DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 358 706 FL 021 249

AUTHOR Toney, Terry, Ed.

TITLE Curriculum and Syllabus Design in ELT. Report on the
Dunford House Seminar (England, United Kingdom, July
16-26, 1984).
INSTITUTION British Council, London (England).
PUB DATE 85
NOTE 152p.; For other Dunford House Seminar proceedings,
see FL 021 247-257.
AVAILABLE FROM English Language Division, The British Council,
Medlock Street, Manchester M15 4AA, England, United
Kingdom.
PUB TYPE Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Behavioral Objectives; Case Studies; Communicative
Competence (Languages); *Curriculum Design;
Curriculum Development; Curriculum Evaluation;
Developing Nations; Educational Technology;
Elementary Secondary Education; *English (Second
Language); Foreign Countries; Higher Education;
*Language Teachers; *Language Tests; Modern
Languages; Research Methodology; Second Language
Instruction; *Teacher Education; Teaching Methods
IDENTIFIERS Egypt; Hong Kong; Yemen

ABSTRACT
Proceedings of a seminar on curriculum and syllabus
design for training English-as-a-Second-Language teachers are
presented in the form of papers, presentations, and summary
narrative. They include: "Curriculum and Syllabus Design in ELT";
"Key Issues in Curriculum and Syllabus Design for ELT" (Christopher
Brumfit); "Approaches to Curriculum Design" (Janet Maw); "Graded
Objectives in Modern Languages" (Sheila Rowell); "Performance
Objectives in the Hong Kong DTEO" (Richard Cauldwell); "The
Relationship between Teaching and Learning" (Dick Allwright); "Three
Basic Requirements of Teaching and Teaching Methods" (Robert
O'Neill); "The Implementation of Communicative Syllabuses" (Keith
Johnson); "Evaluating Curricula and Syllabus" (Charles Alderson);
"Examinations" (Charles Alderson); "Educational Technology and
Curriculum Renewal" (Martin Phillips); "The Organisation and
Structure of the Seminar"; "What Do We Mean by 'Curriculum' and
'Syllabus'?"; "What Gets in the Way?"; "Curriculum and Syllabus
Design: What Are the Key Questions?"; "Case Study Design Tasks:
Instructions and Notes for Session One"; "Case Study One: University
of Sana'a Language Centre, Yemen Arab Republic"; "Case Study Two:
Cairo Direct Teaching of English Operation"; "Interim Evaluation";
"Options"; and "Seminar Evaluation." An article summary, results of a
pre-seminar questionnaire, and a report on an alternative case study
design are appended. (MSE)

**********************************************************************v
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
 I A
11

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
lam document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
O Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality

TO TrtE ZDIICATIONAL RESOURCES Points of view Of OPIn one ststed in the docu-
IN FORMATION :ENTER (ERIC) ment do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy

r arcs MPY AVAILABLE

6.
 CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN
IN ELT

REPORT

on

The Dunford House Seminar

16-26 July 1984

Edited by: Terry Toney

English Language Services Department
The British Council
PREVIOUS DUNFORD HOUSE SEMINARS

1978 ESP Course Design (Out of Print)

1979 ELT Course I?sign

1980 Communicative Methodology

1981 Design, Evaluation and Testing in English

Language Projects

1982 Teacher Training and the Curriculum

1983 Design and Implementation of Teacher

Training Programmes

Copies of reports on the above seminars are available on request from:

English Language Services Department

The British Council
10 Spring Gardens
London SW1A 2BN

Cover design by Sue Scullard.

Engraving of Dunford House, near Midhurst, West Sussex, where the
seminar has been held since 1979.

0 The British Council 1985

.1
THE DUNFORD HOUSE SEMINAR

This is an annual residential seminar run by the English Language and

Literature Division of the British Council as part of its commitment to the
provision of training and updating for ELT specialists employed or sponsored
by the Council. The seminar serves not only British Council career officers
but also Council recruited ELT staff those working on schemes funded by the
Overseas Development Administration (KELT and Category IV) and those employed
in the Council's own language centres (Direct Teaching of English Operations).
The desirability of promoting exchange of experience between these various
groups guides the selection of the thirty participants from names put forward
by Representations. During the two weeks spent at Dunford
House in West
Sussex the participants are able to meet and discuss issues with leading
British academics and ELT professionals, to take part in design tasks and
activities with other Council staff in similar situations to themselves from
all over the world, and to exchange ideas and experiences in both formal and
informal settings.

The seminar has been run annually in July for the past six years. Each year a
particular theme has been addressed, with a natural progression often emerging
from one year to the next. The theme for 1984 reflects a growing concern
within the profession for a comprehensive approach to the design,
implementation and evaluation of language programmes. To capture the. variety
of issues relevant to this theme the seminar bears the title: Curriculum and
Syllabus Design in ELT.

t
CONTENTS

Page

0.1 INTRODUCTION 1

0.2 TIMETABLE 2

0.3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3

PART ONE

1.0 CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN IN ELT 5

2.0 KEY ISSUES IN CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN 7

FOR ELT
Christopher Brumfit

3.0 APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 13

Janet Maw

4.0 GRADED OBJECTIVES IN MODERN LANGUAGES (GOML) 15

Sheila Rowell

5.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN THE HONG KONG DTEO 19

Richard Cauldwell

6.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING AND LEARNING 23

Dick Allwright

7.0 THREE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF TEACHING AND TEACHING 26

METHODS
Robert O'Neill

8.0 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICATIVE SYLLABUSES 28

Keith Johnson

9.0 EVALUATING CURRICULA AND SYLLABUS 30

Charles Alderson

10.0 EXAMINATIONS 35
Charles Alderson

11.0 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND CURRICULUM RENEWAL 38

Martin Phillips

PART TWO

12.0 THE ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE SEMINAR 41

13.0 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY 'CURRICULUM' AND 'SYLLABUS'? 43

14.0 WHAT GETS IN THE WAY? 44

 Page

15.0 CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN: WHAT ARE THE 46

KEY QUESTIONS?

16.0 CASE STUDY DESIGN TASKS:INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTES 49

FOR SESSION ONE

17.0 CASE STUDY ONE: UNIVERSITY OF SANA'A LANGUAGE CENTRE, 50

YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC

17.1 Introduction and Task 50

17.2 Background Information 51
17.3 Report on the Design produced by Dunford Seminar 64
Participants
17.4 Two Reactions to the Design 72
17.5 Reaction of the Case Study Originator 73

18.0 CASE STUDY TWO: CAIRO DIRECT TEACHING OF ENGLISH 75

OPERATION

18.1 Introduction and Task 75

18.2 Background Information 76
18.3 Report on the Design produced by Dunford Seminar 87
Participants
18.4 Two Reactions to the Design 99
18.5 Reaction of the Case Study Originator 100

19.0 INTERIM EVALUATION 102

20.0 OPTIONS 105

21.0 SEMINAR EVALUATION 108

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE EISNER AND VALANCE ARTICLE

APPENDIX Bl: PRE-SEMINAR QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B2: RESPONSES TO QUESTION 3 (CONSTRAINTS)

APPENDIX B3: RESPONSES TO QUESTION 4 (ISSUES)

APPENDIX B4: RESPONSES TO QUESTION 5 (EVALUATION)

APPENDIX C: REPORT ON A SECOND DESIGN FOR THE CAIRO DTEO CASE

STUDY PRODUCED BY DUNFORD SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY
0.1 INTRODUCTION

It is always difficult to take an event which is essentially dynamic, a nexus

of ideas and personalities and represent it in a written report, a medium
which is of necessity static and linear. For this reason the material in this
report is presented in a way which reflects the main features and concerns of
the seminar, rather than the interactive process as it unfolded. The time-
table shows the events as they were scheduled from day to day.
particular
It also reflects the intentions of the seminar planners to take
aspects of the theme and focus on them at different times in the seminar,
providing input and activities to highlight the chosen aspect. This did not
mean that the aspects were ignored at other times - on the contrary, a
constant attempt was made to keep as broad a view of the theme as possible -
but a particular focus was set for each stage of the seminar. As an example,
while evaluation was taken as a focus at the beginning of the second week, it
would be wrong to suggest that it was not considered (and intended to be so)
from the very first day.
list of
In the first part of the report, after a copy of the timetable and the
participants, there is a collection of papers reporting the content of the
sessions led by guest speakers. These papers cover a variety of issues
relevant to curriculum and syllabus design and a number of contemporary,
professional views of these issues. The sessions were given at those stages
would
in the seminar (see timetable) when it seemed to the planners that they
be most appropriate and useful to the focus of the participants.

The second part of the report is more concerned with the participants'
activities in the seminar, and to this extent tries to capture more of the
dynamic and interactive aspects of the seminar. The consciousness-raising
activities of the first day are documented first, and then the various stages
is then
of the Case Study Design Tasks. The mid-seminar interim evaluation
recorded and this is followed by an account of one or two of the 'options'
sessions which took place in the final week largely as a result of decisions
made in the interim evaluation session. The second part is concluded with a
section aimed at evaluating the seminar itself. In the Appendix to the report
referred to
a number of documents and collections of questionnaire responses
in other sections of the report have been reproduced for reference.

drafted
In the second part of the report many of the documents were written or
by one or more of the participants. No names have been put to these
documents, however, as it seems fair to claim that the seminar was a combined
effort and each participant contributed in some way or other to everything
due thanks
that came out of the seminar. For this reason the participants are
experience for
in equal part for making the seminar a fruitful and enjoyable
all who attended it.

Terry Toney

Seminar Staff: Tony O'Brien, Course Director

Dr Peter Hargreaves, Academic Consultant
Rebecca Cheeseman, Course Officer
0.2 TIMETABLE

0900 1030 1100 1230 1400 1530 1600 1730 2000

MONDAY Assemble Intro- Video

16 duction English
CBu

TUESDAY What do we Keynote Learning/1What C & S Design:

17 mean by Talk Teaching :gets in what are the
curriculum Relation-Ithe key questions?
"syllabus"?: 1 ships 'way?
CBPDA, CB DA (DA) (DA/CB)

WEDNESDAY Approaches to Graded Objec- Teaching

18 Case Study Design Tasks Curriculum Design tives Movement Literature
(DA) JM in MLT SR LM
THURSDAY Materials: what are they and
19 Case Study Design Tasks what is their value?
(DA) DA & RO'N

FRIDAY Implementation Educational CALL:

20 of Communica- Case Studies Design Tasks i Technology & 'hands on'
tive Syllabuses Curriculum
KJ Renewal (NP)

SATURDAY Case Study Des- Interim 0 Film

21 ign Tasks (final Evaluation 0
rn
product) (DA) (TO'B)

SUNDAY z Film
22
z

MONDAY Evaluation of curricula and Evaluation exercise (review Video on

23 syllabuses of CSDT products from week 1) Oral
CA (CA) Testing PH
TUESDAY Evaluation Producing performance ;BC Resource ODA Policy
24 exercise Examinations objectives in DTEO 1Centre & re ELT aid
(contd) Hong Kong 'Book
(CA) CA RC ;Exhibition
Exhi PS

WEDNESDAY
25
OPTIONS OPTIONS
THURSDAY 'Where do we go Evaluation of Depart
26 from here?' Dunford: 1978-84
TO'B PH

Key: CA Charles Alderson (IELE, U of Lancaster) Staff: Tony O'Brien (ELSD, Course Director)
DA Dick Allwright (Dept Ling, U of Lancaster) Peter Hargreaves (ELSD, Academic
CB Chris Brumfit (ESOL Dept, Inst Educ, U of Consultant)
London Rebecca Cheeseman (ELSD, Course Officer)
RC Richard Cauldwell (ex-ADOS, BC Hong Kong) Peter Hayman (Principal, Dunford House)
PH Peter Hargreaves (ELSD, British Council)
KR Keith Johnson (Dept Ling, U of Reading)
JM Janet Maw (Dept Curriculum Studies, Evening Speakers:
Inst Educ) CBu Chris Bury (ELSD)
TO'B Tony O'Brien (ELSD, British Council) LM Liz Moloney (Literature Unit, BC)
RO'N Robert O'Neill (Textbook writer) PS Peter Scopes (ODA Education Adviser)
MP Martin Phillips (ELSD, British Council)
SR Sheila Rowell (Gen Inspector, Croydon)

-2-
0.3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NAME COUNTRY POST

Rob BATSTONE Egypt Assistant Director of Studies (Course DTE

Development), BC, Cairo

Chris BURY Peru English Language Officer (designate) BC

Mark CALDERBANK Jordan ESP Adviser, University of Yarmouk KELT

Fred CHAMBERS Malaysia ELT Adviser, Education Department, Sabah KELT

Geoffrey CREWES Indonesia Assistant Director of Studies, BC, Jakarta DTE

Jamie DRURY Kenya Senior Lecturer, Department of Educational KELT

Communications & Technology, Kenyatta University

Alan EVISON N Yemen Specialist in Course Design and Materials, KELT

Language Centre, University of Sana'a

Barry FARBON Turkey Academic Adviser, Turko-British Association, BC-B

Ankara

David GARNER Morocco Regional Project Director, Centre for British

Teachers, Fes

Harry HARES Somalia Lecturer in Methodology, Lafoole College of KELT

Education, Mogadishu

Guy HILL Spain Assistant Director of Studies (Academic), BC, DTE

Madrid

Mike KELLY Senegal ELT Adviser, Min of National Education, Dakar KELT

Ian MARVIN Senegal Materials Development Specialist, British KELT

Senegalese Institute, Dakar

Nicole McLEOD Indonesia Senior Teacher, BC, Jakarta DTE

Gerald MOSBACK Sri Lanka ELT Adviser (Materials), Ministry of Education KELT

Tom MURPHY Zambia Lecturer in English and ELT Training, Nkrumah KELT
Teachers College, Kabwe

Fred O'HANLON UAE Director of Studies, BC, Dubai DTE

Mike PUNCHARD Spain Director of Studies, BC, Madrid DTE

Sue RANDALL Algeria Director of Studies, BC, Algiers DTE

Jane REVELL Venezuela Lecturer/Supervisor, BC, Ciudad Guayana DTE

Shelagh RIXON Italy English Language Officer, Northern Italy BC

Stuart RUSSELL Sudan Lecturer/Materials Writer, Khartoum Polytechnic KELT

- 3
:1
NAME COUNTRY POST

Wendy SCOTT Norway ELT Consultant, Ministry of Church and BC-B

Education, Oslo

Harvey SMITH Mali ELT Adviser, Ministry of Education, Bamako KELT

Jennifer SMITH Yemen PDR Assistant Professor, Department of English, KELT

University of Aden

Mike SMITH Turkey EL Adviser, Institute of Foreign Languages, Cat IV

Anadolu University

Patricia SMITH Venezuela English Language Assistant, BC, Caracas BC

Bob STRAKER-COOK Egypt Universities Consultant, Centre for Developing KELT

ELT, Ain Shams University

Terry TONEY Britain Assistant Consultant, ELSD BC

-4
PART ONE
1.0 CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN IN ELT

The title of this year's seminar reflects the broader concerns of

practitioners in the English Language Teang profession. Teachers and
academics alike are becoming increasingly interested in trying to grasp the
teaching/learning situation as a whole. This means looking beyond the narrow
confines of one approach or one method and trying to include the practice and
content of language learning, as well as the evaluation of these, in one
coherent whole.

The tone of the seminar is set by the Keynote address given by Chris Brumfit.
As a backdrop to his argument Chris outlines the variety of disciplines and
theories on which much language teaching is based. Apart from the more
academic disciplines these also include the research into the characteristics
of the good language learner done by Naiman et al in Canada. This provides a
meaningful context in which to consider curriculum and syllabus design.

Chris then goes on to discuss the terminology, examining the different

possible interpretations of 'curriculum' and 'syllabus'. At this point, for
further elaboration of curriculum models, he refers to work in the general
educational field. This perspective is taken up and given fuller treatment in
Janet Maw's contribution. Her paper outlines in a relatively objective way
three focuses of curriculum design: learning outcomes/objectives, the content
of learning, and the process of learning. It is fair to say that the second
of these (the content focus) is probably the most familiar of the three (being
largely a description of the knowledge to be learned). The other two are
perhaps not so familiar.

The specification of learning outcomes or objectives is the approach adopted

in two other contributions, those of Sheila Rowell and Richard Cauldwell. It
is interesting to see, however, that although these two reports describe
projects based on the same approach to curriculum design they nevertheless
differ quite dramatically in their motivation and development, the graded
objectives project being a more 'bottom up' approach and the Hong Kong project
more 'top down'.

While both the above approaches clearly relate to syllabus statements about
what should be taught or learned, it is perhaps the process approach to
curriculum design which gives rise to a more complex notion of syllabus.
Chris Brumfit takes up the issue of different kinds of syllabus in the second
part of his Keynote address and in particular the assumptions which syllabuses
make about the process of learning and their implications for teaching.

It is the process of learning that particularly interests Dick Allwright in

his contribution. The possible ways in which learning may take place have
clear implications for the teacher - student relationship and the teaching
situation. The six hypotheses proposed by Dick reflect his concern to find
out more about the learning process in order to better inform curriculum and
syllabus design. A different perspective on process, focused more on the
process of teaching, is that given by Robert O'Neill. Robert presents a
personal view of the process of teaching, developing such notions as 'a clear
centre', 'forward impetus' and 'buoyancy' to represent what is essentially a
dynamic activity.

An important feature of any 'design' is that it be flexible enough to adapt to

the situation it is intended for. Keith Johnson tackles this issue in a
somewhat tongue-in-cheek paper which nevertheless puts over a clear and
important message. This is essentially that the people responsible for

-5- ;
implementing a design should beware of taking suggested techniques and methods
as law. They should rather look to the intent or aim of the design and be
flexible in the way they achieve that. This implies a certain amount of
reflection on the implementation. In effect this means evaluating the design
and implementation.

Evaluation forms the focus of Charles Alderson's paper. He discusses

formative evaluation of the kind just mentioned and in addition the issue of
accountability. The latter takes up a final point in Chris Brumfit's
address. Charles points out the need to consider evaluation from the
beginning of the design process. It creates the awareness necessary for
flexibility and it provides the data needed for accountability. Charles then
goes on to consider a number of different approaches to evaluation,
emphasising the desirability of selecting procedures and methods of evaluation
appropriate to the aims of the project and the intended audiences. In his
second contribution Charles deals with the evaluation of learning. This is
clearly a major concern in curriculum design and is shown to be a powerful
influence on teaching.

Any seminar dealing with education, while dealing with recent developments and
practices, must also keep an eye on the future. The final contribution in the
first part of this report does rrecisely that. The future in this case is
interpreted as 'educational tee lology' and in particular the microcomputer.
When talking of possible futures it does not do to set down answers, and
indeed Martin Phillips has shrewdly avoided doing any such thing, choosing
instead to provoke thought by leaving us with a number of questions about our
wishes, as teachers, for the curriculum and syllabus of tomorrow.

There is much food for thought in the following papers. The variety of issues
covered serves to reflect the complexity of the learning process. It remains
to be seen whether our future curriculum and syllabus design can take on board
all these perspectives and still be viable.

6
14
2.0 KEY ISSUES IN CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR ELT
Christopher Brumfit
University of London Institute of Education

discussion of
Let me start with three diagrams to indicate the background to
syllabus design.
of
Figure 1 illustrates the major disciplines which influence our views
language teaching, either through general education or through the
specifically language-orientated discipline of applied linguistics.

FIGURE 1

Linguistics

Sociolinguistics

I APPLIED Psycholinguistics

LINGUISTICS
Neurophysiology

Sociology
Psychology .

THEORY AND
/
/ ; PRACTICE OF EFL Pedagogical
TEACHING Principles
Philosophy of
Education
,
/// //Real World //
1/ /' /

and
The important point to note about this is that all our intellectual
world, for it is
academic understanding needs to be mediated through the real
theoretical
only through interaction with real world problems that the
made appropriate to the needs of students and
premisses can be validated and
attempt to convert
educational systems. Syllabus design is essentially an
principle into operational practice.
of language
Figure 2 is a schematic representation of current discussion
important for the argument,
teaching ideas. The names at the bottom are no'
discussed within
but are simply to enable you to locate ideas that are much
'Communicative' language teaching has mainly been
the general scheme.
functional and
influenced by theories in its underlying assumptions (through
anthropological approaches to language, and through psycholinguistic
Syllabus and
discussion), in syllabus design, in materials, and in methods.
this total
curriculum design for language work must be seen as part of
context.
FIGURE 2

Students' and Teachers'

classroom activities

'Communicative' language teaching

Assumptions Syllabus Materials Methods

on approach

Communicative Notions/ Discourse Acquisition/

competence functions (Widdowson) learning
(Byrnes) (Wilkins) (Krashen)

Second language Process Accuracy and

acquisition (Breen and fluency
research Candlin,
(Corder, Prabhu) 'Humanistic'
Krashen) approaches
ESP (Moskowitz,
(Munby) Stevick)

Finally, syllabus design is in the service of effective learning, so we should

take into account the characteristics of the good language learner. The
fullest available study lists the following five as the major characteristic
tendencies of good language learners:

FIGURE 3

The Good Language Learner Naiman et al

(Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, 1978)

ACTIVE in learning and practice

must grasp language as SYSTEM

must use language for COMMUNICATION

must MONITOR own performance

must accept AFFECTIVE challenge

The only one of these that requires glossing is the final one. This simply
means that the student should not be fazed by the psychological threat of
risk-taking, and appearing to be foolish, or of being identified as an
outsider, through use of the foreign language.

8
16
Syllabus and curriculum design should work within the contexts provided by
these three diagrams.

Some basic definitions

The terms 'curriculum' and 'syllabus' are often confused, and practices
differ. In general, in British educational discussion, 'curriculum' is a
broader term than 'syllabus', and is held to embrace the totality of
educational experience, while a syllabus is usually a specification of what is
to be taught in a particular subject area. This may be broken into shorter
units of 'schemes of work' which may in turn break down to particular
materials and lesson plans. Thus many people use the term 'curriculum' as if
it is the sum of the individual subject syllabuses in a school. In the US,
however, this distinction is not usually maintained. The term 'syllabus' is
rarely used (though it does occur in Canada sometimes), and 'curriculum'
embraces both the concepts as they are used in Britain.

But the situation is further confused, for the formal specification of what is
taught does not cover by any means the whole educational experience. The term
'hidden curriculum' has been adopted to cover all the covert aspects of
education. For example, recently I saw an induction ceremony for new pupils
at a former direct grant grammar school. The staff were lined up on a high
platform, all wearing gowns, and the boys were formally shaken by the hand by
the headmaster, in a semi-religious manner. When the pupils had all been led
away to their classrooms, the gowns were taken off and the teachers relaxed to
talk to visitors on an equal basis. The curriculum notions of hierarchy, of
respect for formal academic attainment, and of authority, were all clearly
embedded in this ceremony, even though they would not be necessarily specified
in any teaching syllabus.

A further notion to be mentioned is that of a 'core curriculum', which is

compulsory for everyone, as distinct from components which may be optional.

Within all of these lies the less formally designed concept of 'methodology'.
I would wish to define this as 'the systematic study of the practice of
teaching', perhaps for many purposes adding 'particular subjects' after
'teaching', though this would not of course apply at junior levels when
integrated teaching is widespread.

Finally we should consider the relationship between 'process' and 'product'.

Until fairly recently, most syllabuses resembled those for examinations in
being specifications either of what is to be taught or of what is to be
learnt. They were thus collections of items.

However, there have been two kinds of attack on this notion in the past
fifteen years or so. In Britain, the work of Lawrence Stenhouse particularly
has been concerned with the idea of an ongoing permanently developing
curriculum process in which teachers are never faced with a static set of
content specifications. In the States, many people have called for a more
humanistic, process-orientated curriculum which reflects the affective
dimensions of education more fully, and it has been insisted that process is
content just as much as more conventional specifications.

A further key issue to mention is Lawton's concept of the curriculum as a

selection from the culture of the community. This view implies that someone
makes the selection, and the criteria for appropriately 'approved' knowledge
and attitudes, together with an argument about whose interests are being
served by the selection that is made, constitute key elements in current
radical discussion of the nature of the curriculum, and indeed of schooling
generally.

- 9

IT
A concern for 'process' implies certain views on teaching methods, for
'process' classrooms tend to be more learner centred, to have more group work
and cooperative procedures, and to be concerned more with development than
with knowledge. All this is familiar within the context of language teaching
changes of the last few years, and can be related to the paper of Ron White's
provided as background reading (not included in this volume but see
bibliography for reference).

The syllabus in English language teaching

Syllabus development was the first major change in the movement towards
communicative language teaching, and it should not be necessary to go into
the history of this in any detail. Suffice it to say that the concern about
the ineffectiveness of structural syllabuses led to proposals for
alternatives. Wilkins most neatly encapsulated the discussion by rejecting
situational syllabuses as ungeneralisable, but looking with interest at the
possibilities of functional or notional syllabuses as sources of generalisable
descriptions of (respectively) language use and language meaning. However,
most moves in the direction of functional syllabuses (there have been no true
notional syllabuses to my knowledge) have failed to solve the problems posed
by grammatical syllabuses and their failure. Perhaps, some people are asking,
the difficulty lies in the use of the 'syllabus'.

Let us try to define its role as clearly as we can.

SYLLABUSES

PROBLEMS: Teaching is linear: learning isn't.

We cannot refuse to plan.

We can control teaching but not learning.

We need to think clearly, even if learners don't.

POSSIBILITIES: 1. Linguistic systems.

2. Interactional systems.

3. Content systems.

The first point to make is that syllabuses control teaching, not learning, for
it is teaching that is overt and observable. We cannot make someone learn,
either in a particular way, or at all. But we can control much of our
teaching behaviour so that it is compatible with what we understand to be the
learning process. Learning need not be linear, either, but teaching can be
planned along a time dimension, and a syllabus is no more than a generalised
plan derived considerably from our earlier experience with similar learners.

In practice, we have three general kinds of possiblity for content syllabuses

in language teaching. The content may be based on language form, on social
interaction (functional) or on the content of the language itself, what is
talk .1 about. Let me develop this more fully.

10 -
 SYLLABUS POSSIBILITIES

1. Language analyses
sound
syntax
morphology
notions

2. Interactional analyses
situation
function (discourse/rhetoric)

3. Content/topic analyses
i. socially directed
- cultural
ii. educationally directed
- interdisciplinary
iii. language directed
linguistics
literature

Here we see that language analysis will use any or all of a range of
categories derived from descriptive linguistics, interactional analysis will
use categories from social psychology, speech act theory, or rhetoric, and the
content (or topic) analysis will involve learning the language either through
the learning of culture, or other subjects in the curriculum (as in immersion
programmes), or through literature, or through descriptions of English, ie
elementary linguistics. I think this list is exhaustive, but, of course,
these may occur in a range of combinations.

A final point needs to be made about syllabuses, and this is how they relate
to learning theory:

FIGURE 4

MODEL A

1. 1 i 2 2. 5 3.
7
I 1

i 1 2 41
1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 I

I I I I

MODEL B

2. 3.

1 9
Model A assumes that learning is linear, and that the syllabus should reflect
this. But if we assume that the learner has from the beginning a dim
perception of the whole system, rather than a clear perception of some
items, built up bit by bit, then Model B becomes more appropriate. The
paradox is that we teach by Model A, because teaching is linear, but most
people would now accept Model B as closer to learning.

Because of this, some people, such as Prabhu in South India, have argued th.t
a procedural syllabus is sufficient. He has produced a sequence of tasks
which involve using English but no overt teaching or learning of English
items. These tasks are graded by trial and error so that learners can
generally perform them satisfactorily, and in so doing have to make use of
English provided in the stimuli for the tasks. Early results of this
extremely radical approach are promising, but for the moment we may be
inclined to be more cautious.

My favoured solution to this problem, is to separate the learning of tokens

from the acquisition of systems. Syllabuses taught in a linear way can exnose
learners to the tokens of the target language that they need (a token is any
unassimilated piece of language: word, sound pattern, sentence pattern, even
the stylistic features characteristic of a particular register if they have
not been assimilated into natural use). But the fluency activity (ie the
opportunity for natural language use through the performance of tasks or
projects in the target language) should enable learners to convert learnt
tokens into value-laden, culturally developed, negotiable systems for personal
use, whether in discussion, reading or writing. But the kind of syllabus
suitable for this latter activity would have to be one of normal language use,
a content syllabus, or possibly a procedural one like Prabhu's. This would
mean that overt learning might be prepared for through a conventional
syllabus, but genuine acquisition would have to have something more radical.

Either way, we cannot abolish our responsibility to have a syllabus. We are

accountable, both to the present (our students and sponsors) and to the future
of the profession. A syllabus, as clearly specified as possible, enables us
to examine our mistakes and endeavour to correct them, it provides assistance
for the uncertain or untrained, and something for the competent to react
against, and therefore improve. It is an excellent thing, therefore, that
Dunford 1984 is addressing this issue.

-12-
3.0 APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM DESIGN
Janet Maw
University of London Institute of Education

In recent years writing on curriculum design has tended to move away from the
dogmatic certainties of the early 1970s, when the 'rational curriculum
planning model' was equated with the strict use of behavioural objectives as
the only permissible structuring device in curriculum design. The crusading
nature of the movement's devotees, at least in the United States, was
acknowledged by a car - sticker exhorting the reader to "Help Stamp out Non-
Behavioural Objectives"! An early twinge of doubt is shown by the modifica-
tion of this sticker to read "Help Stamp out some Non-Behavioural Objectives"!

Since then writing on curriculum design has become more diverse, reflective,
and exploratory, less strident and assertive. It is recognised that
curriculum design cannot be treated as a purely technical problem, that it is
inescapably value-saturated, and the absence of theories and laws equivalent
to those of the physical sciences is not simply the result of a perverse
failure on the part of curriculum theorists and designers to be adequately and
properly 'scientific', but derives from the nature of the problems we face in
curriculum design. Reid includes these problems in the category of 'uncertain
practical problems', which are characterised by their need for action, their
dependence on context (which nevertheless cannot be exhaustively analysed),
their inevitable selectivity of values and interests, and the impossiblity of
fully predicting the outcomes of any course of action decided upon. In such a
situation the curriculum designer needs to use theory flexibly and
imaginatively, to be both eclectic and heuristic. A curriculum is not to be
judged on how closely it approximates to an a priori model of design but to
how appropriate it is to a particular context of implementation, and to what
extent it respects the integrity of the subject matter presented.

