Palma Lara Gildardo_Evaluation Program

BENEMERITA UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE PUEBLAFACULTAD DE LENGUAS DE LA BUAP

MAESTRIA EN LA ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLES

A program analysis based on Markee’s (2002) (CATI) project’s negotiated model of curricular innovation from one cohort of a Public University at Puebla.

Curriculum Design

LIC. GILDARDO PALMA LARAOTOÑO 2008

1

Lic. Gildardo Palma Lara

I. Sociocultural context

In institutional terms, the common framework of languages is one cohort of a research-

oriented Language faculty at a Public University in central Mexico, which hosts students

from different backgrounds and ages throughout diverse under-graduate and graduate

programs. This cohort was created within an ecological perspective which seeks to enhance

global communication through integrated learning skills of an L2 (English and French). It

also promotes the acquisition of an L2 through applying the communicative approach.

Hence, this essay will only be involved with the English program which consists of four

proficiency levels: two basic and two pre-intermediate. For the constraints of this paper, I

shall only cope with the fourth level of the pre-intermediate phase which is going to be

analyzed through the College and the Center for Advanced Technologies and Innovation

(CATI) project’s negotiated model of curricular innovation proposed by Markee (2002)

[see appendix A]. The following question will try to be answered: to what extent are the

three levels of planning (strategic, tactical and operational planning) discernible in the way

this specific program organizes foreign language instruction? Furthermore, to what extent

does the model of curriculum design used by this cohort either encourage or discourage the

negotiation of syllabus content between different participants?

II. The CATI project’s negotiated model of curricular innovation

Markee (2002) holds the view that program implementation process might be analyzed

through his ‘negotiated model of curricular innovation’ (applied as the CATI project) based

on Candlin’s (1984) two folded basic model: “strategic (or curriculum) planning and

tactical (or syllabus)” (p. 77). He also adds a third aspect that is ‘the operational planning’

which in turn draws on teacher day to day praxis. In addition, Candlin (1984) Dewey

(1910) Stenhouse (1975) cited in Markee (2002) posit that “the CATI project’s ideology

draws on a critical, negotiated approach to pedagogy” (p.77). According to Markee, in the

rationale given for the CATI project four reasons are given for using the ESL courses as a

laboratory for curricular innovation: (1) the quality of ESL instruction would be enhanced

and Teaching Assistants would develop expertise in curriculum development that would be

professionally useful to them in their subsequent careers; (2) this solution addressed faculty

2


and Teaching Assistant dissatisfaction with the quality of these courses that existed before

the CATI project was instituted; (3) it facilitated the development of banks of in-house

materials that were specially tailored to meet the ESL needs of international students; (4) it

offered project participants opportunities to understand the process of educational change.

II.1 Strategic Planning

Markee (2002) argues that “strategic curricular planning is the responsibility of the project

director or change agent, who supplies knowledge about […] [the suggested teaching

approach] to teachers and gives the project its overall direction” (p.79; my additions). He

also posits that “the project director’s responsibilities include: (1) specifying the project’s

aims, goals and criteria for evaluation; (2) identifying the change strategies used to

implement the project’s aims and goals; (3) stating the purposes and the content of the

project’s ESL instruction; (4) clarifying the developmental function of the project’s banks

of in-house materials; (5) naming the attributes that affect the implementation of […] [the

suggested teaching methodology] in the project; (6) laying out the characteristics of […]

[the Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Approach]” (p.80; my additions).

In this context curricular innovation seems to be promoted by the managerial staff

(coordinators and the director) with the purpose of implementing top-down decisions.

Furthermore, they decide upon the language approach teachers are going to work with

following bureaucratic establishing protocols (for a complete description see Santos, 2005).

2.1.2 The project’s aims, goals, and criteria for evaluation

This evaluation is based on Stenhouse (1975), Cracknell and Rednall’s (1986) adapted

Project Framework “which is widely used by American, Australian, European and United

Nations aid agencies” (Markee, 2002; p.80). It can spell out a program’s aims and

objectives and also sketch the criteria used for evaluation in a single, integrated package

(see table 1). In a similar vein, Alderson (1992) states that “this project framework can help

language teaching professionals to understand the consequences of their decisions

[managerial top down implementation] and actions [operational component]” (p.80; my

additions). Table 1 consists of two parts. The first part sets out the Program’s aims,

objectives and outputs as hierarchically organized statements that range from the general to 3


the specific. The second consists of inputs required to achieve the program’s aims,

objectives and outputs. The third one copes with important assumptions taken by the stake

holders [directors, teachers and students] based on operational issues (Alderson, 1992).

