Book Curriculum Development in English for Academic Purposes

(1)

Curriculum Development in English for Academic Purposes

A Guide to Practice

Justine Light

(2)

for Academic Purposes

(3)

Martin Guardado · Justine Light

Curriculum Development

in English

for Academic Purposes

A Guide to Practice

(4)

University of Alberta Edmonton, AB, Canada

NorQuest College Edmonton, AB, Canada

ISBN 978-3-030-47467-6 ISBN 978-3-030-47468-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.

in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

(5)

I was away at university, and in that way led me to believe that writing was fun and a normal part of everyday life…ha!

Justine Light

To my mother who planted the seed of education and to my sister Ana Maria who nurtured it.

Martin Guardado

(6)

Sitting down to write the foreword to this book, I tallied up the years I’ve been involved with teaching English as an additional language at the post-secondary level. As I thought about the highlights of my career over the years, the conditions that fostered those highlights came to mind. It seemed that teachers, staff, and students all did better when there was a shared vision and purpose to what we were doing. What’s more, it was a shared vision and purpose that informed a living curriculum that provided guidance while allowing for creativity and opportunities to craft meaningful learning experiences. I also thought about the people I’ve met over the years, and the authors of this book immediately came to mind. Through their writing, presentations, and service to the field, they are leaders in the teaching and learning of English for academic purposes, and this book ar- ticulates their expert vision for designing and implementing an English for academic purposes curriculum with the potential to ignite teaching and learning and enable excellence in the field.

The six chapters of this book come together to create a useful roadmap for the planning and implementation of an English for academic purposes curriculum. Readers get a good sense of the nature of the field as well as the challenges curriculum designers face organizing teaching and learning for students heading toward full-time studies in higher education. As a starting point to overcoming these challenges, backward design is presented as a framework for the task at hand. The importance of a carefully articulated philosophical approach, including strategic plans, visions, and

vii

(7)

mission statements, is also covered as a way of informing pedagogical priorities and bringing together shared understanding among everyone involved in the process. Once the philosophical approach is set, goals and outcomes are next taken into consideration along with concrete ways to carry out an environmental scan and clear examples of what outcomes might arise from a program’s broad goals. The implementation of those goals and outcomes is covered, with tools for implementation and tips for managing change. Finally, the book points to the cyclical nature of curriculum evaluation and illustrates the process with examples from the authors’ context.

Curriculum renewal is a daunting but exciting process that can invigo- rate English for academic purposes teaching and learning and foster students’ success as they make their way through their post-secondary studies. This book helps by making the process less daunting and supporting meaningful renewal that contributes to strengthening English as an additional language teaching and learning in higher education.

Scott Roy Douglas, Ph.D.

Okanagan School of Education The University of British Columbia Kelowna, Canada

(8)

While working in key leadership roles in our University EAP program, our process for reviewing and renewing our EAP curriculum was largely unsupported by the lack of recent practical curriculum design guides avail- able. Through our own applied research, lived experiences with managing change, and years of trial and error, we developed a bank of practical knowledge that could be used to help other practitioners facing similar needs and challenges. Thus, we decided to write this book to help other EAP professionals engage in the process of renewing curriculum in their own contexts using the steps we developed, informed by theory, research, and lessons learned in practice.

This book is the result of our collective experiences in language learning and teaching accumulated over more than 20 years. Even though both of us have been practitioners, researchers, and administrators of language programs, our experiences can be more accurately described as comple- mentary. Justine Light identifies primarily as a curriculum expert, with a notable track record developing language programs and curricular frame- works in many relevant contexts. Martin Guardado is a professor and ad- ministrator with many years of experience teaching English. Over the last five years, we have worked together on curriculum development and language program management in EAP, and this book is the result of what we have learned and created together during these years.

ix

(9)

With the above credentials, it became quite natural for us to want to produce an accessible guide that makes a solid bridge from theory to practice. Our approach is straightforward: we are firmly grounded in theory, particularly the learning paradigm, curriculum design of EAP, and TBLT, and translate these elements directly into a step-by-step process of renewing or creating a new curriculum. The design process we present in the book is illustrated with multiple examples from an actual EAP curriculum.

We also made the decision to include reflections on how we implemented these steps in our own context. The result, we hope, is an easy-to-follow guide that we wished existed when we undertook a major EAP curriculum renewal process several years ago.

We wrote this book for EAP practitioners, curriculum developers, and administrators; however, in the process of writing, we realized that the content as well as the approach we took would also be of interest to student teachers, graduate students, and researchers.

Finally, we would like to thank the students, teachers, and other col- leagues who helped develop some of the insights that are contained in the book, as well as those who supported different aspects of preparing the manuscript.

