In this section, we provide a narrative description of how we engaged in the process of examining our own philosophical approach. This is intended to provide a grounded, step-by-step process to follow. We believe that it can easily be adapted to suit the contextual factors, needs, and constraints of a particular EAP context.
At the outset of renewing the EAP curricula in our program, we exam- ined the philosophical underpinnings of our existing educational paradigm.
After scrutinizing the decisions, documents, and pathways which had evolved over the twenty years previous with varying degrees of revision, we concluded that the EAP program had strayed towards a largely teacher- centred paradigm. This ‘traditional, dominant paradigm’ (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 13) emphasizes teaching as the end purpose of the curriculum.
For instance, previous curriculum documents described only what teachers were responsible for teaching—a narrow view of curriculum more in line with the termsyllabus (Finney,2002). In turn, this had led to a situation that restricted an understanding of student language proficiency at any given level. In our EAP courses, as is the case in other settings that share similar goals (e.g., Raymond & Parks, 2002), writing had become the
most important aspect of language proficiency. Given that our EAP pro- gram was housed in a university and almost all students were enrolled in post-secondary study or planned to attend university in an English speak- ing context, the results that the teacher-centred paradigm yielded at the time of the review were not fully unexpected. Even though teachers were accountable for what they had taught, this was not a reliable predictor of what students had learned and were able to demonstrate. Furthermore, a rigid instructional paradigm unwittingly promoted the importance of maximizing the amount of material teachers could cover during the term.
Such a teacher-driven agenda may well have led the instructional team to overlook the importance of active learning approaches (Liu & Littlewood, 1997) reflecting contemporary research in instructed language learning, such as task-based language teaching (e.g., Ellis,2003; Skehan,2014; Van Den Branden,2006).
We acknowledged from the beginning that having a consistent and well-articulated philosophical approach was important in achieving the aca- demic and operational linearity we desired. Indeed, we were keenly aware that establishing our philosophical approach carefully and sensibly was key to our ability to substantiate changes to our stakeholders, as well as to resolve unexpected inconsistencies that might arise in our future decision- making. Our primary goal was to put learners and learning at the heart of our thinking and ensure that this vision drove all the decisions about cur- ricula, assessments, and pathways. In other words, we needed to develop a shared understanding of how each curricular component and pedagogical decision could support students in meeting their goals and what it meant exactly to pass one course in terms of academic language skills.
Our starting point was a conscientious perusal of the model for under- graduate teaching and learning proposed by Barr and Tagg (1995). In this model, the authors systematically contrast the instructional paradigm with a learning paradigm. They describe how university programs, courses, and instructors concern themselves with those issues related to instruction but overlook the critical issues related to learning. The approaches are con- trasted across a variety of spectra and in each case it is discussed how both might manifest operationally. As our EAP program operates in a univer- sity, but in a context of language skill development, some adaptation of the model was required. What we found, though, was a meaningful set of criteria against which we could organize our thinking and curricular planning.
As part of the process for establishing the dominant paradigm in an EAP program, it is important to zero in on four of the areas against which the continuum from a teaching to a learning paradigm can be effectively plotted, as proposed by Barr and Tagg.
Moving from Teaching to Learning
Firstly, it is essential to consider how shifting from an instructional paradigm to a learning paradigm might inform the mission and purpose of an EAP program. It is therefore necessary to understand that under the instructional paradigm, the emphasis is usually placed on the provision and delivery of instruction, discussions tend to revolve around determin- ing the sequence of instruction, and time and other resources are invested in developing ways to improve the quality of that instruction. Following the approach of Barr and Tagg, the thinking and planning shift to consid- ering how best to produce learning, to creating optimal language learn- ing environments, and improving the quality of student language learning experiences.
Shifting from a Focus on the Quality of Entering Students to Those Exiting
Secondly, the process and method for establishing the criteria for success in the EAP program has to be considered. Under the present approach, a great deal of time might be spent discussing the quality of instruction and the assessment of the language skills of students entering the program for placement purposes. Under a learning paradigm, the focus needs to put a greater emphasis on the quality of exiting students, as well as the quality of the language learning experience they encounter in the program.
Examining Learning Structures
The ways in which a paradigm shift might evolve the team’s thinking around what Barr and Tagg called learning structures should also be considered. Under the existing model, as previously noted, the curric- ula might describe what material is covered at each level. It may focus on how the EAP program can create an optimal environment for teaching.
As a program and organization, those involved in this process need to
refocus their thinking, which will enable them to ask a different set of questions about their learning structures. Instead they could reflect on:
• What learning can be demonstrated by individual learners?
• What role can objective (possibly external) evaluation play in mea- suring language proficiency?