1.Project structure

2.Indicator of achievement

3.Means of verification

4.Important assumptions

To comprehend the functional and grammatical differences of simple tense and future

To pose questions about the possible consequences of determined actions.

To look after the ecology

Although the objective seems a mixture of functional structural content, it only deals with grammar. Regarding point 2, the indicator of achievement is rather vague and imprecise. Regarding point 3, student might be involved in talking about how to care for the ecology in a communicative or task based activity. I might argue that it depends on the teacher’s operational planning. (Saslow &Ascher, 2006)

To identify cause and effect clauses in conditional sentences.

To apply these learnt structures to the analysis and solution of problematic situations

To look after the ecology

Number 1 is structural; but number 2 seems to promote functional and notional issues as the student might use 1st, 2nd or 3rd conditional in a communicative or task-based activity. I might argue that number 3 is concerned with sketching a writing or conversational activity about discussing true or hypothetical ecological situations.

Identify the simple tense of most verbs as well as used to, to state a habitual action in past.

To describe past habitual action of learner’s childhood

To describe and state a point of view about the social movements in the 60’s

Number 1 is structural in nature. Conversely, number 2 encourages learners to talk about past experiences form their childhood. Number 3 could be carried out by designing a task which might involve the analysis of a specific situation (Martin Luther King, Vietnam war) in the 60s.

To comprehend the interrogative structure in English

To pose questions which allow to get specific info from past epochs.

To state a point of view about the magnitude and influence of some social events.

Number 1 is structural and vague. Number 2 might be frame on a task-based reading activity which has students solve a jig-saw reading about Kennedy’s murder; with a question and answer follow up. Number 3 could be carried out similarly. (Saslow &Ascher, 2006)

To distinguish passive and active voices in sentences.

To apply this structural knowledge (heuristics) with the purpose of

To comprehend the process, efforts and facts to the

Number 1 is rather structural. Number 2 seems heuristics since it has learners analyze form and meaning within sentences. This is nevertheless the operational appreciation of

4


comprehending process and procedures of the target language

consolidation and development of an enterprise

this practitioner. Number 3 might be carried out through a task-based activity which let students measure the impact when creating and developing an enterprise.

Identify the structure of the perfect tenses

To comprehend the uses of modals within the content and form of a sentence.

To describe the late action of two sequence actions in the past.

To value the loyalty, friendship and love

This objective is structural in nature as well as point 2. Regarding point 3, learner may be involved in talking about past experiences dealing with these values, but it depends on the teacher’s operational planning. (Saslow &Ascher, 2006)

1.Project structure

2.Indicator of achievement

3.Means of verification

4.Important assumptions

Verbs follow by infinitives and/or gerunds

-ing & -ed adjectives

To comprehend readings and folk tales which describe facts in the past

To value the folk legends and tales’ importance and their influence on people’s lives.

Personal experiences

Number 1 is rather structural. Number 2 & 3 can be carried out through task-based activities such as discussing the weeping woman legend with a follow up description in writing about specific details.

A task based activity such as describing your own personality or describing of someone you know well (Saslow &Ascher, 2006)

Second conditional

Might & would to state unreal events

Describe the dreams & ideal one possesses

Number 1 is rather structural. Number 2 &3 can be carried out through task based activities such as writing an article about appropriate appearance in your country and/or narrating a true story about an ethical choice (Saslow &Ascher, 2006)

Present perfect simple & continous

To use the present perfect to link an event that began in the past with the present

To describe emotional or scholar experiences

Number 1 is rather structural. Number 2 &3 might be carried out through a task-based activity such as writing a movie review page and/or expressing opinion about violence in media (Saslow &Ascher, 2006).

Identify the perfect tense sentences

Two order two events chronologically

To apply the present perfect to sequence some stories’ facts

Number 1 &2 are very structural. Number 3 may be carried out through a task-based activity such as expressing opinion about violence in media (Saslow &Ascher, 2006).

5


Table 1

In this vein, Richards (2001) posits that “People are generally motivated to pursue specific

goals; the use of goals in teaching improves the effectiveness of teaching and learning; and

a program will be effective to the extent that its goals are sound and clearly described”

(p.112). Albeit this quotation; the objectives of this program are likely vague and it might

require lots of effort from the part of a teacher to consolidate them (Stenhouse, 1977).

