ners, revealed that in some areas, our curriculum changes had resulted in significant improvements in student outcomes. For example, four years after the new curriculum was introduced, grades in mainstream undergraduate courses in the English department showed EAP graduates were achieving higher than expected grades in their introductory English courses. However, perceptions and realities about student success of inter- national students passing EAP courses successfully continued to languish at levels of dissatisfaction in some faculties and departments. In our unit, we understood that in part the problem could lie in the restricted number of months our students received academic English support: fourteen weeks in EAP courses and then into mainstream academic programming without any further English language help. Moreover, we recognized that perhaps our general approach to EAP was leaving students ill-prepared for and vir- tually unaware of discourse-specific language requirements in their receiv- ing academic faculties. After beginning our evaluation process and taking stock of the feedback from our stakeholder partners, we began to grapple with the notion that we need to undertake a more systematic evaluation of our students’ target language needs. As Hyland and Tse (2007) identi- fied, different members of the university academy have “…different views of knowledge, different research practices and different ways of seeing the world [which] are associated with different forms of argument, preferred forms of expression, and … specialized use of lexis” (p. 247). These con- siderations led us to revisit and review the way we were approaching our
curriculum plan and how we were addressing the nature of English for specific academic purposes.
To consider such a large undertaking as reviewing whether we should continue with English for general academic purposes or English for spe- cific academic purposes, we determined that the most manageable way to begin was with a limited pilot study. We chose one department, Eco- nomics, with whom to begin our work. We chose this department as it receives the largest number of EAP students of any individual department and was immediately receptive to our efforts to better support the needs of international students majoring in Economics. We collaborated with members of the Economics department to find out in what ways they felt our EAP graduates were still struggling with academic English language and in what tasks their performance was particularly weak. The results of this collaboration highlighted several key areas for us to rethink our curriculum approach to EAP as it related to Economics majors. Firstly, our writing emphasis on grammatical accuracy was very much needed, but writing, particularly the argumentative essay style of writing we included in our curriculum would not be the primary requirement for an Economics major. The skills valued in an Economics undergraduate student, particu- larly in years one and two, would be an ability to read contemporary arti- cles about economics topics from news sources and specialist publications, as well as an ability to effectively summarize the opinions of others. This information was not well-aligned by our curricular approach which placed value on synthesizing the views of multiple authors into a new argument which reflected the position of the writer. In addition to a need for a more robust introduction to the technical language of economics, there was also a need for our EAP Economics majors to develop an understanding that,
“writers must encode ideas and frame arguments in ways that their partic- ular audience will find most convincing, drawing on conventional ways of producing agreement between members and frequently moulding every- day words to the distinctive meanings of the disciplines” (Hyland & Tse, 2007, p. 247).
As a result of these preliminary findings, we determined that a modified curriculum plan would be developed as an option for Economics majors during the highest two levels of EAP courses offered. In this Economics- only cohort, the focus would be on developing academic English pro- ficiency through studying Economics-related texts and the inclusion of genre-specific writing tasks, as well as general and technical vocabulary
use in Economics. Our partners in the Economics department had indi- cated that a new writing assessment would be introduced for all Eco- nomics majors wishing to enter the third year of Economics. This assess- ment would require them to read and summarize an article from The Economist. This is a challenging exercise for a NNS student as the lan- guage in this publication is rich and varied, frequently peppered with idiomatic language and on contemporary topics. Moreover, writing an effective summary also requires a great deal of focus on reading skills, such as identifying the main idea and being able to follow the logical sequence of a text. In our modified curriculum, we covered both basic essay structure, to support language expectations in other courses and summary writing. We modified summative assessments and rubrics and we selected different textbooks and created new classroom activities. In addi- tion to the modifications to the curriculum plan, we extended the period of English language support to continue into the first semester of main- stream undergraduate study. Students would have the option of attending a workshop designed to offer ongoing vocabulary support and reading strategies development.
