Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 1
1. English language education in the complexity of academic and
professional settings
Adriadi Novawan, S.Pd., M.Ed.
Department of Language, Communication and Tourism, Politeknik Negeri Jember, Indonesia
Abstract
The article addresses the development of English language education (ELE) and explores perspectives to develop better English learning climates in the higher education settings in Indonesia. It firstly outlines the development of ELE theories worldwide influenced by the growth of constructivism theory. Then, it particularly views the relationship between the development of ELE theories worldwide and the reality of English language policy within the Indonesian context. It is to argue that the national policy and its implementation have been somewhat inferior to providing strong fundamentals for ELE in the higher level of education—the higher education. Thus, this article proposes ideas to develop curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in a coherent manner to create more engaging learning environment in order to cater for dynamic growth of academic and professional contexts.
Keywords: English language education, higher education, curriculum and pedagogic discourse
Theoretical review
The development of English language education (ELE) worldwide is currently enlightened with the concerns of postmodern philosophies and practices that are more sensitive to the complexity of socio-cultural contexts of learning. There was a time when the philosophy of positivism overwhelmed the scholarly arena and forum that contributed to the development of well-designed curriculum and pedagogical approaches. Aspects of ELE such as curriculum design, materials development, teaching methodology, and assessment strategy were predominated by scientific merit that legitimated such approaches as the objective-oriented, teacher-centred, performance-based, content-driven/classroom-driven, and achievement test.
Nevertheless, current development indicates that English language education is undergoing changes influenced by postmodern philosophies and methodologies that cannot be detached from the development of constructivism and socio-constructivism. Kumaravadivelu (2003) originates the tenet of practicality, particularity, and possibility, that asserts the importance of creativity and innovativeness for not being overwhelmed
by the box of particular “one-best-approach” (e.g. scientific approach) and orienting all
agency roles in order to produce an engaging and meaningful English language education.
Additionally, it is of great consensus that some well-known conceptions rooted in particular educational theories such as life-long learning, assessment for learning, metacognitive learning, inquiry-based learning, and softskill-based learning has been widely elaborated into the English language education. It is signified with the increasing number of studies and researches which addressed the topics such as those posed in British and Europe literature (e.g. Fortanet-Gomez and Raisanen, 2008). With regard to this development, Thomas and Reinders (2010) imply the same notion in that the presence of various educational philosophies in the context of social studies in this postmodern era has given the extensive effects on the development of English language education. In turn, it encourages change and innovation in many aspects, such as those in curriculum design, pedagogic practice and assessment approach.
ELT curriculum experts like Jack C. Richards (2013) posit a conception of ELT curriculum development by highlighting the specialty of mechanism which distinguishes one model from the others. According to him, there are three models: forward, central, andbackward design. The ELT curriculum can be designed by using a linear procedure, which is called forward design. This design is content-driven, emphasising the determination of content or knowledge as the most essential driver for curriculum development. The second is central design, which postulates the centrality of process and methodologies during the dynamic curriculum development. This design is commonly known as a process-driven design. The last is represented by the prominence of learning outcomes known as aproduct-driven design that, by Richards (2013), is calledbackward design. The classification of the three models of curriculum design implies the compatibility and interrelatedness between ELT curriculum design and some well-known curriculum ideologies such as content, process and product (Schiro, 2013; Kelly, 2009; McKernan, 2008; Print, 1993). The content-driven and product-driven are epistemologically underpinned by positivist ideology, while the process-driven curriculum is much influenced by constructivist.
Bernstein (2003), a famous sociologist of education, categorises what underpins the curriculum design into two ideologies embodied in a line of continuum: conservative is at one edge that originates performance-based curriculum and at the other edge is progressive which underlines competence-based curriculum design. The first is characterised by the strength of boundary between its contents indicated with the prevailing formation of subjects or courses that very much consider the insulation among them. The content of each subject or course tends to appreciate convergence that emphasises the accuracy of curriculum content as a basis for the students’ cognitive
development, compared with the instructional goals. In this setting, the curriculum success is measured on the performance results from the teaching and learning process as specifically indicated on the instructional objectives.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 3
goals and explores spaces in the learning context for the students’ engagement with the
support of particular relevant and prolific conceptual framework and methodology. Moreover, ELE pedagogy has flourished with abundant studies and researches that consequently put forward very broad and diverse practices. This can be explicated with a spectrum of pedagogy between those with text-based or linguistic-oriented and those with more communicative or task-based. It ranges from those with teacher-centred and classroom-driven to those with more individualised and space-driven teaching and learning. From the convergent pedagogy to those which requires divergence with abundant autonomy and spaces. So that the teaching of English today greatly varies which not only provides opportunity for further development and studies but also creates confusion for teachers in determining which of those will be appropriate to particular situation.