Furthermore, Nunan (1984) has justified Richards’s (2001) curriculum development in

language teaching as “a set of process and procedures which are both systematic and

interrelated” (p. 18). This set has been “professional-oriented” and comprises these

elements: “needs analysis, [materials], objectives setting [to address the learners needs],

content and methodology, and evaluation” (p.18; my additions). Richards also posits that

“[c]urriculum development is a more comprehensive process than syllabus design. It

includes the processes that are used to determine the needs of a group of learners, to

develop aims or objectives for a program to address those needs, to determine an

appropriate syllabus, course structure, teaching methods, and materials, and to carry out an

evaluation of the language program that results from these processes” (p. 2).

2.1.3 Identify the project’s change strategies

Accordind to Markee (2002) “the CATI project employs a linkage model of change which

promotes […][program development] by using top down and bottom up strategies of

change on a contingent basis [see Text Link 84]. The model is top down in that the project

director uses authority in two ways: (1) as a faculty member using the hierarchical position

of director [...], (2) as a curriculum specialist, using academic authority to set out the

general parameters within which innovation in the CATI project occurs” (p.87; my

additions). Regarding the Common framework of languages at a Public University in

central Mexico, the pre-intermediate program framed by this paper was coined in the 90’s

6


which in turn was supposed to be a top-down innovationi (Proyecto Fénix, 1994-1998; cited

in Catálogo de programas del Tronco Común Universitario BUAP. DGES, 1995). It is now

consolidated by Modelo Educativo Minerva (MUM by its captions in Spanish) so as to

propose innovation as a permanent issue which might enable students to acquire a second

language (Santos, 2005). Learners might then have the necessary skills to interact in

international and national professional contexts. Nevertheless, MUM (2007) proposes that

the transversal axisii is different from the current operation of the Language framework so

as to let any other faculty either choose to take the four courses (basic and pre-intermediate)

or up to for the certification process.

2.1.4 Identify the purposes and content of instruction

This program seems to have a multilayered syllabus which integrates notional-functional

and structural units of analysis. It is an integrated-skills course which aims to improve

students’ oral and written communication. Similarly, Markee (2002) holds the view that

“students must be able to communicate successfully via both oral and written media

[…]They must be able to communicate through different channels […]such as face to face

oral discourse, writing, and electronic mail […] the procedural content of these courses

(i.e., the kinds of learning activities with which students engage in their ESL classes) can be

appropriately derived from the academic tasks that students accomplish in their day to day

lives” (p. 88).

With the advent of adopting the Common European Framework of Reference’s (CEFR;

Council of Europe, 2001) descriptors as curricular guide-lines (see appendix B), spoken

interaction and spoken production are strongly enhanced; “face-to-face interaction may of

course involve a mixture of media: spoken, written, audio-visual, paralinguistic […] and

para-textual […]” (Council of Europe, p. 88). In addition, the CEFR (ibid.) suggests

interaction through the medium of written language which includes such activities as: (i)

passing and exchanging notes, memos, etc. when spoken interaction is impossible and

inappropriate; (ii) correspondence by letter, fax, e-mail, etc.; (iii) negotiating the text of

agreements, contracts, communiqués, etc. by reformulating and exchanging drafts,

amendments, proof corrections, etc.; (iv) participating in on-line or off-line computer

7


conferences. So far these Program’s objectives are so overwhelming that is difficult for an

intermediate learner to fully succeed in accomplishing them. In the next section I will

discuss how the adoption of materials has permeated the foreign language learning process

in this cohort.

2.1.5 The developmental function of in-house materials

Markee states that “the decision to use an ESP/EGP inspired course design solution

naturally suggests that teachers should develop in-house materials […] However, the

decision to rely mostly on in-house materials is motivated by the more important aim of

promoting teacher development” (p. 89). As a matter of fact, the coordinator of this cohort

prefers adopting materials to promoting the development of in-house ones (a top-down

policy). Not only does this policy apply to the Common Framework of Language (English),

but it also permeates the other cohorts. In the light of these events, a new text-book is being

implemented “Top Notch Series” by Saslow and Ascher (2006); Nunan (1991) hence gives

advice on what appears to be the most common reason for course-book adoption:

“When selecting commercial materials it is important to match the materials with the goals

and objectives of the program, and to ensure that they are consistent with one’s beliefs

about the nature of language and learning, as well as with one’s learners’ attitudes, beliefs

and preferences.” (p. 209).