Our curriculum plan has been modified to meet this new and emerging need. Our stakeholder partners have given ongoing feedback and given us a chance to re-think how to achieve our program goals. Moreover, our philosophy and principles for EAP have been evolving as we have begun to embrace an English for specific academic purposes approach, and our plan is evolving to adapt to those changing priorities. As the context for our students changes, our plan and our process for modifying that plan have to be adaptable and dynamic in response.
There are many resources available for program administrators responsi- ble for curriculum projects in EAP programs. These resources offer com- prehensive guides to developing and designing curricular documents or standards for English as a second language programs, including EAP, or for the post-secondary setting in general.
Some of these are included for reference:
ATESL Curriculum Framework
Prepared by the professional association for ESL teachers in Alberta, Canada, this publication is composed of eight sections addressing many aspects of ESL curriculum planning and program development. It is intended to be a reference guide rather than a prescriptive description of
curriculum approach. It was written by and for “teaching professionals, particularly curriculum developers, and while the document is grounded in current second language research and theory, it aims to be both acces- sible and practical” (p. 4)
The document can be accessed through the ATESL website, www.
atesl.ca.
ATESL Best Practices
Prepared by the professional association for ESL teachers in Alberta, Canada, this publication is composed of 67 statements of best prac- tice organized around nine themes, followed by indicators that demon- strate that best practice. The themes include, learner support, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The purpose of this document is to describe the common expectations around best practice in adult ESL programs in Alberta. The intent is to offer a “common frame of reference, or perhaps a common language, for all involved in providing ESL… programming”
(p. 2).
The document can be accessed through the ATESL website, www.
atesl.ca.
TESOL Standards for Adult Education ESL Programs
TESOL’s Standards for Adult Education ESL Programs describes the standards for a quality adult ESL program in the US. There are eight areas of programming described, including curriculum.
This document can be purchased in either a print version or a PDF version through the TESOL website,https://sites.tesol.org/Bookstore/
ItemDetail?iProductCode=034&Category=STANDARDS.
Designing and Assessing Course and Curricula (Diamond,2008)
This practical guide, written in plain language, is an accessible guide to course and curriculum development in post-secondary colleges and uni- versities. Although not specific to the second language milieu, it is an invaluable guide to the steps to take in preparing a curriculum, with inter- esting case studies and ready-made resources included.
This book can be purchased in paper version or e-version through all major booksellers.
Conclusion
Throughout our book, we have suggested a comprehensive and cyclical process for developing, implementing, and evaluating a curriculum for an EAP program which puts learners and learning at the centre of the curriculum process. The process we described focuses on the context spe- cific to EAP programs, the students and their goals, the teaching team, and the external stakeholders who play a critical role in the future aca- demic success of the students moving forward. We described a curriculum design plan which focuses on learning but also on the aspects of language learning critical to an EAP student, the ability to use the language in an academic milieu, and integrate into the undergraduate community. We aspired to describe a plan which could offer a framework for other EAP programs wanting to create a structured and organized curriculum plan, with approaches to engage teachers and other stakeholders with the pro- cess for change, and how to implement a comprehensive program renewal and revival. Following that initial implementation, we have considered how a formal evaluation could be completed with a focus on ensuring that ongoing formative feedback and input find its way back into the cur- riculum documents where the project began. We want to leave you with a reflective summary of the nature of curriculum development and eval- uation from Robert Diamond, described by his editor, David Brightman, as a “bright star in the constellation of higher education improvement”
(2008, p. 5):
Designing a course or curriculum is always difficult, time-consuming and challenging. It requires thinking about the specific goals you have for your students, the demands of accreditation agencies, and about how you as a teacher can facilitate the learning process. This demanding task will force you to face issues that you may have avoided in the past, to test long- held assumptions with which you are very comfortable, and to investigate areas of research that may be unfamiliar to you. At times you may become tired and frustrated and wish to end the project. Just keep in mind how important this work is and press on.
