLC).
Respondents/Participants 31 teaching staff/lecturers from the four universities
Investigative Site
Lecturers per Language
Total
English
Spanish
University A
4
3
7
University B
2
1
3
University C
7
4
11
University D
6
4
10
TOTAL
19
12
31
Research Instrument # 1 75 course curriculum documents from the four universities
Investigative Site
Documents per Language
Total
English
Spanish
University A
8
8
16
University B
6
6
12
University C
18
17
35
University D
6
6
12
TOTAL
38
37
75
Research Instrument # 2 An online survey to be designed and implemented, containing both open-ended and close-ended questions to obtain additional information on curriculum planning and design. Data Analysis Methods
Four core curriculum components to be analysed: objectives, content, method, evaluation. Biggs and Tang (2011) focus on student learning, hence the following: 1. Learning objectives = intended learning outcomes (ILOs) 2. Method = learning-teaching activities (LTAs)
3. Evaluation = assessment tasks (ATs) and grading Other important curriculum components to be analysed: 1. Course Name/Code 2. Language Level (as determined by the CEFR document) 3. Credits/Credit Hours (ECTS) 4. Language of Instruction 5. Lecture’s Name and Contact Information 6. Instructional Delivery Mode (Face to Face [F2F]/Web-Enhanced/ Blended/Fully Online/Distance Education [DE]) 7. Language of the Curriculum Document
Data Analysis Methods Content analysis (Yin, 2011) to be done on course curriculum documents. Triangulation with quantitative/qualitative data. Principal Points of Reference
(1) CEFR Document (Council of Europe, 2001) (2) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Biggs & Tang, 2011) Other Major Supporting Points of Reference
(1) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching (Richards, 2001) (2) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2014) Comparative Analyses (1) Intra-university (English/Spanish Docs) (2) Inter-university (English/English & Spanish/Spanish Docs) (3) Compare and contrast all English docs against all Spanish docs. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of online survey data.
PROPOSED ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS Topic Acknowledgements Content Page Abstract Chapter 1 – Introduction – Research Aim, Questions, and Objectives Chapter 2 – Historical Background and Contextualisation Chapter 3 – Theoretical Framework Chapter 4 – Literature Review/State of the Art Chapter 5 – Methodology Chapter 6 – Presentation of Results/Findings -Online Surveys - Curriculum Documents - English - Spanish Chapter 7 –Discussion/Explanation/Analysis of Findings - Comparison (Similarities/Differences) of Course Curricula (Eng/Eng; Spa/Spa; Eng/Spa) - Recommendations/Proposals Chapter 8 –Conclusions - Recommendations (Curriculum Planning, Design and Development) References Appendices
PROPOSED WORK PLAN/TIME LINE 1. Bibliographical Revision/Literature Review
2. Data Collection and Analysis 3. Writing of Thesis (Various Chapters/Sections) 4. Observations/Modifications/ made by Supervisors
5. Corrections and changes to PhD Thesis by Candidate 6. Approved Changes/Modifications by Supervisors 7. Approval of Thesis Completion by Supervisors 8. Thesis Submission for Evaluation and Approval by FLUP Committee 9. Defence of PhD Thesis
REFERENCES Alarcão, I. (2010). A constituição da área disciplinar de Didáctica das Línguas em Portugal. LINGVARVM ARENA 1, 61-79. Alarcão, I. & Araújo e Sá, H. (2010). Linhas estratégicas para o desenvolvimento de políticas de investigação e formação em Didáctica de Línguas. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. Andrade, A. I., Araújo e Sá, M. H., Moreira, A., Sá, C. M & Vieira, F. (1992). Para uma caracterização do estado actual da Didáctica da Línguas em Portugal: Algunos dados preliminares. Revista Portuguesa de Educação 5(2), 65-76. Basturkmen, H. (2010). Designing Courses in English for Specific Purposes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Berlin Communiqué. (2003). Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education, “Realising the European Higher Education Area”. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw – Hill/Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. Biggs, J. (1999b). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development 18(1), 57-75.