By using McDonough and Shaw’s (1993) two-stage model for course-book evaluation (see

appendix C) in a recent essay I carried out a thorough evaluation of this textbook. I shall

hence retrieve, for the purpose of this paper, two McDonough and Shaw’s (1993, pp 68-69)

external characteristics of evaluating a book: how the language has been presented and

organized into teachable units/lessons: there are ten units in both SB and WB and a claim

of 60-90 hours of class time. Are the subjects and contents relevant to your syllabus? The

Top Notch contents nearly fit the objectives and goals for this level. As far as the units of

Analysis are concerned, a 60 % match is correlated with the contents in the book (used to,

second conditional), [the correlations are also indicated in Stenhouse (1975), Cracknell and

Rednall’s (1986) adapted Project Framework analysis on section 2.1.2]

8


2.1.6 Attributes affecting the adoption of task-based language teaching

Markee claims that “innovation has attributes that either facilitate or inhibit their adoption;

these can be used to analyze the factors that potentially affect the adoption of task-based

teaching […]” (p. 89). This specific program does not explicitly address any approach or

methodology, but it suggests the acquisition of communicative competence. Thus, teachers

seem to be using eclectic methodologies or in a large extent the methodology that the book

suggests. In this vein, Saslow and Ascher (2006) claim that their particular eclectic method

is one third based on Krashen’s i+1, “the reason for this is to expose students to the

authentic language they will encounter in the world outside the classroom and to familiarize

them with it […] Great care has been taken to ensure that i+1 language is comprehensible

[…] One of the purposes of including a piece of realia with i+1 language is to teach

students find meaning in texts that contain some unknown language” (p. Txix). One third

on the Audio-lingual method since there is plenty of conversation pair-work through the

units. One third on the task-based approach since it engages students in negotiating,

problem-solving ‘authentic’ situations. I might argue that it is too much audio-lingual.

Saslow and Ascher state that its multilayered syllabus is in accordance with the CEFR (see

appendix D).

III. Tactical Planning

Markee (2002) argues that “it is in the model’s tactical level of planning that the teaching

assistants’ task-based language teaching syllabus design and materials development

activities are conceptually located. If the project’s model of curricular innovation is to

work, teaching assistants must understand the theoretical principles upon which task-based

language teaching syllabus design and materials development activities are conceptually

located. If the project’s model of curricular innovation is to work, teaching assistants’ must

ii Este currículo presenta tres componentes: 1. MATERIAS DE FORMACIÓN GENERAL UNIVERSITARIA. Se orientan al cumplimiento de objetivos básicos para el desarrollo del eje transversal en forma de materia con créditos, entre las cuales pueden ser obligatorias y optativas; 2. ESCENARIOS DE DESARROLLO. Se orientan por los objetivos particulares del eje transversal y se concretan mediante la realización de eventos académicos, ambientes institucionales y actividades tutorales; 3. ACTIVIDADES INTEGRADORAS. Se orientan por los objetivos particulares del eje transversal y se concretan integrados a materias del currículum correlacionado. Captan créditos integrados en las materias disciplinarias del currículo correlacionado (Modelo Universitario Minerva; p.33).

9


understand the theoretical principles upon which task-based language teaching is founded.

They must also know how to select texts, grade and sequence, pedagogical tasks. Finally,

they must decide how to select appropriate methodological procedures. This section

examines how one teaching assistant interpreted task-based language teaching in his

materials” (p.99). The CATI project is quite clearly embedded in a North American context

of implementation. In this section, it is argued that the point of telling the story of the CATI

project is not to generalize the solutions that have been developed in this project - which

will be highly context-specific - but to develop a grounded understanding of the issues and

problems that are inherent in trying to make educational innovation happen.

Markee (2002) posits that “good communication among project participants is a key to

successful curricular innovation” (see Text Link 161). Conversely, in this program

curricular innovations are top-down implementations which rarely take into account

teachers points of view. Teachers’ meetings are rarely carried out to openly discuss an

innovation such as the adoption of new materials or the adoption of new standards; in this

vein, teachers might be passive recipients to run a given program.