In practice, we find three main approaches to curriculum design, ie

structuring by:
a. specification of outcomes or objectives;
b. specification of content;
c. specification of process.

However, these approaches should not be seen as unitary 'models' as there is a

variety of writings in each design focus, and they are certainly not mutually
exclusive, indicating emphasis rather than completeness. In part, the
appropriateness of structuring focus depends upon whether the rationale and
purpose of the curriculum concentrates on skills, performances or product, on
induction to a knowledge area, or on the development of values, attitudes and
dispositions.

Objectives have been used in various ways in curriculum design, and for
teachers there have been problems in the confusion of terminology. At times
'objectives' have been qualified by the descriptions 'educational',
'instructional', 'behavioural', and 'operational' - the description becoming
increasingly precise and prescriptive over time. Other writers simply assume
that 'objectives' mean] behavioural or even operational objectives, even when
this is neither clear nor obvious. What is meant by 'behaviour' also varies.
One of the most influential writers on curriculum design, Ralph Tyler,
insisted that objectives should be specified in terms of both content and
behaviour, but not necessarily in precise form, largely because such
precision is a practical impossibility in teaching. This patently obvious
fact was ignored by later writers. In practice, the use of objectives in
curriculum design has been overwhelmingly in the middle range of precision,
clearly specifying the nature of behaviour, but not its precise form. The
move towards greater precision was dictated by the needs of evaluation rather

- 13
than design, and it is against the precisely specified objectives that the
arguments of reductionism, trivialisation, mechanistic manipulation, and
materialism have their greatest force. In this country, the Schools Council
Project 'Science 5-13' used objectives flexibly and imaginatively, and in
spite of the various arguments against them objectives are alive and well and
living in the Assessment of Performance Unit, Local Authority testing, and
graded tests, inter alia!

Specification of content is, of course, the traditional focus of curriculum

'design' in this country - the 'syllabus' as a list of 'topics to be covered'.
Such an approach is characterised by its assumption of a common educational
background, and a common set of values and morals. It communicates to an
'in-group' and relates to a conception of the School or College as a set of
semi-autonomous units Bernstein's 'collection code' in operation! It is
highly conservative and resistant to change because its value base is largely
tacit and unquestioned. In practice, all curriculum theories incorporate
content in some form, but where content approaches have an explicit rationale,
it is fundamentally epistemological, based on an analysis of the nature and
structure of knowledge. A key international writer here is Jerome Bruner,
who, in the early 1960s argued that every discipline has an internal
structure of interrelated concepts, ideas, generalisations, and laws which
allow the organisation and generation of a great deal of specific information,
and hence allow both an economy and a transfer of learning. The curriculum
design task is to delineate these 'key concepts' and keep returning to them in
increasingly complex and challenging form (the 'spiral curriculum') through an
appropriate mode of representation. In spite of such issues as whether all
disciplines do, in fact, conform to Bruner's model of structure, and to what
extent we can agree on which ideas of a discipline are structural, Bruner's
ideas have been very influential. The most powerful exemplar of the
structural approach to course design was "MAN, a Course of Study" for which
Bruner himself was consultant.

Again, the idea of designing a curriculum around a statement of what is to

happen is not new, but in contemporary writing the common factor uniting a
cluster of writers has been a rejection of the tyranny of objectives, a
rejection based in their experience of curriculum design in the arts,
humanities and social sciences, where specification of precise outcomes is
seen as impossible or unethical. The most fully worked out model in
contemporary research is that of Stenhouse, derived from his work on the
Humanities Curriculum Project. Because of the team's adopted values of
autonomy, diversity, controversy and understanding, structuring by objectives
was seen as inappropriate; structuring by content was inadequate to the non-
disciplinary nature of the project. Stenhouse developed his argument from an
early paper of Peters, who was then arguing that a liberal education is
defined by its mode of acquisition rather than by content or aims. Stenhouse
adopted Peters' concept of 'principles of procedure' as a means of structuring
an appropriate classroom process by asking the question "What classroom
procedures are implicit in our aim?". The Humanities Project is a complex
curriculum structured by a central classroom strategy, just as MACOS is a
complex project structured around key concepts, themes and generalisations.

In summary, a reading of curriculum design literature would no longer

programme the aspirant designer towards a 'correct' design model, but lead him
to analyse which approach might be most appropriate, effective and feasible
in relation to:
a. the level of sophistication of teachers and learners;
b. the context of implementation;
c. the nature of the discipline or subject matter.

There are many roads to Rome!

-14- '42
4.0 GRADED OBJECTIVES IN MODERN LANGUAGES (GOML)
Sheila Rowell
General Adviser for European Languages, London Borough of Croydon

The Situation

Before 1965, Modern Languages were studied by only 25% of the school
population, mainly in selective schools, and for a clear purpose: to obtain
matriculation, ie entry to Higher Education. The approach was analytical, the
objective to produce correct written language, the aim to show a level of
intelligence which was thought to be transferable.

In 1984 the national picture is that approximately 93% of pupils between 10

and 13 begin to study a Modern Language; by the age of 14, two thirds have
given up. Very small (decreasing) numbers elect to study languages at 'A'
level, and of these, two thirds are girls. Figures for Croydon are as
follows: of 4,425 pupils in year 5 in January 1983, 1,569 were entered for
GCE/CSE in French, ie 35.5% completed a 5 year course.

The Problems

Unfortunately our pupils already speak the most important world language.
Whereas in other countries a knowledge of English is sometimes essential and
always useful, no ONE language is seen as being all-important to a UK citizen.
The question "Which language?" can easily become "Why any language?". Yet the
learning of a foreign language has a vital role to play in showing pupils that
there are 2 sides (or more) to every question.

The introduction of Modern Language learning to the whole ability range in the
1960s and early 70s was chaotic. Many teachers, accustomed to teaching
more-able pupils, and in many cases believing that this was educationally
justified, resented having to deal with the wh-Jle ability range. They had no
appropriate training, suitable materials were not available, and when they
appealed for help colleagues with long experience of teaching the less-able
were unsympathetic. Their problems were exacerbated by the widespread
introduction of mixed-ability teaching (now acknowledged by HMI to be inappro-
priate for Modern Language teaching after the first year) and by the practice
of 'blocking' the timetable, so that Modern Language lessons became longer but
fewer and farther between, and pupils needed more and more revision before
they could proceed with new work.

Two thirds of our pupils embark on an essentially academic 5 year '0' level
course on which they are bound to fail. They realise this early in the
course, and opt to drop-out at the first possible opportunity, because they
have no achievable goal. They may have studied a language for 2, 3 or 4
years, but have no outward recognition of their achievement, and because of
the nature of the course, which is not usually designed to provide a logical
leaving point for those who do not complete the whole course, many of these
pupil& feel that they have wasted their time, and want nothing more to do with
French, the French or France.

Since the demise of matriculation, there is no external motivation for the

learning of Modern Languages. In France and Germany study of a foreign
language is obligatory at all levels of education; in the UK, qualifications
in Maths and English are often specifically required, but a foreign language
is merely 'another subject', and one in which pupils consider it difficult to
obtain a certificate. Many see a 'learning' subject as a safer option.

Even those who have enjoyed their introduction to the language often find
themselves obliged to give it up at the fourth year option stage because the

- 15
foreign language is set against a more desirable - or apparently more useful
subject, or because they are actively discouraged (this seems to be common
in the 14-18 schools).

Despite encouraging public statements (eg the Duke of Kent speaking for the
British Overseas Trade Board) there is little support for foreign language
learning in the community, and rising unemployment has tended to make it even
more unpopular. This is somewhat ironical, since it is clear that we need
more education for leisure (which will certainly include foreign travel) and
those seeking work will have much more scope if they can handle an EEC
language.

Our public examination system is designed to select out for the next stage of
education rather than to assess what has been achieved so far. In foreign
languages, it selects those who can write French accurately, though very few
will ever be called upon to do so, and gives little credit for achievement in
those skills which will be most useful outside school, namely speaking and
listening. None of our public examination syllabuses are based on what one
might consider to be an obvious aim, ie a working knowledge of a foreign
language.

The Remedy

In the mid-70s a number of teachers set out to tackle the main problem: lack
-if motivation. They felt that this could be improved only if the dismal
record of failure at increasing hurdles could be turned into a ladder of
success. Basing their scheme on the idea of a series of graded levels, akin
to those long used in Music, Dance, Gymnastics and Swimming, they suggested
that each level should be complete in itself, but should also lead on
logically to the next level. Instead of failing almost from the beginning of
a long haul, the pupil would attempt a small, realistic, defined step, and if
successful, move on to the next step. Tests would be based on a defined
syllabus and would be designed to show what the pupil COULD achieve, rather
than trying to highlight his weaknesses. A pupil who did not wish to continue
his language study would take a final achievement test and would, if
successful, have something to show for his years of study, however few, rather
than merely 'dropping' the subject.

Since the first schemes were launched in 1977, over 80 groups of teachers in
78 LEA's have devised their own 'GOML' schemes (Graded Objectives in Modern
Languages). The results have shown greatly increased motivation towards the
subject on the part of both pupils and parents (in the York schools the fourth
year take-up rate for French has increased from 46% in 1976/7 to 97% in
1983/4)and considerably improved morale on the part of the teachers. This is
because they have for the first time been involved in devising their own
syllabuses and in working together to find the best ways of teaching and
testing those syllabuses. What began as an exercise in raising the interest
of the pupils has turned out to be the most successful in-service exercise
ever invented. As for the pupils: over 350,000 throughout the UK chose to
take a language achievement test in 1983.

All Graded Objectives assessment is based on criterion-referencing, ie the

criteria for success are carefully defined and each individual is assessed
according to whether or not he achieves these criteria. Since there is no
requirement for selection, norm-referencing is not relevant. Pupils are
tested when they are likely to achieve success: for some, this will mean
achieving Level 1 after a short period, for others this may be the Level they
will reach after 2 or 3 years. It is recognised that language learning is a
skill at which pupils will progress at different rates: to expect them all to

- 16 -

2 51
reach the same level at 16 is equivalent to expecting every child of 10 to
have the same reading age. What is important is to be able to assess the
appropriate reading or French level at any age.

It is hoped that pupils who have enjoyed their language learning at school,
and who feel that they have had some success (at whatever level) will be more
likely to leave school with positive attitudes towards the foreign country and
people, and to want to continue their language study in later life when there
may be a vocational reason for learning a particular language. The RSA has
already set up graded levels for adults based on these lines, and it should be
possible to provide a link between school and FE/AE Courses in Croydon.

The levels are LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE, ie the certificate clearly states what
it is that a pupil who achieves a certain level can do- It follows that the
tests themselves must involve genuine activities (finding out information,
writing a letter, role playing) rather than mere testing devices (eg picture
essay, prose translation). This is particularly important since a survey by
the National Association of Language Advisers has shown that teaching is
adversely affected by back-wash from examinations as much as 5 years before a
public examination is due to be taken, despite evidence that practising
examination techniques is neither a very effective nor a very motivating
approach to learning.

The search for ways of improving motivation has led to new thinking about ways
of presenting a Modern Language syllabus. The GOML groups have adopted a
FUNCTIONAL approach to syllabus design, that is, the target language is
thought of in terms of what one can do with it, rather than how one can
analyse it. This means that a teaching unit will not consist of, eg "present
tense -er verbs", but eg "how to say what you do in your spare time".
Teaching to this sort of syllabus means that both teacher and pupil know what
they are teaching a unit of language FOR, and what they will be able to do at
the end of it. Hence the possibility of defining performance levels.

An important factor in the raising of interest of pupils has been the transfer
of emphasis from written skills to oral/aural skills. The levels of
achievement which GOML seeks to reward are for performance in COMMUNICATION,
initially in listening, speaking and reading, and later also in writing.
(Unfortunately even pupils who achieve Grade A in GCE are rarely able to
communicate.) Teachers involved in GOML schemes have adopted a communicative
approach to language learning, that is, they try to ensure that at all levels
of learning, language is used for a purpose, not treated as a series of
meaningless structural exercises. Structures have, of course, to be learnt
and practised, but too often they are not put to any USE.

GOML and Public Examinations: in most areas groups have devised 3 lower
levels, and have then submitted their Level 4 as a CSE Mode 3 (in 1983, 23
such examinations had been accepted by CSE Boards) and have plans to submit a
Level 5 as a Mode 3 '0' Level (two of these will be operational in 1985, and
many others are in preparation). It should be noted that the East Midlands
Regional Examining Board is certificating in their area at all levels from 1
to 5. Meantime the new Examining Authorities have set up Working Parties to
work out new syllabuses based on the Joint Criteria, and have incorporated
much of the developmental work already done by GOML groups: the new NEA
(Northern Examinations Area) 16 plus, to be offered in French, German and
Spanish in 1987, is in fact the York area's Level 5 graded test. For once
development has started from the bottom, and teachers who set out to provide
an alternative system of examinations for Modern Languages have ended up by
provoking changes in the examinations they found so unsuitable for the
majority of pupils. For the new 16 plus, when it arrives, will be criterion-

17
Currency of Certificates: the main purpose of the certificate is to reward the
pupil personally for his achievement. It also clarifies this level of
achievement for the school and for any subsequent educational institution and
for parents and friends. Finally, although it is not intended to be a
vocational passport in the style of eg 'RSA Typewriting Stage 2' it neverthe-
less indicates to a future employer: a. that the pupil has successfully
completed a course in a modern language; and b. that he/she can perform in the
language in the areas and to the level indicated on the certificate.

2C
- 18-
5.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN THE HONG KONG DTEO
A report of a session run by Richard Cauldwell,
formerly of Hong Kong DTEO

1. Background

The Hong Kong Direct Teaching of English Operation (DTEO), in common with many
other DTEOs, was faced witb a number of problems bordering on administrative
areas on the one hand and professional areas on the other. Two such problems
were associated with the division of courses into different levels. These
problems were accentuated in an institute the size of Hong Kong (between
9,000-12,500 students) with some twelve levels up to Cambridge First
Certificate. The problems were as follows:

1.1 It was often very difficult to match students who were being
promoted from one level to the next with new students who were entering
at the second level. The new entrants often had a better command of
English.

1.2 The lesson/course content was most often determined by textbooks

rather than any explicit statement of specific target performance in
English at the end of a course. This made it impossible to design valid
and reliable tests at each level as well as to get a clear picture of the
differences between levels.

These problems were clearly linked and both as much a product of

organisational considerations as professional ones. Central to both problems
was the need for clear and systematic statements of target performance for a
given level. This would enable the staff to assess whether existing students
had achieved the desired performance to merit promotion and whether new
students were at a similar level of achievement. The statements of target
performance would help staff to devise valid and reliable tests with which to
assess their students and generally make the demands of the different levels
clear to both staff and students. An added advantage was that they would also
serve as a means of describing a student's English competence to a third
party, for example a sponsor or employer. These statements of target
performance are called performance objectives.

2. Determining the Performance Objectives

The approach taken to establishing the performance objectives was to canvas

the views of students and typical employers by means of questionnaires and
interviews. In addition to this teachers' views and opinions were sought. In
this way 'needs' and 'wants' were established. The students' goals in
learning English can be split into two sub-goals: the first is for the purpose
of using English and the second for the purpose of further learning (in an
English medium situation). These sub-goals can be further broken down into
more specific purposes. Figure 1 summarises this:
FIGURE 1

Goal

Using English Learning English

Inside Outside
Work Study 1 Social classroom classroom

The purposes above reflect the findings of the survey of the students. Of the
various groups making up the student body two prominent groups wishing to be
able to use English in their work settings were office workers in clerical
posts and manual workers. As a starting point for the sizable task of drawing
up performance objectives for all groups at all levels, the Hong Kong team
decided to single out the purpose of using English in the work situation for
the clerical group. This is then just a small part (the extreme bottom left
of Figure 1 for one group only) of the eventual target of the project.

3. Examples of Performance Objectives

It is argued by Falvey and Milanovic, in their paper delivered at the 1983

conference held in the Regional English Language Centre in Singapore, that it
is most meaningful to state performance objectives in relatively general terms
- outlining the kinds of language tasks likely to be demanded of the student
rather than the language items and functions they should learn. The latter
should be left to the classroom, thus recognising the variety of linguistic
routes available to task completion. Examples of performance objectives for
clerical workers are as follows:

3.1 Describe how to do things in the office or work-related areas.

3.2 Listen actively to descriptions of how to do things in the office or

in work-related areas:

- how to operate equipment;

how to follow procedures.

NOTES

1. 'Work-related areas' = workshops, customer service areas, building

sites, reception, government offices, banks etc.

2. Listen actively means that the student has the confidence to:

i. interrupt, ask questions when he/she needs clarification,

and participate in the interaction;

ii. take appropriate action while listening, eg making a note

of action to be taken or interaction to be provided.

-20-
2
s
These are expanded as follows:

3.1 DESCRIBE HOW TO DO THINGS IN THE OFFICE OR WORK-RELATED AREAS

- how to operate equipment eg typewriters

photocopiers

how to follow procedures eg - operating filing systems etc.

Examples:

3.1.1 bank clerk explaining to a customer the steps to follow in order

to open a bank account.

3.1.2 clerical worker explaining to a superior officer how to use the

filing system in a particular office, eg procedures to follow when
opening a new file.

3.1.3 clerical worker explaining to a superior officer the channels to

follow in order to achieve a specified goal, eg the people to deal
with and the forms to be completed in order to obtain a Hong Kong
identity card etc.

3.1.4 a clerical worker in a travel agents explaining procedures to be

followed in order to obtain a visa.

3.1.5 a clerical worker explaining to an expatriate member of staff how

to use a piece of equipment, eg a photocopier, telex machine etc.

3.2 LISTEN ACTIVELY (see Note 2) TO DESCRIPTIONS OF HOW TO DO THINGS IN

THE OFFICE OR IN WORK-RELATED AREAS

- how to operate equipment eg typewriter

word-processor etc
how to follow procedures eg - maintaining office accounts.

Examples:

3.2.1 expatriate sales manager explaining to salesmen how to use a new

piece of equipment, eg a word-processor.

3.2.2 expatriate member of staff explaining to a clerical worker how to

use a sophisticated calculator to produce office ''-atistics.

3.2.3 an accounts clerk receiving instructions regarding

i. authorised signatures required before payments can be made

and of other details concerning financial records.

ii. maintenance.

3.2.4 a clerical worker receiving instructions about the implementation

of security regulations for computerised records.

14. Workshop task relating to performance objectives

It was felt that a useful way to come to grips with performance objectives
might be to try to prepare them. In groups following the guidelines taken
from Mager 1962 the Dunford seminar participants were to prepare performance
objectives for the second sub-goal in Figure 1: Learning English.

- 21 -
4.1 Guidelines (Taken from Mager 1962)

4.1.1 Write a statement that describes the main intent or performance

expected of the student.

4.1.2 If the performance happens to be covert, add an indicator

behaviour through which the main intent can be shown.

4..1.3 Describe relevant or important conditions under which the

performance is expected to occur. If it seems useful, add a sample test
item. Add as much description as is needed to communicate the intent to
others.

4.2 Task

4.2.1 Write a performance objective for:

Learning English

in out of
Either or
Class Class

4.2.2 Use Mager's specifications and examples on the handout (4.1) as

models.

4.2.3 Write the objective on an overhead transparency for presentation/

photocopying.

-22-
6.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING AND LEARNING.
Dick Allwright
University of Lancaster

Teachers do not expect their learners to learn everything that they teach
them, but, if their learners have no other opportunities to learn, then
teachers are likely to expect that WHAT their learners learn is directly
related to what they teach.

Research suggests, however, that the teaching-learning -.elationship is far

more indirect. There are two main approaches to the problem of understanding
this indirectness:

A: We can assume that the relationship is itself direct (causal), and

then look for some factor (or factors) that may be intervening to
obscure the relationship for the observer.

OR

B: We can assume that the relationship is in fact indirect and then

look for some factor (or factors) to explain how it is that learners
come to learn whatever it is that they do learn.

Some factors have already been suggested in relation to these two

approaches:

6.1 The INCUBATION hypothesis.

It has been suggested that whatever learners are taught will need an
'incubation' period before it can be expected to appear in their
performance. Such an incubation period could account for findings that
otherwise appear to point to a lack of causal relationship between
teaching and learning, because it would predict that recently taught
items would, in performance, appear not to have been learned, and it
would also predict that items would appear to have been learned that had
not recently been taught. The incubation hypothesis, however, would not
predict the appearance of items not yet taught. To account for such
findings an alternative hypothesis is needed.

6.2 The INTERACTION hypothesis.

It may be that what learners are taught is not simply the 'syllabus', as
planned and implemented in a 1:1 fashion by the teacher, but something
potentially much more complex the product of the classroom interaction
process, whereby what gets taught becomes modified, probably enriched.
This hypothesis would suggest that the lack of apparent relationship
between teaching and learning is an artefact of the failure to observe
and take properly into account what actually gets taught in the
classroom, as opposed to what has been planned to be taught there, or
assumed to have been taught there. The hypothesis could be tested by
relating detailed observationof actual teaching to learning
performance. An alternative hypothesis would be needed if much appeared
in performance that could not be traced back to specific acts of
teaching.

5.3 The INPUT hypothesis.

It may be that what learners can learn from is not just what gets
specifically 'taught'. They may be able to learn from things that

-23-
happen in the classroom that are not in themselves specific acts of
'teaching'. Perhaps classroom interaction offers a wide range of inputs
to learners' learning processes. Perhaps they can learn from all the
classroom management talk, for example, at least if it is conducted in
the target language. It may be that in this way 'what is available to
be learned from' offers such a variety of learning opportunities that it
should come as no surprise if what learners learn is only weakly related
to that subset of learning opportunities produced directly by acts of
teaching. Perhaps the mere frequency of learning opportunities for a
particular item, whether or not 'teaching' is involved, will be enough
to facilitate learning.

In principle such a hypothesis could be tested by relating a detailed

account of the occurrence of learning opportunities to learner
performance. If the hypothesis were not falsified in this way, then we
might ask whether 'frequency of occurrence of learning opportunities' is
in itself a sufficient explanation for whatever learning takes place.
By what processes, we might ask, is something learned when it is
frequently encountered? For that we shall need a further hypothesis.

6.4 The ACQUISITION hypotheliii.

It may be that, even if frequency itself is not crucial, learners get

whatever they get from the classroom input by processes that are
importantly different from those the teaching is trying to invoke. If
the learners are using some 'natural processes' rather than those
assumed to be involved in formal instructional settings, then this might
explain why what they get from a lesson is different from what has been
taught (and not just 'less than' what has been taught).

We might be able to test this hypothesis by comparing the performance of

learners receiving only formal instruction with what is known about the
performance of untutored learners (or 'acquirers'). If cheir
performance could be better predicted in this way than by trying to
relate it directly to the teaching then the acquisition hypothesis would
receive support. We might also, in trying to make sense of the
performance data, invoke a further hypothesis.

6.5 The NATURAL ORDER hypothesis.

It may be that teaching and learning are only indirectly related because
learners, even in a formal classroom setting, are following a natural
order of acquisition which is unrelated either to the teaching syllabus,
or to whatever actually does get taught, or even to the frequency of
whatever 'becomes available to be learned from' in the classroom. Again
one should be able to test this hypothesis (in principle at least) by
comparing the performance of classroom learners with that of untutored
acquirers. But it would be difficult to maintain the 'natural order'
hypothesis if learners' 'orders' turned out to be idiosyncratic. For
such results we might turn to the last hypothesis here.

6.6 The PERSONAL AGENDA hypothesis.

It may be that learners follow a 'personal agenda' in their learning (or

acquisition), selecting whatever it is that they personally want from
all the learning opportunities that classroom interaction engenders, and
perhaps doing interactive work on occasion to ensure the occurrence of
items on their personal agendas that do not otherwise arise.

- 24-
General Comments

a. These hypotheses are not in themselves novel (except perhaps the

'interaction hypothesis'), but they do not appear to have been related to each
other in the above way before, or to the general question of the relationship
of teaching and learning.

b. All the hypotheses have already been studied, to a greater or lesser

extent, and all seem investigable by relatively familiar research techniques.

c. It nevertheless seems most unlikely that any of them will ever be

conclusively falsified, if only because they are likely to be extremely
difficult to disentangle from each other.

d. Only settings permitting a clear comparison between formal instruction

only and informal acquisition only will allow us to obtain anything like
clear results, if any are ever to be obtained at all.

e. It seems most likely that we shall eventually have to accept that all
the hypotheses (and probably others as yet unimagined) are needed to help us
understand the complexities of classroom language learning. Any apparent
incompatibility between them is probably an illusion.

f. NONE of the six hypotheses is required if further research suggests that

what learners learn is simply a subset of what they are taught. There are
plenty of other hypotheses to account for what may be straightforward after
all. The first problem is therefore to establish that there really are
discrepancies between what teachers teach and what learners learn,
discrepancies that cannot be explained merely by drawing attention to the fact
that teachers are not perfect, and learners are not perfect. That we know.

- 25 -{
7.0 THREE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF TEACHING AND TEACHING MATERIALS
Robert O'Neill

It may seem pretentious, or at least overly ambitious, to try to reduce

anything so complex as teaching to "three simple principles", but they provide
a kind of framework for my own materials. I don't claim I always achieve
these things, and I am sharply aware of the tremendous distinction between
what materials set out to enable and what actually results from them. In
any case, materials are only one aspect of teaching. But materials design
must feed directly into teaching, just as teaching must feed back into
materials design.

But what are these "three principles"?

1. A Clear Centre
2. Forward Impetus
3. Buoyancy

A lesson has to be about something. This is not a novel or original

statement but it is surprising how many lessons don't appear to be about
anything at all, at least not about something which a learner can clearly
preview.

However, I have come to believe that grammatical and functional goals are far
too narrow to provide this centre I am talking about. That is:

lessons and materials should include grammatical and/or functional

aims but they are simply too narrow to provide the centre themselves.

I believe that materials design and lesson planning (and, by the way, I
believe that lessons are more likely to suffer from over-planning than no
planning at all) should try to find their "centre" in something that includes
perhaps one or two main grammar or functional points, some lexical work, and
other things as well (such as intonation, review of previous grammar and
functions etc). But this "centre" should be easily summed up without
reference to any of these things. The centre can often come from a theme, a
story, an incident, or something else, primarily non-linguistic in nature,
which will interest the learners. Of course, it is terribly difficult to
predict what will interest them, but unfortunately we still have to try.

The forward impetus of a lesson or materials is mainly a matter of

generating anticipation. It is striking how often lessons and materials go
on and on without producing any anticipation at all. That is, the student
yawns and says to him/herself "When are we going to stop all this practice of
'How long have you been ....ing?' or 'Requests and Offers'?" They don't
usually have a framework which allows them to say to themselves "Ahh, well,
this patch may be a bit boring but the next bit that is coming should be more
interesting". This kind of anticipation is at the very heart of most of the
listening we do when we talk in our own language, or when we read a book,
watch a film, etc. The framework of the activity provides us with some
ability to anticipate what is going to happen, or at least an interest and a
curiosity to find out what is going to be said, what is going to happen, and
so on. Yet, I say again, many lessons, and quite a lot of the materials upon
which they are based, seem totally lacking in this.

Buoyancy is what allows a teacher to float in a lesson rather than drown. A

drowning man or woman thrashes about in the water desperately, flailing arms
and legs, wasting energy that will drain you and drag you down rather than

-26-
e
1
keep you afloat. A drowning teacher dashes to and from the blackboard,
constantly tries to initiate, gets little or nothing back from the class, and
enters into the same cycle of leaden exhaustion as a drowning non-swimmer.
Buoyancy cannot come directly from the materials being used. Sometimes it
comes from a deliberate decision to use no materials at all. But materials,
when they are used, can help the teacher to achieve this buoyancy. They can
help the teacher by giving the learner something to work with, a framework to
work within, and above all, something for both the teacher and the class to
react to and to improvise upon.

27 -
e:4r7
8.0 IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING: 'SPIRIT' AND 'HOOHA'
Keith Johnson
Centre for Applied Language Studies, Unviversity of Reading

This contribution is addressed to those who wish to introduce innovations into

language teaching practice, who have clear ideas as to what those innovations
are to be, yet who are likely to meet opposition from agencies - Ministries,
Institutes, teachers etc when cooperation is necessary.

Ideas, innovatory or otherwise, may be seen as having two sides to them. The
spirit of the idea is to its central insight. But ideas also often carry
with them a great deal of paraphernalia; elaborate procedures, complex
frameworks, philosophical hullabaloo: their hooha. Where spirit ends and
hooha begins will of course often be a question of personal interpretation,
and it is admitted that this contribution uses the terms (particularly hooha)
in a vague and sometimes ambiguous way. Nevertheless the claim is that the
distinction, however personally interpreted, can be useful when considering
the implementation of innovations.

Two (personally interpreted) examples. The spirit of the Silent Way is its
insight that student engagement is increased by reducing teacher input. The
Cuisenaire rods, the colour charts, the philosophical hinterland are the
hooha. The spirit of needs analysis is the realisation that it is important
to have clear ideas on why students are learning a language. The hooha are
the elaborate needs analysis models.

It is natural that the innovator should find himself involved in hooha.

High-level brokers often deal in the currency of hooha, revelling in models,
diagrams with boxes and arrows, elaborate theoretical justifications. Less
cynically, there is a natural desire on the part of such bodies to expect new
ideas to be well mapped out and theoretically sound (and often of course it is
in theory that hooha lurks).

Nor is hooha without its effect. The language teaching world is quite capable
of espousing new models, new procedures without the slightest conception of
the spirit behind them. Was every audio-lingual teacher a confirmed
behaviourist? It would be naive to assume that the spirit of an idea needs to
be understood and accepted for its accompanying hooha to be universally used.

This contribution, nevertheless, will argue in praise of the spirit. It will

claim that hooha without spirit is often a waste of time, and can be
positively harmful. It will then argue that it is possible to introduce
spirit without hooha, and indeed that a determined effort to avoid hooha is a
powerful way of successfully implementing innovation.

Hooha without spirit is often a waste of time because it has no real impact.
New Hooha becomes grafted on to old spirit, and nothing substantially changes.
The confirmed structural teacher may enthusiastically espouse communicative
metalanguage to describe traditional techniques. A drill of the sort:

T: table S: This is a table.