• How can we ensure that course completion is determined by lan- guage proficiency rather than by other factors?
• How can technology support language learning?
Revising Learning Principles
Finally, it is necessary to adopt an understanding that a new learning paradigm means that the EAP program would be fundamentally altering its learning theory principles. It may appear that a shift in learning princi- ples should be the first consideration; however, an understanding of a shift in learning theory is directly related to how decisions are operationalized.
From learning theory comes the view of how knowledge is constructed and created by students, rather than delivered piecemeal by instructors.
From learning theory comes a consideration that learning will be student- centred and to some degree, student-controlled. And perhaps most sig- nificantly, this change to learning theory asks the curriculum team to con- sider, as Barr and Tagg (1995, p. 17) frame it, that ‘talent and ability are abundant’ in students. These theoretical considerations directly impact the learning context and are in no way viewed as aspirational vision-type statements.
These shifts may be seen as subtle, and, as some more change-resistant practitioners might argue, at times may appear semantic. Teachers might reasonably challenge the curriculum team to define, for instance: in what way is an optimal learning environment really a significant change from an optimal teaching environment? We argue that these changes are sig- nificant, over-arching, and deeply meaningful. These shifts will prove vital when designing documents, framing research questions, developing pro- fessional development around the implementation of the curriculum, and creating valid and reliable summative assessment instruments. Making such shifts will make it possible to explain in a systematic way to the instructional team, as well as to the broader stakeholder community, why those important choices for change have been made. As new approaches
are tested, such clarity will reassure them why the work was undertaken in the first place.
In this chapter, we have walked practitioners and other readers through the process for how to undertake the journey of evaluating an EAP pro- gram. We applied the learning paradigm as a philosophical guide in this process, but used an EAP-specific lens for a more effective and efficient approach, which we hope will be informative and practically useful.
References
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.Change, 27(6), 12–25.
Douglas, S., & Kim, M. (2014). Task-based language teaching and English for academic purposes: An investigation into instructor perceptions and practice in the Canadian context.TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 1–22.http://dx.doi.
org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1184.
Ellis, R. (2003).Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Finney, D. (2002). The ELT curriculum: A flexible model for a changing world.
In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),Methodology in language teaching:
An anthology of current practice (pp. 69–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Guardado, M., & Light, J. (2018). Innovation in EAP programmes: Shifting from teaching to learning in curriculum design. In L. T. Wong & W. L. Wong (Eds.),Teaching and learning English for academic purposes: Current research and practices (pp. 143–160). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371–384.
Raymond, P., & Parks, S. (2002). Transitions: Orienting to reading and writing assignments in EAP and MBA contexts.Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(1), 152–180.
Skehan, P. (2014).Task-based performance and task-based instruction: Research contributions.Paper presented at the Plenary address to the Task-Based Learn- ing SIG-JALT, Osaka, Japan.
Van Den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van Den Branden (Ed.),Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Getting to Grips with the Environment:
Program Goals Defined
Abstract Guardado and Light consider how to undertake the process of a comprehensive scan of the environment within which the EAP pro- gram operates in order to develop broad program goals from which a detailed curriculum plan can be built. In a step-by-step approach, the authors outline the phases involved, the options for expanding or limiting the scan, and some of the constraints which may be pertinent. Moreover, even throughout this initial phase of establishing the context for curricular renewal, emphasis is placed on the importance of engaging with all stake- holders who will be responsible for implementing curriculum change or who will ultimately be part of determining if such a change has been suc- cessful. To this end, the chapter offers concrete techniques, instruments, and a variety of suggestions for collecting different types of relevant data to make informed decisions throughout the process of conducting a com- prehensive environmental scan.
Keywords Environmental scan·Program goals·Needs analysis ·EAP stakeholders
© The Author(s) 2020
M. Guardado and J. Light,Curriculum Development in English for Academic Purposes,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3_3
27
Questions to ask yourself about the context for your EAP program
• How well do we understand the environment within which our EAP program operates?
• What specific language and academic skills do our learners need when they complete our program?
• Do we understand the academic pathways our students plan to follow once they leave our program?
• What constraints does our program face in terms of future curriculum and broader program development?
• Are our stakeholder communities satisfied with our graduates’ lan- guage proficiency?
• How is our EAP program currently being experienced by both teach- ers and learners in the classroom?
• Are there any pedagogical priorities considered optimal for classroom instruction?