The development of a particular pedagogic practice in ELE might influence the assessment strategy practiced by the teachers. For instance, within the setting of a positivist curriculum, pedagogic practice appreciates convergence and performance tied to every piece of instructional objective. In this case, the assessment practice is aimed at
measure the students’ performance as compared with particular external criteria which
is more prone to the practice of assessment of learning (AoL). This reveals that the curriculum offered and taught to the students is supposed to have been acquired by them as specifically planned through the syllabus and the lesson plans. Thus, the success of the teaching and learning process is measured against the specific instructional objectives that have been previously determined in the timeline allotted. However, the development of constructivism has coloured the conception with the model of competence-based curriculum that recommends that the practice of ELE pedagogy needs not to be co-opted with the breath and the depth of the targeted teaching materials that can impose meaningful learning. In this case, the pedagogy needs to be flexible and focus on the intrinsic process of learning itself without being separated from the local context. Within this notion, the assessment strategy orients to helping the students learn better through the interactional pedagogic approaches elaborating feedback, scaffolding, and inquiry-based learning which is calledassessment for learning(AfL).
The reality of ELE in Indonesia
How has the development of ELE in Indonesia been corresponding to the fruitful development of ELE theories worldwide?
language of communication for the purpose of ASEAN integration (Bolton, 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2010). Consequently, the proficiency of English competence of the ASEAN members relevant to the strategic sectors of the AEC 2015 becomes prerequisite in order to create effective academic and professional communication.
Within the context of this integration, Indonesia is one of the countries needing to have more preparatory agendas in terms of the English communication proficiency. This is because English is not a second language as compared with some other ASEAN members such as Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, where English is alternatively used in daily life and for work. English in Indonesia is taught only during English classes and none of the population speaks it in workplace settings and in every-day life situations. Thus, the English learning environment in Indonesia is far from ideal and natural conditions of such socio-cultural environments as that in those countries that genuinely encourage, nurture, and enable people to make use of English as lingua francafor daily social and professional communication.
Furthermore, the reality of ELE curriculum in Indonesia cannot be detached from its overarching setting– that of the national curriculum. Critiques have frequently posed questions in terms of what is behind the national curriculum reforms that are considered more instrumental rather than demand-driven. However, there is a strengthening aspect of curriculum such as the improvement of coherence between primary, secondary and higher education. The new curriculum 2013 is currently becoming more sensitive to the relationship and sustainability of education among the overall education levels (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2012). On the other hand, the curriculum of higher education has undergone more dramatic change following the establishment of the Indonesian Qualification Framework (IQF) which aims to integrate the outcomes of educational programs conducted in different types of educational institutions ranged from vocational, academic, to professional, and either formal or non-formal education (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2010).
Within the national curriculum, which has undergone improvement in terms of coherence between the levels, the policy for English language education represents consistent concern nationwide or perhaps demonstrates deficiency in some aspects. In the perspective of the new curriculum 2013, communicative competence is regarded as
a “future” competence instead of one that is immediately needed. Within the last change, as stated on the content structure of the curriculum (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2012), English as a subject is mandatorily conceived into the curriculum of secondary education with 4 hours allotment time in a week both for junior high school and senior high school, though not in that of primary schools. Although it is national parental demand that makes English be taught in almost all elementary schools in Indonesia (Kirkpatrick, 2010), English subject is consistently conceived as an optional subject into the curriculum of elementary education.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 5 further educational levels or for professional settings. Even within this ongoing massive teacher/lecturer certification program that is taking an incredible amount of the national budget, the people are still pessimistic since what is happening currently demonstrates
that the program has successfully improved the teacher/lecturers’ financial prosperity
rather than their productivity and professional development.
Additionally, English language policy in elementary education does not support the commonly held SLA (Second Language Acquisition) principle of CPH (critical period hypothesis) which suggests that students are better learning a new language in their early years. In this case, putting English as one of the optional subjects in the elementary school curriculum is somewhat dissonant with the principle of CPH and with the policy of high-stakes examination prevailed in the secondary school. This is because the nature of English learning can be considered a process of learning that cannot be instant and merely oriented to achieve a high score. When English as a subject, is required to be taught at elementary school, students can have a better chance to prepare themselves than just relying on English learning in the secondary school. Thus, the national curriculum policy tends to be undermined by particular visions that stimulate misleading pedagogic practice that focuses only on cognitive aspects of the English language education—preparing the students to face the national examination. This prevailing practice remains a huge gap between classroom learning and the actual contextual settings, whereas, nurturing the application of English as lingua franca requires the creation of pedagogical settings that enable the students to experience the actual process of English communication in real contexts.