T: chair S: This is a chair.

is communicative, one may be toy, because there is an 'information gap'; the

student does not know in advance whether the teacher will say table or chair.
Only the metalanguage changes.

28 - ci
Further, hooha of its nature wastes time by breeding more hooha. A decision
to adopt a notional syllabus may lead to an elaborate needs analysis taking
many years. When the level of materials production is reached the analysis
may prove largely useless because it imposes conditions on the materials that
they cannot possibly meet. Then there are likely to be lengthy discussions on
the differences between notions and functions (angels on a pinhead?). Then
come the agonies of decisions about ordering - which functions should be
taught before which other functions? Hooha without spirit is trees without
the wood, and the potentiality for getting lost is great.

Concentration on hooha can be not just time-wasting but positively harmful,

and notional syllabus design provides another example. Wilkins describes the
notional syllabus as 'analytic' and to an extent relates it to
non-interventionist approaches like those of Newmark and Reibel. In many
parts of the world there is discontent with the rigid and lockstep procedures
of the structured syllabus, and the notional syllabus may seem - in spirit
to offer a slightly less interventionist answer. Enter hooha, with its
elaborate needs analyses and its lengthy syllabus inventories. The result is
often a greater rigidity and prescription of teaching. Any spirit of non-
intervention easily becomes choked by the hooha.

It is possible to introduce spirit without hooha. Consider for example Dr

Prabhu's proposals for a topic-based or 'procedural' syllabus. His claim is
that language structure is best learned when prime focus is on meaning. This
leads him to avoid linguistic prescription and have instead a syllabus of
tasks. 'Meaning focus' is achieved by cognitively engaging the learners in
problem-solving activities.

The innovator who seeks to introduce such ideas on the hooha level is likely
to encounter severe problems. Any suggestion that linguistic control should
be abolished directly confronts long-established hoohas. In many countries
such a suggestion would not even be considered. But even if it were, there
would be the danger of a new hooha developing. Task-based syllabuses would
introduce an entire new industry. Task-based needs analyses? Grading of tasks
in terms of cognitive complexity? .... Spirit beware, hooha is there.

Dr Prabhu's proposals might be said to have two 'spirits'. Neither, stripped

of hooha, is particularly outlandish. The first is that cognitive engagement
through problem-solving is desirable. Many teachers are ready to accept this,
and are indeed prepared to seek advice on how best to achieve it. The second
spirit involves a loosening of linguistic control. If this idea is formalised
(hoohaised?) into a full teaching strategy with concomitant background theory
then it is often received with hostility. But teachers may be quite prepared
to admit that communication involves coming to terms with the unknown, and
that it is an important communicative skill to learn how to operate adequately
in a linguistic environment (eg abroad) where perhaps only 50% of what is said
is understood. This realisation may lead to quite substantial changes in
terms of linguistic control in the exercises teachers are prepared to give
their students. Thus, restricting oneself to the spirit of ideas may end in a
good deal of innovation. After all, one may need a derrree or teacher training
course to understand the intricacies of hooha; but good spirits shine out for
all to understand.

The implications of these arguments may be twofold. First, it may be that

inculcation of spirit through teacher training can achieve more than head-on
confrontation with official channels w"ich may insist (thrive?) on hooha.
Secondly, and more certainly, the innovator should look carefully at his
innovations and ask: What is its spirit? What is its hooha? Can I introduce
the one without the other?

-29-
9.00 EVALUATION OF CURRICULA AND SYLLABUSES
J Charles Alderson
Institute for English Language Education, University of Lancaster

Any consideration of curriculum and syllabus design must begin with two
questions: What do we intend to achieve with our curriculum and syllabus, and
How are we going to know what we have achieved and how we have achieved it?
As Wiseman and Pidgeon (1970) put it:

The fundamental task of constructing a curriculum is manifestly

that of devising an instrument for successfully achieving a set
of educational aims. (p20)

In other words, designers are necessarily and essentially concerned not only
with establishing curricular aims, but also with evaluation, and ensuring
adequate means of evaluating success (or otherwise). Not only does this mean
taking evaluation seriously in curriculum development, but also and
importantly integrating evaluation into design projects from the very
beginning, rather than leaving it until the design has been finalised and the
curriculum implemented. As Wiseman and Pidgeon point out, evaluation must be
considered and built in to projects at the same time as the aims and
objectives and the means of implementing these are being developed. Typically,
however, and not only in language teaching projects, evaluation is left until
the end of a project, at which point evaluators are invited in to pronounce
judgements on the worth of a project (which can, not surprisingly, cause
considerable resentment). Despite the attention paid to evaluation in the
Cameroons Textbook project, for example, (Wilson and Harrison, 1983), it
appears to have been the case that the lack of priority given to evaluation in
the planning stages of the project led to inadequate provision and above all
to the results of evaluation being ignored. Wilson and Harrison clearly show
how the almost daily changes in constraints on development projects make it
essential that evaluators work as closely as possible with developers from the
inception of a project. Unfortunately, however, theorists may often recognise
the importance of evaluation, yet fail to show how such evaluation could or
should be implemented (see, for example, Breen and Candlin, 1980). This is,
indeed, particularly a problem in language teaching, especially in EFL. As
Murphy (1985) says:

"The crux of the matter as far as the development of language

teaching is concerned is that the theoreticians are content
to maintain a non-empirical approach, and their competing
designs, for all their academic weight, fail to produce the
improvements sought" (p8)

He suggests that this is precisely because they fail to take evaluation

sufficiently seriously as to specify procedures for evaluating designs and
innovations. To quote Murphy further:

We need to know how well the theory works in practice.

To acknowledge the need for "tnoughtful experimentation"
(Wilkins' phrase), for the "test of practical application"
(Widdowson's phrase) is insufficient by itself. Since no
results are given, no indication of what a practical test
would be like and no source for guidance on how to conduct
such tests, we are left thinking that the phrases may be
no more than enjoinders to "give it a whirl" (p8)

There is, indeed, considerable evidence that evaluation is either simply

ignored, or has lip-service paid to it, or is added as an afterthought, once

- 30-
n
materials and methods have been designed and established. Yet if evaluation
is to guide the curriculum process and decisions, then it must be incorporated
ab initio - so that it can take account of the developing aims of the
project, and even contribute to such aims, and also so that its findings can
be fed back into the design process in a continuous dynamic interaction.

What is evaluation? There is a regrettable tendency, within ELT, to equate

evaluation with testing. The two are not synonymous, however, since tests are
only one means of gathering information. Evaluation is, in fact, a very
generalised area. To quote Cronbach (1975):

"Evaluation is a diversified activity where many types of

information are useful for making many types of decisions."

This usefully emphasises the plurality of possibilities for procedures, and

draws attention to evaluation as an information-gathering activity intended to
inform the decision-making process in a curricular context. Cronbach also
says:

"Evaluation should be used to understand how the course produces

its effects and what parameters influence its effectiveness"

In this view, evaluation is much more than "just" measuring: it is part of the
process of understanding.

There is, however, a regrettable tendency also to view testing as simply the
administration and interpretation of pen and paper tests. I prefer to take a
wider view of testing, and see it as a two-part activity: elicitation and
judgement. A test is essentially a device for eliciting relevant behaviour
which then becomes describable and some procedure for judging that behaviour
which implies the establishment of criteria for adequacy and acceptability.
This wider view of testing allows us to consider as a suitable instrument any
procedure which elicits and allows for description, and then provides for
comparison and judgements. It is interesting to compare this definition of a
test with Nisbet's view of evaluation (Nisbet, 1972):

"Evaluation is not only a judgement: it also sets out the

evidence and reasoning which led to that judgement, and
if evaluation is to be accepted as valid we need to be sure
that the evidence reported is a fair sample, and the reasoning
from it is logical, and that alternative interpretations have
been considered and disproved"

In other words, evaluation, like testing, is concerned with explicitness of

evidence, with its validity and with the validity of the comparisons, criteria
and judgements.

It is important to emphasise that there is no ONE way of evaluating, rather

that.different sorts of evidence, elicited by different instruments, will be
appropriate for different purposes. There is a close and crucial relationship
between What and How one evaluates, and one's purpose in evaluating. The
procedures one adopts and the content one selects for the evaluation will
depend upon why one is gathering the information and who it is intended for.
As Rea (1983) points out:

Different areas of evaluation are important to different people

at different times and for different reasons.

31 -
Examples of three different procedures

The Bangalore/Madras Communicational Teaching Project provides an interesting

example of the use of fairly traditional language tests to provide some means
of external evaluation of an innovative teaching programme in order to
convince outsiders and sceptics of the value of the Project. Details are
available in Beretta (1984) but briefly the instruments chosen were two tests
intended to favour one or other of the experimental and control groups of
schoolchildren who had or had not taken part in the Project, and a group of
three tests intended to be neutral as to bias towards one or the other group.
In addition, the performances of both groups on public examinations were
compared to see whether the experimental groups showed any disadvantage on
"traditional criteria" however irrelevant they might be to the aims of the
Project.

What is interesting is not so much the results (although these tend to show
limited advantage for the experimental group over the control group) as the
fact that the evaluators might be said to have stacked the dice against the
experiment by selecting tests rather than engaging in extended analyses of
attitudes, of classroom discourse or of subsequent use of English "in the real
world" or whatever other procedure might have found more potentially
favourable results. Instead, traditional criteria were used to convince
sceptics.

Unlike the Bangalore Project, which only conducted an 'external' evaluation

after four years of experimentation, the work of the Communication Skills Unit
in Dar es Salaam is interesting as an example of evaluation in action
precisely because it has incorporated evaluation through language tests from
the very beginning of the design of the courses for which the Unit is
responsible. In this case, too, it is noteworthy that outside "experts" were
not invited in in order to conduct an external evaluation. Instead the team
members themselves built in the externally verifiable evaluation procedures
and instruments, not simply in order to convince outside sceptics of the value
of their work but in order to prove to themselves that what they were trying
to achieve was or was not being achieved. Again, there is no space to go into
detail but in summary, students were given entry and exit tests to determine
the amount of learning during CSU courses, the performance of students taking
CSU courses was compared with that of those not taking such courses and a
range of subjective assessments by language and subject tutors was gathered on
both CSU and non-CSU students, in order to investigate whether students
benefitted from the CSU courses. Again, what is important is less the results
of the evaluation, but rather the fact that:

the evaluation was internal, but externally accountable

the evaluation, even though rather traditional in design, was
included in course design from the very outset
formative as well as summative aspects of evaluation were included
the design was essentially intended to answer the question: do our
courses meet externally and internally defined objectives?

Both the Bangalore and the Tanzanian projects are not1:::e because their use of
language tests as instruments allows for public scrutiny and criticism of
criteria and the operationalisation of objectives they represent.

In the Institute for English Language Education at Lancaster I am responsible

for the pre-sessional language and study skills courses we run for overseas
university students, and we have evolved a rather extensive set of evaluation
procedures for our courses. These involve an initial pencil and paper test

-32- I' 0
for the students, a questionnaire on their expectations and wants regarding
the course and an interview with course tutors. Duz,.ng the course each tutor
fills out an activity report on which he not only describes what he has done
in class, but also provides an initial evaluation of its effectiveness. This
is done for each lesson. Weekly planning meetings allow for more reflective
feedback and discussion. The students fill out a mid-course questionnaire and
have the opportunity to give feedback to their personal tutors in tutorials.
At the end of the course they fill out an individual questionnaire, discuss
their evaluations in groups without tutors present and then finally report to
tutors in plenary what was felt about the course. Tutors make a written
record of the discussion, fill out their own final evaluation questionnaire
and then write a report on their own area of responsibility, and the materials
they have used. In addition, students are given a further test of language
and study skills, which enables us both to assess progress during the course
and to make recommendations to sponsors and subject tutors about the need for
and nature of follow-up help. Finally, ex-students are canvassed some six
months after leaving the course for their opinion of its effectiveness in the
light of their experience in their target study situations.

A great variety of information is gathered here by a variety of means. Some

proves to be more useful than others: the activity reports tutors write prove
to be very valuable for teachers wishing to repeat or modify the course in
subsequent years. For immediate course steering the discussions in tutorials
are most valuable, whilst the mid-course questionnaires allow us to spot
widely felt areas of concern. The group discussions after students have had a
chance to record their individual opinion provide a very rich source of
information for future course design.

It is interesting to note that whilst our procedures do allow us to get a

great variety of information about our course, they also present us with a
real problem. The "opinions" and results are so diverse that it is almost
impossible to quantify or indeed adequately report them, let alone to take
decisions on the basis of the information gathered. Indeed we have not yet
solved one of the more intractable problems of evaluation, namely: having
gathered apparently reliable and publicly accountable data, what is one to do
about it? As Murphy (1985) says:

Without doubt the hardest part (of evaluation) is to develop.

our ability to interpret and act on the findings our evaluation
produces.

However, the difficulty of making the judgements that evaluation requires does
not absolve us from the responsibility of gathering believable, relevant and
accountable information.

In conclusion, I wish to offer a few thoughts arising from my experience of

evaluation as an evaluator and teacher, and as a reader of other people's
evaluations.

Firstly, we need to be sensitive to and aware of the existence of different

perspectives among the various participants involved in the project or course
one is evaluating, be they administrators, designers, inspectors, teachers,
students or the lay public, and we need to devise a variety of ways in order
to collect and take account of these.

Secondly, there is a need in many evaluations for an increased involvement of

the student, not only as a contributor of opinions and performance but also as
an involved participant: for example in the design of the evaluation

-33-
41
procedures, in the interpretation of the resultant data, in drawing up
recommendations and in evaluating the evaluation.

Thirdly, it is extremely important to monitor what is going on during a course

Thus self-monitoring by
- description being the first phase of evaluation.
students, teachers and course designers (eg by recording their rationales for
the
decisions as they develop a course) will be of central value in assessing
value or even development of a course.

Fourthly, evaluation must involve the participants: they should be interested

otherwise, in
in and closely connected with the search for signs of success or
systematic and accountable ways.
the very
Thus, fifthly, evaluation needs to be built into course design from
modification of
outset, and needs to be sensitive to the ongoing necessary
Moreover, evaluation needs to be conducted
plans as the project progresses.
project team,
by insiders on a project, or outsiders working closely with the
in publicly accountable ways.
of
Sixthly, we need to recognise, as Rea (1983) says, "the evolutionary nature
observe and describe that
an educational project" and the ensuing need to
evaluation procedures need to be
evolution. This includes a recognition that
flexible and responsive to changed circumstances.

Lastly, since "what constitutes success for one party may well be
insignificant to the concerns of others, it is important to recognise
contributions from a variety of contexts" (Rea, 1983). Since such contexts
goals, it is important to take account of the fact that
may have conflicting
and
the content and method of evaluation will vary according to its audience
of quoting myself
its purpose, and, if I may follow the time-honoured custom
authority, "what we need is not Evaluation by Standardized
as if I were an
1979).
Procedures but Evaluation for Specific Purposes" (Alderson
10.0 EXAMINATIONS
A report of a session led by Dr Charles Alderson
Institute for English Language Education, University of Lancaster.

A summary of the main points raised by Dr Alderson is as laid out below. We

have adopted a layout which we feel matched the presentation.

Point 1. Evaluation falls into two areas

a. Formative b. Summative

Fashionable, less Typically examinations.

rigorous than summative. Always important to - students
- teachers

Point 2. Tests and Examinations

Are not distinguished for the purpose of this presentation. They are located
before and/or at the end of a course of study, and essentially make pass/fail
distinctions. They are viewed as important as they are a public certification
of success for student, teacher and sponsor/employer. However, the ELT
profession views testing and examinations as negative processes: 'test is a
four letter word'.

Point 3. Why is there this negative view of testing?

a. Because there are apparently a lot of bad tests around.

b. Teachers complain of the negative influence of tests on their teaching.

The objectives and contents of tests do not match the objectives and content
of the teaching.

c. Tests are not always negative per se, but they are often seen to be
negative in the effect they have on students. To provide good tests is a
matter of constructing suitable tests which provide a positive backwash.

Point 4. Why do we have bad tests?

a. Testers may be unprofessional: a poor producer gives a poor product.

Their view of language may be too limited, too concerned with quantitative,
mathematical models.

b. In ELT few people in Applied Linguistics have worked on the practical

aspects of testing. Nobody is interested, and the area is viewed with
distaste.

This results in a knock-on effect if these people lecture on eg MA Courses in

ELT as this affects their students who subsequently are involved in aid
projects. It is in this last area that a serious lack of testing expertise
becomes apparent.

Solutions suggested

i. broaden views of testers

ii. broaden views of Applied Linguists

-35-
Point 5. Innovation

a. Conventional views of how innovation and change might be achieved.

i. Concentration on changing materials (especially ESP) Development

of textbooks, including development of needs analysis.

ii. Teacher Solution concentrating on improving teacher training as

teachers felt not to be very good - answer is to equip them better.

iii. Better solution to fuse i. and ii. by training teachers to use new
materials.

b. A testing approach

Tests have influence, learners are motivated by them, and this should be taken
into account and harnessed to encourage innovation and change. One example is
the Modern Language Teaching development in the UK which has used a testing
approach to innovation and has begun a complete reform from 'bottom up' (The
GOML projects, see section 4.0).

This whole programme has been shown to have a positively motivating effect on
learners and teachers.

Materials were not available so they were produced by teachers to meet the
demands of the graded tests.

Point 6. Supposed divorce of tests from teaching lies not with the tests
but with the theories about what the tests are supposed to measure.

a. If you can teach something rather than have learners learn something,
then what you teach must be testable.

b. Teaching and learning require the same degree of explicitness as

testing.

c. If communicative language learning is possible, so is communicative

language testing. If it is not possible to do this then our theories are
inadequate, as they do not lead to operational abilities.

Point 7. Summative tests (end of course)

a. Represent a definition of what you want the learners to achieve. If they

do not we should not use them. We have a professional obligation to state our
objectives.

b. If we do not wish to use a test we must propose alternatives. We still

have to have objectives we must state what they are and how they are
enshrined in the proposed alternative.

c. Getting teachers to talk about tests is a good way of getting them to

talk about their objectives in a definable, concrete manner.

d. Learners are also affected by tests; they are interested in the dialogue
about the tests. Tests which are attainable have positive effects:
difficult tests have a negative effect a fact well illustrated by the GOML
experience.

e. We must encourage a positive attitude to exams as attainable points not

hurdles.

36 41H:
Point 8. Conclusion.

a. Tests are devices for eliciting relevant behaviour (which then becomes
describable) and some procedure for judging that behaviour (implies criteria
for adequacy and acceptability).

b. Tests are a procedure to elicit and describe, then compare and judge.

Discussion

The main areas of discussion arising from the presentation were:

a. Problem of projects having a separate 'testing expert'. The need for

integrating testing, materials design and teacher training.

b. The jargon putting people off. Especially the pseudo-mathematical

approach taken by some 'testers'.

c. The problem of the misuse of testing, for example, of authorities only

interested in 'number'.

d. The negative effect in some instances of large international exams

like TOEFL and the Michigan tests. It may be possible to force a change
(eg China).

e. Problem of exam system seemingly remote and inviolable. Reasons can

always be found for not changing: exam boards appear unapproachable this
can be challenged and changed (eg GOML).

f. Testing does not equal numbers.

g. Practical problems eg Ministry of Education withdrawing oral testing by

teachers in Morocco.

Final Comment.

Testing is too important to be left to testers.

37-
11.0 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND CURRICULUM RENEWAL
Martin Phillips
English Language Services Department, The British Council

In the following paper I shall take a broad view of what is meant by

curriculum renewal to encompass a wide range of areas in which changes in
current practice are possible. I shall take a relatively narrow view of
educational technology and focus mainly on the newest technologies as having
the most potential for effecting far-reaching changes, particularly computers.
Within this perspective I want to explore the nature of the issues involved
and raise some questions. I believe that when we consider the part that
educational technology may have to play in curriculum renewal, there are the
seeds of an important debate, a debate which is usually assumed as settled.
All I can do in the following lines is to try to stimulate that debate.

The computer is the most sophisticated technology yet to become available

to the teacher. It is useful to consider just how it is different from
earlier 'sophisticated technology'. An example of the latter which is
often compared to the computer is the language laboratory: a notable
disappointment for most teachers. The language lab was always a specialised
piece of technology restricted to educational institutions. Apart from this
relative inaccessibility, the type of learning offered by the language lab was
also limited. Based on behaviourist psychology and programmed learning the
learning experiences offered by the language lab were both inflexible and
uninspiring. In contrast the computer is both more generally accepted (beyond
learning institutions) and more versatile. It has the capacity to store and
manipulate large amounts of information, and it can respond to instructions
and demands in a very short time, in human terms virtually immediately. These
features make the computer an invaluable resource for generating personalised
learning experiences.

These possibilities are, however, not neutral: the computer is not, as many
seem to think it is, an impartial 'delivery system', simply a medium which
does not affect the message. The new technology has profound implications for
our activity. It brings into question quite fundamental notions such as the
nature of the curriculum, the concept of the classroom itself, the locus of
control over the learning process as well as the status of materials, the
nature of methodology, the role of the teacher, and of teacher training. Let
us briefly look at the sort of issues involved we will not have time to
explore any of them in any detail.

Curriculum: An example is the Logo programme language which allows children

to relate geometrical concepts to their own experience. This amounts to the
definition of a new kind of geometry, procedural or experiential geometry
rather than demonstrative geometry (Seymour Papert, Mindstorms: Children,
computers and powerful ideas, Harvester Press, 1980). Thus the nature of the
task has changed and with it our standards of evaluation.

Question: Is there any reason to suppose that the new technology could not
have the same impact on the definition of the language curriculum? Is this
what is needed to give muscle to the notion of procedural syllabus? (See
Prabhu, 1983.)

The concept of the classroom: The technology offers the prospect of the
distributed classroom micro bulletin boards, telephone teaching.

Question: With the prospect of direct student to student communications

unmediated by the teacher (perish the thought!), who then decides whether
performance criteria have been achieved?

38
4H7,
This raises the next issue:
Locus of control over the learning process: One of the conventional
justifications trotted out for the computer is the justification for any self-
access approach: learner-centred, self-pacing. The proportion of teacher-led
to learner-controlled activity can change. More importantly it offers choice
if a student doesn't like one computer assisted language learning (CALL)
program, (s)he calls up another instantaneously, programs can be sensitive to
level and, in the future, self-adjusting in real time in response to what they
'learn' about the student. Students have a tool which allows them to assume
mastery of their own learning experience.

Question: Is this a liberation or a new tyranny brought about by a

twentieth century 'trahison des clercs', the abandonment to a machine of
functions that should be performed by people, teachers?

Status of materials: Hitherto, video has been passive, nothing the student
said or did could influence in a deep sense the linear progression of the
tape. This is even truer of print materials of course. Now, as I have just
suggested, they can be self-modifying to accommodate themselves to the
requirements of the individual student. In a sense, this is already with us,
this is what is meant by interactivity.

Questions: What are the implications of having materials that can 'bite
back', as it were? Is it desirable that more of the management of learning
be embodied in the materials themselves rather than in the way they are
exploited?

Nature of methodology: New technologies often bring about changes in the

methodologies of the subjects the teaching of which they are designed to
facilitate. For example, the introduction of video in ELT applications has
stimulated completely novel teaching techniques. The changes are not
necessarily for the good. One of the criticisms I would raise against most of
the current generation of CALL materials is that they are methodologically
retrograde.

Question: Can we be sure that the introduction of a new technology

necessarily leads to positive benefits in terms of its impact on methodology?

Role of teacher: If more of the management of learning can be embodied in

the materials themselves, how does this affect the role of the teacher? Given
the arguable advantages of the new technology for individualising learning,
does this mean that it will replace the teacher as some claim and seem to be
happy to envisage? T do not believe this either is or should be the case.
The more interesting ChLL programs, for example, are those that generate a
task which involves inter- and intra-group negotiation for its solution. It
seems to me that helping to ensure that relevant learning takes place in the
course of responding to, say, a computer managed simulation demands skills of
a very high order at least commensurate with anything required by the more
sophisticated techniques in communicative language teaching.

Question: What might the nature be of the new equilibrium that will be
brought about by the new technology in the delicate balance among students,
materials and the teacher?

Teacher training: Al.]. the above considerations have implications for

teacher training programmes which are themselves in a reflexive relationship
to the curriclum. Through familiarisation with new educational technologies,
teachers develop their perceptions of their role.

-39- P.1
Whether the new educational technologies merely reinforce current practice or,
what would be even more sterile, fossilise outmoded methodologies, or in
contrast offer fruitful opportunities for curriculum renewal depends in part
on our willingness to identify and face issues of the sort I have just
outlined, in part on technical advances and in part on theoretical progress.
These are not separate problems. To exploit fully the potential of the new
technology for language learning, a number of currently distinct applications
need to be integrated and the man-machine interface has to become considerably
more sophisticated than it is at present. Linguistic databases containing
lexical and syntactic information, word processing functions, natural language
parsing, knowledge based systems, speech synthesis and, ultimately speech
recognition, need to be integrated with pedagogic programs and testing
routines if the use of interactive technologies in language learning is to
transcend its present trivial level of development. At the same time, we
should beware of claiming for computer assisted language learning more than we
know about language or learning. Our theories of both are not yet adequate to
have really powerful, and more importantly, trustworthy technologies based on
them. It is crucial, then, that we do not lose sight of the 'assisted' in
computer assisted language learning.

What relevance does this have to, say, the teacher working in the African
bush? All this talk of advanced technologies and the problems they raise
hardly affects that working environment. But I would claim it does and in two
ways, one relatively short-term and superficial, one longer-term and
fundamental. In the short-term we shall all have to get to grips with the new
technologies. I have heard of plans by one of the major British manufacturers
of home computers to produce a self-assembly version of its most popular model
which will run off a 12 volt car battery. It will soon not be possible to
ignore the threat and the potential. This makes it all the more urgent to
face up to the issues. To return to the analogy with the language lab, I
believe the questions raised by the new technologies are far subtler and the
temptations more seductive than they ever were with the language lab. So the
deeper relevance is that it behoves us to consider our position, to prepare
ourselves for the impact of the new technology and to absorb its implications
for curriculum change so that we can channel its force in appropriate
directions. Otherwise most of the developing world and a large part of the
developed world too risks being littered, firstly with the hardware wreckage
of ill-conceived CALL and half-baked interactive video and secondly with the
aftermath of the curriculum changes that they have brought in their wake. I
shall leave you with a final question:

What sort of learning environments do we want to create with the

new technology?

There is an even deeper reason why this question demands urgent consideration.
This is because it is not merely a technical question, that is a matter of
technique, nor yet a political question concerned with ensuring that
appropriate technologies are used where they are needed rather than where
manufacturers would like to sell them, but ultimately an ethical question. We
have to be clear about the nature of the curriculum renewal we want to bring
about by the use of educational technology because the answer we give reveals
our views of man and of what it is proper for man to delegate to machines.

--40-
PART TWO
 12.0 THE ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE
OF THE SEMINAR

Seminar preparation

The originators of the six design

document giving a brief descriptiontasks were asked to prepare a one page
the task itself. Examples of these of the background to the task and stating
18.1 below. documents can be seen in sections 17.1
There were six tasks in all,
Egypt, Somalia, Sri Lanka and four based on KELT projects (in and
the Yemen AR) and two based
Cairo and Madrid). on DTEO projects (in
These six documents
well before the seminar to provide were circulated to all participants
their choice of design task. them with the information on which
The CSDT groups were drawn to base
on the basis of the up before the seminar
participants' choices.
In addition to the above
documents a pre-seminar
Dick Allwright) was distributed to questionnaire (prepared by
return it before the seminar. participants with the request that
The answers to a number of the they
collated and used as data in some of questions were
the questionnaire and the collated the sessions in the seminar.
A copy of
answers can be found in Appendix B.
A small amount of reading
material was also provided as
theme of the seminar. preparation for the
This consisted of the article
(summarised in Appendix A), and by Eisner and Valiance
six statements made by contributors
TESOL Symposium on Syllabus/Curriculum to the
contributors were J P B Allen, Design held in Toronto in 1983.
The
Mike Breen, Chris Brumfit, Chris
Widdowson and Janice Yalden. Candlin, Henry
These statements have not been
this report as they have now been reproduced in
superseded by full length articles
in ELT Documents 118 (see bibliography published
here our thanks to the above for details). I would like to record
contributors for their kind permission
their original statements in this to use
seminar.
The Seminar

Apart from the above preparatory

reading, at the seminar itself
readings and a large selection of ELT additional
books, both teaching materials
theoretical source books, were available and
for reference and inspection.
To supplement the introduction
to the task mentioned
background materials on the case study above, additional
the case study originators (for examples were brought along to the seminar by
materials, together with briefings see sections 17.2 and 18.2). These
was not a member of the group workingprovided by the originator (who,
however,
provided a very on the task he/she had provided)
comprehensive picture
This is perhaps an appropriate place of the background to the case study.
originators for the time and effort to mention our thanks to the case study
they put into preparing the CSDTs
background materials. The six originators and
Harry Hawkes, Guy Hill, Gerald Mosback were: Rob Batstone, Alan Evison,
and Bob Straker-Cook.
With regard to the
day-to-day running of
explanatory and the documents below give the seminar, the timetable is self-
activity. an idea of the participants'
It should be mentioned, however,
considerable thought to the timing of that the planners gave
the guest speaker contributions.
were timetabled to provide information They
it seemed most useful and appropriate or discussion on relevant issues when
in terms of the activities the
participants were involved in.

The evenings were filled with

activities and
nature and less central to the theme of the presentations of a more informal
seminar.

- 41 -
The Report

Unfortunately the amount of space available in this report is limited, which

means that it is not possible to include the designs produced by all the CSDT
groups. Two designs are presented in full (sections 17 and 18 below) to
represent the sort of work which went on in the seminar. One of the designs
is based on a KELT project and the other on a DTEO project. In fact, two
groups worked on the DTEO task reported here, so for reasons of contrast and
interest the design of the second group is included in Appendix C. The
designs of the other three groups (ie those based on the Egypt, Somalia and
Madrid CSDTs) can be obtained from English Language Services Department (see
Page 2 for address) on request.

51
42
13.0 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY 'CURRICULUM' AND 'SYLLABUS'?

Group Tasks

A. Which of Eisner and Vallance's five conceptions of the curriculum do you

find most appropriate for English language teaching?