This chapter focuses on how a full understanding of the context for an EAP program fundamentally shapes the development of program learning goals. These goals will in turn support the development of the learning outcomes which provide the framework for the curriculum, and allow the language learning tasks and classroom activities which make up the daily classroom operations. Language learners enrolled in EAP programs tend to have a well-defined purpose for studying in these courses: effective integration into a mainstream undergraduate program of study. This clear definition supports curriculum writing as outcomes can be targeted to supporting this purpose, but also describes a set of stakeholders who have clear expectations about those who complete the EAP program, as well as their capacities and abilities to function within the mainstream academic environment (Fig. 3.1).
Our model for developing curriculum considers three main aspects of the context in which the EAP program operates for evaluation as the program goals are developed: the environment of external and internal stakeholders; the needs of the EAP learners; and the pedagogical priorities of the program and language centre.
Fig. 3.1 Model of EAP curriculum design (Adapted from Nation and Macalister [2010] by the authors, Guardado and Light [2018])
Understanding the Environment
In this section, we will offer a comprehensive consideration of those ele- ments which make up the environment of external and internal stake- holders, who each play a critical role in the successful learning pathways of EAP learners.
For each element, we will describe the importance of this group to the process, as well as techniques and tools for completing this consultation.
External Stakeholders
English for specific purposes courses, like EAP, necessarily operate in an environment with a well-defined community of external stakeholders, in comparison to general ESL programs. For EAP programs, that commu- nity may also be quite large in members and spread across a broad range of academic faculty partners and central university support areas. EAP pro- grams commonly occur before or during a learner’s participation in main- stream undergraduate study (McDonough, Neumann, & Hubert-Smith, 2018). This necessarily involves a number of academic partners with a vested interest in the individual students and the program itself, more broadly speaking. Understanding the needs of these academic partners, as well as appreciating the language skills truly needed for success in the academic milieu, are the foundation of developing an effective EAP cur- riculum.
Who Are the External Stakeholders for an EAP Program?
Each context for EAP will have its own uniquely defined list of exter- nal stakeholders, dependent on the post-secondary institution, structure of the EAP program within the undergraduate program of study, partic- ular undergraduate pathways for EAP learners, and others who may be tasked with oversight of the EAP program, such as the Registrar’s Office or International Office partners.
EAP programs which are formally integrated into bridging, pathway, or foundation programs are likely the most constrained by the strictures of external stakeholder partners. EAP programs that operate as less formal- ized academic preparation courses may want to plan around these con- siderations, but may not find themselves constrained by such a detailed consideration of all of them.
Receiving Academic Faculties
Academic faculties receiving EAP graduates can perhaps be considered as the primary external stakeholder for an EAP program. This is both in terms of providing critical input on the particular academic literacies and skills needed for success in their programs of study, as well as offering support of EAP programs by recognizing their value as part of the under- graduate admission process. Interviews with key personnel from academic
receiving faculties are a critical starting point for a scan of the external environment.
Goal for environmental scan: Determine what academic literacies and skills are required for EAP students to make a successful transition to mainstream study.
Goal for environmental scan: Determine how well former EAP stu- dents are currently functioning in their academic pathways.
• What are the defining academic and language skills needed for non- native speaker (NNS) students to achieve success in undergraduate programs?
• Are the current skills and strategies we are teaching in our cur- rent curriculum/courses the most pertinent for the current academic milieu?
• What target skills appear to currently be gaps in our program docu- ments?
• How well are our EAP students faring in mainstream programming?
Consultation Process
Stakeholder interviews with chairs of departments, faculty responsible for teaching, teaching assistants.
When interviewing and gathering feedback from receiving academic faculty partners, it is important to design questions to elicit the informa- tion particular to this context. Questions for this group might include some of the following, which may obviously need adjusting for your con- text:
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses that you observe in students entering your programs from EAP courses?
2. Look at the following list of language skills. Please rate using 1 to 5 the students’ language proficiency to complete these tasks among students entering your programs from EAP courses (1=not strong enough to complete the tasks appropriately −5 = very strong and able to complete the task at a similar level to a native speaker (NS) student):
a. Writing papers
b. Using correct citation format
c. Writing short answer questions in an exam
d. Writing reflective blogs as part of an online assignment e. Responding to the blog postings of others
f. Emailing the professor/TA g. Reading articles and papers h. Summarizing articles and papers
i. Listening to lectures
j. Following instructions on assignments k. Giving class presentations
l. Participating in class discussions
3. Are there any other activities not included on this list which should be a priority for developing skills among students entering your pro- grams from EAP courses?
4. Do you have any quantitative data about the performance of stu- dents entering your programs from EAP courses which you could share with us?
5. What is the one thing we could be doing better in preparing stu- dents entering your programs from EAP courses for your academic program?
Although each academic department is likely to give slightly different responses depending on the specific genre and discourse patterns of aca- demic language required in different disciplines, general trends are likely to emerge.
Curriculum planning in our context