Course and Syllabus Design in English Language Teaching - Essay Example

and Syllabus Design in English Language Teaching Needs, Aims, Objectives and Learning Outcomes Ghader Talal, March This essay deals withthe study of course design, focusing on the aspects of needs analysis and specifying aims, objectives and learning outcomes. As far as language course design is concerned, it is often the case that some curriculum content is defined, but no aims, objectives and learning outcomes are defined, or they are only defined a little if at all. Furthermore, even if some aims, objectives and learning outcomes are defined, they are not always grounded in an analysis of students’ needs. The importance of considering both are stressed and explained, as well as the difficulties involved. A greater emphasis on needs, aims, objectives and learning outcomes began when the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Project attempted to remedy the over-emphasis on teaching methods in the 1970s (Stern, 1989: 212). This was a positive step but it became apparent later on, that treatment and evaluation related factors also needed to be considered for a more balanced approach. However, the focus of attention in this paper is on the needs, aims, objectives and learning outcomes. Needs analysis A needs analysis is a “systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective information necessary to define and validate defensible curriculum purposes …” (Brown, 1995: 36). Often, a needs assessment is not undertaken for devising language courses. It is generally thought that it is not possible to be specific in identifying needs. However, it has been shown to be not only possible, but also useful in English language classrooms to support problem solving and “as a basis for aims, courses, and materials; and to provide a concrete illustration of how analysis of data can be performed, and how a tight and direct link can be maintained between needs, aims, and materials, and what actually occurs in the classroom” (Seedhouse, 1993). It is especially useful for example in situations in which specific language skills are needed for performing specific roles, to determine whether a course would adequately meet the needs of students, to identify gaps between students’ ability and requirements, and so on. Various methods have been devised to conduct needs analysis. According to Brown (1995, ch. 2), they generally involve two things, firstly making basic decisions such as identifying the types of people involved, the information needed and points of view, and secondly gathering information such as types of questions, instruments, choosing procedures and other factors. For providing such information, Richards (2001: 63-64) recommends a number of strategies such as conducting a literature survey and conducting interviews. This would help to find out information such as the situations in which English is used most frequently, in which difficulties are encountered, perceived difficulties, frequencies of errors, suggestions, opinions, and so on. The Council of Europe model suggests the approach should be systematic and centred on the learner (Richterich & Chancerel, 1977). The Munby (1978) model also advocates the same but also suggests considering features pertaining to the target situation in which the language will be used. The information gleaned from this analysis is then fed as input for processing both language skills and meaning, i.e. for identifying the micro-skills and functions that would be required. Muby also mentions a number of other variables that should be considered, but these are recommended for after, not before, the syllabus is specified. However, all the pertinent information should ideally be gathered beforehand as part of the needs analysis not when the syllabus is finalised. Hutchinson & Waters (1987) formed a number of specific questions in their framework for target situation analysis, and based on these, further questions for analysing learning needs. These are listed in the table below. These questions are useful to ensure that all the important aspects are considered. They function as a checklist and both sets of questions have similarities. Table 1: A target situation analysis framework and a framework for analysing leanring needs Target situation analysis framework A framework for analysing learning needs Why is the language needed? How will the language be used? What will the content areas be? Who will the learner use the language with? Where will the language be used? When will the language be used? Why are learners taking the course? How do the learners learn? What resources are available? Who are the learners? Where will the ESP course take place? When will the ESP course take place? Source: Hutchinson & Waters (1987: 59, 62-63) In practice however, the views of course designers and those of the learners tend to differ (Mead, 1980). This makes it difficult to assess a situation, which must therefore be assessed according to its own peculiar set of circumstances. In short, it is essential to take into account the views of learners if the principle of involving learners is to be implemented effectively. Most modern concepts of needs analysis therefore include aspects from all of the aforementioned approaches. This usually involves determining both objective and subjective needs, conducting a