1. The development of cognitive processes.

2. Curriculum as technology.

3. Curriculum for self-actualisation and consummatory experiences.

4. Curriculum for social reconstruction.

5. Academic rationalism.

B. Which of the five do you find most appropriate to characterise the

situations you work in?

NB: Please prepare a wall display to set out your responses to the above
tasks.

Report of Group Discussions

.1

Almost immediately the session divided intosix groups to discuss Eisner and
Vallance's article 'Five Conceptions of Curriculum: Their Roots and:
Implications for Curriculum Planning' (see ;Appendix A for summary).. The
questions considered by each group are given above in the section titled Group
Tasks.

Most groups thought that there was considerable overlap between some of Eisner
and Vallance's five conceptions. Group 2 felt this overlap could ,lead to
false distinctions being made. Group 5 stressed,that the qiestion of which
conceptions were most appropriate for ELT depended very muh on °he's
definition of ELT; for instance different conceptions woulalprobably be
appropriate to ESL as opposed to EFL situatiems."-14

All groups found it impossible to choose only one dpnception or model which
was appropriate to their own teaching situations'. Group 5 found ."various
elements in each model to be relevant". Group,4 thought that ideally ELT
should be characterised by the first, third 4 fourtiftodkptions; in
practice however teaching situations are tord ikely to beicharacterised by
the second, fourth and fifth conceptions. GrOup 2 found tpat the fourth and
fifth conceptions were not at all appropriate to ELT. Crop') 5 was unwilling
to commit itself to any of the conceptions, deciding that Ole choice would
depend on:

a. the aims of the teaching (the learners' purpose):,

b. the learners' expectations on the basis of their cultdral

background (the educational tradition)

c. political constraints and those of controlling bodies.

- 43
14.0 WHAT GETS IN THE WAY?

This session was predominantly used for group discussion of the replies to the
pre-seminar questionnaire. Discussion focused on the constraints mentioned in
answer to the question "What sorts of things, if any, make it difficult for
your involvement in curriculum and/or syllabus development to be as effective
as you would like it to be?" (See Appendix B2 for the replies.)

These replies were to be read in conjunction with a chart delineating the

phases of design chronologically. The chart is reproduced in 14.1.

Groups were then asked to discuss the Agencies and Resources (sub-divided into
Human and Material) which might be relevant constraints at the various stages.
Dick Allwright pointed out that the relationship between the Human Resources
of Power, Expertise and Responsibility was not always a very close one. He
also suggested that the discussion could be directly relevant to the case
studies to be discussed on the following day.

There was only about 30 minutes available for group discussion and so most
groups did not manage to proceed through many of the phases represented on the
chart.

There was, however, some uniformity in responses to item one, for example,
which may be a little surprising considering the diverse inputs.

Agencies were loosely categorised as including Ministries of Education, The

British Council, host Governments, teachers/colleagues etc (surprisingly not
publishers, as Dick later commented).

Resource constraints included Directors of Studies, on the spot experts,

Ministry officials. The material resource constraints thrown up were largely
related to the lack of time and receptiveness to change. There was no direct
follow up session on the topic, but group charts were displayed for later
consultation possibly to be reviewed in the light of case study experiences.
14.1 Chart of phases in the design and implementation process

RESOURCES

PHASES AGENCIES HUMAN MATERIAL

POVER/EXPERTISE/
RESPONSIBILITY

1. Reaching a decision on what

curriculum-type would be
appropriate.

. Designing the curriculum.

i3. Getting the design

accepted.

4. Getting the design

implemented.

5. Getting the implementation

monitored.

6. Getting the implementation

evaluated.

7. Getting the appropriate

changes made.
15.0 CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS DESIGN: WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS?

15.1 Participants were invited to consider in their case study groups the key
questions in curriculum and syllabus design.

Group discussions were guided by the following task sheet instructions:

a. Study the list of responses to Question 4 (see Appendix B3 for the

list) of the pre-seminar questions.

b. Group these responses with a view to agreeing on a shortlist of

five, as the major issues in curriculum and/or syllabus development.

c. Prioritise your shortlist.

15.2 Group findings were as follows: (Note: most groups restated in their
own words what they felt to be the key questions. Not all the findings were
listed in order of priority.)

Group 1

Identifying and Getting teacher

satisfying learner cooperation
wants and needs

The Syllabus

Local Materials
constraints

Syllabus type and

specifications

-46-
Group 2

1. Implementation of syllabus:

a. acceptance by authority
b. methods

2. Relevance to local situation and student needs

3. Attitudes of students, tee hers and administrators to innovation

4. Prescriptive syllabus

5. Core syllabus and flexibility

Group 3

1. The syllabus/learning relationship (how far does the former direct

the latter?)

2. Making a syllabus more than an inventory of discrete items and the

role of a needs analysis in drawing up a satisfactory syllabus

3. The need to arouse interest in syllabus development among both

teachers and students

4. How far does methodology influence syllabus development?

5. Stenhouse's ideas on a process and research model

Group 4

1. How does the content of the syllabus reflect current thinking about
learning?

2. Is it appropriate to the local environment, ie cultural and

educational expectations?

3. Are the teachers willing and able to implement the programme?

4. Staff, materials, time, methods, finance: Optimal Resource Management

5. Evaluation procedures

Group 5

1. What should be included in a syllabus?

- Methodology
- Language content
- Constraints
- Resources
Statement of aims and objectives

2. What to monitor and evaluate and how?

-47-
t-
I'. ...4
f
 3. The relationship between testing and syllabus design

4. The mismatch between syllabus and learning

5. The role of needs analysis

Group 6

1. Reconciliation of syllabus with constraints of educational

environment

2. Reflection of individual needs

3. Relationship of syllabus to language learning process

4. Selection, content - weighting

5. Evaluation

15.3 At a concluding plenary session it was noted that:

a. There had been a high degree of agreement both within and

between groups, as to the nature of the key questions.

b. The exercise had been usefully 'mind- expanding' in encouraging

participants to think outside their individual local situations.

15.4 Extrapolation of the findings of all six groups reveals the following to
be the areas most commonly identified as important. All were listed by at
least half the groups in one form or another:

1. Learner needs and wants

2. Teacher cooperation in design and especially implementation

3. Local constraints

4. The role of methodology

5. The syllabus/learning relationship

6. What to include in a syllabus and, perhaps, what should it look

like?

7. Evaluation - what and how?

t (-1
1/41

- 48 -
16.0 CASE STUDY DESIGN TASKS: INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTES FOR SESSION ONE

16.1 Before you attack the case study task itself, we suggest you appoint
someone as a 'progress chaser' for the rest of the week.

16.2 We also suggest you find someone to act as a 'process diarist'

throughout the week. That person should keep a record of the issues discussed,
the various stages the group goes through, the working arrangements adopted,
and so on, .ith a view to reporting back briefly on these matters as a major
contribution to the interim evaluation session on Saturday morning.

16.3 Once you have these two appointees settled, discuss the case study
material already available to you in order to decide whether or not to adopt
the task set (or one of the tasks set), or to design yourselves a new task.

16.4 Decide what additional information you need, if any, from the case study
originator, and plan to have all your first questions ready for 10.00, when
the originator will visit your group for just half an hour. Thereafter, you
are asked to restrict your demands on this person to one 'go' per case study
session, and to have your 'go' by sending a well briefed emissary to consult
the originator. This restriction is necessary to ensure that the case study
originators are not taken away from their groups for any longer than is
absolutely necessary.

16.5 Having consulted, now finalise the task you will tackle.

16.6 Plan the work of the group in terms of:

a. an agreed division of labour;

b. an agreed, if provisional, timetable for your work, to ensure

that you will have the basic task completed by 10.30 Saturday
(see note below).

16.7 Prepare a brief statement, to be ready by 12.30 today, Wednesday,

documenting all the decisions you have taken under 16.1 to 16.6 above. Please
pass it on to Dick Allwright before lunch.

Notes:

a. In finally determining your group task, don't forget the discussions of

Tuesday, which might have given you some priority issues to work on.

b. Material prepared by the groups should preferably be typed (machines are

available), graphic material should be photocopier ready. Some professional
typing capacity will be available, but hardly enough to cope with everything.

- 49
17.0 CASE STUDY ONE: UNIVERSITY OF SANA'A LANGUAGE CENTRE,
YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC
Originator: Alan Evison

17,1 Introduction and Task

The University of Sana'a was established in 1970 with financial assistance from
Kuwait. It has rapidly expanded to its present size of approximately 7,000
full-time students and it continues to grow. Most of the teaching staff are
Egyptians whose salaries are paid by Kuwait. The Language Centre was formed in
March 1983 with assistance from the British Council. It is an autonomous
institution within the university intended to service the language needs
(English, Arabic and French) of all the faculties: Science, Arts, Education,
Law, Commerce, and the newly-formed Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and
Agriculture. Among the high priority areas of the English Language Unit are
the language and methodology courses for English specialists in the Faculty of
Education. The English Language Unit has a Head and 16 teaching staff, 7 of
whom are non-native speakers (including 2 PhDs). The Unit is responsible for
teaching about 2,000 students mostly in their 1st and 2nd years. All English
language courses are compulsory and part of the credit system of assessment.

The Case Study

The case study will focus on the ELCS (English Language Communication Skills)
courses fcr 1st and 2nd year students in the Faculty of Science, for which the
following facts are salient:

I1ST YEAR 2ND YEAR

1
]
Hours Total Hours Total
MAJOR GROUPINGS per hours per hours
,Nos week (year) Nos week (year)

Science (inc 20
Engineering)
;120 6 132 115 4 88
Sept intake
Science
- Feb intake 50 6 132

:130 6 83 51* 4 88
.
Science Education
I--
Medium of instruction: English (officially; in practice, a lot of Arabic used)

Previous exposure to English: 6 years in school (Arabic medium)

Level on arrival: false beginner (sic) with some wide variations

Notes: 1. Science Education students do not need English for their

studies, nor will they use it as teachers. The 2nd year course (*)
will not be run next year.
2. The Science Faculty is likely to substitute a General Science
course for its present subject-specialised 1st year courses. This
new course would probably be given to 1st year Medicine and
Engineering students as well
3. The Language Centre runs a 2-week intensive course for new
Science students in September. In the future it may also run summer
courses in July and August.

50

Go
There are considerable economic constraints on the operations of the Language
Centre (Yemen is currently on an 'austerity budget'): these and the relatively
high teaching loads limit the amount of time and resources that can be devoted
to developmental work. Courses are based firmly on existing published
textbooks (with the exception of the Intensive Science Course) and are
supplemented with domestically-produced and other adapted materials. The
Language Centre as yet possesses few teaching aids other than portable tape
recorders (although a video and some OHPs have just arrived) and books and
paper are supplied by the University.

Class sizes in the Science Faculty are around 25 and students are on the whole
keen to learn.

Task

Design a course, and produce sample materials (or units) for one of the
following:

1. The General Science course referred to in Note 2 above.

2. 1st (and/or 2nd) year science students.

3. The 2 week intensive course for new science students.

17.2 Background Information

Yemen

The Yemen Arab Republic is a country of 6 million people. The capital, Sana'a,
has a population of about 500,000 and lies at an altitude of 7,500 feet.

The economy of Yemen is largely agricultural with very few goods produced for
export. Textiles and salt are the most important industries. The GNP is
among the ten lowest in the world. However, two external factors affect the
economic situation considerably. Firstly, Yemen is the recipient of
substantial quantities of foreign aid both from neighbouring Arab countries
(especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) and from the industrialised countries of
the East and West. Indeed, the University of Sana'a operates for the most
part on Kuwaiti funds. Secondly, the million or so Yemenis who work in the
Gulf countries and in the West remit very large sums in foreign currency to
their families at home.

Recently, however, the decline in the oil market has reduced the amount of aid
coming from the Arab countries, and this has had a direct effect on the
University.

Education

Until the mid 1960s education in the Yemen was confined to Islamic studies.
Since the 1962 revolution, when the ruling Imamate was replaced by a military
republic, there has been a free and compulsory education system, funded
largely by Arab aid and staffed in the main by Egyptian teachers. English is
studied for 6 years in school and since 1980 a textbook and in-service
teacher-training project ('English for Yemen'), run by the British Council
under the KELT scheme, has been raising the standard of English in the
schools. The University should be benefiting from the results of this in two
years' time.

- 51 -
The University was founded in 1970 and is the only university in the YAR. It
is independent, answerable only to a Council, the Chairman of which is the
Minister of Education.

There are five faculties operating (Science, Arts, Education, Law and
Commerce) on two campuses. The new Faculties of Medicine, Engineering and
Agriculture will start teaching next year. This year future Medicine and
Engineering students have been attending courses in the Faculty of Science.

Students

There are approximately 7,000 full-time students at the University and several
thousand part-time students, many of whom only attend examinations. After
leaving school, men have to do a year's military service. Furthermore, many
of the men have jobs throughout their university careers (eg driving taxis or
working in the commercial sector) and do not devote much time to study outside
the classroom.

Classes are mixed, with approximately 50% men and women. Many women wear the
veil in class. Ages range from 18 to 30 and over. Most students come from
middle- to lower middle-class homes, some from the towns and some from out-
lying villages. About 90% of the students are Yemenis, with others coming
from Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.

EXCERPT A
AN OUTLINE PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
COMMUNICATION SKILLS (ELCS) IN THE UNIVERSITY OF SANA'A
ALAN MOUNTFORD (JUNE 1982)

PART 1: PROFESSIONAL

A.1 Aim

To improve ELCS instruction to all Faculties of the University by upgrading

and modernising syllabi, materials and instructional methods, and thereby
increase the level of student achievement to levels indicated for different
groups on a general communicative assessment scale.

A.2 Objectives

2.1 Overall objective: to establish within the University of Sana'a

a new institution known as the Language Centre having the following
characteristics:

2.1.1 role:

it should provide ELCS instruction to all Faculties of the

University, but with particular reference to the needs of the
Faculties of Medicine (and Engineering, when it is opened),
Education and Science.

2.1.2 status:

it should be an autonomous institution ie not tied to any existing

Faculty or Department in the University;

-52-
 it should be a service to the University as a whole, including any
outside institutions the University may contract to provide training
for;

it should be accountable in line-management to the Vice-Rector of

the University, but operationally subject to a steering committee of
Deans of Faculties which the Language Centre serves

2.2 The project to establish the Language Centre should therefore have
the following implementational objectives:

2.2.1 to select a suitable building on the University campus as a

resource base and teaching centre for ELCS instruction;

2.2.2 to equip the Language Centre to a high standard in terms of

educational aids (audio-visual, reprographic, instructional,
including books and materials) favourably comparable with the best
in the Middle East;

2.2.3 to recruit staff for the Language Centre having experience

and qualifications in the following fields of specialism:

ELCS course design

ELCS materials production
teacher training and methodology
ELCS evaluation and assessment methods
self-instructional materials for ELCS

2.2.4 to appoint a Yemeni Administrative Director of the Language

Centre and a Director of Programmes who will have appropriate
managerial, administrative and professional experience in running
ELCS institutions;

2.2.5 to design a wide range of instructional programmes for the

Faculties the Language Centre serves that are relevant to different
groups of students according to their communication needs;

2.2.6 to provide a high standard of teaching to such groups of

students based on up-to-date materials and teaching methods;

2.2.7 to train Yemeni Study Skills Assistants in ELCS methods,

within the Language Centre, prior to training overseas, who would
then in future years become the core teaching and senior staff of
the Centre.

A.3 Terms of Reference

The Language Centre should have the following terms of reference in terms of
the programmes it can offer to the University.

3.1 To provide communication skills training to students in each of the

Faculties of the University on a service basis, to the extent of the
identified needs of each Faculty, up to the competence levels on a
general assessment scale, as agreed.

3.2 To provide, in particular, language training and English Language

teaching methodology to the Faculty of Education English specialist
students (the future Yemeni teachers of English at the preparatory and
secondary levels in the schools).

- 53 -
 3.3 To provide special courses of ELCS instruction for particular
important groups of students in the University, as identified by the
University eg demonstrators in various departments, students going
overseas for postgraduate studies, etc.

3.4 To provide ELCS courses to any outside institution that the

University may contract to provide training for eg health laboratory
technicians, Yemenis, on what could be considered a revenue earning
basis.

3.5 To develop a research capability into ELCS communication needs,

develop diagnostic testing and assessment instruments, liaise with
departments on the communicative structuring of pedagogic material etc.

A.4 ELCS Needs in the University

A fuller specification of ELCS needs is to be found in the report which

accompanies this project design document. For the purpose of this document it
is important to recognise the principle of prioritising needs in view of the
fact that resources (human and physical, temporal and spatial) are finite.
The key criteria for prioritising needs for ELCS by different Faculties are:

the role of English in relation to access to information that should

form part of the courses different departments within the University
run ie as a reading language;

the role of English in relation to the instructional processes

different departments make use of ie whether English is partly, or
wholly, a medium of instruction in lectures, seminars or tutorials.

Of these two criteria the second implies a need for greater competence in
English on the part of students, and therefore a greater deployment of
resources to achieve that competence ie longer or more intensive courses of
instruction. Accordingly, we may prioritise needs as follows:

4.1 High priority needs

Faculties of Medicine and Engineering, where English is envisaged to

be a medium of instruction;

- Faculty of Education, English specialists, for whom English is their

'subject';

Faculty of Science, where English is a part medium of instruction

together with Arabic, but, above all, a means of access to
information, as the international Language of Science, contained in
books and journals;

demonstrators within the University and postgraduate students going

overseas for further study.

4.2 Medium priority needs:

Communication needs in this category have mainly to do with the role

of English as providing access to information.

Faculty of Commerce: Accountancy and Business Administration

Faculty of Arts: Geography, History, Sociology and Philosophy
Faculty of Education: Science majors, Arts majors.

-54- 6
 it
4.3 Low priority needs:
.!
This would include Faculties/Departments where English has only a minor
i T
role as an 'access' language. ' t,,-; ,

iirt
, ifi t 'il

.t,
- Faculty of Sharia and Law . 4-
.
Faculty of Commerce: Economics ankStatistiRcs
- Faculty of Arts: Arabic, Islamic atudiO.
,
r_.

Such an analysis - and it is subject tot thange andvar tion - merely

acknowledges where English has a greateor lesserFrol , and therefore
some indication of how the resources of A Language Cen re should be
deployed, and the types of programme des4.gned. Suh impliCations are
taken up in Section 7 below. ,
i)

A.5 Project time scales :1

It'q

We should consider the project to establish and implement a language Centre as

time-constrained in terms of overall duration and phases.

5.1 Length of project: 5 years

5.2.1 Phases of project: 1982-83. This phase consists of two sub-

phases:

a. feasibility and design during which problems are

defined and analysed and solutions developed (set Report);

b. initial-implementation phase (June 1982-June 1983)

during which objectives 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 will be implemented,.
and 2.2.5 to 2.2.7 will be embarked on.

5.2.2 Development phase: This will last from June 19831to June
1985 during which, on the basis of a settled structure,Wa fully
equipped and staffed Language Centre will meet objectives 2.2.5 to
2.2.7 in accordance with the terms of reference set for the Centre's
programmes of instruction (3.1 to 3.5). This is the coxe
implementation phase.

5.2.3 Maintenance phase: This will last from June 1985 to June
1987, when programmes of instruction developed during the previous
two phases will achieve a settled state, and the achievement of the
project can be evaluated from a summative viewpoint. s4

5.3 In as much as new objectives are set for the project eg,the opening
of the Faculties of Engineering and Agriculture during the life-span of
the project, it may be necessary to extend the lengh of the groject.
This will be subject to on-going negotiation with the University. But
for each new set of objectives assigned to the Prdject, the three phases
above should be passed through.

5.4 In addition, it is recognised that the University is a dynamic,

evolving institution, and that therefore staffing levels fixed for the
project in its initial establishment phase will be subject to on -going
revision, as the Language Centre should reflect the growth and
development of the University and its consequent demands for ELCS
training.

J
A.6 Project Staff Structure

The project will have the following staffing structure reflecting the needs of
a Language Centre for particular kinds of expertise.

6.1 Directorate: consisting of a Yemeni Administrative Director and a

Director of Programmes who will establish policy for the Language Centre
in the light of the needs of the University as set by the Steering
Committee of Deans, and the Vice-Rector.

6.2 Senior Developmental Staff: who will be given the responsiblity of

developing courses and materials in accordance with the terms of
reference set out for the Language Centre.

6.3 Teaching Staff: who will be concerned with implementing on a day

to day basis course of instruction of various kinds. These will include
Study Skills Specialists, Study Skills Instructors and Study Skills
Assistance.

6.4 Administrative and technical staff: who will assist 6.1 to 6.3,
consisting of project administrative assistant, secretary/typist,
technical assistant.

6.5 Consultants: who would be assigned the role from time to time of
monitoring the progress of the project. Such consultants can be drawn
from British Council headquarters in London and/or from a British
University which is familiar with the problems of running such
institutions, in Britain and overseas.

Mountford suggests bands four and five on the following scale as target levels
for the Science Faculty course.

67J
- 56 -
GENERAL ASSESSMENT SCALE

Band

9 Expert user. Communicates with authority, accuracy and style.

Completely at home in idiomatic and specialist English.

Very good user. Presentation of subject clear and logical with

8 fair style and appreciation of attitudinal markers. Often
approaching bi-lingual competence.

Good user. Would cope in most situations in an English-speaking

7 environment. Occasional slips and restrictions of language will
not impede communication.

Competent user. Although coping well with most situations he is

6 likely to meet, is somewhat deficient in fluency and accuracy
and will have occasional misunderstandings or significant errors.

Modest user. Although he manages in general to communicate, often

5
uses inaccurate or inappropriate language.

Marginal user. Lacking in style, fluency and accuracy, is not

4 easy to communicate with, accent and usage cause misunderstandings.
Generally can get by without serious breakdowns.

Extremely limited user. Does not have a working knowledge of the

3 language for day-to-day purposes, but better than an absolute
beginner. Neither productive or receptive skills allow continuous
communication.

Intermittent user. Performance well below level of a working

2 day-to-day knowledge of the language. Communication occurs only
sporadically.

Non-user. May not even recognize with certainty which language

1
is being used.

Taken from B Carroll, 1980 Testing Communicative Performance,

Pergamon (p 134).

57 -
EXCERPT B
FROM CONSULTANCY REPORT BY CLIVE HOLES (MAY 1983)
SANA'A UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE CENTRE

B.1 Director of Programmes should press for a reduction of contact hours in

Faculties in which English language needs are "medium" or "low
priority".

B.2 ODA should consider the possibility of supplementing the salaries of a

small number of British staff recruited on fixed-term contracts for the
period 1983-86 (in which case recruitment of such staff should be done
by the British Council).

B.3 RLO 'A' should approach VSO about the possibility of recruiting a small
number of graduate teaching VSOs for the LC, and if the response is
positive, Representative Yemen should approach the Vice Rector with a
proposition to supply such teachers to the LC.

B.4 The two KELT posts currently occupied by the textbook writers on the
EFY project should be transferred to the LC in September 1984 and two
teachers experienced in teacher-training should be recruited for these
posts.

B.5 A counterpart training programme for 10 Yemeni graduates should be set

up as soon as possible, involving pre-training orientation at the LC, 3
months of basic EFL teacher-training in the UK, and a programme of in-
service training in the LC on return.

B.6 ODA should supply, under Tools of the Trade arrangements, a

"consolidated" basic equipment kit to enable the Project team to do its
work. This list should should be to the value of Tools of the Trade
for 4 KELTs.

B.7 Representative Yemen and Director of Programmes should seek an early

meeting with the Vice-Rector of the University in order to discuss
equipping the LC to the standards specified in the Moontford Design
Document.

B.8 Background

Following Alan Mountford's visit to Yemen in May 1982 and his report "An
outline project design document for the teaching of English language
communication skills (ELCS) in the University of Sana'a" the Sana'a University
Language Centre (henceforth in this report "the LC") opened early in 1983.
The reader is referred to Mountford's report for a succinct statement of the
aims and objectives of the LC Project, time-scales, staffing structure,
content of programmes, etc. The British Council and the University, in an
exchange of letters which took place on the 19/20 May 1982, agreed that the
Mount.ford report would form the basis for the future development of the LC.

The present complement of full-time British staff, consisting of 4 ODA-funded

KELT officers, and 3 Study-Skill Specialists on British Council guaranteed
contracts began work in the LC in February 1983. Ken Forster, one of the KELT
team, had been working in the University for about 2 years before the LC
opened. The team of Study-Skill Specialists will be complete with the arrival
of Virginia Bunker from Kuwait in the autumn of this year.

58 t;
There is a group of 8 non-native speaker staff. Most of them were transferred
from the English Department when it hived off service English teaching to the
newly created Language Centre.

The Head of the Language Centre is a Yemeni, Dr Mahmoud Daoud, who holds a
Georgetown PhD in Theoretical Linguistics.

The LC has been promised permanent premises on the old campus of the
University, where most of its teaching will continue to take place. At the
moment, however, its offices are in the Law Faculty on the new campus - a
cause of considerable inconvenience. The question of exactly when the
premises earmarked for the LC will be vacated and converted for LC use was
still unresolved at the time of my visit:.

From this brief sketch it can be seen that the LC is still very much a new
creation composed of somewhat disparate parts, lacking a permanent base, and
still feeling its way towards a precise definition of its role. This is, of
course, hardly surprising at this early stage in its evolution. The objective
of this report is to recommend ways in which the teething troubles of the LC
project can be overcome, and to suggest how the excellent start which has been
made can be capitalised upon in the future.

One significant direction in which the LC will develop over the next few years
is in the pre-service training of Yemeni school-teachers of English. As will
have been apparent from the part of this report devoted to EFY, one of the
main hopes for the maintenance of teaching standards in Yemeni schools after
the departure of the KELT team is the creation of an influential cadre of
Yemeni ELT professionals. This cadre will receive its pre-service training at
the LC, and it is therefore important that close professional cooperation
between the LC and the EFY Project is established during the final two years
of the latter's ODA-funded lifetime.

B.9 Current activities

The teaching load of the LC at the time of my visit was 212 contact hours per
week. 92 of the hours were split between British members of staff as follows:

Brian East (Director of Programmes) 4 hpw

Alan Evison (KELT) 12 hpw
Mike Friel (KELT) 13 hpw
Ken Forster (KELT) 16 hpw
Mark Roberts (Study-Skill Specialist) 17 hpw
Pam Fisher (Study-Skill Specialist) 15 hpw
Leslie Deaford (Study-Skill Specialist) 15 hpw

92 hpw

The remaining 120 hours of teaching were divided between the 8 non-native
speaker teachers, at an average load of 15 hpw per teacher.

Each KELT or SSS has tended, so far, to spend most of his/her contact hours in
one particular faculty, and in addition to his/her teaching load, each has
responsibility for a functional aspect of the LC's work (eg testing,
course-design, teacher-training etc) and/or responsibility for coordinating
the teaching in a particular faculty.

Several questions are immediately raised when the situation described above is
compared with those parts of Mountford's design document which deal with
teaching loads and "priority areas". Mountford was concerned that the LC

- 59 -
should devote most of its resources to "high priority" areas: that is, to
faculties in which students were being trained as English language teachers
and to faculties in which the medium of instruction is English, ie:

the faculty of Education (already established)

the Faculty of Science (already established)

the Faculty of Medicine (to be opened in September 1984)

the Faculty of Engineering (to be opened in September 1985)

Other Faculties - Commerce, Arts, Law - were to be regarded as "medium" or

"low priority" and this was to be reflected in smaller numbers of contact
hours and larger classes for these Faculties. The clear implication was that
expensive KELT and SSS staff would devote most of their time to course-design,
teaching etc in "high priority" Faculties.

In actual practice, there had to be a certain amount of compromise, for three

reasons of a transient nature: there was an immediate need to establish the
LC's credibility in the University as a whole; "medium" and "low priority"
faculties were among the first to be established and hence to have students
who needed teaching; there was a shortfall in locally-recruited Study Skill
Assistants. The result has been that UK-recruited staff in general have had
to spend a considerable amount of their time in "medium" or "low priority"
Faculties, and KELTs in particular have had to accept heavier teaching loads
than Mountford envisaged. In the circumstances, what happened was unavoidable
- and even desirable, if senior developmental staff are to get a "feel" for
student standards. Moreover, Brian East, as Director of Programmes has the
initial task of proving the worth of the LC to each Faculty before he can, in
their eyes, have any credibility as an adviser on Faculty requirements for
English, and thereby reconcile their (in some cases excessive) demands to his
(and Mountford's) conception of LC's priorities. If there is to be this
reconciliation and readjustment, two things will be necessary: close constant,
and diplomatic contacts with individual faculty Deans, and, above all else,
the recruitment of good quality staff, capable of working with a minimum of
supervision, at Study Skill Instructor and Study Skill Assistant level. I
have no doubt that the evident professionalism and hard work of the
UK-recruited staff will soon earn them the respect of the Deans of Faculty and
will lead to the LC being turned to not as a "servant" but as an "adviser";
but there must be a question mark over the long-term ability of the LC to
maintain reasonable standards in general, and to provide excellent teaching
to "high priority" Faculties in particular, if the quality of staff at lower
levels is not high. This is for two reasons:

B.9.1 Projected increases in student numbers over the next 3 years

indicate that, even if KELT and SSSs devoted all of their time to "high
priority" areas only, the proportion of "high priority" hours they would
actually be teaching would gradually fall from about 50% in 1983/84 to
33% in 1985/86; ie two-thirds of "high priority" contact hours (not to
mention all the rest) would, by 1985/86, be in the hands of teachers
recruited directly by the Yemenis from whatever source.

B.9.2 In order to maintain reasonable standards in general, especially

if the possibility outlined in B.9.1 above becomes a reality, there would
inevitably have to be a certain amount of in-service teacher-training of
expatriate Arab Study Skills Instructors. k regular programme of in-
service training would further reduce the number of hours expensive UK-
expertise could have at its disposal for "high priority" work - though

0 60 -
 the size of this potential teacher-training problem would obviously
depend on exactly what the quality of directly-recruited expatriate staff
was.

This seems to me the main problem the Language Centre has to face: how to
maintain a clear focus on priorities at the same time as ensuring reasonable
general standards throughout the University as a whole. Reduction of contact
hours in low priority Faculties is part of the solution, and I recommend
that Brian East keeps this firmly in his sights; the development of self-
access programmes which can be used with larger groups and/or in private
study is another part of the long-term solution, which the project team is
actively, and rightly beginning to pursue; but ultimately because the role of
the directly-recruited teaching staff is bound to become bigger as the
University expands, the most important part of the solution lies in sensible
decisions on direct recruitment and a long-term plan of counterpart-training
which produces good quality Yemeni staff. The crucial questions of
recruitment and counterpart-training are dealt with below.