Another issue relates to the initiation of International Standard Schools (ISS) program by the central government. The ISS, basically signifies a globalised educational vision of the Indonesian government in order to be more prepared for the international and ASEAN integration. More importantly, in turning it into a reality, that has been, for years, found less meaningful. Put simply, the ISS is not a program that relies only on the physical facilities and financial supports. It is more on how to prepare the subject-content teachers to be able to teach their subjects using English that is a long-term “space-based” investment rather than short-term one in order to provide the required fundamentals for its implementation. In fact, many programs have been trivially executed in the absence of sustainability such as the fact that teachers are trained within a very short-intensive period without a systemic plan coherent with the ISS development program. As a result, not only does it indicate the insufficiency of English communication skills owned by the actors of teaching but also it results in problematic practices related to the effectiveness of agency in creating the appropriate climate of meaningful learning.
Moreover, in a scholarly event involving many nationally recognised scholars in Indonesia, TEFLIN has investigated the problem and come up with convincing evidence on the weakness of English language education in primary and secondary schools that are mostly concerned with pedagogic practices in the classroom (2011). The professional development of teachers is considered paramount to improve the condition. It reflects that, so far, the prevailing policy and practice remains a challenge for the development of ELE programs in the future and remains inferior to the
development of students’ English skills in the next level of education, namely, higher
education.
In line with the above reality, Novawan (2008) researched a higher education institution and found that most of the participants of the interviews with the population of 211freshersexpressed their discontent at the process of English pedagogy they had experienced during their previous education levels. All of them agreed that the English learning they perceived had been too much theoretically oriented and aimed to build up their vocabulary and grammar repertoires with the main goal of attaining a high score at the school and national examination. A part of the research investigated more deeply on 17 participants who were highly scored at the national examination, ranged from 9 to 10. A test comprised of writing and speaking, was given, and the results demonstrated that their high grade obtained at the national examination might not represent their English ability.
Wrapping up all of these issues, although English has become more important in the ASEAN context, in fact this is not followed-up with the appropriate decision enacted on the national policy of English language education in Indonesia. Consequent to this trivial policy, its implementation through pedagogy and assessment has been significantly problematic and meaningless as well as merely directed to the achievement of high grades. While ELE theories worldwide shows consensus on how ELE becomes more meaningful, the reality of ELE in Indonesia demonstrates the contrary—there is meaning degradation in its process. In future, the national policy of primary and secondary education needs to undergo greater reformation, far more coherently with the context of learning and grounded in strong English language education theories and frameworks. At the same time, the reality poses a challenge for the higher education to improve the condition and to be aware of the impact of the reality above that makes the challenge become heavier due to the internal weaknesses and external pressures. Internal weaknesses include the English proficiency of freshers, policy on teacher professional development, academic climate and the institutional curriculum settings. The external pressures denote how the internal reality shall correspond to the demand of industries and the development of socio-cultural context outside the education world.
Opportunity to develop ELE in HE
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 7 Figure 1. The pathways of English learning
In the formal pathway, English is an element of the degree program curriculum, which contributes to particular credits of the English course part of the total credits offered in the program. In this case, the English courses are offered as supplementary courses to the discipline-specific courses in the curriculum, or the main courses related to the core competence on the degree program curriculum. The first is in applying to non-English departments while the latter is at English major departments. English sources in these pathways are insufficient to support the students to be proficient users of English for the purposes of academic and professional. Especially in the setting of discipline-specific curriculum (non-English departments), the teaching of English tremendously depends on the local/department policy; sometimes particular departments consider English courses are not necessary. In terms of the curriculum, English courses are often marginalised from the overarching curriculum due to the insulation occurred between the disciplinary competences and the English competence. As a result, English curriculum and pedagogy inadequately receive supervision, evaluation and refinement. This situation causes the English courses within a discipline-specific curriculum to be disengaged from the other courses within the overarching curriculum.