Markee also posits that “the successful implementation of educational innovations is based

on a strategic approach to managing change” (see Text Link 162). In this vein, early

adopters are just a few groups of teachers implementing the innovation preceded by

innovators (the director’s staff) so as to produce the typical s-shaped curve that describes

the diffusion of innovation. Another three types of adopter can be superimposed on this

curve: early majority, late majority and laggards. I shall hence comment that the European

Language Portfolio’s (ELP) innovation is still in the lazy slope of this curve with two

innovators: the director and the coordinator, one early adopter: the writer of this essay! And

many laggards as well. In a recent essay I outlined the ELP as a proposal of innovation due

to the fact that it could not only enhance the learners’ autonomy but it also serves as a

means of carrying a needs analysis. However, if I were to measure it as a value laden on

this curve I might argue that the innovation is still in its infancy (see appendix E).

IV. Operational planning

10


Markee (2002) posits that “operational planning is the responsibility of teachers and

students and involves the short-term planning and execution of lessons by teachers. This

level of planning is also a locus of innovation in that teaching involves negotiation between

teachers and learners” (p.207). In this vein, lesson plans can be negotiated with learners so

as to implement some activities rather than others. Nevertheless, in this program teachers

have got a fixed administrative schedule to accomplish determined units in a given time

span. This is not an excuse to avoid innovating though. As a matter of fact, I might argue

most of teachers’ praxis of this cohort is permeated by different beliefs and theoretical

assumptions according to the complex socio-cultural context we are working with.

IV.1 The ELP

It has been developed as a pedagogical language learning companion piece to the CEFR

(Council of Europe, 2001). It is designed (i) to encourage the lifelong learning of

languages, to any level of proficiency; (ii) to make the learning process more transparent

and to develop the learner's ability to assess his/her own competence; (iii) to facilitate

mobility within Europe by providing a clear profile of the owner's language skills; (iv) to

contribute to mutual understanding within Europe by promoting plurilingualism (the ability

to communicate in two or more languages) and intercultural learning. Hence, it consists of

three parts: the Passport, the Language Biography (LB), and the Dossier (Little, 2007).

1. The Passport is used to build up a cumulative record of the owner’s language

learning and intercultural experience. At its centre is the owner’s own assessment of

his/her achieved proficiency in L2/FLs, undertaken on the basis of the so-called

self-assessment grid.

2. The LB provides a reflective accompaniment to the ongoing process of learning and

using L2/FLs, and engaging with the cultures associated with them. It supports the

setting of learning targets and the process of self-assessment by expanding the

descriptions of proficiency in the self-assessment grid into checklists of

communicative tasks.

11


3. The Dossier is the least defined part of the ELP—in many models it consists of no

more than an empty table of contents for the owner to fill in. Its purpose is to

provide a space in which ELP owners can show what they can do in the various

languages they know and illustrate their intercultural experience, usually in written

text but sometimes also in audio and/or video recordings. In some implementations

the dossier is also a place where owners keep materials relevant to their current

learning; for example, vocabulary or grammatical rules they know they need to

master, plans and drafts of projects they are working on, and newspaper or

magazine articles that are relevant to their learning goals.

4.2 The ELP as a curricular innovation

I shall hence argue that I have already implemented three waves of innovation research by

applying the ELP as a pedagogical tool with some learners of the fourth pre-intermediate

phase at the Psychology Faculty to record their language experiences (including the mother

tongue) in the passport section; to make them aware of the different learning styles and

strategies they can use in order to succeed in most language tasks within the Language

Biography section; to collect pieces of their own language projects ranging from simple

ones such as postcards or pen-pal letters to essays describing a point of view about the

global warming or another interesting topic within the dossier. As I stated, the first wave

with young adult students within this cohort showed that some of them rejected at first this

tool; but as Markee argues the innovation process is slow at first and “if a critical mass of

between 5% and 25% of potential users adopt, the innovation will take off and become self

sustaining” (Rogers, 1995; cited in Markee, 2002; p.57). Thus, my students were gradually

assimilating the innovation as they were trained to use this pedagogical tool according to

the S-shaped curve of diffusion proposed by Markee (2002) and based on Cooper (1982)

[see table 2 below]. Hence I had some early adopters which were motivated students with a

clear tendency of learning autonomy.