present situation, linguistic, discourse, genre and means analysis, and determining learning needs and lacks (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998: 125). The overriding lesson would probably be that the analysis has to be conducted for the particular circumstances under which the course is to be taught and learnt. The complexity of needs analysis Needs analysis is not therefore a straightforward process that can apply equally in any situation. If it is not done carefully, it could even have a negative impact on student outcomes if certain aspects of the curriculum design are neglected in the process. This was the experience of Uvin (1996) who conducted an extensive needs analysis involving not only the students, but also other important stakeholders, namely administrators, supervisors, nursing staff and patients. Although the course was able to address some specific students’ needs, it proved unsuccessful overall. This experience is worth examining because it highlights the factors that shape the process, the advantages and disadvantages faced, and the importance of continuously updating the course design in line with changing needs. The course was designed for Chinese healthcare workers in Boston on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Workplace Literacy Program. Two cycles were planned for using two different approaches. In the first approach, the analysis first involved a three week period for getting familiar with the goals of patient care and the processes involved by working alongside nursing assistants and getting to know the workers. It also involved discussions and interviews, analysis of the workers’ jobs in terms of the literacy requirements and key tasks. During the development process, the information that had been gathered was then used to devise a course outline and define the units of work. This involved identifying competencies, developing a test, determining instructional objectives, selecting and sequencing the instructional content, writing activities, developing materials and designing assessments. Eventually, the final product was prepared in accordance with certain criteria. The first model was particularly successful in being able to promote quality in patient care. It also gave the classes a clear direction. The units were grounded in real practice with an almost one-to-one correspondence between the competencies and the National Nurses Assistant Examination’s language skills requirements. In addition, the objectives for the tests and performance were in line with accountability demands of managers, sponsors and funders. However, the learners expressed several shortcomings. Their socio-cultural, cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective needs were not being met. The learners had requirements that went beyond merely learning the language to carry out their duties. Cultural issues were not addressed, and in fact, many learners were too used to the rote method and therefore unaccustomed to different learning methods. Time factors were also problematic. In short, the course was too teacher-centric and better suited towards more educated learners. Furthermore, the assessment activities were also found to be inappropriate. When it was understood that learners’ needs must also be considered, another approach was made for the second cycle. This was a cyclical process, which involved the following stages: Table 2: Stages of the second approach to needs analysis by Uvin (1996) > > > 1. Collaboration with learners 2. Identification of issues 3. Identification of needs to resolve the issues 6. Development of units or work records 5. Involvement of learners in the process 4. Negotiation with learners < < < Source: Uvin (1996) (adapted) The other stakeholders were also involved as before. In order to identify the important issues better, input mechanisms were created and in-class investigations were held relating to the experiences of Chinese immigrants, their daily practices and the communication challenges faced. The input mechanisms included keeping journals, meeting staff, attending meetings, feedback sessions, listening to the workers, etc. These needs and issues were then analysed in order to identify solutions. The problem-posing method was used, which involved discussions, planning, action and feedback. The key stages in this approach, as well as the first, are summarised in the table below. Table 3: Key stages in the two approaches to needs analysis made by Uvin (1996) FIRST APPROACH (Teacher centric and competency based) Getting started Collecting information about what is needed Development process Working with the gathered information Product Something to teach from Implementation Detection of strengths and weaknesses of initial course design model SECOND APPROACH (Participatory/Process view of course design) 1 Investigation of daily work experiences of learners to identify issues 2 Working with issues and needs 3 Problem posing As with the first approach, the learners were able to acquire the competencies that were critical to effective patient care. However, they also learned beyond the specific competencies due to their needs being analysed during the design so it was more responsive to their needs. Consequently, this led to greater motivation and self-esteem, consistent attendance, improved retention and greater collaboration. The