In addition, in the English major departments, the main problem is usually around the internal construction of the curriculum. The application of a subject-oriented curriculum leads to greater insulation between one and other subjects even though they are interrelated to each other. Subject-based curriculum is fundamentally derived from performance-based curriculum ideology which conceptualise boundaries among the English skills, for instance, Structure, Vocabulary, Speaking, Listening, Writing, etc. This conception is usually claimed useful to help student focuses their learning on particular English skills and components. Nevertheless, within a departmental curriculum, these courses often do not reflect coherence between one course and the other courses that make them meaningless for students learning. Whereas, studies and researches aimed to explore, observe, and evaluate the reality have been very scarce, if not, tend to be very instrumental for particular interests.
Non-formal, English language learning, is experienced through non-curricular programs. Many events can be established outside the curricular frame, for instance, those in the form of trainings and certifications of particular English competence with general and specific orientation of English skills. For example, those of TOEIC, TOEFL, Academic Speaking, Academic Writing, English for Work, English for Interview, English for Business, etc. These programs are usually organised by the institutional language centre in a higher education institution, in support of the main English course within the curriculum, and used to equip students with certain skills demanded by the industries. Thus, these programs will be effective and useful when they are inclusively established, and when they consider coherence between the programs with the formal curriculum and industry’s perspectives. In addition, external
parties such as language courses outside the university may additionally expect to support and facilitate those programs dependent on the need.
Students who are participating in any social (student) organisations may experience particular programs that enrich their English competence development such as English training, English competitions, and involving in English speaking community within the university environment. These social events can provide powerful impacts on the English acquisition of students joining the activities rather than relying and centralising on the classroom teaching.A basic consideration would be that English is a language that is, as any other languages, more easily learned through using it in its social contexts where English is used for everyday for specific purposes. Nevertheless, this potential is commonly ignored and marginalised and therefore remains untouchable.
This wide range of opportunity portraits the extent to which the students of higher education may take advantage of the English learning experience. This is a challenge for all relevant parties to continuously develop and innovate the English language education by elaborating all possible ways in order to result in better and quality teaching and learning process.
Reflecting the development of ELE theories to the present reality in Indonesia, there has been a great consensus concerning with the importance of perspectives which regard the English class as a social activity which has to be meaningful for the students to engage in. The theories are helpful for further refinement and innovation of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment through the elaboration of multifaceted approaches to cater for specific contexts for the sake of authentic learning. With this view, claiming the success of English classes should not only rely on the classroom matters but also on the learning environments outside the classroom as a part of social community. This is the reason that makes the reality of learning English beyond the classroom, complicated due to its interrelatedness with its dynamic socio-cultural context. Therefore, ELE in the future should be directed itself to deal with such issues to guide the implementation of English language pedagogy.
Some supreme principles to consider in developing ELE in Indonesian HE context are as follows:
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 9 fundamental for the process, to map and to forecast changes as the effect of dynamic interactions between academic and professional discourse, and between both and the wider socio-cultural contexts. With a relevant philosophical stance and framework, the flow of dynamic changes will not damage the internal construction of the curriculum. Otherwise, without ideology, curriculum development could undergo shallow, problematic and even misleading practice in its process. Examples have been of evidence such as those that are only in the level of its peripheral, and those merely covered the written document of curriculum without being followed by the implementation. In addition, when claiming for having implemented the competence-based curriculum, many universities in fact have implemented what is substantially not a competence-based curriculum, but a performance-competence-based curriculum that is philosophically contradictory.
Moreover, curriculum development needs to consider that the elaboration and collaboration for language curriculum development maps out different pathways in order to create and nurture the appropriate climate for contextual and authentic learning. The pathways of English learning in HE, possess different potential to be linked and elaborated. Formal pathways, for instance, have their vigour in the ultimate status within the socio-cultural contexts, but tend to be very instrumental and bureaucratic. Non-formal pathways concentrate on practical programs such as certification and trainings. Moreover, informal pathways have abundant flexibility and spaces that are not efficiently well employed yet. Excellent English teaching and learning in the HE can be further developed by linking the three pathways together in the proper and appropriate ways.
2. The role of ELE pedagogy needs to be revitalised. The development of pedagogy firstly construes the philosophical stance determined in curriculum development. Secondly, it is not merely a milieu for teaching the students with English, but a centre for developing the curriculum, nurturing the appropriate academic environment to support students’ English learning, improving the teaching methods and in turn, they all mean chances for teacher professional development.