12


Adopted and taken from Witten, Casteneira, Brenes, Preciado, Tapia, Sánchez (2007)

In this vein, Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior has also had far-reaching

implications for language curriculum development (Kennedy, Doyle, and Goh, 1999; Long,

1997). The problem, according to Ajzen, is that regardless of what strategy for innovation

is used, predicting how people will respond to the innovations can be fraught with peril. A

central tenet of his Theory of Planned Behavior proposes that a key to better understanding

how people will organizationally respond to innovations is through a discovery of the true

intentions of key stakeholders (see appendix F). These intentions were clearly stated

showing that using the ELP may increase learners’ autonomy (Little, 2007) so as to begin a

second wave, that of an early majority. As the time went on little by little learners were

getting acquainted with the ELP and its sections. They were in turn enacting little

resistance towards the innovation at this stage. A third wave then began with late majority

accounting for the 90% of the class and only 10% of laggards. Unfortunately, the

innovation continues being a proposal over the desk of my coordinator and the ELPs which

have been generously provided by an editorial (Pearson) are dusting on the coordination’s

bookshelf.

4.3 My epistemological stance

In my view, the ELP can help developing various aspects of the paradigm shift iiiin ELT as

described by Jacobs and Farrell (2001), including the following: (i) Learner autonomy is

supported by the fact that learners can set their own objectives with the aid of self-

assessment checklists; (ii) Curricular integration can be fostered through production of the

Dossier; (iii) A focus on meaning is adopted throughout checklists; (iv) other tools for

assessment might be developed for young adults and the author of this essay is going to

13

Innovators/Early adopters

Early Majority/Late Majority

Laggards

% of adopters who implement innovation over a specific time period often form a typical S-shaped diffusion curve


take part in the project as a member of a teacher's pilot group to test materials; (v) The

concept of the teacher as a 'co-learner' is an important one for work with the ELP, notably

when new paths are followed. This might be illustrated by an example: grammar

progression, an important term for most language programs and textbooks, does not occur

in the ELP neither is any grammatical progression described. Over and above that, it can be

assumed that the ELP will play a role of increasing importance for foreign language

teaching and learning in Europe (likely welcomed in Latin America, according to Little,

2007). At present, the number of validated portfolios has raised to 30 covering Europe from

Ireland to Russia and from Sweden to Italy according to the Council of Europe's ELP

website (Council of Europe 2001).

5 Conclusion

As the improvement of a program is an ongoing process (Markee, 2002) it should be

remarked that the life span of this one is about to change. MUM (2007) is trying a

constructivist approach; in this vein, the present program falls behind. However, new

materials and the ELP innovation must be run. Adaptations of the CEFR descriptors which

thoroughly match our specific socio-cultural context need to be run as well. In the light of

these events, different versions of the ELP ought to be developed to match specific

classroom’s necessities to foster learners’ autonomy.

Throughout this essay I attempted to answer two questions: (i) to what extent are the three

levels of planning (strategic, tactical and operational planning) discernible in the way this

specific program organizes foreign language instruction? As we have already seen through

the different subheadings of this paper the strategic component reveals that this program

was a top-down innovation proposed by Proyecto Fénix in the 90s with a multilayered

syllabus (functional and structural). Nevertheless, any evidence of needs analysis and/or

meetings with teachers was not available for this practitioner, just the program itself.

Regarding the tactical plane, the CATI project was proposed and clearly defined as a

14


North-American innovation which could be used as a model to contrast against this

program. In this vein, I argued that teachers seem to follow their own idiosyncratic

methodology that might be an eclectic one, although the program is suggesting a

communicative approach which integrates the four skills, the goal and specific objectives

seem rather vague. I then analyzed the contents of the syllabus according to Stenhouse

(1975), Cracknell and Rednall’s (1986) adapted Project Framework matrix. I also argued

that teachers are rarely asked to give their point of view within the process of curricular

innovation. This produces passive recipients that enact/carry out top-down decisions from

directors and coordinators. Similarly, Markee (2002) argues that “in terms of understanding

the key elements of the CATI project, and which of these elements can be reproduced in

other contexts of implementation […] the point of studying the CATI project […] is to gain

a grounded understanding of the problems that are involved in managing curricular

innovation” (p.110).

As far as the operational plane is concerned, the daily teachers’ praxis was framed within a

spectrum of different beliefs and theoretical assumptions. I also argued that innovation

might occur. I suggested piloting the ELP as a pedagogical tool which might promote

learners’ autonomy. I hence presented an action research project I carried out with my

psychology students which were involved in the different stages of the innovation’s

evolution as stated by Markee’s S-shape graph. The innovation was successful within this

context. I then proposed to spread this innovation over other early adopters. Conversely, the

ELP proposal still lies on the coordination’s desk.