classes were more responsive to the learners’ personal, affective, cognitive, and metacognitive needs. However, there were still some weaknesses. The experiential learning methodology was not so effective. In particular, learners felt uncomfortable in sharing their experiences and perceived the method as inappropriate. Moreover, more preparation time is required for the participatory method, including bilingual assistance, and it is effectively impossible to predict what the needs will be at the outset. In light of the experience with two different approaches, one teacher-directed and competency based and the other involving a participatory process to be more responsive to learner needs, the course designer pointed out: “… course design does not take place in a vacuum. Several factors shape the process and directly affect its outcome” (Uvin, 1996: 54). This is evident from noting that the peculiarities of a language, language learning and language learners cannot be understood properly without an appreciation of the culture to which they pertain. The two aspects of language and culture are inseparable (Jiang, 2000). The factors that were identified as essential in the course design process were (1) participants, (2) teacher experience and philosophy, (3) partners, (4) physical constraints, (5) time constraints, (6) impact of funding guidelines, and (7) political, social and economic climate. These are illustrated in Figure 1 below, albeit in a different order. It was concluded that both models have certain advantages and disadvantages, and course design should be an ongoing process. The experience of the designer demonstrates that a variety of approaches to course design are possible but to be successful, it must consider the learner needs besides satisfying a number of further objectives. As Stern (1983: 49-9) put it, language teaching theory especially, “needs to be concerned, not only with the nature of language, but also with the nature of language learning, the nature of language teaching, the educational setting and the language teaching background”. An examination of the role of objectives now follows. Figure 1: Factors that shape the process of course design and which directly affect its outcome Source: Uvin (1996) (adapted) Aims, Objectives and Learning Outcomes Once the needs are identified, the aims, objectives and learning outcomes can then be set to satisfy those needs as far as possible. Having clear goals for example, is one of the key principles for teaching identified by Ramsden (2003: 93-98), in addition to interest, concern for students, appropriate assessment, etc. It would be necessary at the outset to distinguish between aims objectives and learning outcomes so that the definition of each is clear. Aims give a general sense of direction to the course. As such, they either describe the teacher’s activities or the purpose of the lesson (El Fadil, 1985). This specification alone is teacher centric, open to varying interpretations, and does not make proper evaluation possible. The objectives of a language course, if they are specified, typically reflect a certain policy. For example, objectives derived from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) seek "to promote and facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues" (Barenganger & Tschimer, 2009). Objectives are therefore the precise goals to be achieved whereas aims specify the overall statement, and learning outcomes relate to the knowledge, understanding, skills and attributes that are expected from the students. Aims, objectives and outcomes may be held in the form of vague notions, but specifying them in writing has its advantages. For example, Mager (1975: 6) mentions three key reasons why it is necessary to specify objectives in writing. It increases the chances of selecting appropriate content to fulfil those objectives, it makes it easy to judge if teaching has been effective, and pupils also know the teacher’s expectations. Similarly, specifying the learning outcomes, helps to gauge whether the pupils have actually achieved what they were expected to achieve. As far as objectives are concerned, a curriculum design could have either a narrow or a wide range of objectives. There is therefore a continuum between the two extremes of being either uni-dimensional or a complex multidimensional structure (Stern, 1989: 215), as illustrated below. Figure 2: The curriculum design continuum showing the extremes of uni- and multi-dimensional objectives Usually, the objectives are categorised based on theories of educational psychology, and in particular on Bloom’s taxonomy. Thus, different schemes are generally similar. As an example, the Dearing Report includes the following areas: (1) Knowledge and understanding, (2) Cognitive/Intellectual skills, (3) Key/Transferable skills, and (4) Practical skills (Course Notes, 2010). It is to be noted that affective objectives are not included in this scheme. In framing the objectives, El Fadil (1985) suggests that in order for them to be precise, they should be able to specify the focus of the study and what the learner must do to achieve the objectives, the conditions, level of proficiency to be attained, the proportion of students expected to attain them, and the time limit in which to achieve them. Normally however, only some of these components are expressed. Three