Biggs, J. (1999a). What the Student Does: Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press. Boal, M. E. (Coord.) (1999). The Portuguese Education System. The System Today and Plans for the Future. Lisbon: Bureau for European Affairs and International Relations, Ministry of Education. Bologna Process. (2007-2010). The Bologna Process. http//www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/
Retrieved
June
16,
2015,
from
Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. ELT Documents 118 (pp. 2946).London: Pergamon & The British Council. Coonan, C. M. (2012). The Foreign Language Curriculum and CLIL. Synergies Italie 8, 117128. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Publishing. Creswell, J, W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches (3rded.). CA: SAGE Publications. de Oliveira, E. D. & de Castro Guimarães, I. (2010). Employability through competencies and curriculum innovation: a Portuguese account. Lisbon: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia/Programa Operacional Ciência e Inovação. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Estaire, S. (2009). La enseñanza de lenguas mediante tareas: principios y planificación de unidades didácticas. Madrid: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija. Fraser, S. P. & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education 31(3), 269-284. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: a social contextual perspective. Language Teaching 41(2), 147-81. Inglis, F. (1975). Ideology and the curriculum: The value assumptions of system builders. In Golby, M., Greenwald, J. & West, R. (eds.), Curriculum Design (pp. 40-47). London: Croom Helm.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Foreign Languages for a Global Age. Association of Department of Foreign Languages Bulletin 25(1), 5-12. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leite, C. (2013). Curriculo, Didactica e Formacao de Professores: Algumas Ideias Conclusivas. In Oliveira, M. R. N. S. & Pacheco, J. A. (Eds.), Currículo, Didáctica e Formação de Professores (pp. 193-207). Campinas, Brasil: Papirus Editora.
Leite, C. & Fernandes, P. (2013). Curricular Studies and their Relation with the Political Agenda for Education. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry: The Journal of the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies 9(2), 35-49. Leite, C. & Ramos, K. (2014). Políticas do Ensino Superior em Portugal na fase pós-Bolonha: implicações no desenvolvimento do currículo e das exergências ao exercício docente. Revista Lusófona de Educação 27, 73-89. Livingstone, K. (2014c). Constructive alignment and the curriculum: A call for improved pedagogical practices in higher education. Blue Ocean Research Journals – Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) 3(12), 19-34. Livingstone, K. (2014b). Improving Curriculum Design and Development. A Case Study from the University of Guyana. Blue Ocean Research Journals – Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) 3(5), 1-17. Livingstone, K. (2014a). La efectividad de un modelo metodológico mixto para la enseñanzaaprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera. München: LINCOM GmbH. Maki, P. L. (2004). Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment across the Institution. VA: American Association of Higher Education. Moreira, A. F. (2008). Qualidade na Educação e no Currículo: Tensões e Desafios. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/13578/13578.PDF.
Nicholls, A. & Nicholls, H. (1972). Developing Curriculum: A Practical Guide. London: Allen and Unwin. Nunan, D. (1993). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palys, T. (2008). Purposive Sampling. In Given, L. M. (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (Vol 2) (pp. 697-698). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Pinto, S. M. A. (2012). As línguas na Universidade de Aveiro: discurso e práticas. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. Prevedel, A. (2003). Values and Beliefs: The World View Behind Curriculum. The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy 3, 8-13. Rahimpour, M. (2010). Current trends on syllabus design in foreign language instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 1660-1664. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design. RELC Journal 44(1), 5-33. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). London: Cambridge Language Teaching Library. Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge Language Teaching Library. Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research 56, 411-436.
Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum Theory and Practice. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/ Sousa, J. M. (2000). Education Policy in Portugal: Changes and Perspectives. Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) 8(5), 1-9. Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your Case Study: A Guide for Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Tudor, I. (2005). The challenge of the Bologna Process for Higher Education Language Teaching in Europe. Retrieved June 16, 2015 from userpage.fu-berlin.de/~enlu/downloads/Bologna_ENLU_OK.rtf Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vázquez, V. P. & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining Teacher Roles and Competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). LINGVARVM ARENA 4, 65-78. Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular Development and Assessment. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications Inc.