To what extent does the model of curriculum design used by this cohort either encourage

or discourage the negotiation of syllabus content between different participants? I might

argue that I could not obtain all the necessary information (needs analysis, specific

documents of teachers’ meetings, the curriculum designers’ point of view) from the

different stake holders so as to reach a valid conclusion about the effectiveness of

communication among them. Idiosyncratically, I might claim that any possible change

(innovation) in curriculum-syllabus design is a top-down process which is imposed rather

than negotiated by educational authorities. In short, it is a top-down administrative process,

although some teachers are promoting some bottom up innovation. 15


Markee accurately posits that “the CATI project has developed an empirically based

methodology to illuminate how teachers interpret policy made at the strategic level of

curricular planning and how they implement these decisions through a process of

adaptation and modification at the tactical level of syllabus planning and at the operational

level of planning” (p. 110). More adaptation is needed in the light of the MUM

implementation so as to appropriately revise and propose new tendencies in curricular

innovationiv.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50, 179-211.

Alderson, C. (1992). Guidelines for the evaluation of language education. In C. Alderson

and A. Beretta (Ed.), Evaluating Second Language Education (pp. 274-304).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BUAP-Modelo Universitario Minerva (2007). Estructural Curricular. Puebla: BUAP.

Candlin, C. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C.J. Brumfit (Eds.), General

English Syllabus Design (pp. 29-46). ELT document 118. Oxford: Pergamon/

British Council.

BUAP- DGES (1995). Catalogo de programas del Tronco Común Universitario. Puebla:

BUAP.

Cooper, R. (1982). A framework for the study of language. In R. L. Cooper (Eds.),

Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change (pp. 5-36).

Bloomington: Indiana University Press and Washington, D.C.: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

iv 5000 words16


Council of Europe, (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cracknell, B. and Rednall, J. (1986). Defining objectives and measuring performance in aid

projects and programs. London: Overseas Development Administration.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, mass.: Heath.

Jacobs, J. and Farrell, T. (2001). Paradigm Shift: Understanding and Implementing Change

in Second Language Education. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign

Language, 5 (2), 1-13. In electronic format at

http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej17/toc.html

Kennedy, C., Doyle, P., and Goh, C. (1999). Exploring change in English language

teaching. Oxford, UK: Machmillan Heinemann.

Little, D.(2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (1)1, 14–29.

Long, R. (1997). Investigating and responding to student attitudes and suggestions for

course improvement. The Language Teacher 21(10), 23-29.

Markee, N. (2002). Managing Curriculum Innovation. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.

Nunan, D. (1984). The Learner-centered curriculum. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice Hall.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, E. (1995). The diffusion of innovations. London: Macmillan/ Free Press.

17


Santos, A. (2005). Propuesta de Metodología para Desarrollar un Ambiente Interactivo de

Aprendizaje (AIDA). Documento no publicado, Puebla, México.

Saslow, J. and Ascher, A. (2006). Top Notch 2. UK: Longman

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:

Heinemann.

Witten, M. Casteneira, T. Brenes, M. Preciado, P. Tapia, R. Sánchez, V. (2007). Exploring

innovation processes in a public university in central Mexico. MEXTESOL 31

(2), 47-56.

APPENDIX A

18


Adopted from Markee (2002)

APPENDIX B

19


Reception Interaction Production

Listening Reading Spoken Interaction Written Interaction Spoken Production Written Production

C2 I have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when delivered at fast native speed, provided I have some time to get familiar with the accent.

I can read with ease virtually all forms of the written language, including abstract, structurally or linguistically complex texts such as manuals, specialised articles and literary works.

I can take part effortlessly in any conversation or discussion and have a good familiarity with idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. I can express myself fluently and convey finer shades of meaning precisely. If I do have a problem I can backtrack and restructure around the difficulty so smoothly that other people are hardly aware of it.

I can express myself with clarity and precision, relating to the addressee flexibly and effecively in an assured, personal, style.

I can present a clear, smoothly-flowing description or argument in a style appropriate to the context and with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.

I can write clear, smoothly flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex letters, reports or articles, which present a case with an effective logical structure, which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write summaries and reviews of professional or literary works.

C1 I can understand extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only implied and not signalled explicitly. I can understand television programmes and films without too much effort.

I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialised articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field.