of the key components are illustrated below. Three key components of learning objectives The behavioural component is controversial, and it is the reason why many language teachers are reluctant to specify such objectives despite the usefulness of defining learning objectives as a framework for organising teaching. El Fadil (1985: 97) points out that framed in this way, “this approach smells too much of behaviourism”. Language behaviour is not easy to detect anyway. Moreover, determining precise time targets is also difficult. Also, it is contrary to the process of language learning, which is “a slow-building spontaneous process catalysed by exposure to meaningful input in the target language (Krashen, 1983: 41). Some therefore, use alternative terms for behavioural objectives such as instructional, performance, operational or learning objectives, but the expectations are still usually behavioural in nature. It is the writer’s opinion that objectives as well as outcomes should be precise though not overly specific, and particularly for language learning, there should not be undue emphasis on achieving behavioural and time specific objectives. Such types of objectives are better suited to situations in which the learner can quickly acquire specific skills, whereas as mentioned above, language learning is a gradual process that requires great dedication, time and practice. Besides, the learner could become too fixated on achieving the teacher specified objectives and there may be other objectives worth pursuing that could otherwise be neglected. Nonetheless, there is an argument for keeping the range of objectives broad, in line with the needs analysis so that the important needs are met by focusing on achieving the identified objectives. As such, specifying objectives should not be seen as an isolated exercise in shaping a curriculum, as seems to be indicated by El Fadil (1985). Rather, it should be an essential part of the entire planning process (Benson, 1986). Thus, basing the objectives on learner and other situational needs is what leads to real precision in defining objectives. Deriving the objectives from the needs assessment should also lead in turn to the later preparation of course materials (Prapphal, 2004: 5). Broad range of objectives As pointed out by Stern (1989), it is necessary to pursue all the objectives together or with equal emphasis. Furthermore, the language needs to be contextualised so it should not be taught in isolation from general language education, communicative competence and knowledge of the culture. These additional contents add interest besides supporting the main language syllabus. As far as the objectives are concerned, Stern (1989) defines four of them, namely, proficiency, knowledge, affect and transfer. The model is based on Bloom’s taxonomy so they are multidimensional. The educational objectives as applied to language teaching are also based on years of experience by Rebecca Valette. Proficiency is usually defined in terms of either linguistic or communicative competence, and four basic skills are commonly identified as listening, speaking, reading and writing. A criterion-based model would define proficiency “in relation to the expected performance levels of the students for whom the curriculum is intended” (Stern, 1989: 214). As an objective, knowledge refers to both conceptual knowledge and related information concerning the target language. This includes ‘knowledge of the world’ as expressed in the target language, knowledge about the language and culture, and helpful general knowledge. It is essential that this component is very clear, as it relates directly to the main content of the curriculum. The affective objective concerns value judgements for developing the right attitude towards the activities set for learning the target language. The objective of transfer is explained as facilitating language learning “not only for its own sake but as a means to generalise beyond the particular language and culture” (Stern, 1989: 215). It is therefore a more general objective. The suggested emphasis of each of the four objectives in terms of the four contents is shown in Figure 3 below. This model demonstrates how a diverse set of objectives is possible and has the advantage of specifying the degree of emphasis each set of objectives should be given in relation to the types of content. However, the proficiency objectives are generally given less emphasis overall, while transfer objectives and especially the affective objectives are given greater emphasis. It seems the attempt is more at a diversification of objectives than consolidation of the key objectives of knowledge and proficiency. Figure 3: Examples of the interaction between content, objectives and main teaching strategies in a foreign language curriculum Source: Stern (1989) Outcomes-based planning provides another view of the situation, which is focused not on what the teacher wants but on what the learner is able to do. Whereas objectives are framed from a teacher-centric position, also specifying the outcomes makes this part of the curriculum language more accessible to students. However, these should ideally be framed at a ‘threshold’ level for greater inclusivity and because assessment serves the purpose of differentiating pupils later anyway. The statements typically begin with a verb and specify what