Edmonton, Canada Martin Guardado

Justine Light

(10)

1 Introduction and Overview of Book 1

Purpose of Book 2

What Is EAP: The Nature and Purpose of English for

Academic Purposes 3

The Challenges of EAP 4

Curriculum Design Models 6

Backward Design and TBLT 8

EAP Curriculum Design Model and Principles 10 Guiding Principles for EAP Curriculum Design 11

Outline of Book 13

References 15

2 Philosophy and Learning Principles 17

The Importance of an Educational Philosophy 18

The Learning Paradigm 18

A Process for Re-framing and Developing a Program

Philosophy 21

Moving from Teaching to Learning 24

Shifting from a Focus on the Quality of Entering

Students to Those Exiting 24

Examining Learning Structures 24

Revising Learning Principles 25

References 26

xi

(11)

3 Getting to Grips with the Environment: Program

Goals Defined 27

Understanding the Environment 29

External Stakeholders 30

Internal Stakeholders 35

Understanding Learner Needs 38

Infusing Principles and Pedagogical Priorities 42

Current Teaching Environment 42

Understanding the Underlying Principles Which

Make up a Teaching Philosophy 44

Pedagogical Priorities for a Contemporary EAP Classroom 46

References 47

4 Formatting Curriculum Content: Program Learning

Goals Realized 49

Understanding Outcomes in EAP Curriculum 51

General Learning Outcomes 51

Performance Conditions 54

Specific Learning Outcomes 57

Performance Indicators 59

Sample Tasks 68

Addressing the Language Focus in EAP Curriculum 69 Building an Explicit Grammar Curriculum 70 The Critical Link Between Summative Assessments and

Curriculum Revisions 77

Performance Conditions 78

Specific Learning Outcomes 79

Performance Indicators 80

References 83

5 Implementation and Evaluation: Bringing the Plan to Life 85

Implementation and Evaluation 86

The Notion of Curriculum as Planned and the

Curriculum as Lived 86

The Implementation 92

Steps Towards a Successful Curriculum Launch 95 Monitoring the Ongoing Curriculum as Lived 100

References 101

(12)

6 Evaluating the Plan and Lived Experience of the

Curriculum: Completing the Circle 103

Why Evaluate? 104

Evaluating the Plan in Light of the Lived Experience 104

When to Evaluate? 106

How Frequently Should an EAP Curriculum Be Evaluated? 106

How to Evaluate? 107

Direct and Indirect Measures of the Curriculum Impact 107

Who to Consult During the Evaluation? 109

The Most Important Stakeholders: Students 110

Internal Stakeholders: Teachers 112

External Stakeholders: Beyond the Organization 115

Conclusion 119

References 119

Index 121

(13)

Fig. 1.1 Model of EAP curriculum design (Adapted from Nation and Macalister [2010] by the authors, Guardado and Light

[2018]) 11

Fig. 2.1 The relationship between the learning paradigm, backward

design, and TBLT 20

[2018]) 29

Fig. 4.1 The hierarchy of general learning outcomes, performance conditions, specific learning outcomes, performance indicators,

and sample tasks 51

[2018]) 87

Fig. 5.2 A staged curriculum implementation to ensure seamless

learning experience for students 93

[2018]) 105

xv

(14)

Table 4.1 Elaborating SLOs through performance Indicators (B1−

Writing) 60

Table 4.2 Elaborating SLOs through performance indicators (C1

writing) 60

Table 4.3 Rating scale for writing (B1−) 62

Table 4.4 Rubric for writing (B1−) 64

Table 4.5 Connecting SLOs to Sample tasks 69

Table 4.6 An example of the grammar assessment items in the

curriculum from a B1− EAP course 73

Table 4.7 An example of the target teaching items in the curriculum

from a B1−EAP course 75

Table 4.8 B1 writing curriculum 80

Table 4.9 Description of grammar items in the assessment rubric 81 Table 5.1 Activities which can be undertaken to ensure a smooth

curriculum launch 96

Table 6.1 Checklist for grammar portion of summative assessment

B1 112

xvii

(15)

Introduction and Overview of Book

Abstract This introductory chapter describes the central purpose of the book, and outlines its structure. The first goal includes a brief overview of the nature of English for academic purposes, drawing attention to some of the particular challenges of organizing the teaching and learning environment in an EAP setting. Then, the authors provide a brief background of their own experiences renewing EAP curricula, introduce the curricular model that informs the book, backward design, and present the curriculum design and evaluation model which has been developed in their context. Finally, the chapter outlines the structure of the book.

Keywords Curriculum design models·Backward design·English for academic purposes·Principles of curriculum design

Questions to ask yourself about your context

• Do we understand why we are doing things the way we are?

• Do we have a philosophy of teaching and learning?

• Do we have a plan to implement this philosophical approach?