As a centre for developing curriculum, ELE class is a vital research side to observe in order to gain data and evidence to inform curriculum development. The evidence obtained from it can be very beneficial to innovate curriculum. The evidence is essential either to study teaching methodology that will be workable for specific context. ELE class is also central for encouraging the
3. The practice of assessment has to be re-shaped in order to be meaningful for the students and relevant with the learning process. Assessment has multi-purposes—to test the English ability, to diagnose weaknesses, and to support learning. In ELE context in Indonesia, assessment practice tends to be instrumental to know if the students have acquired the intended and targeted skills. This is the practice ofassessment of learning. It is to assert that being co-opted, with assessment of learning can cause serious negative impacts on the process of learning. For teacher, the instructional design inclines to be oriented merely to equip the students with the knowledge (not the skills) of English so that they can answer the questions given on the tests and successful with the tests. With this practice, the teacher tends to ignore the opportunity to work on spaces to nurture the climate for intrinsic learning. What is more crucial in this situation is bringing the students to be successful in the local and national exams, which is strongly theoretical-oriented.
For students, they are trapped on the wrong learning motivation and strategy. For instance, they sporadically prepare themselves for the test without sufficient time to internalise the lessons. Additionally, this climate builds negative assumption in their minds, in which, learning English means learning the knowledge of English rather than using English for communication. More seriously, cheating flourishes the pedagogic practices that are overwhelmed with the practices ofassessment of learning (AoL).
Therefore, assessment for learning (AfL) needs to be nurtured in ELE. This assessment strategy encourages the teacher and the students to orient themselves to“what is meaningful” in the teaching and learning process. Thus, the assessment is intended to help the students learn better than before, not to test them. In this case, assessment is used as a vital tool to reveal what the
students “can do” rather than what the students “cannot do”. On the basis of this
evidence, the teacher facilitates interactions using relevant media (e.g. rubric, worksheet, etc.) in which questioning and feedback are integrated into the pedagogic interaction to help the students recognise themselves during the learning process and to nurture autonomous and independent learning.
Conclusion
The teaching of English in the HE is characterised by its nature that closely relates to particular academic and professional settings. Thus, developing English language education in this context requires all parties who have concerns on it to deal with the complexity of academic and professional context.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication 11 needs. Innovative conceptions that elaborate the educational framework, content-integrated teaching, learning to learn (L2L), learning beyond the classroom, assessment for learning, etc., are desirable in this context. It is therefore necessary to review the tenet of English Language Teaching (ELT) that usually signifies the emphasis on linguistic content and technicality of language teaching as compared with English Language Education (ELE); one which represents a wider and meaningful conception of language teaching. In this case, the tenet of English Language Education (ELE) could be greatly useful to open the opportunity to develop particular educational concepts, philosophies, and practices that are relevant to the English learning in this era.
Alternatively, the word “teaching” in English Language Teaching needs to be
reinterpreted in a wider perspective to avoid being overwhelmed with the linguistics aspects and technicality of classroom-driven teaching that can reduce the meaning of communication and the message.
In Indonesian context, what is lacking until currently is to deal with meaning. Adopting the perspective into the curriculum development requires conceptual framework and theories which see curriculum, pedagogy and assessment as a comprehensive and coherent efforts to place English in the appropriate place—a social device.
References
ASEAN (2008)ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Bernstein, B. (2003b) Class, Codes and Control: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bolton, K. (2008) English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today 94. 24(2). 3-12
Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi (2010) Buku Pedoman Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia.Jakarta
Emilia, Hermawan, B., and Tati, D. (2008) “Pendekatan Genre-based dalam Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris Tahun 2006: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas di sebuah SMP Negeri di Bandung” Laporan Penelitian. Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UPI.
Fortanet-Gomez, I. and Raisanen, C. A. (Eds) (2008) ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating language and content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Kelly, A.V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 6th edn. London: Sage Publications.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2012) Pedoman Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as an Asia Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of ELT.Language Teaching, 1-13
McKernan, J. (2008) Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. Milton Park: Routledge.
Novawan, A. (2008) The effects of previous English learning experience on students’
current English learning motivation and strategy in academic and professional context. Unpublished Research Report: Department of English, Politeknik Negeri Jember.
Print, M. (1993) Curriculum Development and Design. 2nd edn. NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Richards, J. C. (2013) Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: forward, central, and backward design.RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33
Ross, A. (2000)Curriculum Construction and Critique.London: Falmer Press
Schiro, M. S. (2013) Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
TEFLIN (2011) Pernyataan Kebijakan tentang Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia. Focus Group Discussion.Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