In general, I endorse the principles of course-design and pedagogic approa-h

adopted so far by the LC team, and in particular their attempts to gather aata
about the use students actually make of English in English-medium faculties.
The information gathered in this way should provide a focus for contact and
constructive discussion between the LC and the Faculties, and assist the LC to
develop credibility as an adviser to, rather than the servant of, the Faculty
Deans.

EXCERPT C
FROM THE CONSULTANCY REPORT BY TONY O'BRIEN (MARCH 1984)

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

C.1 Two KELT posts should be transferred from the EFY Project to the
University for pre-service training: Senior Teacher Trainer (ME3) and
Teacher Trainer (HE4).

C.2 Representative should not become involved in recruitment, other than for
replacements in existing SSS posts, and then only if the University
accepts certain conditions and agrees to pay the recruitment fee.

C.3 Representative should identify funds to send as many new Yemeni Language
Intructors as possible from Sana'a University Language Centre on a
3-month training course in the UK, and ask consultant ELSD to identify
suitable courses.

C.4 The current post of Teacher Trainer in Sana'a University Language Centre
should be redesignated Specialist in ESP Teacher Training and Course
Design, with special responsibility for in-service training of Yemeni
Language Instructors.

C.5 A consolidated 'Tools of the Trade' allocation should be made to the

University KELTs to the value of at least £3,130.

ESP AT SANA'A UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE CENTRE

C.6 Current Position

C.6.1 The Language Centre has been an autonomous body within the
University since March 1983 and it has clearly grown in influence among
the Faculties. It has a Director, Dr Mahmoud Daoud, who is determined
to make it a successful and respected Centre within the University, and

- 61 -
who has evolved a philosophy which is Yemeni rather than British. The
Centre has responded well to the recent mushrooming demands made upon it
as a service centre to the Faculties.

C.6.2 There are, perhaps inevitably, a number of problem areas where

there is conflict with the original design concept (cf Alan Mountford's
Design Document, June 1982). One is the anomalous position of KELT
specialists and Study Skills Specialists (SSS), who are supposed to
teach only 8 hour/week (KELT) or 15 (SSS) in a system where:

a full Professor should teach 8 - 10 hour/week

an Assistant Professor 10 12
a Lecturer (PhD) 12 - 14
a Language Instructor (MA)" 16

Another is that SSS are on what are essentially PhD salaries with MA
qualifications. More important professionally is the difficulty of
getting across the developmental aspect of the KELT posts: there is
something of a chicken and egg situation here since one of the reasons
for KELTs not doing much developmental work is that they have taken on
extra hours, which they have been forced to do partly because D/LC
thinks they are not doing much developmental work.

C.6.3 The 4 KELTs are currently teaching more contact hours than
originally envisaged:

Brian East 8(4) Alan Evison 10(8)

Mike Friel 111/2(8) Ken Forster 12(8)

Although they are not doing very much developmental work, most of them
are doing a lot of coordination, and helping the English Language Unit
to keep on top of a somewhat rapidly evolving situation where new
courses appear to be starting up all the time. See Brian East's "Report
on Faculty Loading for February 1984" at Appendix E. There are signs
that H/ELU is beginning to win some battles on contact hours, allocation
to priority courses, etc. For example, in Commerce only 2nd year
students will be taught from now on, and the KELT Coordinator will hand
over at the end of this term to an American local appointee. There are
also signs that developmental work is beginning to increase: eg the
preparation of 'home access materials' for the Faculty of Law; the
preparation of a Study Skills booklet for all Faculties, the drawing up
of course outlines for a Language Centre brochure.

coordination duties of KELTs to be concentrated on high priority

Faculties, especially Medicine, Engineering and Agriculture
(D/LC's order of priority) and Science;

more course design (including formal specification of needs,

objectives, curricula, etc) leading to materials development;

development of self-study programmes;

development of testing materials;

a delegation of coordination, timetabling for individual

Faculties, and other administrative duties to lower levels.

It will be difficult to evaluate progress until LC teaching (at least

the high priority faculties) reaches a steady state: next year for
example sees the birth of the Medical Faculty, and in a year or two

- 62 -
r4
entry levels should improve all round as the EFY curriculum in the
schools begins to have an effect. In the terminology of the Mountford
document the Centre is only just out of the initial implementation phase
and into the development phase.

Equipment

C.6.5 Clive Holes' report indicated that the University had not yet
fully met its commitment to provide the equipment specified in the
Design Document. Little has changed. But perhaps we need to accept
that the situation he describes, of a lack of funds from Kuwait, is also
not going to change. It appears that the University accords the
Language Centre a relatively high priority within the University.
Evidence of this is the imminent (we were promised) move of the LC to
the Administrative Building - in spite of competition from other
Faculties. This building has 10 rooms and what will be 3 'model
classrooms'. At the same time the LC will keep on 2 offices in the
Faculty of Law. The Centre has acquired, within the last year:

2 duplicators
3 typewriters
1 photocopier (and another large one on order)
numerous cassette tapes
2 x 25 booth Philips Language Laboratories

Clearly these do not meet the specifications of the Design Document.

Representative and H/ELU feel that the provision of equipment is
satisfactory in the circumstances. I am prepared to accept this
provided that they keep up the pressure on the University to provide
more and not to think of the ODA providing everything. In particular
the LC must be encouraged to provide a typist.

C.6.6 In the interim, I support Clive Holes' suggestions for putting

together a consolidated list of 'Tools of the Trade' to enable the KELTs
and especially the Teacher trainers in new posts - to get on with
their job. The list below is a revised version of the list in the
Holes' report, with new priorities, and I recommend that at least the
first 3 items be supplied from this list.

1. 1 Sony U-Matic Video Player)

1 x 22" Monitor
20 blank tapes

2. 1 Portapac Sony Video Camera and Recorder

3. 4 x 3M portable OHPs

4. 1 Fast Copier for cassette tapes

5. 3 Elite OHPs and 10 bulbs

6. 5 Goodsell Cassette Players

- 63-
17.3 Report on the Design Produced by Dunford Seminar Participants

17.3.1 The Task

Background

The case study relates to the English Language Communication Skills

courses for 1st and 2nd year students in the Faculty of Science. There
are approximately 120 students in the current 1st year and 115 in the 2nd
year - after which English instruction stops. There are 6 hours of
English per week in the 1st year and 4 hours per week in the 2nd - a
total of about 200 hours in practice. Officially English is the medium
of instruction although in practice a lot of Arabic is used. Although
students' previous exposure to English incudes 6 years of EFL in Arabic-
medium schools, their level on arrival at the University is considered to
be roughly 'false beginner', but with some wide variations.

The Science Faculty is likely to substitute a General Science course for

its present subject-specialised 1st year course - to include Medicine and
Engineering students too.

There are economic constraints on the Language Centre's operations. In

addition, staff have fairly high teaching loads and therefore time and
resources for developmental work are severely limited. The Centre has,
however, recently acquired two 25-booth language laboratories.

The Science Faculty is classed as a 'high priority' area as English is

the medium of instruction and the means of access to professional
journals. All English Language courses are compulsory and form part of
the credit system of assessment.

17.3.2 The Design Task

The group set itself the following task:

Establish a set of procedures for syllabus design for a two-year

course in English for the proposed General Science course. (See
Figure 1.)

17.3.3 Procedure for Preliminary Investigation

Design and administer 'Wants Analysis'

University authorities: policy and attitudes regarding FL medium of

instuction and the provision of FL tuition for non-specialists.
Official views, university attitudes, regarding the wider issues of
social, developmental role of FL.
Investigate motives underlying request which initiated the design
task.
Take account of student 'wants', ie their general perceptions as to
why they should study FL, and underlying motives.

Design and administer 'Needs Analysis'

EAP considerations:
1 set texts for specialist courses
2 - handouts and other additional reading tasks
3 - library reference reading facilities

64 -
FIGURE 1

Procedure for Inputs MAIN DESIGN STAGES

determining inputs

Design and administer Results of Needs STATEMENT OF

a Needs Analysis Analysis GENERAL BACKGROUND

Design and administer Results of Wants STATEMENT OF

a Wants Analysis Analysis IDEAL GOALS

Establish student Student Entry STATEMENT OF

Entry Profiles Profile Data IDEAL GOALS

Analyse Logistic and Logistic and Human SPECIFICATION OF

Human Constraints Factors SYLLABUS CONTENT

r)
 4 - lectures for specialist courses
5 practical work for specialist courses
6 written assignments
7 - examination requirements and formats
8 any circumstances under which students may have a requirement
for spoken FL.

EOP considerations:

I typical employment pattern, per discipline

2 - brief characterisation of FL demands, if any, of type of
employment

Specify ideal goals

The appropriate steps in the above stages, expressed in performance

objectives terms, constitute the full set of goals to be attained under
optimum conditions.

Established student entry profiles

Biographical detail
General learning background
FL learning background
Learning history
School certificate record
Pre-testing (elements of test to be derived from needs analysis).

Notes:

A data-gathering exercise of this kind can generate such a mass of detail

as to actually hinder decision-taking. On balance, this should be
avoided not by limiting the range of factors to be accounted for but by
severely restricting the depth of investigation at each step. The above
specifies what we believe to be the irreducible set of factors relevant
to this particular course design. Restriction on investigation, however,
is a pragmatic matter which can only be decided by actually executing the
design process.

'Wants' and 'Needs' Analysis:

We are using a rough distinction between 'wants' and 'liccds' to separate
the basic premises on which the design will rest (and which derive from
broad institutional and individual attitudes to FL use) from the narrow
concern of specifying objectives for a specific course.

EAP considerations:
The specification should cover all years of the degree programme since
the course will provide the students' only FL instruction; it should not
meet the requirement of the General Science component alone.

EOP considerations:
Only the briefest account of likely EOP requirements is needed; the
course is not expected to provide specific EOP training. But awareness
of future needs should feed into decisions on weighting of the content in
the syllabus specification.
- 66 -

t ;.1.
Ideal goals and student entry profiles:

Since we are 'short-circuiting' the process of specifying an ideal

syllabus, the statement of goals must consist of a fairly detailed set of
performance objectives. But the statement should not attempt to specify
elements of the syllabus content as such. Similarly, student entry
profiles could feed into an deal syllabus specification, but in this
design procedure serve to mediate between ideal and modified goals. In
practice, entry profiles would be drawn up for only a sample of
students.

17.3.4 Constraints

General

The term 'constraints' is to be interpreted very broadly as including all

the factors identified in the existing situation which will have a
bearing on the attainment of the ideal goals identified from the Needs
and Wants Analyses and be potentially relevant factors in the revision of
these goals. The term is not necessarily a negative one; on the contrary
the taking account of constraints will lead to the positive determination
of course goals.

It is felt that constraints are best handled in terms of human

constraints and logistic constraints separately in order to permit a
finer appreciation of the force of the constraints of each type. Human
constraints are analysed according to the four different groups of people
involved in the design and implementation of syllabus, including the
participants themselves.

The following diagram illustrates the general procedure:

FIGURE 2

1
IDEAL GOALS

I ,
-1
Students
I

Language Centre I

Director

HUMAN CONSTRAINTS ]LOGISTIC CONSTRAINTS

Science Faculty Teachers

Dean/Dept Heads

L REVISED GOALS

(Li
- 67 -
 411
An inventory of the more important potential constraints now follows:

Human

a. Students

Mode of study:
How do they expect to be taught?
Row do they study in and out of class? 4

Motivation:
extrinsic, ie credits, grade point averages
intrinsic, ie how important do they consider the course?

Out of class study:

Row much time can be expected of them?
Under what conditions will it be done?

b. Teachers

Knowledge of and command of English: mode/medium

Typical methodology and teaching style
Experience, ability, flexibility
Attitude, especially to in-service training
Time available for out of class work eg materials preparation 4'
Motivation and interest
Staff turnover ratio

c. Faculty of Science Authorities

,t;

Attitudes to the use of English (as a medium of insfructionr

Assessment of the importance of English (within the context)
Assessment of students' desirable level of attainm nein English
Views on possible course objectives and specific r qu'ests/
requirements
Degree of interest in the course and extent of co- peration which
might be offered and of what kind.

d. Language Centre Director 1,

Degree of direct control over course that is demanded .14

t
of what
kind
Attitudes to course and degree of interest in it 11

Extent to which course is considered to affect prestige of

institution
Time available for/willingness to handle course problems.

Logistic

Number of course teaching hours - 144 (first semester) 1

96 (second semester)

Weekly scheduling of lessons

Total number of classes attended by students (other subjects)

Classrooms: location
capacity
furniture (eg free or fixed)
equipment

- 68 -
 Support: administrative support staff (eg typing, reprographic)
teaching aids, portable or fixed
reprographic facilities
library
teacher resources centre/demonstration room

Materials: availability of published materials

availability of usable in-house materials

17.3.5 Procedure for integrating inputs into the syllabus

Using the data provided by the investigation and modification stages, the
modified goals can be interpreted in terms of four broadly defined
features in the syllabus itself. This is illustrated in the diagram on
the following page (Figure 3). The four labels in the syllabus 'tube'
refer to the following features: 1
a. the realisation of the goals in terms of the communication
skills at any level on the macro-micro scale - derived from the
identified performance objectives.

b. the realisation of the goals in terms of the systematic

features of the language: syntax, phonology, script.

c. the realisation of the goals in terms of topics including

academic subject matter (eg a particular chemistry experiment which
has to be reported) and subject matter intended to influence the
students' attitudes to English.

d.. the realisation of the goals in terms of teaching strategies

- including use of classroom, language lab, self-access materials,
pairwork, groupwork, individual tasks, problem-solving activities

In theory, any one of the above four features could be used as the main
thread or as the starting point for all or for one part of the syllabus,
depending on the results of the investigation and modification stages of
the design. The data available so far suggest that the feature labelled
'communication skills' may be the most appropriate main thread throughout
this syllabus and would also constitute the largest single feature. The
relationship of the four elements for this syllabus could then be
represented as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4
FIGURE 3

SPECIFICATIONS SYLLABUS

Needs Analysis
ai

IDEAL GOALS

Wants Analysis

'

Student Entry Profiles

MODIFIED GOALS

Logistic Factors

17

Human Factors
 Support: administrative support staff (eg typing, reprographic)
teaching aids, portable or fixed
reprographic facilities
library
teacher resources centre/demonstration room

Materials: availability of published materials

availability of usable in-house materials

17.3.5 Procedure for integrating inputs into the syllabus

Using the data provided by the investigation and modification stages, the
modified goals can be interpreted in terms of four broadly defined
features in the syllabus itself. This is illustrated in the diagram on
the following page (Figure 3). The four labels in the syllabus 'tube'
refer to the following features:

a. the realisation of the goals in terms of the communication

skills at any level on the macro-micro scale - derived from the
identified performance objectives.

b. the realisation of the goals in terms of the systematic

features of the language: syntax, phonology, script.

c. the realisation of the goals in terms of topics including

academic subject matter (eg a particular chemistry experiment which
has to be reported) and subject matter intended to influence the
students' attitudes to English.

d.. the realisation of the goals in terms of teaching strategies

- including use of classroom, language lab, self-access materials,
pairwork, groupwork, individual tasks, problem-solving activities

In theory, any one of the above four features could be used as the main
thread or as the starting point for all or for one part of the syllabus,
depending on the results of the investigation and modification stages of
the design. The data available so far suggest that the feature labelled
'communication skills' may be the most appropriate main thread throughout
this syllabus and would also constitute the largest single feature. The
relationship of the four elements for this syllabus could then be
represented as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4

topics

COMMUNICATION
SKILLS

teaching
strategies

- 69
CC.;
 FIGURE 3

SPECIFICATIONS SYLLABUS

Needs Analysis

IDEAL GOALS

/A/
Wants Analysis COMMUNICATION
SKILLS

/B/ /C/
0 STRUCTURES TOPICS

'

Student Entry Profiles

/D/
TEACHING
STRATEGIES
MODIFIED GOALS

1
Logistic Factors

Human Factors
The order in which the three 'outer' elements are integrated into any
particular unit of the syllabus will depend on the nature of the
paricular communication skill taken as the starting point for that unit.
All the following are theoretically possible including cases where not
all four elements are actually included in the unit:

communication skill structure topic (strategies)

communication skill structure strategies (topic)

communication skill topic structure (strategies)

communication skill topic strategies (structure)

communication skill strategies structure (topic)

communication skill strategies topic (structure)

The following are outline examples of three of the above possibilities:

(1) communication skill----->structure --> strategies

using comparisons revision of using real basic

in simple reports comparisons objects for maths
comparison

(2) communication skill topic structure ---->strategies

performing basic ordinals, pairwork:

operations with maths cardinals mental
numbers arithmetic

(3) communication skill strategies topic > structure

listening to use of a history of revision

lectures 'lecturette' electricity of past
listening for gist as core perfect

17.3.6 Amendments to Syllabus

While the group is aware that the above description is not exhaustive, we
consider that this model offers a satisfactory design procedure for the
English for General Science course. Factors arising during the
implementation and evaluation stages should provide fresh inputs, using
the same procedure, to produce appropriately amended syllabuses.

-71 -
17.4 Two Reactions to the Design

These reactions were produced by other design groups in the evaluation

exercise on Monday 23.

17.4.1 First Reaction

1. There was a general reaction that the setting up of ideal goals was
a waste of time. The real world was acknowledged in the 'modified
goals" and why not start from there, as there is a real temptation to
cling to first thoughts rather than jettison freely what won't fit.

2. As a design model, we thought that evaluation should have been built

in. It seems that the group envisaged this as a second-stage function,
occurring when implementation took place. This led to point 3.

3. The role of the teachers in syllabus design. We thought that the

teachers should be consulted at the very outset; they have local
knowledge, experience of the texts and their shortcomings, and are
essential to the success of the new regime. Canvassing their opinions
and goodwill could well pre-empt later operational problems and they
could, by the way, actually have some practical and valuable ideas.

4. The group had a "course designers" point of view. Maybe a wider

range of interests could be reflected in the design to avoid practical
problems that could lead to a too-drastic revision exercise after
implementation.

5. The point was raised that more real time was needed for a realistic
design model to emerge from a KELT project. The operational difficulties
were probably underestimated from the appointing body and that to
produce the goods, a team would likely require three years rather than
one, ie never enough consideration is given from homebase on the length
of time that is spent on groundwork, follow-up etc. Perhaps there is a
real need for early "feasibility studies" to be undertaken so that
realistic goals can be set in the time allocated for certain posts.

6. Evaluation of students was not included in the model. This is a

pity since the English course has to be passed if the student is to
obtain a degree. As for enabling skills, it was felt that the crunch
would come through criterion referenced testing in the fourth year of
subject study, but the University also demands a pass grade in English as
a subject in its own right.

17.4.2 Second Reaction

1. No evaluation in theory needs/wants evaluation required.

2. Evaluation-model needs modification to take this into account.

Evaluation
fed back into Pre testing/evaluation
4 original
areas

Original Diagram (in Figure 3)

Using pre-testing as an axle the wheel of evaluation could revolve and

move along a university year continuum (!)

7 2
 3. Priority of item selection good. Diagrammatically not so good.
Communication skills expansion suggestions in 17.3.5 most interesting
needs work on realisations.

4. Methodology - content of equal importance

needs

enabling strategies

design of syllabus

5. Evaluation - not in 17.3.5

- not chronological

- used for making decisions on unit construction

- informant did not say where - up to us to decide

6. Design/Implementation/Evaluation/Review Cycle - when?

i. Annual

ii. Constraints .... university? .... personal?

7. Model

Write out - much already 'known' instinctively. We felt not required.

8. Evaluation mainly post specific syllabus content on diagram

(Procedural model Figure 1.)

we cannot say a lot because of the n.sture of the task it is difficult

to go further

student evaluation very important but no syllabus so no feedback.

17.5 Reaction of the Case Study Originator

The Task Redefined

procedures for
The group redefined the task, opting for trying to establish
actually designing a course. This seemed entirely
syllabus design rather than
justifiable, given the constraints of the task. They then adopted a commend-
document of
ably thorough approach to the problem, producing an 11-page
extremely
discussion and concrete suggestions. This diligence of itself was
gratifying.

Procedures for Syllabus Design

think, prove
The concentration on procedures for syllabus design will, I
the very issues
useful in the coming months when I shall be concerned with
Nothing in their proposals would involve a
raised in the group's paper. It
radical departure from procedures already adopted, which is reassuring.
point of comparison
may well be that the value of the document will be as a
evaluative tool. Much
for the actual procedures we adopt, and, hence, as an
although
that the group proposes is likely to be adopted in some way,
'real-world' constraints will probably determine different procedures in some
areas.

- 73-
The Value of Explicitness

The explicitness of the group's paper was very useful and helped focus my own
attention on the need for similar explicitness in any design documents which I
produce.

The need for explicitness was clearly stated by Charles Alderson in his
proposed 'testing' approach to syllabus design: if one can teach something,
then what is taught must be testable because it can be made explicit. The
corollary of this is that what is made explicit can be evaluated.
Unfortunately, the group's paper had nothing to say on evaluation.

'Ideal Goals'

One area of doubt I have about their proposals relates to their procedural
model entailing a 'statement of ideal goals' which then becomes modified by
constraints. It seems that although a designer must start somewhere, to reach
a statement of goals without taking constraints into consideration from the
start would waste time.

Communication Skills the Main Emphasis

The group's proposals concerning the different features of syllabus content

and how they related were very helpful and might well contain some points
which can be developed. Their model for a 3 or 4 strand syllabus whose
main focus would be communication skills seemed particularly interesting.

To sum up, I am very grateful to the case study group for tackling the problem
they set themselves in such a 'head-on' way and for producing such a polished
document in the little time available.

- 74
18.0 CASE STUDY TWO: CAIRO DIRECT TEACHING OF ENGLISH OPERATION, EGYPT
Originator: Rob Batstone

18.1 Introduction and Task

INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND:

Courses - 13 courses from Elementary to Higher, each of 72 hours/12 weeks

duration. Standard course format is published textbook supplemented by
DTE-produced materials (teacher's notes, handouts etc).

Facilities Resources Room containing large selection of textbooks, videos,

machine, OHP,
games etc. Classrooms furnished with video, audio cassette
whiteboard.
and
Teachers - 65, full and part-time, with wide variation in experience
qualifications.

Students 2,000 plus, mostly middle class and many requiring English for
between levels.
their jobs. Average class size of 19. Considerable turnover

BACKGROUND TO TASK:
syllabus
Impetus for change - Cairo DTE currently engaged in work on general
dissatisfaction with current course system. This is
reformulation, prompted by
adequate
based on series of poorly related and discrete textbooks, lacks
approach,
cohesion re. language input, has insufficiently broad communicative
and is especially weak on phonology and skills components.
workshops
Developments to date - Began with needs/wants survey and series of
analysis (ongoing) of courses
on syllabus specifications. The latter led to of
and of additional selected resources (books, videos) utilising taxonomies
structures, functions, topics, sub-skills.
with
Objectives - a. To project revised syllabus content using, taxonomies,
(partly via
view to exploiting a wider range of sources than at present
produce
information obtained from resources analysis). b. Subsequently to
retrieval for general
revised materials. c. To implement a system of materials
DTE use via analysis of resources.
revised syllabus
Current situation - Work about to commence on outlining
of completing draft proto syllabus by September
content with tentative aim
1984.

DESIGN TASK:

Outline Participants, provided with DTE taxonomies and any other required
information/materials, to work on producing proto syllabus outline as
framework for coherent series of courses (Elementary to Higher).
feasible
Context Only constraint is that syllabus outline should appear
given DTE situation, particularly our objective of achieving a cohesive
of
syllabus without creating need for excessively large quantities
DTE-produced materials.

- 73 -
18.2 Background Information

18.2.1 Institutional Background

Students The average enrolment per term is c 2,500, and the highest
proportion of these are at E - level. Students are generally from the educated
middle classes, though some belong to relatively underprivileged low income
groups. Students study at the Council for a variety of reasons, including
professional (there is a widespread belief that English is the key to enhanced
job prospects) and social (the Council is one of few places where male and
female students can meet informally).

Teachers

Numbers - There are approximately 60 teachers employed at the DTE. About 20

of these are full-time (ie London recruited teaching 24 hours per week), and
the rest are locally engaged (usually part time, teaching 12 or 18 hours per
week).

Experience and qualifications The average L/R teachers has a minimum of 2

years experience, and either Dip RSA or Dip TEFL (though some may only have
RSA Prep Cert). Among LIE staff the range is very wide. There are small
groups with either abundant experience and Dip RSA, or considerable
experience but weak paper qualifications. The majority have minimum Prep
Cert and at least 2 years experience.

Facilities

Classrooms These are all equipped with whiteboard, cassette and video
recorder, OHP and screen.

Resources Room There is a large and up to date stock of TEFL materials:

visual, print, audio and video. The RR includes home made materials (games,
standby lessons, 'teachers ideas file' etc) and facilities for making audio
recordings.

Teacher Training - One full-time ADOS and 3 TT Assistants who between them
have 75 hours per week available for TT duties. Their time is mainly taken
up with In-Service Observation and follow up support for all staff, though the
intensity of this fluctuates according to other priorities eg RSA Prep Cert
course and TT seminars/workshops. In addition KELTs and visitors to KELT
projects contribute to DTE seminars/workshops for teachers.

Current modes of teaching - Most teachers take structural/ functional target

language through presentation/practice/production stages, using a mixture of
traditional teacher-controlled oral practice and more communicative (in the
narrow sense) information gap pair/group work. Role play, games and other
'freer' tasks are used to a limited extent, and skills development work is
marginal. The vast majority of teachers (including those with recent RSA Dip)
are not aware of discourse, and are unsure of themselves with regard to
pronunciation work.

Attitudes to syllabus change There's general acceptance of the

desirability of the project, though still some misunderstanding of the nature
and extent of changes involved, leading in some cases to apprehension and
doubt. There is a strong need for more teacher involvement in '84/'85, and for
tangible results of the project to be disseminated as soon as is feasible.
TT programmes should help considerably in this respect.

76 --
18.2.2 1983-84: Developments to date

The current system: why change?

Outline diagram of current system:

[
1 E/1 I/1
I Follow Me Building Strats

E/2 1/2
Follow Me Building Strats
.., N
.....
N
.....
..., N

E/3 * 1/3 *
Encounters A DTE-made

E/4 i 1/4
Follow Me L I Exchanges A
,..
., .. .....

E/5 * 1/5 *
Encounters B Exploring
English

1/6
Exchanges B
......
.
1/7 *
Exploring
English

Elementary Level Intermediate Level

- 77

(....1(7'
Ill "../
 H/1
Developing Strats

V
H/2
Developing Strats

\l/

H/3
Listening/
Speaking NB: Each course lasts 12
weeks/72 hours, organised as
three 2 hour lessons per week.
* = remedial course

H/4
Reading/
Writing

H/5 H/6
Conversation Studying Strats
(Pre-FCE)

FCE ;

Higher Level

Problems encountered with the current system -

i. Format - The chief impetus towards implementing substantial course

development at the Cairo DTE has been considerable dissatisfaction with the
current general public course system. Broadly, this comprises a series of 13
courses, as outlined on the previous page. Most of these courses consist of a
published textbook supplemented by a considerable quantity of extra material
(in the form of teacher's notes, handouts, games and other realia) produced at
the DTE.

In most cases the aim of this supplementary material is to develop target

points in the 'core' book, sequencing them into a series of outline lesson
plans, adding alternative tasks etc.

ii. 'Mini-syllabi' Consequently the actual language/skills input for DTE

courses is based on that of the chosen textbook. The result is like a series
of 'mini-syllabi', more cohesive within themselves than they are in the wider

- 78-
context of overall syllabus. Inevitably distinctive textbooks (such as
Building Strats and Exchanges) differ so much in format and Language content
that the resulting system lacks organisational uniformity, defined aims or
language core.

iii. Independent entities - Courses tend to be treated as independent

entities rather than as components of a wider (integrated) syllabus, and it is
difficult for teachers to be sufficiently aware of the content of courses
other than those which they teach.

iv. Assessment - The absence of defined aims means that there is no

indication of core content, and most courses appear as a sea of target items,
with no guidance as to what needs to be taught. This makes assessment and
testing procedures extremely haphazard. There is a written test at the
end of each course, treated with scepticism by most teachers, who often
'promote/relegate' students on the basis of subjective intuition.

v. Syllabus type - At present the DTE course system lacks adequate focus
with respect to syllabus type, within individual courses as well as within the
wider parameters of E/I/H. Both teachers and students would benefit from
working with material with aims stated in consistent and coherent terms.

vi. Sequence Many language items re-occur from course to course with
excessive regularity, but with little or no development. Others are neglected,
only to be 'assumed' at a later stage.

vii. Recycling - There is insufficient recycling within courses, and where

there is recycling it can be coincidental rather than systematic and
planned. In particular, the syllabus of some remedial courses is only
marginally related to that of preceding and subsequent courses.

viii. Skills and phonology Present courses, in so far as they generally

only reflect the content of one textbook, are insufficiently eclectic in their
choice of language content, and are particularly weak on two important
elements of any cohesive general syllabus. One is skills development, where
listening and reading are rarely developed as skills per se. In most cases
they are used to provide practice in oral target language. There is very
little attention to developing discourse strategies at any stage. The other
major element is phonology, where again there is no systematic development.
Students' poor performance across the board in this respect comes as no
surprise.

ix. Perceived and actual needs - Current courses have been developed
without any thorough attempt to define student needs, and the extent to which
these may concur with course content arises from adaptations made by
individual teachers to suit the needs of individual classes.

Fact finding and analysis: January 1984 - June 1984

Introduction Our general thinking at the outset of the '83/'84 academic

year was that, even though it was premature to take a firm decision on the
type and extent of DTE syllabus development, any seriously undertaken reform
needed to be based on a thorough assessment of the situation then existing.
Consequently, two initial fact finding steps were undertaken.

Needs/Wants questionnaire -

i. Range - In November 1983 a questionnaire was given to approximately

1,100 students (over a third of the total at that time), proportionately
distributed across the various levels.