M. Guardado and J. Light,Curriculum Development in English for Academic Purposes,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3_1

1

(16)

• Do we support our teachers and learners in achieving the program’s goals through our curricular documents (including assessments)?

Purpose of Book

The purpose of this book is to provide a step-by-step guide that can help practitioners effectively review and manage their English for academic purposes (EAP) learning environments. Because the content is based on current theory and research, and also grounded in and realized through relevant experiences of the authors, it offers a systematic yet flexible and context driven approach for others to share.

We are very aware that there have been several editions of curriculum development texts, some of which have been written with language learning contexts in mind. However, it is clear that many of these lack an EAP focus, or are becoming a little out of date and thus pre-date important developments in communicative language teaching (CLT), such as task- based language teaching (TBLT), which we address later in the book.

Throughout the book, we provide explicit guidance and practical tools that practitioners can use to examine their own contexts purposefully, prompting them to engage in critical reflection and helping them to better understand their learning settings, and the historical and contextual factors driving them to do the things the way they do. A central part of this process involves taking an institutionally inward look to figure out whether their own EAP program possesses a philosophy of teaching and learning, either explicitly stated or implicitly held. Whether it is tacit or expressed, we provide suggestions that are grounded in our own experience for implementing such a philosophy, and offer an example from our own practice of a paradigm that we believe is strong and current, and show how it can be implemented. This theoretical approach also sug- gests ways in which such thinking can be conveyed to teachers and learners, and how it can support them in achieving the program’s goals. In essence, the result of how we have organized the content of the book provides a method which is grounded in a robust, research-informed and philosophically-driven foundation, with a deeply practical and easily rec- ognizable classroom approach. The purpose of the book is to support

(17)

practitioners in all facets of curricular work in EAP contexts and we are confident that they will find it a very accessible and practical guide.

What Is EAP: The Nature and Purpose of English for Academic Purposes

EAP refers to teaching English in order to prepare learners to func- tion in academic settings, usually as they study or engage in research (Flowerdew & Peacock,2001). Driven by an increase in international students and new immigrants, the number of people seeking to study EAP in Canada (Douglas & Kim,2014) and elsewhere (Charles,2013) has risen steadily over the past few decades. EAP emerged as a minor branch of English for specific purposes (ESP) in the 1980s (Hyland, 2006) as the English language became a more dominant global language. Presently, English is a major international lingua franca for business and it is the lingua franca for academics, playing a gatekeeping role in academic pub- lishing and other opportunities for knowledge dissemination and career advancement (Charles & Pecorari, 2016). Due in part to the perva- siveness of beliefs linking immersive language learning contexts to language mastery, well-resourced students from non-English-speaking backgrounds commonly seek out educational experiences in English-medium of instruction (EMI) environments in inner-circle (Kachru, 1992) countries (e.g., the UK, Australia, Canada) and increasingly, in expanding circle countries (e.g., Switzerland) (see Snow,2016, for a thorough discus- sion of EMI and academic language development).

Unlike other areas of ESP, such as English for nursing, EAP classes are often characterized by disciplinary diversity. An EAP class at the undergraduate or graduate level might consist of business, computing science, and agriculture students (among others), each field with its own lexis and communicative norms. While there are academic activities that are com- mon to all disciplines, such as attending lectures and writing academic texts (Charles & Pecorari,2016), the multiple layers of diversity in EAP learning contexts also present unique challenges to learners and educators. In the following section, we outline some of the challenges of organizing teaching and learning in an EAP setting. These challenges can be addressed thanks to the development of EAP in recent years, which has benefited from various theoretical and empirical advances. No longer a fringe movement, EAP has now taken a leading role in the innovation of

(18)

teaching English as a second and foreign language, particularly in relation to theory building, research development, and practice (Hyland, 2006).

The Challenges of EAP

There are particular challenges of organizing the teaching and learning environment in an EAP setting, several of which are outlined in Charles and Pecorari’s (2016) book, Introducing English for Academic Purposes.

Some of the challenges relate to the policies pertaining to EAP and its sta- tus within the institution, while others relate to the students, the instructors, and of course, the teaching of language and content itself. Charles and Pecorari remark that EAP tends to be regarded as ancillary to the core work of universities, which in turn, can have an effect on resource allocation and other forms of support. Additionally, smaller institutions may not have large cohorts of students with similar levels of language proficiency and/or disciplinary aspirations, which can pose challenges for instruction and planning.