I can express myself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. I can use language flexibly and effectively for social and professional purposes. I can formulate ideas and opinions with precision and relate my contribution skilfully to those of other speakers

I can present clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects integrating sub-themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion

I can express myself in clear, well-structured text, expressing points of view at some length. I can write detailed expositions of complex subjects in an essay or a report, underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can write different kinds of texts in a style appropriate to the reader in mind.

B2 I can understand extended speech and lectures and follow even complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar. I can understand most TV news and current affairs programmes. I can understand the majority of films in standard dialect.

I can read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular stances or viewpoints. I can understand contemporary literary prose.

I can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible. I can take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts, accounting for and sustaining my views.

I can write letters highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences.

I can present clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to my field of interest. I can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

I can write clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I can write an essay or report, passing on information or giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view.

B1 I can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. I can understand the main point of many radio or TV programmes on current affairs or topics of personal or professional interest

I can understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency everyday or job-related language. I can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters

I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).

I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions.

I can connect phrases in a simple way in order to describe experiences and events, my dreams, hopes & ambitions. I can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. I can narrate a story or relate the plot of a book or film and describe

I can write straightforward connected text on topics, which are familiar, or of personal interest.

20


when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.

my reactions.

A2 I can understand phrases and the highest frequency vocabulary related to areas of most immediate personal relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements

I can read very short, simple texts. I can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters

I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. I can handle very short social exchanges, even though I can't usually understand enough to keep the conversation going myself.

I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate need. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something.

I can use a series of phrases and sentences to describe in simple terms my family and other people, living conditions, my educational background and my present or most recent job

I can write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors like “and”, “but” and “because”.

A1 I can recognise familiar words and very basic phrases concerning myself, my family and immediate concrete surroundings when people speak slowly and clearly.

I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues.

I can interact in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I'm trying to say. I can ask and answer simple questions in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics.

I can write a short, simple postcard, for examples sending holiday greetings. I can fill in forms with personal details, for example entering my name, nationality and address on a hotel registration form.

I can use simple phrases and sentences to describe where I live and people I know.

I can write simple isolated phrases and sentences.

i se propuso la creación de un Tronco Común Universitario (TCU) con cursos de naturaleza interdisciplinaria y compleja que desarrollarían en el estudiante procesos de pensamiento crítico y analítico, también incentivarían la creatividad y la apropiación de formas mucho más flexibles de pensar acerca de cómo concebir el mundo, lo que ayudaría a los egresados a seguir aprendiendo durante toda su vida profesional. (Catálogo de programas del Tronco Común Universitario BUAP. DGES, 1995).iii The Jacobs and Farrell’s (2001) ‘Paradigm shift in second language education’ which defines eight typical fields of change (see appendix G).

21


APPENDIX C

22


APPENDIX D23


APPENDIX E

24


Innovation Innovation: the ELP

A suggested tool for promoting innovation. It is split up on three sections: 1) the passport; 2) the Language Biography (LB); the dossier.

Who Actors/

stakeholders

Adopters: English teacher.

Implementers: teacher.

Clients: students.

Resisters: students

Suppliers/change agents: teacher/ English coordinator.

What

Area(s) of change

An innovation which involves promoting students self autonomy to systematically keep an account of their learning insights throughout three different parts of a piloted portfolio.

Where

Socio-cultural context

The innovation was accurately measured according to the Markee’s s-shape of value laden stages of innovational development at the Common Framework of Languages at a Public University in Central Mexico.

When

Diffusion rate

Innovators/early adopters: 90%.

Laggards: 10%.

Why

Attributes of the innovation

The ELP is a companion device of the CEFR which is being adopted by several cohorts of the Language Faculty. Little (2007) strongly argues that is used to promote learners self autonomy which is used widely throughout Europe. He also states that might be welcomed in Latin-America as a tool of self recording L2 learning efforts.

How

Implementation model

By encouraging students keep track of their learning efforts through different versions/lay outs of this portfolio

Comments This was a personal innovation based on my theoretical understanding of the plurilingualism in Europe. It was run with Psychology students of the fourth level of the Engish Common Framework of Languages at the Puebla’s Public University. It succeeded as a tool to enhance learners autonomy which in turn rendered excellent results within this group in an action research study.

Adapted from Witten, Casteneira, Brenes, Preciado, Tapia & Sánchez (2007)

25


APPENDIX F

26


APPENDIX G

Notes

27

Date post:	15-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gilpala20034143
View:	114 times
Download:	0 times

Palma Lara Gildardo_Evaluation Program

Documents