- 79 - tw
Ii. Interpretation - One purpose of the questionnaire was to assess if it
was possible to make meaningful generalisations about if/how students needed
to use Englit.h outside the classroom. The large percentage of students from
servicing/accountancy areas who seem to fall into this category could argue
for extending the DTE's ESP operation, or alternatively for building
components into the revised syllabus oriented towards the needs of these
service industries.

Anticipating, however, that students in general public courses study English

for a wide variety of reasons (social/academic/professional), a large part of
the questionnaire focussed on how students want to use English in the
classroom. The questionnaire was designed partly to indicate the following:

a. Student expectations- ie what students expect to achieve in terms

of how far up the 'ladder' of courses they expect to go.
b. Learning style - what students expect/prefer here, including the
issue of teacher centrality.
c. Syllabus emphasis what students might prefer re syllabus type
(more structurally/functionally oriented etc).

The last two, in particular, have strong methodological implications. However,

we see the results of the questionnaire as providing useful guidelines
(though not hard and fast conditions) when making changes to course inputs.
Some of the data suggests the need for interpretation with caution.

iii. Selected data from questionnaire -

1. Channel

Q: 'Outside the DTE, do you use English mainly for

a. speaking b. writing c. reading ?'

E - Level am 1. S (64%) pm 1. S (57%)

2. R (23%) 2. W (22%)
3. W (13%) 3. R (21%)
I - Level 1. S (58%)
2. R (28%)
3. W (14%)
H - Level 1. S (44%) NB: Both am and pm results
2. R (32%) specified only where they differ
3. W (24%) re priority.

2. Purpose

Q: 'When do you use English?

E am E pm I am I pm H am H pm
With foreign friends 3:29% 4:21% 2:42% 4:24% 2:50% 4:28%
at work 2:51% 1:56% 3:42% 1:55% 2:50% 1:57%
at school/university 4:23% 3:30% 4:28% 2:40% 3:38% 3:39%
on trips abroad 1:53% 2:41% 1:58% 3:32% 1:57% 2:47%

Summary - 1. At work (always pm)

2. Trips abroad (always am)
3. School/university/foreign friends

NB: Alongside the 4 categories above students were asked to choose between
'a lot/a little/never'. Above data is taken only from the first of these.

-80-
t, r
3. Turnover

Q: 'Do you intend to stop studying after E? I? H? levels?'

E - level : 86% of students continue through to Higher

I - level : 91% of students continue through to Higher

Q: 'Which levels have you already completed at the DTE?'

I - level : 23% early I students had done at least 2 E courses

10% late I students had done at least 2 E courses
50% late I students had done 2 previous I courses

H level : 15% early H students had done at least 2 E courses

55% early H students had done at least 2 I courses
11% late higher students had done 2 E courses
42% late higher students had done 2 I courses
72% late higher students had done 2 previous H's

4. Classroom apporoaches

Q: 'Would you like to spend more or less time in class on each of the
following tems, or are you hap on?'

E I H

Listening exercises from tape 8:52% 4:56% 4:59%

Reading 3:66% 6:52%

Writing

Pronunciation practice 2:74% 2:76% 2:75%

Grammar explanations/exercises
eg 'some' vs 'any' 5:57%

Learning to use English in

different situations 1:86% 1:79% 1:79%
eg talking to boss vs colleague
working in small groups/pairs

Acting out imaginary situations

eg in a restaurant 4:62%

Talking about your personality

Discussions on teacher chosen

topics 7:53% 5:53%

Discussions on class chosen topics

Topics related to Egypt 7:51%

Topics related to Britain

Video 6:56% 3:64% 3:70%

Language games

Explaining/correcting h/work

NB: Preceding chart gives percentages only where over 50% of students
specified 'more time'. Figures need to be treated circumspectly very
few students specified 'less time' for any item.

-81
ur
 5. Learning style

Q: 'Do you think the teacher should spend more time:

a. teaching everybody together
b. helping you to work independently with other students?'

together independently
E 53% 47%
I
64% 36%
H 63% 37%

6. Study and jobs (where English required)

Study Jobs
E -Faculty of Commerce 42% Accountancy 21%

Faculty of Art/ Secretary 13%

Literature 10%

I Faculty of Commerce 43% Accountancy 20%

H Faculty of Commerce 49% Accountancy 19%

Materials analysis -

i. Course analysis - At the outset of the '83/'84 year it

was agreed that
changes to course input should be based on an objective
assessment of the
relative strengths and weaknesses of the present
course system, and that this
should be achieved through a thorough breakdown of all general
public courses.
A series of taxonomies was compiled, drawn (sometimes with
considerable
modification and additions) from standard published sources (see Reference
File for details here). The decision to use taxonomies
was based on the
following rationale:

a. They would ensure that everyone involved in the analysis used

the
same (commonly understood and agreed) terms.

b. It was felt that the taxonomies could also be used as

a guide when
devising new input, and that current and projected course
content could
more meaningfully be compared if the taxonomies served as the basis for
their descriptions.

ii. Resources analysis - Since March 1984 the taxonomies have also been
used as the basis for analysis of selected printed materials
in the DTE's well
stocked Resources Room. The Resources Analysis serves two purposes:

a. To facilitate the search for sample materials which could

provide
guidelines for the design of new course material.

- 82 -
 b. Through careful indexing/cataloguing, it could form the basis for a
system of materials retrieval (with material called initially through the
primary specifications of structure/function/topic/sub-skill), always
assuming that the analysis could be ongoing, and that teachers would be
encouraged to make regular use of it. Such a system could, at a later
date, be transferable to a data base.

iii. Workshops - A series of 10 seminar/workshops were given during

January/February 1984, attended by those designated to work on course and
resources analysis. The workshops aimed to ensure that participants fully
understood the terms being used and felt confident that they could use them in
the analysis task (NB: See Reference File for tasksheets used/guidance notes
forming written summary of points made during workshops).

iv. Updating -

Course analysis - This was completed in May 1984, and led to the (ongoing)
production of 'digested' unit and course overviews intended for use by both
teachers and syllabus planners.

Resources analysis This is ongoing.

18.2.3 Aims and Objectives 1984/1985:

Aims -

i. A more balanced and integrated syllabus, with logical phasing and

development of language items, and providing for communicative competence
across the skills.

ii. 'Sub-skills' built into the syllabus across the board, and (where
possible) integrated into other syllabus components.

iii. Potential for assessment at regular intervals through the syllabus.

iv. To take account of information obtained from the needs survey.

v. Materials give teachers scope for variation and improvisation, within

explicit context of set targets of achievement at each level.

vi. To move away from a system based almost exclusively on a single

textbook.While probably retaining the noti,n of a 'core' book, our ultimate
objective is a revised syllabus with input drawn from a variety of sources
(printed books and 'home made' DTE materials). In short, a cohesive syllabus
which is stable but flexible.

Assumptions

i. English for General Groups oriented (but see needs data).

ii. Overall phasing of current system (12 week/72 hour courses) remains
unchanged.

iii. TT programmes can provide essential backup to inform/encourage/train

teachers in use of revised syllabus.

iv. Materials, once produced, will be piloted and monitored.

-83-
v. Testing procedures will be revised and piloted in line with revised
syllabus.

vi. General continuity of instruction throughout the syllabus (though perhaps

more an aim than an assumption - see needs data)

vii. Syllabus development will be undertaken with the format of the final
product in mind eg undesirability of current handout system as core/
possibility of DTE printed workbooks as desirable alternative.

Constraints

i. Limited resources - The chief implication of this constraint is that we

must, in projecting revised syllabus content, base our expectations on what is
feasible given limited time and expertise. It would be counter-productive, for
example, to devise a pedagogical syllabus which made no reference to any
existing materials at the DTE. This could lead to the potentially daunting
task of attempting to bridge the gap between available and potential material
through producing unrealistically large quantities of our own material.

To date, syllabus development has involved (in addition to ADOS) a team of 6

teachers, most of whom teach 18 hours per week in addition to their other
responsibilities.

ii. Copyright - The Cairo DTE has recently come under critical scrutiny
from publishers' representatives, though our exact position re conditions
governing potential breac;ies of copyright is still in the process of being
clarified.

The situation here could m.ke for significant difficulties with respect to our
general aim of utilising a variety of printed sources, and particularly
concerning the reproduction of listening and reading materials (tricky on a
'home made' basis).

Vc

84-
Implementation

General procedure -

Needs/Wants
Survey
_J

Course Breakdown
(description of
weak /strong areas
+ rationale for
change)

r-

Choice of
syllabus type

Course overviews/ PROTO-SYLLABUS Analysis of selected

ref to detailed printed materials
breakdown of (partly via resources
course materials analysis)

PEDAGOGICAL
SYLLABUS

sources E courses I courses courses

analysis revised + revised + revised + TT Teachers
reference testing testing testing
material material material

Revisions acc
to feedback +
re-evaluation

85 - 4
0 13
Proto-syllabus stage

i. Choice of syllabus type - This involves an overall decision about guiding principles
on which the language content of courses would be based at each stage, and with which other
elements of communicative competence would be linked. We envisage that the organising
principle on which the proto syllabus would be based will be an ideal - a means of
organising the proto syllabus rather than a fixed objective to which we should adhere as if
writing a new syllabus 'from scratch'. A preliminary decision has already been taken to
make the E-level proto syllabus topic/setting/role based, with structures and functions (and
ultimately sub-skills) integrated within this context. However this does not imply that no
other option will be considered, either for E or for I/H levels.

It is assumed that the final decision for any level would inevitably be within the (very
wide) context of a communicative approach.

ii. Proto-syllabus - The proto-syllabus stage involves linking of syllabus

specifications according to the decision of syllabus type, and with reference to DTE
taxonomies. Both the decision on syllabus type and the proto syllabus as a whole should
function as 'measuring instruments', used to gauge the degree to which the current system
falls short of what we would ultimately like. We plan to have a comprehensive draft proto
syllabus for all levels (E/I/H) by December 1984.

Pedagogical syllabus stage

i. Assessment At this stage we should have the means for assessing the effectiveness
of the current system ie proto syllabi and overviews of present courses. Since both of
these will be couched in the same terms (ie are based on DTE taxonomies) effective
comparison between the two should not prove too difficult. At the same time, decisions may
be taken to replace some of the current core coursebooks with alternative core books.
Indications of the nature of such changes will already have emerged from ongoing course
development work. With this in mind, resources analysis from September 1984 will focus
partly on potential alternative textbooks.

ii. Pedagogical syllabus framework The basic framework of the pedagogical syllabus
will be the overall structure of the selected core book (either current or a replacement)
with modification through inserting/developing new inputs (chiefly streamlining target
language and integrating phonology, discourse and other 'sub-skills' components).

These inputs should come from as wide a variety of sources as possible, including (ideally)
a number of 'supplementary material textbooks' in addition to the 'core' book and our own
materials.

Our current schedule involves having produced an E-level pedagogical-syllabus by end of

1984. The plan for January-July 1985 is for materials development and piloting for the 3
mainstream E courses, and for initial work on I-level pedagogical syllabus.

Teachers and teaching training

The strong tendency of DTE supplementary materials to be over-prescriptive (to 'drive' the
teacher rather than vice versa) encourages a 'laissez faire' attitude to lesson planning. A
revision of course materials, involving greater attention to a wider range of communicative
components and giving a higher priority to methodology, could not be properly undertaken
without support from teacher training activities. Such activities would aim to make
teachers aware of methodological implications, and help them to implement them in the
classroom. Over and above this, teacher training is crucial both for increasing teacher
awareness of syllabus development, and in encouraging their acceptance of it.

We plan to involve teachers as much as possible in 1984/85, by distributing overviews of all

current courses and by encouraging teacher contributions at the materials production stage.

86 -
1
18.3 Report on the Design produced by Dunford Seminar Participants

(A second design for the same task can be found in Appendix C)

18.3.1 The Task

In the event Group A used the documentation provided to put together as full a
picture as possible of the motivation for and the probable consequences of the
syllabus design project as a whole. From there an attempt was made to provide
a plan of action for defining, modifying and implementing an institutional
syllabus giving consideration to rather broader issues than those outlined in
the initial task.

Background and Aims

The reason given for the syllabus design project in the Case Study Originator's
documentation is dissatisfaction (notably among the institute teaching staff)
with the current general course system. (See Documentation Section 2.1)

There seem to be three basic requirements:

1. To provide a coherent and cohesive overall framework for the courses.

2. To provide guidance for the teachers on how the courses relate to the
overall plan, and to win their approval of it.

3. To rationalise placement and testing procedures.

To deal with these requirements it is useful to draw a distinction between a

pedagogic and an institutional syllabus. A pedagogic syllabus is concerned
with the translation of language forms into teaching points, whereas an
institutional syllabus includes, in addition to this, consideration of aspects
of the local situation, such as: student and client needs/wants, staff
attitudes and time, materials available and other local resources. This
design focussed on the broader perspective of an institutional syllabus for
Cairo, as this was more likely to cover the requirements set out above than a
narrow pedagogical focus. Specific attention was paid to the pedagogical
syllabus element, the adaptation of this to the local situation, the
presentation of this to the teaching staff, and the consequences of this for
the administration in terms of the deployment of staff and other resources.

The project reflects a number of beliefs. These include the following

positions: that the rationale and objectives of the project should be
understood and endorsed by the staff as a whole; the project should be
informed by current thinking in foreign language learning and geared to
local needs; guidance on current thought can often best be provided from
outside or above WHEREAS appropriateness to local situation can best be
ensured by the teaching staff (ie bottom up); syllabus refinement should be
ongoing and involve all staff in order to inform them and increase their
commitment to the syllabus.

Outline of Case Study Design Task

Our design considered the pedagogical, implementational and organisational

aspects of producing and introducing a new syllabus.

Pedagogic Aspects

The consideration of the pedagogical implications involved an examination of

the present proto-syllabus, and a comparison with syllabuses in use or

-87-
0
proposed for other DTEOs. This led to a proposal for a 'core' syllabus, which
could be followed by different DTEOs, and suggestions for procedures for
localising the core syllabus to produce an institutional syllabus.

Implementational Aspects

This section considers the presentation of the proposed syllabus to the staff,
and the arrangement of seminars to carry out the localisation procedures with
the production of the syllabus and of teacher's guides and student course
outlines. It involves a trialling period before proceeding to the production
of final versions and full implementation of the proposed syllabus and leads
on to an evaluation and eventual modifications to the original syllabus.

Organisational Aspects

Here we looked at the resources available for the implementation of the

project, involving aspects such as the budgeting, staff availability and the
management of resources.

18.3.2 The Adoption of a New Syllabus: Pedagogical Considerations

The Current Situation

An enormous amount of work is currently being done in the Cairo DTEO (and it
would seem also in a large number of other DTEOs around the world) on the
production of an appropriate local syllabus. A brief comparison was made of
the elementary syllabuses proposed for Naples, Madrid, Algiers as well as the
proposed proto-syllabus for the Cairo DTEO. This showed clearly a large
measure of agreement on the items to be taught, but considerable variation in
the organisation of the items, the terminology employed and the degree of
detail as regards lexical fields, topics etc ....

Thus the Naples syllabus focussed on Language Form, to which components of

Language Use (which seems to be equivalent to 'Function'), Pronunciation,
Stress and Intonation were equated. The Algiers Syllabus is organised around
language functions with examples of language forms and indications of the
situation and the source of language material to be used. The Madrid Syllabus
is expressed in terms of Notions such as Existence, Location etc ..., with
specific realisation of the language form to be used. The Cairo approach is
different again, the syllabus being organised around Topics (such as "Personal
Information", "House & Home" and so on) with additional structuring around
behavioural specifications, setting, derived structures, and derived
functions. Despite these different organisational approaches there was a
general consensus on the language forms which needed to be taught. This has
been tabulated for ease of reference in 18.3.5.

It is clear then that while a great deal of effort is going on in different

centres, much of this is mere re-invention of the same wheel in different
forms and 'that a lot of wasted effort could be avoided by the adoption of a
more unified approach.

A Proposal

It therefore seems desirable that a common formula be adopted for use in

different DTEOs. A particularly appropriate format for this would seem to be
the Naples approach which is organised around language form.

Our suggestion of language form as the organisational focus is based on two

considerations:

-88-
1 Fly
 i. Language form is the one element which appears consistently in all
the syllabi which were studied.

ii. Language form still offers the most complete and structured
description of language available to us. Atempts to describe language in
terms of function are still at a relatively early stage.

The list of forms would be drawn up from an existing DTEO syllabus for this
level or could be adapted from descriptions of language now available.

From this list of language forms would be derived the language functions to be
taught. This specification of forms and functions would constitute the core
list of language to be taught in the different institutions.

The subsequent division of this list into levels, and the specification of
what should be taught at each level would be determined by individual DTEOs
based on local constraints such as the length and nature of the courses, the
course-books used, the motivation and learning speed of the students and so on.

In addition to the division of the list into levels, the following extension
work to the syllabus would be carried out at the level of individual DTEOs.

a. Deciding on suitable course books (bearing in mind cultural

constraints) which would form the basis for the syllabus at each level.
The core list would serve as a check list as to how far the books covered
the prescribed items.

b. Indicating against the core list references to any course book

chosen.

c. Drawing up cross-referenced lists of all available materials that

could be used to cover to the items. This would allow teachers to cover
items not included in the course books or even to dispense with a course
book altogether.

d. Additions would be made to the core list to allow for any

phonological problems requiring particular attention (eg p/b for Arabic
speakers).

e. Separate specifications would be added for other particular local

problems, such as the necessity of teaching Roman script.

f. Indications could be given of lexical fields/topic areas to be

covered.

g. Syllabi for listening, reading and writing skills would be added

with clear references to suitable materials to be used.

h.. Indications would be given as to the possibility for re-cycling

materials and the need for revision of especially difficult language
forms.

Local* responsibilities would also include the production of a clear

"Teachers' Guide" for the exploitation of the syllabus and the materials
available, and of a set of "Notes for Students" indicating the work to be

The
*Local because of the local elements in the institutional syllabus.
format of the guide may follow general principles available to all DTEOs.

- 89 -
1/)
covered. This latter would help re-assure them of the reasons for certain
items in the course books being emphasised, while others are sometimes
re-ordered or even omitted altogether.

Some Suggestions as to the Outline of the Finished Product

The final document to be given to teachers would contain the appropriate

elements of those specified above. There can be no universal format since
needs will differ, and much will depend on the level of expertise of the
teaching staff. Care must be taken on presentation, however, as
over-prescription and excessive detail in any syllabus often turn out to be
counter-productive.

A brief example of an extract from a possible local syllabus is given in

18.3.6.

As regards the skills specification it is felt that there should be a separate

skills syllabus, setting out for each term the sub-skills to be practised with
references to source material. An example of the Writing Skills syllabus is
given in 18.3.7.

Other Optional Elements

Other elements to be included on the syllabus document for teachers will

depend on:
i. The extent to which they have been involved in drawing up the
syllabus.
ii. Their familiarity with the centre and its system of categorising
materials.
iii. The size of the DTEO and the amount of communication between the
staff in the form of meetings, teacher-training sessions etc...
iv. Whether a satisfactory induction session is held for new teachers.

Revisions of the Syllabus

Clearly no syllabus will remain unaltered from fear to year as new materials
(both published and locally-produced) will be introduced and will need to be
integrated. Course books will need to be evaluated to determine their
appropriacy in practice. It is important that teachers should be involved at
all stages in any additions and amendments to the syllabus.

Implications of Our Proposal

For the Cairo DTEO our proposal offers little more than a general indication
of areas that need to be considered in the next stage of their syllabus
development programme. There is little in the way of concrete proposals as is
perhaps inevitable from the limited time available for our Case Study.

Beyond the Cairo DTEO, however, we would suggest that we have raised serious
issues that need to be faced by DTEOs working together and in association with
the British Council. There would seem to be a clear need for much greater
co-operation between DTEOs in the establishment of a core syllabus and in
addition, perhaps shared banks of materials, which would reduce the present
duplication of effort going on in so many similar institutions. The
initiative should perhaps come from ELSD to set up a working party of
concerned people from different DTEOs to work towards the establishment of a
core syllabus and the resolution of this problem.

" 1 I 1-
kJ
18.3.3 Implementational Aspects

A Plan for Syllabus Implementation:

Task Implementers Resources

(Key implementers underlined)

I. Design of Dunford CSDT group 1. DTEO syllabuses

core syllabus
DTEOs 2. Published syllabuses
(eg Threshold)
ELSD

II. Re-ordering and DOS 1. Core syllabus

restating (if
necessary) of ADOSs 2. Local knowledge of
DTEO course structure.
Course
Coordinators

III. Syllabus Seminar ADOSs 1. Core syllabus

- to consider how
the core syllabus Teacher trainers 2. Teaching materials used
can be converted Coordinators in DTEO Cairo
into a syllabus
for DTEO Cairo Teachers 3. Teachers classroom
experience.
4. Knowledge of local
environment
5. Data on student and
client needs/wants

IV. 1. Fully localising ADOSs 1. Core syllabus

core syllabus 2. Feedback from syllabus
2. Production of Coordinators seminar
teaching guides and 3. DTEO Cairo teaching
student course out- Teachers materials.
lines to link local
syllabus to course-
books and supple-
mentary materials.

V. Trialling ADOSs 1. Local syllabus

2. Teaching guides
Coordinators 3. Student course guides
4. Teaching materials
Teachers

VI. Production of ADOSs

final versions
of: Coordinators
1. Local syllabus
2. Teaching guides Teachers
3. Student course outlines

VII. Full. Implementation ADOSs

Monitoring, evaluating,
testing. Coordinators
Ongoing re-writing
and up-dating procedures Teachers

- 91
Syllabus Seminar

A. The syllabus seminar is a key stage in the syllabus implementation

procedure as it is the first point at which teachers become fully
involved with the modification of the core iv'llabus that will finally
result in an adapted local syllabus.

B. In view of its importance, the seminar should occupy a full day and be
attended by all teachers.

Further work on the syllabus should be carried out in small workshop

groups supervised by teacher trainers/coordinators. The groups should
meet regularly but for short periods.

C. Suggested seminar aims, methods and sample group task sheet material:

Cl AIMS:

C1.1 To inform teachers of current DOS and ADOS thinking on syllabus

implementation.

C1.2 To reassure teachers that the introduction of the syllabus and

consequent course reorganisation will not entail the sacrifice of
good teaching methods for the sake of administrative convenience.

C1.3 To give cohesion and direction to the syllabus project by focussing

on key areas for discussion:

How to localise the core syllabus as fully as possible.

How can the syllabus be made teacher friendly and learner

comprehensible.

How can the syllabus be monitored and evaluated after initial

implementation.

C1.4 To guide the discussions towards a positive expression of

constructive proposals and away from the purely negative voicing of
the problems involved in implementation.

C1.5 Within the constraints of C1.3 and C1.4 to give the teachers full
opportunity to discuss all aspects of the project among themselves
and with the senior staff.

C2 METHODS:

C2.1 A limited input from the ADOS in the form of a general summary of
proposals and short introductions to the key discussion areas. ADOS'
input should be limited to avoid creating the impression amongst
teachers that they are being lectured on matters that are being
imposed on them from above with no consideration for their thoughts
on the matters.

C2.2 Group discussions amongst teachers of the key issues followed

by plenary feedback.

C2.3 Task sheets to guide group discussions in a positive direction.

- 92 -
 C3 SAMPLE GROUP TASK SHEET:

GROUP DISCUSSION 1: HOW CAN WE MAKE THE SYLLABUS 'TEACHER FRIENDLY' AND
'LEARNER COMPREHENSIBLE'?

1. "I can teact, from a book - as long as I like it - together with my

own materials; but certainly not from a long list of grammatical
items!"

Is this how you feel?

2. How can we make the proposed syllabus 'teacher friendly' - ie by

transforming it into usable teaching guides?

- What should a teaching guide look like?

What should it contain?

3. How many core coursebooks should we maintain for each year?

- Which books?

4. "I want to finish the whole book. Why are we leaving out some of the
units?" (A student)

Think of a convincing answer.

5. How can we make the syllabus 'learner comprehensible'?

What kind of course outline should we give to students?

What should it contain - grammatical terms?

functional items?
both or neither?

18.3.4 Staff Organisation

Proposals

1. For syllabus reform in DTEO Cairo to be effective and non-divisive there

must be an organised commitment to development and implementation at all
levels from ADOS to locally-engaged teachers.

(DOS will, of course, also be involved to the extent that other duties
allow.)

2. Such organised commitment presupposes:

2.1 A clearly differentiated chain of command and responsibility for the

different tasks involved in implementation (see previous Syllabus
Implementation section).

2.2 Specific contractual allocations of time on a regular basis:

eg - initial syllabus seminar: one full day for all staff

syllabus task groups: two hours per fortnight for all teachers

- progress review seminars: 1/2 day every six weeks (ie twice a
term) for all staff.

93
3. A specific amount of the non-contact time written into the contracts of
London-appointed staff must be reserved for syllabus development. This
time allocation must not be eroded by the demands of other duties - eg
day-to-day running of the DTEO.

4. Locally-engaged teachers must be similarly involved in syllabus

development.

We propose, therefore, that all LE teachers (none of whom have non-

contact time within their present contracts) be paid to participate in
syllabus development for two hours every fortnight. Finance for this
will be available if the proposal to appoint three more developers for
1984/5 is abandoned.

5. The distinction between 'developers' and 'maintainers' should be

abolished as we feel it leads to an over-rigid compartmentalisation of
responsibilities.

Developers and maintainers should become 'co-ordinators'.

6. Some of the present non-contact time specifically allocated to teacher

training and lesson preparation can justifiably be annexed to syllabus
development without prejudicing the day-to-day running of the DTEO.

The planning and implementation of a new syllabus necessarily involves

elements of teacher training and lesson planning that should be of
concrete benefit to all teachers.

Time available per week for non-teaching activities

POST CONTACT HOURS NON-CONTACT HOURS

L/C ADOS 6 27
L/R ADOS 6 27
L/R RESOURCES OFFICER 12 18
L/R ASST RESOURCES OFFICER 12 18
MAINTAINERS X 6 108 (18 X 6) 54 (9 X 6)
(L/R = 4, L/E = 2)
DEVELOPERS X 3 54 (18 X 3) 27 (9 X 3)
(L/R = 2, L/E = 1)
TEACHER TRAINING Assts X 3 36 (12 X 3) 54 (18 X 3)
(L/R = 2, L/E = 1)
L/R TEACHERS X 13 312 (24 X 13) * 26 (13 X 2)
L/E TEACHERS X 19 ** 19 (19 X 1)

270 hours per week

L/C = London contract
.L/R = London recruited
L/E = Locally engaged

Note: To be reserved for syllabus development

** 2 hours every 2 weeks to be paid extra

Of the total of 270 non-contact hours per week 19 will need to be

paid for above the present budget. Suggestion: do not create 3
extra posts for developers.

- 94- 1
Task responsibilities

ADOS (Course development) To be responsible for preparing the core and

& ADOS (Teacher Training) local syllabuses for Elementary, Intermediate
and Higher levels

TEACHER TRAINERS X 2 Coordinating with ADOSs

Organising syllabus seminars and task groups

TEACHER TRAINER X 1 Organising pre-service training

RESOURCES OFFICER Preparing teaching guides and student course

ASST RESOURCES OFFICER outlines
CO-ORDINATORS

TEACHERS Attending seminars and task groups

eg level meetings, course meetings,

skills meetings - organised by
coordinators.

Suggested seminar format:

1 hour: full session
organised by teacher trainers
1 hour: course/level meetings
organised by coordinators
 18.3.5

LANGUAGE FORM AS EXPRESSED ON SYLLABUS FOR

NAPLES MADRID ALGIERS CAIRO

Good morning/after- Greetings Introducing Derived function

noon/evening. Hello. Introductions Formulae yourself and from the topic
How do you do? How Meeting others. "Personal
are you? Good Bye. Leave Taking Greetings Information"

Prepositions of Locating Requesting and Derived structure

place: in/on/at/ Location/ giving descriptions from Personal
in front of/behind/ Direction of location. Info./House &
opposite/between Home/Travel.
rn

There is + adj + Inquiring & Derived structure

noun. There are + adj Existence informing about from House &
+ noun. Is there a/ Asking for & existence & Home.
any? Are there any? giving info. non-existence.
Short answer forms.

Present simple Talking about Routine/ Habitual Derived structure

+ contractions regular activities/ Present states actions. from Personal
+ short forms routines/habits/ Information/
states. Travel/Occupation

The syllabus breakdown in the individual centres is according to the following categories:
NAPLES: Language form. Language use. Pronunciation/Stress/Intonation. Comment.
MADRID: Notions. Specific Realisations.
ALGIERS: Functions. Realisations (with some indication of situation). Some indication of source of material.
CAIRO: Topic. Behavioural Specification of Setting. Derived structures. Derived functions.
18.3.6

Suggested Syllabus Format for a Structures and Functions Syllabus. Elementary Level, Term 1, Year ?

COURSE BOOK EXTENSION COMMUNICATIVE

LANGUAGE FORM LANGUAGE USE REFERENCE MATERIALS PHONOLOGY ACTIVITY/TASK

Can/could making requests Text Book Worksheet [u] phoneme in Cue card: Set "C"
and offers Unit ETV Unit "could" must
Page Video: VE Unit remain short.

Can speaking and Text Book Worksheet 20 Insist on weak

enquiring about Unit Encounters Unit 3 forms in phrases
abilities Pages page 9 like "I can play
the guitar"

The basic syllabus for Year 1 should be a guide available to the teacher, giving indications of the main points to be
covered and the materials available for this. It should not be prescriptive to the point where it gives rise to
resentment among the teachers, but it should provide enough guidance for the young and less experienced teacher.
 18.3.7

Writing Skills Syllabus. Elementary Level, Term 1, Year ?

SKILL TEXT TYPE TASK SUGGESTED SOURCES

OF MATERIAL

Letter to a pen friend Transfer of info Basic Writing Skills

Use of cohesive
giving personal details from registration Unit 1, p 4
devices. Linking
sentences "and" card
1

ao

Description of a Completion of a Encounters Unit 1

Use of anaphoric
place paragraph based on Basic Writing Skills
I reference pronoun "it".
picture/plan. Transfer Unit 2, p 9
of info from a
notice to a para.

I_ 1
18.4 Two Reactions to the Design
in the evaluation
These reactions were produced by other design groups
exercise on Monday 23.