Students represent varying abilities and backgrounds (linguistic, cultural, subject-specific), which are as much strengths as they can be challenges. As Basturkmen (2010) observes of ESP learners more generally:

In some cases learners are already working or studying, or have already worked or studied in their target workplaces or disciplines, and thus have knowledge of their specific ways of working. In other cases, learners may not have entered their targeted communities and have little understanding of what work or study in these communities involves. (p. 12)

Relatedly, fostering students’ social acculturation—in addition to their academic socialization—has been found to be a relatively overlooked area in EAP, but an important one that can lead to greater experiences of success beyond the EAP program and into the degree programs and professional lives of EAP students (e.g., Cheng & Fox, 2008; Fox, Cheng, Berman, Song, & Myles, 2006; Tweedie & Kim,2015).

Diversity in terms of educational, linguistic, and cultural background can also be found among an EAP teaching team. To narrow in on educational background, whether EAP instructors started their careers as subject specialists and became EAP instructors, or whether they have always been English as an additional language (EAL) or EAP instructors (Charles

& Pecorari,2016), appropriate resources and training can be a challenge,

(19)

even for well-resourced universities. The disposition of instructional staff to adopt relevant teaching methodologies can also impact the successful implementation of EAP. For instance, some EAP instructors have reported a degree of reluctance to plan dynamic and relevant learning activities such as task-based projects due to the significant time invest- ment and “buy in” required of international students expecting more traditional methods (Douglas & Kim,2014) (see the next section for more detail on the benefits and drawbacks of task-based language teaching in Douglas and Kim’s [2014] study).

Another critical aspect of diversity on an EAP teacher team, particularly in an ESL setting, may be the duality of native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English. Since the 2000s, researchers have been drawing attention to the increasing numbers of NNS English teachers (NNSET) around the world. Moreover, as Moussu & Llurda (2008) noted, NNSETs “used to provide English instruction exclusively in EFL contexts, but now are found occupying teaching positions in English- speaking countries as well” (p. 319). While these two constructs of NS and NNS generally describe only differences in expertise and experience as language users (Moussu & Llurda, 2008), EAP instructors across the continuum of professional competence and experience are a rich source of input into an EAP curriculum. As Martinez (2017) stated, “all language educators, whether NS or NNS, deserve their place and recognition in the language teaching profession because both have much to say and offer” (p. 3). An EAP curriculum context offers an incontrovertible venue for the contributions of both NS and NNS because as Mahboob (2017) argues, no one is a NS when it comes to the specialized language require- ments of the academic context. While NS teachers may offer insights on language use gleaned from their own contexts (Widdowson,1994), perhaps as learners in the English post-secondary milieu, NNSET may be better able to anticipate and predict the language difficulties students may face (Medgyes, 1994). Furthermore, NNSETs can “empathize well with their students’ learning difficulties and understand what it is to be home- sick and to experience culture shock” (Moussu & Llurda,2008, p. 322).

In the development of an EAP curriculum, the diverse voices of NS and NNSET provide a critical data set, and as Llurda (2009) observed, “We cannot afford failing to incorporate diversity in all aspects of our lives involving language: from language analysis to language teaching and language use” (p. 48).

(20)

Aside from challenges at the institutional and experiential levels, teaching and learning EAP is itself a thoroughly complex undertaking. To sin- gle out only one aspect of EAP language instruction, Charles and Peco- rari (2016) have written that vocabulary is “of critical importance to EAP learners”. … yet “to attain comprehension to an acceptably high level, a reader must know the vast majority of words in the text: somewhere between 95 percent and 98 per cent” (p. 115), which can be a monu- mental task in academic settings where new terminology appears regularly (see also McDonough, Neumann, & Hubert-Smith,2018). In fact, “terminology is arguably of greatest relevance to EAP students, since their objective is to use English in order to learn about their subject areas, and terminology cannot be separated from subject knowledge” (Charles &

Pecorari,2016, p. 116). However, the instructor may lack the discipline- specific knowledge to teach terminology, or there might not be enough students in the class from a given discipline to make teaching its terminology worthwhile.

Curriculum Design Models

Richards (2013) groups curriculum approaches in language teaching into three categories:forward,central, andbackwarddesign. He explains that

“forward design is based on the assumption that input, process, and out- put are related in a linear fashion” (p. 8). In other words, in this curriculum design model, the first consideration is usually the topic or theme, followed by a selection of materials and activities related to the topic, and then finally the summative assessment, which follows from the activities.

Forward design is ideally suited for language teaching contexts where “the aims of learning are understood in very general terms such as in courses in ‘general English’” (Richards,2013, p. 9) and the development of language skills remains unspecified. In theory, this model would not neces- sarily be well suited in an EAP class, whose overarching goals are quite specific to academic language development, and in some cases, further specified according to academic discipline or vocation. Depending on the amount of time afforded and the goals of the EAP students in a given course, forward design could be integrated into an EAP context in the form of a supplementary or reflective assignment, such as a novel study, which would have the added benefit to EAP learners of building a lexical repertoire.