learners would be able to do after the lesson. Jones (2009) observed a wrongly designed outcomes-based approach in action for language proficiency courses at a tertiary institution. Previously, a flat structure had been in place, i.e. there was greater teacher autonomy and equal interaction, which led to a lack of uniformity and accountability. Therefore, a core-curriculum was introduced. Although both teacher and student feedback was considered initially, the controller abandoned this approach due to conflicting perspectives and extra time consumption. As a result, there was a problem of disengaged teaching staff, unsatisfied students and inhibited teacher-researchers. Although the centre specified aims and objectives, the two terms were confused and they were largely outcomes defined in terms of affective processes. Overall, teachers and students have not reacted positively. This case highlights how the approach to specifying outcomes can be done wrongly for the sake of uniformity and accountability. It is necessary therefore to ensure that outcomes are closely related to student needs. In this way, all the aims, objectives and outcomes can be aligned together. Conclusions Various factors have to be considered during the needs assessment so that a course can be made effective for the learners. A better understanding of the situational context is required before designing the course. However, the needs of course designers and learners tend to differ, as do the objective and subjective based framing of aims, objectives and outcomes. This complexity was shown in the case study where two different approaches were specially devised but did not prove to be effective as far as the needs of the learners were concerned. While the first course appeared to appropriately satisfy the institutional requirements, it did not address students’ specific needs. The improved approach also had weaknesses as it expected too much from the students and other factors were neglected. However, the experience proved useful in identifying the essential factors, which are similar to the modern concepts of needs analysis. Similarly, the clarity of aims, objectives and outcomes also have advantages. This study of needs, aims, objectives and outcomes in course design has also highlighted that specifying them is often overlooked or not regarded as important by language teachers. Yet, it has shown the importance of doing so, and of having the learner at the centre of both as opposed to a teacher led design. Moreover, the aims, objectives and learning outcomes should follow on from the needs analysis. Both are essential parts of the planning stage in curriculum development. Language learning is different from learning other subjects but some precision and breadth, with an appropriate emphasis on each type, helps learners to ensure they are achieving what they are expected to achieve. References Barenganger, Olaf & Tschimer, Erwin. 2009. Language educational policy and languages learning quality management: The Common European Framework of Reference. Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp. 81-101. Benesch, Sarah. 1996. Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 723-738. Benson, Malcolm. 1986. Correspondence. ELT Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 78-79. Brown. 1995. In course notes. Course Notes. 2010. Aims, Objectives and Learning Outcomes (presentation). University. Dudley-Evans & St. John. 1998. In course notes. El Fadil, Hamed el Nil. 1985. Defining learning objectives for ELT. ELT Journal, Vol. 39/2. Jiang, Wenying. 2000. The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal, Vol. 54, Issues 4, pp. 328-334. Jones, Phillip David. 2009. Giving a voice to teachers and students in an outcomes-based approach. ELT Journal, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 387-389. Krashen. 1983. In El Fadil, 1985. Mead, R. 1980. Expectations and sources of motivation in EAP. In C. Kennedy (Ed.). English Language Research Journal, Vol.1. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Munby, J. 1978. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prapphal, Kanchana. 2004. A reflection of English teaching. Journal of Humanities, Special Issue No. 7. Foreign Language Teaching in Thailand, 1-5. Available at http://pioneer.chula.ac.th/~pkanchan/pdf/ReflectionofEnglishTeaching.pdf [Accessed 14 March, 2011]. Ramsden. 2003. Learning to teach in higher education. In course presentation. Richards. 2001. In course notes. Richterich, R. & Chancerel, J.-L. 1977. Identifying the needs of adults learning a foreign language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Seedhouse, Paul. 1993. Needs analysis and the general English classroom. ELT Journal, Vol. 49, Issues 1, pp. 59-65. Stern, H. H. 1983. In Nunan, David. Hidden agendas: the role of the learner in programme implementation. Ch. 11 in Johnson, Robert Keith. 1989. The second language curriculum. Cambridge University Press. Stern, H. H. 1989. Seeing the wood AND the trees: some thoughts on language teaching analysis. In Johnson, R. K. (Ed). 1989. The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uvin, Johan. 1996. Designing workplace ESOL courses for Chinese health-care workers at a Boston nursing home. In Graves, K. (Ed.). 1996. Teachers as course developers, pp. 38-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More