References
Aoki, T. T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268.
ATESL. (2009).Best practices for adult ESL and LINC programming in Alberta.
ATESL.
Beile, P. (2008). Information literacy assessment: A review of objective and inter- pretive measures. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008—Society for Information Technology & Teacher Edu- cation International Conference (pp. 1860–1867). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/27469/.
Chambers, W., Gnida, S., Messaros, C., Ilott, W., & Dawson, K. (2011).ATESL adult ESL curriculum framework. ATESL, Canada.
Diamond, R. M. (2008).Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A prac- tical guide.San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
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.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”?TESOL Quar- terly, 41,235–253.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00058.x.
Languages Canada. (2018). Quality assurance scheme standards and specifica- tions. Retrieved from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/73vvpeafcwcqo53/
AAAxh7gT_CwF0mXSwiQrnLE8a?dl=0&preview=LCS01_STANDARDS_
SPECIFICATIONS_February_2018+highlighted+changes.pdf.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010).Language curriculum design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sauvé, V. (2009).A curriculum frameworks research project. Unpublished report for Alberta Employment and Immigration.
A
Administrators, 35–37,50,92, 95, 104,109–111,117
Aoki, T.,86,104
Assessment,2,14,18,23,24,57,59, 61, 68,79,80, 89,111, 117, 118
formative,43,106,108 needs,88
summative,6,25,33,36,50,68, 71,72,77,99,107–111,113, 117
Assessment items,111 ATESL,118
best practices,106,118
curriculum framework, 90,100, 101,117
B
Backward design,6–9,12,19,61,90 Barr & Tagg,18–25
C
Chambers, W.,68,88 Consultation,29,31,36,109 Curriculum, 5–7,10–14,18,21,22,
25,52,108,112,113
as lived,40,47,68,86,100,101, 106,110,113–115
design,7
developer,12,36,70,71,118 evaluation,12,14,104–110,113,
114
plan,36,43,44,47, 54,57,59, 62,68,70,72,78,88,100, 104–110,113,114,116,117.
See alsoCurriculum-as-planned review,41,42,100,106,107.See
alsoRenewal Curriculum a plan,50
Curriculum-as-planned, 13,86,100, 104
Curriculum renewal,12
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
M. Guardado and J. Light,Curriculum Development in English for Academic Purposes,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3
121
D
Designing and assessing course and curricula, 118
Diamond, R., 107,109,112, 118, 119
E
English for general academic purposes, 116
English for specific academic purposes, 116,117
Environment,12
Environmental scan,31,34–40,42 Evaluation, 14,28, 86,100,101,
104,106,109,112,114, 115, 119
F
Feedback,31–33,41,43,61,62,86, 91,110–115,117
formative,59,61,68,119 Formative,104
G
Grammar, 33,46,69–72,83,92,99, 111,113,114
assessment items,72,77,111,113, 114
target teaching items,113
I
Instructional paradigm,24
Instructors,4–7,9,12,18,21,23, 25,35,36,42,50,52,57,59, 61,62,100
L
Learning outcomes,7,9,28,43,108, 110
general (GLO),43,51–54,57,58, 89,90,99,105,108
specific (SLO),43,51,57–59,61, 68,79,80,89–92,99,107, 108,110
M Measures
direct,107,108,110 indirect,107,108,110
N
Needs,19,22,28,30,37–39,50,52, 58,88,89,99,100
NNSET (non-native speakers of English teacher),5
O
Outcomes,7–9,12,19,20,51 Outcomes-based
approach,14,51
curriculum,14,50,51,69,77
P
Paradigm,2,13,18,19,22–24 learning,10,18–21,23–26,110 teaching,21,110
Performance,32
conditions,43,51,54–57,59,61, 78,80,89
indicators,43,51,59,61,63,68, 80,83,89,90
Plan,14,86,87,91,104,106,108, 114
R
Rating scale,33,61–63 Renewal,95