(21)

Central design can be thought of as an activity- or methods-based design. The emphasis of this approach is on the learner’s experience and on learning processes; the achievement of learning goals and objectives, themes and content are all secondary considerations. Like forward design, central design has its advantages, but may not be best suited to EAP’s outcomes-oriented nature. Wiggins and McTighe (2005), strong proponents of backward design (described below) might characterize central design’s focus on activity over learning outcomes as committing one of the “sins of traditional design,” namely that it can produce an entertaining lesson that incidentally leads to learning, but that ultimately lacks intel- lectual intent or direction. As Richards (2013) points out, all approaches to curriculum design can be valid and productive in the right context.

Backward design begins by specifying the learning objectives and then proceeds to identify the approaches (learning activities, etc.) for achieving these objectives. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) have described backward design in three stages: (1) identify desired results; (2) determine acceptable evidence; and (3) plan learning experiences and instruction.

Both forward and central design would begin with the third and final stage of the backward design model, beginning with the identification of topic or theme and the identification of learning experiences or activities, respectively. One of Wiggins and McTighe’s (2006) principal critiques of other approaches to curriculum design is what they call the “twin sins of traditional design,” namely that “activity-based” and “coverage-based”

designs, without explicit attention to learning objectives, foster “aimless”

or ineffective learning environments (p. 16). Backward design, by contrast, has the learning goals or outcomes at the forefront of every lesson and learning experience.

Richards (2013) notes that backward design has been widely applied in language teaching contexts, particularly “in situations where a high degree of accountability needs to be built into the curriculum design and where resources can be committed to needs analysis, planning, and materials development” (p. 29). Given the focused nature of EAP programs, especially the fact that conducting a needs analysis is a routine practice (Charles & Pecorari,2016), and the instructors’ commitment to planning and materials development to meet the specific needs of their students, backward design would appear to be well suited for such programs.

(22)

Backward Design and TBLT

TBLT is a top down response to the form-focused and teacher-fronted classroom practices that fell out of favour after the 1970s (Van den Branden,2006). Pioneering work by a number of scholars (e.g., Michael Long, Patricia Porter, N. S. Prabhu, Peter Skehan, Graham Crookes, and others) initiated a move away from rather decontextualized linguistic syl- labi and teaching and towards approaches that focused on interaction and negotiation of meaning. This work was at least partly responsible for the emergence of TBLT, which has surfaced in the last two decades as an updated and robust variety of the meaning-focused but largely unstruc- tured CLT approaches that dominated the field in the 1980s and 1990s.

Notably, there is no unified view of TBLT, and in fact, even the defini- tion of what constitutes a task itself can vary across TBLT versions. As Bygate (2016) notes, “TBLT does not of itself impose an ensemble or set sequence of pedagogical procedures, other than the inclusion of tasks as a central point of orientation within the programme” (p. 396). However, what proponents share is the commitment to language learning activities that closely mirror the tasks learners will need to perform in the real world. Based on a review of definitions of task, Ellis (2003) proposes key characteristics of a language-learning task, namely, a task:

• is a workplan

• involves a primary focus on meaning

• involves real-world processes of language use

• can involve any of the four language skills

• engages cognitive processes

• has a clearly defined communicative outcome (pp. 9–10).

Skehan (2014) further states that tasks can be narrowly or broadly con- ceived, thus allowing for a range of types of activities, some with tightly- controlled practice and others with the potential for high engagement.

Whereas CLT is mainly meaning-based, TBLT focuses on meaning while also incorporating a psycholinguistic orientation, which facilitates more direct linkages to second language acquisition (SLA) research (Skehan, 2014).

Like backward design, TBLT is an outcomes-oriented approach to language teaching and learning that “provides opportunities for students to engage in the authentic use of the target language through tasks”

(23)

(Richards, 2013, p. 3), which many EAP instructors and students have also found to be valuable. Indeed, TBLT has been recognized as an ideal language teaching approach for EAP settings (e.g., Newton et al.,2018).

To investigate this relationship, Douglas and Kim (2014) surveyed 42 EAP professionals in Canada to understand their perceptions of TBLT for EAP. A majority (86%) indicated that TBLT was appropriate in EAP contexts, and almost three quarters (69%) reported using TBLT in their classrooms. While the task is the key characteristic and element in TBLT (Douglas & Kim, 2014), it is not to be confused with central design, where an engaging activity is seen to be sufficient to stimulate learning. In TBLT (as in backward design), tasks are created with very specific learning outcomes in mind. Indeed, the complexity of task design in EAP contexts seemed obvious to Douglas and Kim’s (2014) participants, with 16% of the participants identifying “excessive instructor preparation”

(p. 14) as a significant drawback for implementing TBLT in their classes.