18.4.1 First Reaction

and the amount of
A The group was generally very impressed by the document
work and thought which had clearly gone into it.
the problem of
B Discussion with the informant from Cairo A highlighted
accurately reflected what was, in fact,
producing a document which
number of areas were
intended by the group. Misgivings we had about a
extended explanation the informant was able to
cleared up by the more
get in the way.
provide. Thus, at times the document actually seemed to
oriented approach to
C The Cairo A approach seemed to represent a product
"not to reinvent the
the issue of syllabus design with their desire for the process
wheel". We felt, however, that there is a strong case
gaining experience in
involved here and that it is one of value to their
the area of syllabus design.
point of view, but
D The task had been well tackled from an administrator's
teacher/learner involvement were vague (understand-
the mechanisms for
accorded a considerably
able, given the time available) and should be
our own product (Cairo B) and that of
higher priority. Reflection upon
administrative and
Cairo A seemed to emphasise the need for both
teacher/learner perspectives to be taken into account from the outset.

organisation of the syllabus

If language form is to be the basis for the
after discussions with the
(and it was not clear that it actually would, retrogressive step in
informant) we were worried about it producing a
teacher orientation and methodology.
implications of a world-wide
F We were very interested in the possible
syllabus for DTEOs, although we had insufficient time to explore them in
raised included:
detail. Areas of concern which were
be at odds with a learner
i. a centrally imposed core appears to
oriented approach.
to a central
ii. the idea that a local element can just be tacked on
core seems questionable.
already Cie Threshold
iii. a common core would seem to be in existence
etc).

18.4.2 Second Reaction

basis of designing a syllabus which
By examining different parameters for the allowing for modification
would be appropriate to more than one DTEO while has produced a useful
within the local context of each DTEO, the group
already prepared for Cairo.
document for evaluating the proto-syllabus
based purely on forms without
Certain reservations were made about a syllabus
elements may be integrated or run
any guidelines on how certain skill-based
parallel to the core elements.
for consultation at different levels
The review group welcomed the flow chart
in practice.
but wondered how this would be coordinated

99 -

I.
18.5 Reaction of the Case Study Originator

In terms of value to the Cairo DTE, Cairo A's design provides us with some
very useful points of reference and food for thought.

For example, of particular relevance to us is the distinction drawn between a

relatively narrow 'pedagogical syllabus' and a wider 'institutional
syllabus'. We appreciate the emphasis on teacher understanding and acceptance
of any syllabus development project, and on involving as wide a cross section
of staff as possible in syllabus development issues. Although we were already
aware of the need for this, the importance which the group gives to it serves
as a useful reminder not to lose sight of such considerations at a critical
time in the project's evolution.

More specifically, some of the points made under the 'implementational

aspects' section look useful and viable for Cairo. We particularly take note
of the suggested teaching guides and student course outlines (see also Cairo
B's design in Appendix C) of the sample 'group task sheet' for staff seminars,
and of the underlying emphasis on any syllabus being both 'teacher friendly'
and 'learner comprehensible'.

Perhaps inevitably, some of the more detailed suggestions for implementation

(eg the division of task responsibilities) are not necessarily the most
practical/feasible given the other responsibilities of the posts involved and
local constraints of which the group could not hve been fully aware. However,
the general principle - the need for careful planning and implementation of a
comprehensive institutional syllabus - is still a very valid one.

The report also discusses the wider issue of providing a common syllabus
formula for various DTEO's. This topic has already arisen in correspondence
between DTEO Cairo and ELSD, and Cairo A's comments add more grist to the mill
- particularly at a time when a number of DTEO's are looking at ways of
achieving a more cohesive and comprehensive syllabus. We concur entirely with
the report's comments on the 'reinventing the wheel' syndrome, and on the
consequent need for a central coordinating body.

However, the report's suggestions still seem to leave the bulk of the actual
work in the hands of individual DTEO's (see points a. to h. listed under 'A
Proposal'). Further investigation might suggest that the area of common needs
between DTEO's is greater than at first appears.

For example, the report suggests that although there should be a single list
of language forms and functions used by different institutions, it should be
left to the respective institutions to "indicate against the core list
references to any course book chosen". Working on the assumption that there is
an identifiable range of basic textbooks which different DTEO's use in
common (certainly at Elementary and Intermediate levels), the task of cross
referencing commonly used course books with taxonomies could more economically
be done centrally. To leave the job to individual DTEO's would, perhaps, be
reinventing the wheel on an unnecessarily large scale. Certainly our own
materials description project has indicated how time consuming such a process
can be, even on a relatively small scale.

Similarly the report delegates the stage of drawing up and cross referencing
"syllabi for listening, reading and writing skills" to the DTEO level. There
may well be less of an identifiable common core amongst different institutions
particularly as regards the appropriacy of specific sub-skills, particularly
at higher levels. Nevertheless, fairly comprehensive taxonomies of skills,
discourse and phonological specifications (perhaps of the kind produced at
Cairo DTEO) should be as generally applicable as those for language form and

100 -
function. Equally, amongst the growing number of 'supplementary material
books' there might still be an 'inner group' comprising those most commonly
used by DTEO's. There may, then, be a strong case for investigating the
validity of centralising the process of cross referencing selected books with
taxonomical lists across the standard classifications - language form,
function, topic, phonology, discourse and other 'sub-skill' areas.
Developments in the Eurocentres/Bell/British Council Database Project may well
prove valuable in this respect.

Less easily centralised would be the production of a standard 'proto syllabus'

in which the various classifications were meshed and organised around a
specific component. Cairo A's design rightly questions the usefulness of
'dictating' a particular approach in this respect. However, it's subsequent
suggestion - of a syllabus "organised around language form" from which
language functions would be derived - might still be perceived as arbitrary
and prescriptive, given that DTEO's individual needs are likely to require
particular combinations of particular items. Unlike a relatively discrete
and 'independent' system of materials description, a proto syllabus is (by
definition) a prelude to materials design and production. DTEO's might well
have difficulty in squaring one (central) approach with those used in their
various textbooks, as well as those ideally preferred by the particular
institution. Rather than integrating specifications around an organising
principle, an alternative might be modular banks of centrally
coordinated/printed British Council materials. Two factors could lend weight
to this approach. One is copyright, since the unlimited photocopying of
printed source materials as a means of achieving a more eclectic and
comprehensive syllabus could be a costly business re payment of royalties
etc. Secondly, if there were some measure of agreement between DTEO's that
areas of 'communicative competence' (especially the sub-skills) were
inadequately catered for by most standard textbooks, then British Council
printed materials focussing, on these areas might be a desirable solution.

In conclusion, I hope that Dunford participants from both Cairo groups found
the discussion and ideas arising from the case study as thought provoking as
we have found their final reports to be.

- 101
1 1.
19.0 INTERIM EVALUATION

The purpose of this session was both to look back over the week's work so far,
and, in the light of any comments made, to look forward to the next week's
programme, suggesting any possible adjustments.

The Week's Work So Far

Dick Allwright gave his view of the design of the seminar so far. He saw the
seminar itself in terms of a curriculum and expressed the hope that the design
had benefitted from the experience gained in previous seminars.

He exemplified his view of the seminar by referring back to the five concepts
of the curriculum expressed in the Eisner and Valiance article (see Appendix
A) and situating the present seminar as follows:

i. One main approach was that of "self-actualisation" with participants

now at the stage of developing their own ideas.

ii. There was some element of "social reconstruction" to the extent that
in some of the KELT projects under discussion education was seen as an
agent of social change.

iii. The seminar was not orientated towards "the development of cognitive
processes".

iv. It was avoiding the approach of "curriculum as educational

technology".

He therefore saw the primary aim of the seminar as "promoting the productive
processes" for the participants, but not without paying due attention to the
content in the form of ideas from outside. As regards performance objectives,
it was up to the participants to evolve their own in the form of a personal
agenda, in which they should be helped. On the theme of 'new ideas from
outside', ie 'encounters with relevant framework', he went on to query
whether the pre-course work had actually helped to make sense of the
subsequent tasks, and was assured that this had been so. In his view the
seminar had provided opportunities

i. to share experiences and ideas and hence to catch up on ideas,

ii. to make use of ideas in problem solving activities,

iii. to generate new ideas,

as well as providing an experience that might be of value in itself in future

collective decision making. This would include the 'people management' aspect
of any design project.

At this point the process diarists for the different groups were invited to
bring up any points arising from the group activities.

The most important discussion which emerged revolved around the following
points:

Should participants have complete freedom of choice of selection of

task, or should the planners determine this?

- 102

'2 I)
Some people felt it was more important to have had experience of the
geographical area rather than the ELT field involved (ie an Arabic background
for a certain task was more important than a teacher training one) as this
would prevent transferring ideas from your own setting to another where they
may not be appropriate.

Others felt however that it would be frustrating to be in a group which bore

no relevance to one's own situat'on.

Which is more important, the process or the product?

There was no consensus on which should be considered more important. Nobody

felt that either process or product was totally irrelevant however! One
comment was that reflexion on what we've done and how we've done it, does
not make this the main point of the exercise but can be useful for future
seminars. One participant exhorted us all to look at this question in terms
of our own personal agenda - What is the value of the product to you
personally?

How important was the group management an1le?

Some groups said they had very strong views on who did what and weren't sure
whether this was a strength or a weakness. Other groups felt that the fact
that the task was at one remove from them and unreal, meant that it didn't
matter at all who did what - it was all very hypothetical anyway.

There was also varying views on whether the process diarist should feed back
insights gained from previous sessions in order to assist the group process
ie "We got bogged down yesterday, so let's see if we can avoid that today."

Most groups felt that there was no pressure to actually finish the task itself
given the value of what they were doing. For the same reason one group said
that they preferred working all together, rather than splitting up into
subgroups, which they would have done, had they considered the end product to
be more important than the discussion.

How useful were the plenary sessions?

The general feeling was that they were very useful as a peg for the group
task discussions, but that it was too soon to evaluate their long-term
usefulness: an incubation period was needed.

What was felt about the observers in groups?

Again there was a fair amount of disagreement as some groups/individuals found

them useful (as long as they participated and didn't just sit there) while
others found them intrusive (and would have preferred them to just sit there
and keep quiet!) There was a suggestion that the role of observers should be
discussed beforehand. The majority felt that one observer at any one time
was quite enough.

The Following Week's Programme

The scheduled programme for the second week was felt to be generally
acceptable and all agreed that no changes were necessary. Discussion focussed
on the options day.

It was explained that this had been included since participants in previous
seminars had often felt that no time was left for them to devote to their own

- 103 -12:
personal interests. Participants were then invited to make suggestions for
sessions and the following options were proposed:

i. In-service training for KELTs

ii. In-service training for DTEOs

iii. Syllabuses and courses at upper levels

iv. In-house testing in relation to syllabuses

v. Mechanisms for teacher/student involvement in the implementation of

syllabuses

vi. Training for teachers who are implementing curricula.

The options were organised and run by the participants for the most part.

- 104 -
20.0 OPTIONS

Six options were proposed, which resulted in a heavy schedule for the day.
Several sessions had to be run concurrently which meant that participants had
to choose between various options. In the event, the day proved so intense
that the final session "Mechanisms for teacher and student involvement in the
implementation of syllabuses" was dropped on general agreement. The following
is a brief report of the issues addressed by the different option groups.

20.1 In-house Testing in Relation to Syllabuses

The main part of this session was devoted to a report by two of the
participants on a large scale in-house testing project in Italy: The
Foundation Certificate. This was a low-level achievement test for
students at the 200/250 hour level of English in the Italian Direct
Teaching of English Operations. The report consisted of two parts, the
first an historical account of the development and administration of the
test from the Italian point of view, and the second a description of the
content of the test and associated documents.

The historical report covered the checkered past of the test,

highlighting the problems which had arisen in trying to achieve a system
for writing and running the examination. It also recorded the
realisations and insights gained by the staff involved.

The description of the test covered the four papers: Reading, Writing,
Listening and Grammar. The Oral test was also mentioned. In addition to
the skills papers two administrative documents were also described, these
were the Marking Guide and the Invigilator's Notes.

In conclusion it was stressed that a number of lessons had been learned

from the exercise. These included the realisation that to produce a
valid test a great deal of investment in terms of staff time and
resources was necessary. In addition the test should be based on a clear
specification related to a teaching syllabus. This was to ensure
consistency between one test and later versions. The whole exercise had
demanded a great commitment on the part of the Italian staff, which could
probably not be sustained in the future.

20.2 Syllabus and Courses at Advanced Level

This session provided an opportunity for the informal exchange of ideas

and experience in teaching advanced classes. The participants came from
a wide range of DTEOs of different sizes, for example, institutions in
Algeria, Senegal, Spain, Turkey and Venezuela were among those
represented. Advanced level was defined as post Cambridge First
Certificate. Among the issues addressed were the following topics:
materials for advanced courses, the use of video at advanced levels,
student motivation, and examinations. There was a great deal of common
experience in all these areas.

Materials

Many textbooks were discussed and evaluated by the participants in the

light of their personal experience of using them. Other materials for
such activities as role plays, simulations etc. were also reported on.

4 "
t
- 105 -
Video

A number of participants were enthusiastic users of video in advanced

classes. They reported on techniques for using video and sources of
information about these.

Student Motivation

There are two main groups of students at this level, those who are
preparing for public examinations and those who are studying for other
reasons. The exam orientated group generally prefer a more traditional
approach to learning, but this was not felt to be a bad thing. Learners
not preparing for exams were felt to be both more flexible and more
demanding. With both these groups the problem of maintaining interest
and enthusiasm was felt to be a challenge (preparing for advanced
examinations is a long business).

Examinations

A range of examinations are used in the DTEOs including: Cambrudge CPE,

RSA Communictive Use of EFL, and the Oxford Delegacy examinations. The
general feeling about examinations was that they were useful markers of
progress and sources of motivation.

Finally some time was devoted to discussion of the place of literature

teaching at advanced level. The experience was that there is quite a
demand for literature teaching and that there was a potential teacher
training need here.

20.3 Training Teachers who are Implementing Curricula

After a short introduction the participants spit up into three groups to

address the problems of implementing curricula in three different types
of institution: DTEOs, Ministries of Education, and Tertiary Level
Institutions.

All three groups were concerned largely with identifying the constraints
peculiar to the institutions they were considering and then developing
strategies and procedures for overcoming these constraints. A major
issue for all was that of how to enlist the cooperation of the personnel
involved in implementing curricula. Personnel identified included
teachers, teacher trainers and senior staff, and educational inspectors
and administrators.

The strategies adopted in most cases included the following: clear

statement of objectives or rationale for the proposed changes, addressing
the training needs of the staff involved in the implementation,
consulting and involving the different parties involved in the
implementation as much as possible without jeopardising the feasibility
of the project. Of particular interest was the realisation that in many
situations a multi-levelled approach was necessary. This would involve
employing different strategies with different groups of interested
parties, for example, the approach to teachers will most often be
different from that to educational administrators, but both should be
accounted for in an action plan.

20.4 Staff development in DTEOs

At the beginning of the session a discussion sheet entitled 'A Proposed

Staff development Model for DTEOs' was distributed to all participants.

-106-
1'
Discussion focussed on what stages and types of training might be
necessary to ensure both requisite standards in DTEOs and career
development for individual teachers.

The model proposed four main categories of staff:

1. Unqualified non-staff (new entrants to the profession)

2. Minimally qualified staff
3. Middle-level qualified staff
4. Senior staff

Discussion focussed on the definition of these groups and what forms of

training already existed for them and whether these were adequate.
Formal qualifications such as those offered by the RSA and university
courses such as Diplomas and MAs were referred to, but an attempt was
made to establish what other in-house training might be suitable in
promoting institutional standards and teachers' career prospects.

20.5 In-service Training for KELTs

Topics addressed in this session included the place of such seminars as

the Dunford House Seminar in the general provision of updating and
training for KELTs. Participants valued this kind of seminar highly and
felt it had a continuing place in in-service training for KELTs. In
addition to this the issue of project and man management training for
KELT officers was also addressed.

-107 -
21.0 SEMINAR EVALUATION

21.1 Where do we go from here?

Introduction

It is quite possible to leave a seminar such as this one with a hazy, euphoric
feeling that it has all been very good - and then get back to work after the
holidays and carry on as before! What exactly is the value of spending ten
professionally stimulating days focussing on a topic such as "Curriculum and
Syllabus Design in ELT"? To answer this question it is useful for
participants to pause for a while and think back over the issues and events of
the seminar, and then to consider what difference the experience has made to
their own thinking. What will they do differently on their return to work?
Has their understanding of the issues changed in any respect? What message
will they carry back for their colleagues? The answer will, of course, be
different for each participant, but it is well worth reflecting on the
questions because they will help each of us to clarify in our own minds what
we have gained and what we take away with us.

The Issues

In a group exercise on the first day, participants came up with a list of

seven major issues in curriculum design: these were (see section 15)

identifying learners' needs and wants

involvement of the teachers
identifying relevant local factors or constraints
the role of methodology
the relationship between the syllabus and learning
specifying the content of the syllabus
evaluation: what is to be evaluated, and how?

Most of these points were dealt with in some way, though not always in the way
implicit in the first day formulation. It was interesting to reflect on the
way in which this seminar contrasted with earlier Dunford Seminars on syllabus
design (1978, 1979) which had concentrated on syllabus content from a
particular viewpoint. There does not seem to be a current orthodoxy - except
perhaps that there is not, and should not be, such a thing; that we need to be
open-minded in ELT and take a wide range of factors into account, not just the
professional or academic. For this reason it had been particularly
interesting to hear from Janet Maw, as an education specialist who professed
no knowledge of ELT, about three main approaches to syllabus design: content,
outcomes and process (see section 3.0).

In the design tasks as well as in the input sessions we looked at three vital
elements in curriculum development: design, implementation and evaluation.
These are sometimes considered, in linear fashion, to be three linked but
separate phases of many projects, each with its appropriate chronological
slot. As the seminar progressed, however, it became more and more clear that
these three elements are in fact inextricably linked. Design, implementation
and evaluation are like the facets of a gemstone: on the surface each element
can be distinguished (and labelled), but when we go beneath the surface of -any
one, we find that we are also partly below the surface of the others, and as
we look deeper still we see that the elements are inseparable,
indistinguishable. When we are considering one, we are considering all
three. And in fact, as with a gem, there are a number of other facets of

-108-
-V4C
educational issues and projects. The view we have of any one of these facets
depends not only on the play of light reflected directly off the surface, but
also on the light which enters through the other surfaces and is refracted
through the stone. When we look at syllabus design issues, we are inevitably
also looking at aspects of implementation and evaluation. We cannot consider
any one in isolation, but must recognise that we are concerned always with all
three to a greater or lesser extent.

In our own consideration of design, implementation and evaluation, we

identified a number of important factors which had to be taken into account in
relation to all three.

1. The needs and wants of the learners, not just as language teaching
fodder, but as individuals with educational and cultural backgrounds,
with hopes and aspirations, with changing requirements which were often
ill defined and so on.

2. Specification of the aims of a syllabus. A syllabus should not

exist in a vacuum. Its purpose should be clear, and it will then be
possible to specify clearly what is needed in terms of materials, tests,
methodology and procedures.

3. Resources. Any development requires resources: it is important to

establish carefully what exactly will be needed, and to take the
necessary steps to secure them. It is pointless designing a syllabus
which is going to require material or human resources which are not
available.

4. Constraints. There are always factors within an educational

environment which ultimately determine what can be achieved. It is
important to identify these factors, to test them a little (where
appropriate) to establish whether they can in fact be circumvented, and
then to incorporate them in as positive a way as possible.

5. Consultation. It is essential to involve teachers and learners as

much as possible in the process of curriculum development. They are the
people who will be most affected, and their attitudes will effectively
determine the success of any implementation. Better therefore to
encourage a positive and helpful attitude than to risk non-acceptance of
new ideas.

6. Public Relations. It is not easy for all groups concerned to

understand what is involved in curriculum development. Each group has
its own concerns, and requires information of a different sort (think of
teachers, Ministry officials or sponsors, and learners) to ensure its
continuing support. Public relations are important at all stages of a
project, and can be crucial: it is of no value whatsoever to have
designed a wonderful course which the learners find extremely effective
if a powerful official feels that it is inappropriate and scraps it.
Maintaining clear channels of communication is vital.

Evaluation received particular attention, perhaps because it tended to be

neglected, especially when there were scarce resources. It should be built in
from the start with clearly expressed objectives. Appropriate resources then
need to be committed, and a certain amount of honesty and even bravery is
needed in assessing performance in relation to the specified objectives, and
in making the results known. Bad results should not be seen as the end of the
matter. It may well be that the evaluation procedures are invalid.
Alternative procedures should be experimented with; and there can be

- 109-

127
reassessments of the aims of the evaluation procedures, of the groups they are
aimed at, and of the best way to get particular messages across to particular
groups.

Finally three issues are suggested as being likely to receive attention in the
immediate future.

1. The "common core" syllabus. We found that there were many problems
in reaching agreement in a specific situation on how to identify and
specify the elements in a common core syllabus, and that there were
therefore many further problems in attempting to design and implement any
such thing. Nevertheless there is a considerable interest within the
profession in this concept, and a certain administrative and economic
imperative, which means that the problem has to be faced.

2. Implementaion of new ideas is something most of us are involved in,

whether supporting or resisting! In either case we should remember to try
to distinguish between the essential elements and the attendant
paraphernalia (the spirit and the hooha), and to assess carefully whether
there is any value in the hooha which is worth capitalising upon.

3. Evaluation should be seen as an integral part of the syllabus design

and should be planned into any curriculum development project from the
beginning so that it can assist in the process of design and
implementation.

21.2 The Evaluation Procedure

The end of seminar questionnaires (see list of questions below) were handed
out to participants well before the end of the seminar to give them time to
think about the questions and their reactions to the seminar. Most
participants came to the evaluation session on Thursday morning (ie the last
day) with questionnaires already filled in. At the beginning of the session
they were divided into groups and asked to discuss their reactions to the
seminar. The groups later summarised the pcints they had made about the
seminar and presented these in a plenary session at the end of the morning.
After this open discussion, participants were given time to add to or change
their completed questionnaires before these were finally handed in.

The objective of this procedure was to give participants a chance to reflect

on the seminar both alone and together with other participants in the hope
that this would provide useful feedback to the seminar planners. Much of the
feedback will prove helpful in future seminar design.

PARTICIPANTS EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

1. In what ways do you think that this seminar will prove useful to you
in your work in the next year or two?

2. Which topics or areas covered in the seminar were most relevant and
useful to you? Which were the least relevant? Why?

3. Which of the input sessions provided you with the most/least useful
content?

4. Which activities did you find most/least absorbing and effective? What
in particular do you feel about the Case Study Design Task and Review?

- 110 -
5. How did you feel about the balance of input and information sessions to
group tasks? Would you have liked more/less input, more/fewer group
tasks?

6. We had one main outside contributor in each week, with supporting

speakers: do you feel this worked well, or do you think other
alternatives might have been more successful? Why?

7. Which of the morning and afternoon speakers were most effective in their
manner of presentation, and why? Which were the least effective and
why?

8. Which of the evening sessions were most informative and enjoyable? Which
were least so? Why?

9. Was the length and intensity of the seminar too light/about right/ too
heavy? Why?

10. Please add any comments you have about other aspects of the seminar.

111 r.
4.1 u
21.3 Participants' evaluation

The professional value to participants of Dunford 84, as of previous Dunfords,

must ultimately be judged by the individuals involved in terms of the
impact it has on their work. To measure or even describe this impact
directly is an unattainable goal since the effects may be immediate or long-
term, manifest or latent, direct or indirect and indeed positive or
negative! Clearly, however, if we subscribe to the principle of evaluation,
reiterated throughout the seminar, we have an obligation to apply it to
Dunford 84 (and other Dunfords) as far as this is practicable.

One such application which could yield interesting results is a comparison of

participants' first impressions of Dunford 84 (its usefulness, relevance etc),
collected at the end of the seminar, with their 'matured' views elicited at a
particular interval or intervals later. This should at least give some
indication of what if anything persists beyond the 'hazy euphoric feeling' of
the seminar itself and also what may have been activated by interaction with
the participants' job situations.

The questionnaire (see section 21.2) was drawn up with the primary purpose of
soliciting participant's views of what they felt they had got from the
seminar while the experience was still fresh in their minds; a secondary
purpose was to gauge reactions to the design and conduct of the seminar
itself. Comments on the latter are already feeding into the planning and
design of Dunford 85; feedback on the former will provide the detailed base-
line data against which subsequent comparison of participants' views of
Dunford 84 can be made. Here it is possible to make a selection from
participants' comments and especially those relating to what they felt they
had got from the seminar - since this is the area likely to be of most
interest to participants and readers alike.

Perhaps the strongest impression which came through from the answers to the
questionnaire is the variety at least in emphasis of ways and topics which
participants found most useful. This is not simply a reflection of the
differences in the groups represented in the returns (13 ODA, 6 DTE, 5
BC/other). There is as much variation in what eg individual KELTs got out of
Dunford as DTE staff and this is largely a function of the personal agendas
which participants brought to the seminar.

Some were more interested in the theoretical background, others in the

practical application. One KELT, for example, singled out 'information on
theoretical aspects of curriculum and syllabus design', while another
highlighted 'a set of criteria .... against which to set practical decision-
making'. The wide spectrum of views on what was most useful and relevant is
further confirmed by the generally favourable response to the principle of an
options day 'an excellent idea' which 'allowed the possibility of discussing
problems of mutual interest with colleagues in similar situations'.

Within the diversity of comment about particular issues, there emerge,

however, a number of common attitudes to how views were shaped and affected by
the seminar. Recurring themes here are 'clarify' and 'broaden' the firs::
covering what participants variously described as 'an overview', 'a
framework', 'a frame of reference', etc, the second subsuming 'new ideas',
'insights', 'horizons broadened' etc. To this should be added a widely felt
sense of 'mental refreshment' and appreciation of the opportunity to 'exchange
ideas'. As one participant put it: 'a good opportunity to have time to
reflect without the normal day-to-day immediacy of coming up with the goods'.

112
On the content (product and process) of the seminar, participants' views of
what was most relevant to them were clearly influenced by their personal
agendas, but aspects of syllabus design (including the case study design
tasks) and evaluation attracted most comment. On syllabus it was the
aspect of 'implementation' which was most relevant for one participant; for
another the syllabus 'as a negotiated product'; for another 'heightened
awareness of teacher and learner involvement in syllabus planning'; yet
another found the 'inputs from outside ELT' especially valuable. On
evaluation it was its 'integration .... into syllabus' that was most useful
for one participant because as another explained 'it often does get tacked
on to the end of syllabus design'. One KELT felt it was not possible to
single out particular topics because they appeared 'to form a unity .... and
contributed to the whole'.

Other factors which influenced the view of participants on the relevance of

the content of the seminar were presentation and group interaction. This was
true even when topics per se were of interest: to one DTE participant
'everything was relevant except the session on materials - it should have been
but wasn't'. Or, as one of the KELTs commenting on the 'inextricability' of
presentation from content, put it: 'Some sessions were "sold short" by poor
presentation and conversely others were brought to life by the reverse'.

Similarly the usefulness of group-based activity not unnaturally depended to

some extent on the group interaction. For one participant the case study
design task 'was effective. However, the group .... relied too much on
"conventional wisdom" and accumulated experience and was "resistant to
change"'. For another, the case study design task was 'most absorbing' but in
the evaluation exercise ' we didn't gel as a group in quite the same way'. On
the group tasks in general, however, while reservations were expressed about
the time available and the number and complexity of tasks (eg 'more time on
(better) shorter, more manageable tasks would have been more satisfactory'),
there was a generally positive response to the group activity particularly
with respect to the process aspect: 'The process of working out a design for
syllabus and evaluation was much more useful than the product, although the
product did pin down the process'. Some participants had an unreservedly
favourable view of the group activity, for example, the KELT who saw it as 'an
extremely revealing simulation of the processes involved in design and
evaluation, raising and focussing on particular problems in eg what
mechanisms are needed to make syllabus implementation more likely to be
successful'.

One other aspect of the seminar where it is perhaps worth reporting the views
of respondents here is their attitude to themselves as participants (vis a vis
each other, the course organisers, lecturers etc) and as groups (KELT, DTE, BC
etc). On the first point, at least one participant was unhappy about what he
described as 'too much self seriousness, jargon chopping, competitive one
upmanship (in the nicest possible ways)' although even he/she saw an
improvement in the second week: 'less tension, glowering, clever-booting'. On
participant interaction a typical view was that 'people mixed well' and that
the seminar was characterised by an 'absence of personality clashes'. The
differences in the backgrounds/situations of participants were generally seen
as an advantage rather than the opposite. As one KELT put it: 'A good mix of
participants: it is useful to know how these matters are approached in DTEOs
(and CBT) as well as in other KELT projects'. Another KELT stressed the
importance of a theme which cut across section 1 interests: 'Success of this
seminar derived from a theme - a design task of genuine interest to both KELT
and DTEO/BC groups: just putting those two groups in juxtaposition won't
itself produce a useful exchange'.

113 -
1 ti
Finally, what of the follow-up? There are clear indications from the replies
that the value of the seminar will extend beyond its immediate impact; that
some areas will be 'immediately useful, the other areas subject to incubation
and synthesis'; that 'several concepts and practical ideas will resurface and
become useful'. How can we find out whether or to what extent this happens?
One way is to send out a follow-up questionnaire, as suggested above. This
idea is echoed in one participant's feeling that 'there should .... be some
further evaluation at a remove in time from the event itself (eg 6 months or
1 year)'. This would at least allow some omissions in the questionnaire
replies to be made good. As one participant earnestly remarked when asked for
additional comments: 'These I will add (really!) from a larger perspective -
say next year!'. When Dunford 84 participants are filling in another set of
questionnaires in the summer of 85 they should bear in mind that the
suggestion of follow-up evaluation came from their own ranks!

Beyond questionnaires, as noted in the first sentence above, the value of

Dunford lies in the impact it has on participants' work situations and Dunford
seminar planners in ELSD would like to hear about anything which participants
see as deriving - whether directly or indirectly - from what they gained from
Dunford 84 (or previous Dunfords for that matter). There is already an
indication that it may spread to the Gulf DTEOs - if, as has been suggested,
the proposed 85 Gulf DTEO Conference takes 'syllabus' as one of its themes and
the Cairo DTEO case study as one of its inputs. There is also clear evidence
of the impact of Dunford 84 in Indonesia, with the 'Dunford comes to Jakarta'
follow-up sessions -Ind the position papers on syllabus which came out of
them. As for the future of Dunford seminars, perhaps the most appropriate
comment comes from the participant who asserted in his/her remarks on follow-
up that 'it surely must be worth keeping the "Dunford impetus" going'.