Designing even typical academic tasks such as presentations, essays, and interviews, was time consuming due to the consideration of multiple outcomes. Task selection could be relatively simple, but the implications had to be thought through carefully, and clear connections made to learning outcomes. For instance, an interview task could include interviewing someone in the field the student hoped to pursue, and then presenting their findings and reflections on the interview to the class. Other major drawbacks teachers identified included a mismatch with student expectations for learning (teachers had to “sell” their students on the value of TBLT), and insufficient classroom time to properly execute the tasks. The benefits, however, were significant. Teachers reported practicality, effectiveness, and learner-centeredness as the main benefits of TBLT: practicality, insofar as the tasks were relevant to the specialized needs of EAP students (i.e., how these prepared them for the actual activities they were expected to perform in their degree programs); effectiveness, in terms of fostering a sense of accomplishment in students; and learner-centeredness, because the higher degree of student involvement in their work prompted greater autonomous learning and commitment. Douglas and Kim (2014) highlighted one teacher’s reflections as representative of other participants’ feelings on TBLT in EAP:

Students feel a great sense of accomplishment, but you [instructors] have to weather a lot of anxiety and complaining and griping, and you have to

(24)

be very clear on what they are learning from this, and why you are doing it this way. (p. 19)

Thus, an arguably often overlooked benefit of TBLT in EAP courses that prepare students for mainstream undergraduate and graduate university programs is that in well-designed task-based learning, students come to understand that the discomfort of learning in an unfamiliar, non-traditional way can be very beneficial to their English development and overall academic socialization, which is a major asset when facing the unknowns of (Western) university culture beyond EAP.

EAP Curriculum Design Model and Principles

As we strive for a practical and applicable approach in the book, in this introductory chapter we begin to establish a process chart to show how we envision curriculum to be at the heart of EAP program management, as well as a set of principles that inform and guide our EAP curriculum design approach. We elaborate on both of these components more thoroughly in Chapter3and refer to them throughout the book.

At the outset, it is important to understand the context in which the curricular work will be carried out, as well as where it will be implemented in order to best ensure success for learners, teachers, and the EAP program. Nation and Macalister (2010) view curriculum design at a broad level. They recommend carefully considering a variety of factors that will impact the success of the course or program being developed. To this end, they suggest reviewing the students’ current language skills and needs, resources such as time and level of professionalism of teachers, as well as principles of language learning, and the overall environment. With this set of goals in mind, the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to program renewal cannot be emphasized enough. Therefore, we have analyzed the language curriculum design model proposed by Nation and Macalister (2010), and adapted it for EAP contexts (see Fig.1.1).

As an essential part of adapting the model, we carefully considered our program philosophy (the learning paradigm, addressed in detail in the next chapter), our language learning principles (also addressed in the next chapter), as well as our EAP curriculum development principles (listed below).

(25)

Fig. 1.1 Model of EAP curriculum design (Adapted from Nation and Macalister [2010] by the authors, Guardado and Light [2018])

Guiding Principles for EAP Curriculum Design

1. EAP curriculum development is a highly integrative process involving a wide range of stakeholders, each with specific considerations operating in a relatively high-stakes environment.

(26)

2. EAP is a unique strand of ESL instruction, with a narrowly defined focus and clear pathways on exit, and as such, has unique considerations when undertaking curriculum design.

3. Curriculum development is seen as a continuous and ongoing process; once a curriculum plan is written, it begins to live in the classroom and so planning and evaluation are a continuous cycle.

4. Every step of curriculum development and implementation can be seen as an opportunity to engage instructors, those critical team members who will bring the plan to life, in a reflective process.

5. Program learning goals are at the heart of the EAP curriculum process, using a backward design model which puts outcomes, both general and specific, as the descriptors of how the course operates as both a preparation for undergraduate or graduate study and as a standards framework against which readiness is measured.

6. Principles for effective instructed language learning and other pedagogical priorities which align with the broader strategic vision for the language school form an important part of the context within which the EAP program operates.

Curriculum in Our Context

Throughout the book we provide contextualized descriptions of our own experiences in curriculum overhaul in order to ground the book in practice. Through our own experiences as the Director of and the Curricu- lum Developer for a highly successful EAP program in a North American research university, we have gained important insights throughout the process of our work. In our own experiences of EAP curriculum renewal, we applied the adapted model in order to begin the curriculum evaluation with a concurrent review of the environment within the School, the needs of our students, and a reflective and candid consideration of the pedagogical principles driving our classroom instruction practices. In looking at our environment, we reviewed the context for instructors, the pathways offered between courses and programs, and the resources and constraints that greatly influenced the programs that could be offered. Given that we view evaluation as a continuous and ongoing consideration, encircling all parts of the process, we decided to modify the model to ensure that this goal is captured clearly.

(27)

As a result of our own contextualized experience, we have developed a vision for success and operationalized that vision in a very large program. It is true that we have made mistakes, but have made meaningful progress in renewing and revitalizing our program with a coherent and shared vision for learning and teaching success. In this book, we aim to help other programs to reflect on their own programming and apply some or all of the tools for program renewal and revitalization that we have developed and found useful. This type of program overhaul is a necessary part of the continuously changing nature of EAP and learner drivers, including a desire to study overseas. Pedagogical movements, such as the ever-evolving shift to a TBLT approach, require forward thinking and planning. This book answers thewhy and thehowof implementing curriculum change, as well as the critical considerations of the curriculum as planned and lived and the imperative for teacherengagement throughout.

Outline of Book

The book is organized in 6 chapters, which together sequentially outline the process for renewing an EAP curriculum; however, each chapter is at the same time self-contained and could be used independently to complete just a limited aspect of a curriculum development initiative. In each chapter, a series of questions are posed, designed to encourage reflection about how the chapter content relates to the particular context of the reader. The goal is to make the book readily applicable to the singular context within which the practitioner/reader is operating. Furthermore, while the book maintains its principles-driven approach, each chapter is filled with tools, samples, and examples drawn from our own experiences to ground the book in a notably practical outlook.

In Chapter 2, we establish the importance of beginning a curriculum development or overhaul process by starting with an examination of the philosophical underpinnings of the existing educational paradigm in the EAP program. We explain that if a stated philosophy is not immediately apparent in program mission or vision statements, it can in fact be deduced by examining the decisions, documents, and pathways which have evolved over the previous decade. We guide the reader in establishing a philosophical approach carefully and sensibly as key to the ability of a program to describe changes to its stakeholders, as well as to resolve

(28)

unexpected inconsistencies that might arise in future decision-making. In a nutshell, the primary goal in Chapter2is to articulate how to put learners and learning at the heart of EAP programming and to inform many of the future decisions about curriculum, assessments, and pathways a program may face.

In Chapter 3, we elaborate in detail on the EAP curriculum model that we introduced in the current chapter. As part of this elaboration, we carefully consider how to undertake the process of a comprehensive scan of the environment within which the EAP program operates. In a step-by- step approach, we outline the phases involved, the options for expanding or limiting the needs analysis, and some of the constraints which may be pertinent.

Chapter 4 highlights how understanding what learners are able to do at the end of the course becomes paramount in the format of the curriculum itself. The chapter focuses on the nature of an outcomes-based curriculum, and how this type of curriculum seeks to describe what a learner who is successful in passing the course is able to do. The chapter explores the rationale for an outcomes-based approach to EAP curriculum and describes in detail all of the aspects which need to be considered for inclusion in the document to promote optimal learning opportunities for students. The chapter provides detailed guidance and numerous examples to demonstrate how pedagogical principles can be incorporated into the curriculum documents and tasks.

Chapter 5 elaborates on a plan for program-wide curriculum implementation, including tools which can facilitate the process. In line with the original model of curriculum development introduced in Chapter 1 which illustrates evaluation of the curriculum as an ongoing process, Chapter 5 outlines an approach to conducting a formal curriculum evaluation.

Finally, Chapter 6presents the final step in the cyclical process of curricular planning, the undertaking of a formal curriculum evaluation. This chapter addresses both the important philosophical question of why it is essential to incorporate the lived experience of the curriculum into the plan but also offers a comprehensive guide to the how, when, and who of a curriculum evaluation. At the same time, this chapter aims to complete the circle as described in Fig.1.1by insisting that curriculum evaluation is an ongoing and enriching part of the process of curricular planning.

Together, all the chapters provide a well-grounded but practical guide to this key component of EAP program management.

(29)

References

Basturkmen, H. (2010).Developing courses in English for specific purposes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching.The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400.https://doi.org/

10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566.

Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137–153). Oxford, UK: Wiley.

Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016).Introducing English for academic purposes.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2008). Towards a better understanding of academic acculturation: Second language students in Canadian universities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.

65.2.307.

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.

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.). (2001).Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, J., Cheng, L., Berman, R., Song, X., & Myles, J. (2006).Costs and benefits:

English for academic purposes instruction in Canadian universities (Vol. 23, pp. 1–108). Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies [CPALS]. Ottawa:

Carleton University.

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. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book.

London: Routledge.

Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue (2nd ed.) Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Llurda, E. (2009). The decline and fall of the native speaker. In L. Wei

& V. Cook (Eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics: Volume 1 Lan- guage teaching and learning (pp. 37–53). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.5040/

9781474211789.ch-002.