- 114
APPENDICES

4
I t.-4 I .1
APPENDIX A

A summary of "Five Conceptions of Curriculum: Their Roots and Implications for

Curriculum Planning" by Elliot W Eisner and Elizabeth Valance. (See
bibliography for reference).

Society is made up of many varied groups with many varied interests. These
from
groups see the goals of education from their different standpoints and
the perspective of their different values. It is no wonder then that there
are a great variety of views on what constitutes education, that is on what
the content of the curriculum should be and how it should be organised. The
authors aim in this article to try to make some sense of this diversity by
broadly classifying the various views of education into five general
orientations.

Theoretical Perspective

Before describing the five orientations a number of theoretical concepts are

introduced which prove useful in characterizing the general orientations. The
first theoretical perspective is a continuum between a 'child-centred' view
and a 'society-centred' view. The second is a continuum with 'values
education' (oriented to moral improvement) at one end and 'skills training'
(providing survival skills) at the other. The third perspective is that
relating to psychological models of learning including behavioural models and
relating to the view of
humanist models. The final major perspective is that
the curriculum as a present 'lived-in' experience and end in itself or as an
instrument toward some future goal (a means).

Five Orientations to the Curriculum

1. The development of cognitive processes

An orientation largely aimed at developing cognitive skills and sharpening

intellectual processes. It focusses on the learners and sees them as
interactive and adaptive elements. This orientation is largely process
orientated, concerned more with how learning takes place and skills develop
rather than what the factual content of the curriculum should be.

2. Curriculum as technology

This orientation again focusses on process, but not on the process of learning
It is based
rather on the process of presenting material in an efficient way.
learning occurs in certain systematic and predictable
on the assumption that
ways, and the learner is seen more or less as a constant. The focus is on the
optimal organization of material to produce learning.

3. Self-actualisation, or curriculum as consummatory exper!ee

This orientation is heavily child-centred. It aims through concern for what

is taught in schools to develop the learner's personal purpose, providing
personally satisfying experiences for the learner. Education is seen as a
liberating force which promotes personal growth. The emphasis is on synthesis
and integration of the learner's personality through the content of the
curriculum.
4. Social reconstruction - relevance

This orientation places the needs of society above those t.f. the individual.
Education is seen as a force in social reform. It emphasizes the need for a
'fit' between the individual and society.

5. Academic rationalism

This orientation is concerned with the transmission of the great ideas and
creations of the learner's culture. Education should equip the learners to
enable them to participate in the Western cultural tradition. There is a
strong feeling that some subject matters are more important than others.

Three Curriculum Fallacies

The article concludes with a warning about three curriculum fallacies: those
of formalism, content and universalism. The fallacy of formalism emphasizes
the importance of how learning takes place while playing down the role of
content, that is, what is learned. On the other hand the fallacy of content
does precisely the reverse of this. The fallacy of universalism ignores the
targets of the curriculum: the learners. This fallacy encourages the belief
that there is an ideal curriculum irrespective of the learners it is intended
for.

The article aims only to clarify the issues, not to provide answers or
solutions to them. This summary includes the main points in the article, but
not the arguments for or against them. For those arguments the reader must
consult the original work.

-2
APPENDIX B1

PRE-SEMINAR QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:

Present post:

Length of time in present post:

1. What is your current involvement in work related to curriculum and/or

syllabus development?

2. In what ways do you expect this situation to change in the foreseeable

future?

3. What sort of things, if any, make it difficult for your involvement in

curriculum and/or syllabus development to be as effective as you would
like it to be?

4. Whatever you wrote for 3, what in general are the major issues in
curriculum and/or syllabus development?

5. In what terms does it make most sense to evaluate curriculum and/or

syllabus programmes?

6. Which of these (and/or others) should be applied to the Dunford Seminar?

7. What would you expect to most resent not getting from the Dunford
Seminar? (Sorry for the awkward wording - I hope the logic is clear
enough.)

Dick Allwright
March 1984

1 '4- C
APPENDIX B2

REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRE: CONSTRAINTS

Q.3 What sort of things, if any, make it difficult for your involvement in
curriculum and/or syllabus development to be as effective as you would
like it to be?

1. Conflict between administrative inconvenience and pedagogic aims (at a

high level); poor communication; poor evaluation; lack of understanding
by decision makers.

2. Lack of time and money for in-service courses.

3. Severe physical constraints, overcrowding, low entry standards, compart-

mentalisation of curriculum, poor teaching practice provision, entrenched
attitudes of lecturing staff.

4. The necessarily low priority accorded to the development of new

syllabuses and the revision of old courses.

5. i. Curriculum decisions are not in my hands; ii. syllabus planning

externally is by committee and so ponderous in formation and
implementation; iii. lack of feedback from school system on redesigned
system.

6. 1. Relatively heavy teaching load (12-14 firs per week); 2. lack of

physical resources (eg meagre reprographic equipment; 3. heavy demand for
courses from faculties; 4. university administration and admissions
procedure.

7. Lack of practical personal experience and expertise; lack of executive

power; lack of desire for change on the part of many teachers and admin
staff; a preference (at times) for the administratively convenient over
the pedagogically desirable.

8.

9. Lack of development orientation in local education; lack of coherent

planning there; over-reliance on French metropolitan styles, syllabuses;
elite opportunities for studies in France.

10. The necessary low priority accorded to the development of new syllabuses
and the revision of old courses.

11. Involvement in other activities causing lack of time.

12. Entrenched attitudes in a conservative teaching profession.

13. Lack of materials, books, equipment. Lack of training and/or experience

in some colleagues.

14. Lack of time to evolve a syllabus in terms of specific skills, as well as

in terms of functions and structures - in particular to evolve a
satisfactory post-FCE syllabus to satisfy the very varied needs of the
student at this level.
15. Superficially there are few constraints but administrative and
attitudinal flexibility make the programme far less effective than it
could be.

16. In this case the time allowed is short, and the group which will be
working on the new curriculum do not know each other.

17. a. Lack of awareness and commitment on the part of local colleagues on

the need for change; b. rigid examination system over which we have
little control; c. total lack of equipment and recent ELT materials;
d. too few teachers who show any signs of interest in developing new
programmes.

18. Indecision as to implementation/timing/scale of mooted schemes, on the

part of the admin bodies responsible for setting things in motion. Poorly
defined lines of responsibility, power bases.

19. Severe physical constraints, overcrowding, low entry standards,

compartmentalisation of curriculum, poor teaching practice provision,
entrenched attitudes of lecturing staff.

20. a. The host university (= certain members of the staff); b. problems of

teachers' backgrounds and need to express syllabus in terms meaningful to
them; c. difficulty of arranging in-service courses to explain new
syllabuses to teachers; d. limited ability of local staff to contribute
(syllabus development becomes a one-man business).

- 2 -
APPENDIX B3

REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES: ISSUES

Q.4 What in general are the major issues in curriculum and/or syllabus
development?

1. I don't think there are any major issues on the ground. Curriculum
development is a matter of balancing a vast number of factors, many of
which are crucial variables.

2. In my situation attempts to implement a more communicatively orientated

syllabus are often sabotaged by teachers who for one reason or another
continue to teach the 'new' syllabus in the 'old' manner.

3. Of the difficulties in question 3, compartmentalisation and entrenched

attitudes represent the greatest obstacle to innovation. The issue is,
crudely, theory against practice, or knowledge against understanding, or
academic precedent against student needs - all faces of the same coin?

4. Applicability of an EAP syllabus.

5. i. In KUC the need to establish a language syllabus which will have some
performance rather than dependent on interests or enthusiasm of
individuals; ii. in general education system need for more of a LAC
approach.

6. Reconciling the special needs of the students in different faculties with

the stipulation that published textbooks should be the basis of courses.
Also establishing levels (both entry and target) for the courses when
students have widely varying commands of English and when subject courses
are also in very fluid developmental state.

7. The relationship between the syllabus and learning - how far can one be
expected to reflect the other? And the reasons for any mismatch. Making
a syllabus more than an inventory: ie defining in terms of skills what a
student should be able to do as a result of covering the syllabus. The
nature of the testing-syllabus relationship.

8. The development of a communicative syllabus which both reflects the socio-

cultural environment and the aspirations of the learner, and offers
perspectives into the wider world.

9. Making education more meaningful to more people (modernising attitudes

and skills in progressively relevant ways). Ensuring implementation of
curriculum development schemes. Proper evaluations at all stages.

10. Applicability of an EAP syllabus.

11. Appropriacy of materials to local situation and to classroom realities.

12. Structural objectives, "correctness", reading comprehension vs task-

based "participatory" acquisition in a flexible multi-skill context.

13. 1. Stenhouse's ideas on a process and research model. 2. Relation and

interaction between content, concept-formation, and teaching/learning
methods.
14. i. The extent to which a specific syllabus will actually direct/influence
the learning patterns of the students; ii. the extent to which an initial
needs analysis can enable a course designer to draw up a satisfactory
syllabus; iii. how far methodology influences syllabus development.

15. Achieving a balance between what is possible, what is necessary and what
is expected.

16. Pupil involvement, pupil responsiblity, sharing responsibility for

learning with others.

17. a. Need to arouse interest and motivate involvement in curriculum/

syllabus development on behalf of all concerned teachers and students
alike; b. evaluation of students' needs and requirements; c. insight into
local approaches to learning and testing; d. evaluation of facilities and
finances.

18. In our Institute, the syllabus needs to balance completeness with

"lightness" of design - I want a flexible but instantly usable document
to generate work in the classroom to fit an overall plan. For the
Ministry, the issues are the theory/practice gap - political power and
real life!

18. Compartmentalisation and entrenched attitudes represent greatest obstacle

to innovation. The issue is, crudely, theory against practice, or
knowledge against understanding, or academic precedent against student
needs all faces of the same coin.

20. For ELT: a. matching syllabus-writer's intentions with abilities etc of

teachers; b. getting the right balance of depth, etc; c. trying to
anticipate how things will work out in practice.

- 2 -
APPENDIX B4

REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES: EVALUATION

Q.5 In what terms does it make most sense to evaluate curriculum and/or
syllabus programmes.

1. 1. Measurement of student progress (acceptable at all levels).

2. Feedback from teachers. 3. Feedback from students. 4. Possibly in
ESP situation, feedback from lecturers.

2. By some form of assessment test - but the form of any such test is likely
to be the subject of a great deal of debate concerning pragmatic factors
and the ideal.

3. In our context, overriding criterion is performance of the newly-

graduated teacher in the classroom: but in evaluation, student
performance criteria must be weighed against the social, academic and
physical constraints under which curriculum operates.

4. In terms of: i. learning theories; ii. students performance during and

after the course.

5. i. In country of application context; ii. learner needs - which often

become so diverse as to make for a vacuum approach; iii. in terms of
material/resources available - most important for a developing country
(not necessarily same as i.).

6. The obvious way is in terms of performance in the examinations at the end

of each credit course. These examples should simulate the operations for
which students ned English in their subject courses and in other 'real
world' situations identified in needs analysis. Hence the importance of
specifying behavioural objectives.

7. Needs (difficult in a general situation); assumed knowledge; context;

terminal goals; methods of teaching; methods of assessment; nature of the
participants; time; teaching staff; materials/facilities available.

8. Perhaps: high face validity for the learner; teacher-friendliness;

appropriate to the level of development of the country/needs of the
learner.

9. Political - professional cultural/socio-economic - commercial.

10. In terms of learning theories. In terms of the students' performances

during and after the course.

11. Their effectiveness in actual classroom use.

12. In theoretical terms as they reflect current work in: a. language

acquisition; b. methodology in the formal school setting.

13. Teacher performance.

I4
14. "Before the event": how far the curriculum/syllabus appears to correspond
to student needs with the emphasis on, eg particular skills, lexical
fields. "After the event": in terms of student achievement; in terms of
teacher/student satisfaction.

15. In terms of ensuring that topics and materials are part of an overall
integrated design aimed at producing specified linguistic behaviour and
which takes particular notice of student needs and administrative
constraints.

16. In terms of question 4, keeping in mind that English is taught in mixed

ability classes. On a linguistic level, the language should be
accessible to everyone and useful and as "real" as possible.

17. a. How to find out teachers' and students' perceptions of i. what worked
most effectively; ii. what did not work in the existing programmes; b.
how to find out how learners learn 'best' in certain local environments.

18. For the DTEO "evaluation" will be the student vote and the teachers
commitment to the teaching programme; if these clash, if the students
don't perform what we predict, or dislike doing a programmed course, we
have problems: end-of-syllabus achievement will not necessarily reflect
syllabus content.

19. In our context, overriding criterion is performance of the newly-

graduated teacher in the classroom; but in evaluation, student
performance criteria must be weighed against the social, academic and
physical constraints under which curriculum operates.

20. a. Appropriateness to needs of students; b.-meaningfulness to teachers

ease of interpretation; c. extent to which they result in the learning
intended.

- 2 -
APPENDIX C: REPORT ON A SECOND DESIGN FOR THE CAIRO DTEO CASE STUDY
PRODUCED BY DUNFORD SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

Aim: To produce a teacher's guide to the new syllabus so as to make it more

likely that the syllabus will be implemented.

Cl. THE DESIGN

Background: For a concise account of the institutional background and the

background to the task, you are referred to 18.1 and 18.2 above.

The task outlined in 18.1 was to work on producing a proto-syllabus outline as

a framework for a coherent series of courses (from Elementary to Higher).
However, as subsequent documentation showed, this proto-syllabus had already
been produced in the DTE. It was topic-based and contained lists of topics,
behavioural specifications, settings, derived structures and derived functions
arranged in the form of a chart.

The Case Study Group, therefore, decided to choose a different task from the
one outlined, rather than try and reinvent the wheel. It would have been
possible to embark on the design of the pedagogical syllabus, but as the
decision had already been taken to base the framework of the pedagogical
syllabus on the overall structure of a selected coursebook, this alternative
was also rejected.

Rationale: The decision to design a teacher's guide to the syllabus was

arrived at for the following reasons:

syllabus documents often confuse teachers

the role of the syllabus may not be apparent to the teacher

syllabus documents are often ignored by the teacher

it was felt that the syllabus was sufficiently important for the group
to look at ways of promoting its implementation.

Guidelines: Our rationale gave rise to the following thinking:

1. Syllabus documents confuse teachers for some or all of the following

reasons:

a. their role/purpose/function is not apparent to the teacher

b. their mode of operation is not clear. (If a syllabus is a

tool, how does it work?)

c. Typically, little time can be spent on showing the new teacher

how to operate the syllabus. (Ideally, some form of induction
course might be provided.)

d. It may, of course, be that the syllabus is unnecessarily

complicated and/or long, but since planning and teaching a course is
not a simple procedure, some degree of complexity seems inevitable.

e. It seemed a potentially helpful exercise to try to design some

practicable means of showing teachers what the syllabus is and what
can be done with it.

14:3
 2. The role of the syllabus may not be apparent to the teacher
because:

a. Pre-Service Teacher Training typically pays little attention

to syllabus implementation.

b. The form of a syllabus, either as a document or a chart, does

not make its function immediately apparent.

c. The more flexibility and teacher involvement is built into a

syllabus design (ie the less prescriptive it is), the less obvious
it becomes as to how to operate it in terms of sequencing teaching
activities. The most prescriptive model would tell a teacher
exactly what to do and when, whereas a more flexible design would
allow for degrees of choice, of addition, subtraction or
substitution and of revision of the design itself. Thus, a teacher
must find his or her own path through it.

3. Syllabus documents are often ignored by teachers because:

a. Syllabuses are potentially confusing documents whose role is

not immediately apparent (as above).

b. Teachers often feel that they are merely syllabus consumers.

The idea of a dynamic syllabus into which both teachers and students
can provide feedback and which they can affect during the process of
its implementation is difficult to convey. Some form of practical
guidance seems particularly necessary here. The group also felt
that the more such guidance could take the form of
guidelines/criteria/instruction on how to operate mechanisms for
providing feedback, the more likely that student and teacher
involvement in the syllabus would increase.

c. Teachers are busy people and do not have much time to spend
trying to understand a document they may find confusing. So any
form of guidance must be concise, clear and attractively presented.
Fufthermore, a guide booklet could be referred to at any time, as
frequently as necessary and as selectively as necessary, which would
not be the case with such forms of presentation as an induction
course, a lecture or a video presentation (all of which have their
own role). The ideal guide would be an experienced teacher (who has
used the syllabus), but such people's time is also at a premium.

4. The syllabus was felt to be important in any institution where

courses were organised in a graded sequence with more than one class at
each level. Assessment of student performance then became a matter of
practical concern to the institution as well as to the students (and,
perhaps, their teacher). Without the framework of a syllabus, no grading
of a sequence of courses nor assessment of student performance in terms
of course content is likely to be effective.

Practical Implications: On the basis of the above guidelines it was

decided:

- to produce a teacher's guide to the syllabus in the form of a booklet.

to adopt an easily-portable format, such as A4 folded in half.

- 2 -
16
 to present the information in the form of questions and answers. The
questions would be those that a new teacher, or a teacher facing a new
syllabus, might ask.

to try to order the questions and answers in a common-sense/logical

well lead in to the
way, such that the answer to one question might
next question.

- to use visual devices such as cartoon drawings (incorporating 'thinks

bubbles') to indicate states in the organisation of the guide and to
make it attractive.

to adopt a light-hearted style of writing with as little terminology

talking down to the
as possible. The guide must not appear to be
teacher.
the
to include practical information on the organisation of
institution and of its resources; for example, who to seek advice from
and how to find physical resources such as
on different problems
books, tapes and handouts. Such information does not relate to the
syllabus directly, but would be the sort of thing a new teacher would
require.

to assume that the booklet would be presented to the teacher in some

more or less formal way (ie with an accompanying tour of the
institution and/or along with a video presentation) and that the
syllabus itself would be either given or shown, depending on its
format, to the teacher at the same time. The guide would thus be seen
tool.
as a type of instruction manual, such as might accompany any new
It could also serve as a point of reference in the in-service teacher
training programme.

to keep the guide as short as possible.

and operate
to give clear, practical suggestions on how to construct
mechanisms for involving the students in the overall course syllabus;
for example, how to make a wallchart to record the students' progress
through, and where appropriate comments on, the syllabus.

evaluate the
to outline a mechanism(s) by which the teacher can
syllabus and feedback to the course design.

The Product: In the time available the group has not been able to do more
order them in
than list main points for inclusion in the guide and attempt to
These have been reproduced in the
terms of questions and skeletal answers. produced
ideas for format were also
following section. One or two examples of
but are not included here.

C2. A TEACHER'S GUIDE TO THE SYLLABUS

WHY SHOULD I READ THIS GUIDE?

It will tell YOU:

about the syllabus and what you can do with it

where to f-nd our materials
some of our ideas about teaching and learning
how to use the system that support the syllabus

- 3

I. 4 r,
WHAT IS A LANGUAGE SYLLABUS?

Very simply, a language syllabus includes all the language to be covered at

any level, and indications of how we can best help learners to communicate
successfully in the target language.

WHO IS THE SYLLABUS FOR?

Essentially it's a framework to assist you in your teaching, and a plan for
course designers.

WHERE DOES THE SYLLABUS COME FROM?

This syllabus comes from our need for a coherent overall framework of all our
language teaching from Level 1 to FCE.

WHAT USE IS THE SYLLABUS TO ME?

It states what language your students should cover, what skills they should
develop and gives some suggested means of how you can enable your students to
be successful learners.

HOW IS THE SYLLABUS ORGANISED?

(A listing of each section, with brief explanations and exemplifications of

the entire syllabus.)

WHAT ABOUT THE COURSEBOOK?

The coursebook will help your learners learn a lot of what is in the syllabus:
we cannot expect one book to contain everything your students need. The
coursebook is written for a general market, but the syllabus has been designed
for you and your students. So, the syllabus is your first priority, NOT the
coursebook.

Syllabus -> Coursebook

SO, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS FOLLOW THE SYLLABUS RIGHT?

Well, not exactly. Teaching isn/t just following somebody else's list blindly
the most important element is the learner. As a teacher you should adapt
the syllabus to your particular learners, not attempt to adapt your learners
to the'syllabus.

YOU MEAN THE SYLLABUS WILL CHANGE?

Yes - it will be regularly reviewed and can be changed according to the

feedback from teachers and their students.

HOW DO I FIND OUT WHAT MY STUDENTS REALLY THINK OF THE COURSE?

(This section will emphasise student involvement in course procedures it

will suggest possible ways the teacher can get the students to think about

-4-
14o
what they want from the course and whether they are getting it. This involves
much more than eg questionnaire.)

HOW ARE MY STUDENTS ASSESSED?

(This section will refer the teacher to the relevant part of the syllabus and
will deal with end-of-course evaluations, placement, progress testing etc.)

WHAT MATERIALS ARE THERE AND WHERE CAN I FIND THEM?

(This section will indicate where materials are located and the people to
contact for information on classification and retrieval systems. A pictorial
representation of storage layout would be appropriate.)

WHO DO I ASK ABOUT

MATERIALS, TEACHING PROBLEMS, ASSESSMENTS, CULTURAL PROBLEMS, REGISTERS,
ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES, ETC?

(This section will tell teachers who to go to concerning specific professional

problems. There will also be a note on the role of teaching cultural
background and the issues the teachers and students could consider.)

C.3 TWO REACTIONS TO THE DESIGN

Reaction One

1. Practical survey:

Public relation aspect has been addressed even if we didn't like the
approach.

2. Question and answer - on guide:

We agree guide more likely to go through if lower level - informal not

dictatorial, but Q and A as presented too patronising.

Format will sell product - this given consideration rather than

content.

Primarily for new (inexperienced) teachers.

Supplementary (video) induction course.

3. Rationale - needs to stress purpose of syllabus:

i. Why use syllabus (omitted/dropped) in question formula

should be reintroduced
group wish to explore in options later.

ii. Evaluation by teachers of syllabus

informal, implied
how (group to explore in options)

iii. Student feedback important to syllabus (group explore in options).

4. How are students to be tested:

End of course evaluation - not specific

5. External syllabus?

A. Syllabus external to textbook

B. Textbook basic syllabus other materials added around it

C. Preference for external syllabus.

A-C represent the evolution of the discussion in the group.

6. Why external better?

i. textbook static
ii. excludes change
iii. external dynamic.

Reaction Two

On the whole we are very sympathetic to the aims of the Cairo B Group, and we
feel there is a need for a guide.

We would like to suggest a number of ways in which the guide might be

developed further.

1. At the moment there is a mismatch between the background statement

of what the guide will cover and the exemplification given. The present
example seems to be largely a general introduction to the syllabus. A
very helpful addition would be a specific example of how a. 'mechanism'*
might work. At the moment it is difficult to see what this guidance
would look like.

2. We feel that there are possibly two audiences (at least) for the
guide: the new teacher and the experienced new teacher. These two
different audiences might need a different approach to the presentation
of the syllabus. For this reason we are not sure that the question and
answer approach is the right one.

3. Once the guide starts to grow it may be necessary to provide an

indexing system to facilitate easy access.

'Mechanisms' are referred to in guideline 3b of the Cairo B document, and

in the last two points under Practical Implications:

eg mechanisms for student involvement

assessment
teacher evaluation of the syllabus.

6 - IA
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thanks are due to a number of Guest Speakers for the contents of this
bibliography, in particular Charles Alderson and Janet Maw.

Proceedings of the 2nd

ALDERSON, J Charles 1979 Materials evaluation.
Regional Latin-American ESP Seminar, Cocoyoc, Mexico.
ELT docs
ALDERSON, J Charles & Hughes, A 1981 Issues in language testing.
111. Oxford, Pergamon.
teaching.
ALDERSON, J Charles (ed) 1984 Evaluation in communicative language
Practical papers in English language education, Vol 6. Oxford, Pergamon.

Paper
ALLWRIGHT, R L 1982 'Communicative curricula in language teaching.'
prepared for the LSTLL Conference, Bari, Italy. University of Lancaster MS.

BERETTA, A 1984 'Evaluation of the Bangalore/Madras Communicational Teaching

Project'. Unpublished MS, Edinburgh.
New York, Longmans
BLOOM, R B (ed) 1956 Taxonomy of educational objectives.
Gren.
curriculum.
BREEN, M P & CANDLIN, C N 1980 The essentials of a communicative
Applied linguistics, 1, 2, pp 89-112. London.

Oxford,
BRUMFIT, C 1980 Problems and principles in English teaching.
Pergamon.

ELT does 118. Oxford, Pergamon.

FRUHFIT, C 1984 General syllabus design.

BRUNER, J 1960 The process of learning. Harvard University Press.

Holt,
CALDERHEAD, James 1984 Teachers' classroom decision-making.
Rhinehart, Winston.
in the
CANDLIN, C N 1983 'Applying a systems approach to curriculum innovation
Paper given at the 18th RELC seminar, Singapore. University
public sector.'
of Lancaster MS.
Croom Helm.
COHEN, L & MANION, L 1980 Research methods in education.
methods in
COOK, T D & REICHARDT, C (eds) 1979 Qualitative and quantitative
evaluation research. Sage Publications. Sage research progress.

London, NFER-Nelson, 3rd ed.

CROCKER, A C 1981 Statistics for the teacher.
in Golby M et al,
CRONBACH, L J 1985 'Course improvement through evaluation',
pp 399-413.
of the curriculum.
EISNER, E W & VALANCE, E 1974 Conflicting conceptions
Berkeley, Ca, McCutchan.

GOLBY, M et al 1975 Curriculum design. London, Croom Helm & the Open
University.

GORDON, P 1981 The study of the curriculum. London, Batsford.

HAMILTON, D 1976 Curriculum evaluation. London, Open books.

410
1
HARDING, A et al 1980 Graded objectives in modern languages. London, CILT.

HARLEN, Wynne (ed) 1981 Evaluation and the teacher's role. London,
Macmillan Educational Schools Council Research Studies.

HARRIS, A et al 1978 Curriculum innovation. London. Croom Helm & the Open
University.

HORTON, T & RAGGAT, P 1982 Challenge and change in the curriculum. London,
Hodder & Stoughton.

JOHNSON, K 1982 Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford,

Pergamon.

JOHNSON, K & PORTER, D (eds) 1983 Perspectives in communicative language

teaching. London, Academic Press.

LACEY, C & LAWTON, D 1981 Issues in evaluation and accountability. London,

Methuen.

LONG, R S & SLATER, S M Journal of evaluation in education. Bowden,

Cheshire.

MACINTOSH, H G & HALE, D E 1976 Assessment and the secondary school teacher.
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

MAGER, R F 1962 Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, Calif,

Fearon.

MILLMAN, Jason & GOWIN, D B 1974 Appraising educational research: a case

study approach. Englewood Cliffs N J, Prentice Hall.

MOODY, H L B 1979 'Some introductory thoughts on evaluation in teaching

English for specific purposes'. Proceedings of the Cocoyoc Seminar, Mexico.

MUNBY, J 1978 Communicative syllabus design. London, Cambridge University

Press.

MURPHY, Dermot F 1984 'Evaluation in language teaching, assessment,

accountability, awareness'. In Alderson, 1984.

McCORMICK, R et al (ed) 1982 Calling education to account. London,

Heinemann.

NEWMARK, L & REIBEL, D A 1968 'Necessity and sufficiency in language

learning. IRAL 6/2.

NISBET, J D in Entwistle N J and Nisbet J D Educational research in action.

University of London Press Ltd, 1972.

NISBET, J D & ENTWISTLE, N J 1970 Educational research methods. London,

Hodder & Stoughton.

PAPERT, Seymour 1980 'Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas'.

Harvester Press.

PARLETT, M & HAMILTON, D 1972 'Evaluation as illumination'. In Tawney, D

(ed). Also available from Centre for Research in the Education, University of
Edinburgh. Occasional Paper No 9.

- 2 -
IPkir,/
 and cons. Sage
PERLOFF, Robert (ed) 1979 Evaluator intervention: pros
Publications.
Unwin.
PETERS, R S 1959 Authority, responsibility and education.
scenarios for the
PHILLIPS, M K 1984 Logical possibilities and classroom
special issue. 1985. Oxford,
development of CALL. To appear in ELT does
Pergamon.
Englewood Cliffs N J, Prentice
POPHAM, W J 1973 Evaluation instruction.
Hall.
goals. Englewood
POPHAM, W J & BAKER, E L 1970 Establishing instructional
Cliffs N J, Prentice Hall.
Paper given at the 18th regional
PRABHU, N S 1983 'Procedural syllabuses'.
seminar of the SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore.
with special reference
REA, Pauline M 1983 'Evaluation of eduational projects
In ELT Docs 116, pp 85-98. Oxford,
to English language instruction'.
Pergamon.
London, Routledge & Kegan
REID, W 1978 Thinking about the curriculum.
Paul.
Sage
RICH, Robert F (ed) 1979 Translating evaluation into policy.
Publications.
Sage
SCHULBERG, H C & JERRELL, J M (eds) The evaluator and management.
Publications.
recent
SHAW, A M 1977 'Foreign language syllabus development: some
Language teaching and linguistics: abstracts, 10, pp 217-233.
approaches'.
London,
SOCKET, H 1980 Accountability in the English education system.
Hodder & Stoughton.
and development.
STENHOUSE, L 1975 An introduction to curriculum research
London, Heinemann.
trends and implications.
TAWNEY, D (ed) 1976 Curriculum evaluation today:
London, Macmillan Educational.
Chicago,
TYLER, R W 1949 Basic principles of curriculum instruction.
University of Chicago Press.
syllabus design'.
WHITE, R 1983 'Curriculum development and English language
In Johnson and Porter (eds).
London, Oxford University Press.
WILKINS, D 1976 Notional syallabuses.
particular reference
WILSON, P & HARRISON I 'Materials design in Africa with
Cameroon' in Brumfit, C (ed). ELT
to the Francophone Primary School Project,
Documents 116. Oxford, Pergamon.
NFER.
WISEMAN, S & PIDGEON 1970 Curriculum Evaluation.
and
YALDEN, J 1983 The communicative syllabus: evolution, design
implementation. Oxford, Pergamon.

-3 -152