Mahboob, A. (2017). Understanding language variation: Implications of the NNEST lens for TESOL teacher education programs. In A. J. D. D. Martinez

(30)

(Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English language classrooms: Profes- sional challenges and teacher education. Retrieved fromhttps://ebookcentral.

proquest.com.

Martinez, A. J. D. D. (2017). Introduction. In A. J. D. D. Martinez (Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English language classrooms: Profes- sional challenges and teacher education. Retrieved fromhttps://ebookcentral.

proquest.com.

McDonough, K., Neumann, H., & Hubert-Smith, N. (2018). How accurately do English for academic purposes students use Academic Word List words?

BC TEAL Journal,3(1), 77–89. Retrieved fromhttps://ojso.library.ubc.ca/

index.php/BCTJ/article/view/293.

Medgyes, P. (1994).The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.

Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research.Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.https://

doi.org/10.1017/s0261444808005028.

Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010).Language curriculum design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Newton, J. M., Stoller, F. L., Grabe, W., Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., &

Ferris, D. R. (2018).Teaching English to second language learners in academic contexts: Reading, writing, listening, and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge.

Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design.RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.https://doi.org/

10.1177/0033688212473293.

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.

Snow, M. A. (2016). Content-based language teaching and academic language development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 159–185). New York and London: Rout- ledge.

Tweedie, M. G., & Kim, M. (2015). EAP curriculum alignment and social acculturation: Student perceptions.TESL Canada Journal, 33(1), 41–57.http://

doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v33i1.1226.

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: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005).Understanding by design(2nd ed.). Alexan- dria, VA: ASCD.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life.Educational Leadership, 63,26–29.

(31)

Philosophy and Learning Principles

Abstract This chapter addresses the need to begin any curriculum renewal work with an examination of the underlying philosophical approach of the EAP program, including stated or implied language learning principles. The chapter also describes the need to build a shared understanding of those philosophies with the teachers in the program.

As well, special consideration is given to the role of a strategic plan or a mission or vision statement in the context of curriculum renewal, and the benefits of considering the development of such a document and statements if they do not already exist. Finally, the authors engage with the topic of pedagogical priorities, and make a case for the compatibility of a task-based methodology within the philosophical approach that is proposed in this model of EAP curriculum renewal.

Keywords Educational philosophy·The teaching paradigm·The learning paradigm·Language learning principles·TBLT

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3_2

17

(32)

Questions to ask yourself about your context

• Have we explored our philosophies of teaching and learning in the context of our EAP program?

• How have we endeavoured to build a shared understanding of those philosophies with our teachers?

• Have we articulated our philosophies of teaching and learning in a program mission or vision statement?

• How long has it been since we revisited previously developed statements pertaining to our philosophical approach?

• Do we have certain pedagogical priorities (e.g., task-based language teaching approaches)?

The Importance of an Educational Philosophy

First of all, we will establish the importance of beginning a curriculum development or overhaul process with an examination of the philosophical underpinnings of the existing educational paradigm in an EAP program.

If a stated philosophy is not immediately apparent in program mission or vision statements, it can in fact be deduced by examining the decisions, documents, and pathways which have evolved over the previous decade or two. Establishing a philosophical approach carefully and sensibly is key to the ability of a program to describe changes to its stakeholders, as well as to resolve unexpected inconsistencies that might arise in future decision-making. Our primary goal in this chapter is to articulate how to put learners and learning at the heart of EAP programming and to inform many of the future decisions about curriculum, assessments, and pathways a program may face.

The Learning Paradigm

One useful paradigmatic approach is to examine your program, and to analyse it in light of the teaching versuslearning paradigm explained in detail by Barr and Tagg (1995).

Almost 25 years ago, Barr and Tagg proposed a radical shift in how we think about teaching and learning in higher education, from a focus on instructors and instruction, to a focus on learners and learning—a

(33)

shift they call “the Learning Paradigm.” Barr and Tagg summarize the difference in approaches this way:

In the Instruction Paradigm, the mission of the college is to provide instruction, to teach. The method and the product are one and the same.

The means is the end. In the Learning Paradigm, the mission of the college is to produce learning. The method and the product are separate. The end governs the means. (p. 15)

Some key differences between the two paradigms include the student taking ownership for constructing knowledge within teacher-designed learning environments, rather than the teacher or expert as purveyor of knowledge to their students; identifying specific learning outcomes and results in collaboration with students, rather than merely focusing on covering syllabus-dictated material; and remaining open to whatever methods support learning—including cross-disciplinary and interpersonal collabora- tions—rather than the de facto classroom-lecture model (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 16). Barr and Tagg’s vision is much more detailed than these three differences can capture, but even with this cursory glance at the differences, it is still possible to see the ontological resonance that the learning paradigm (macro-level curricular planning) has with backward design (meso-level curricular planning) and task-based language teaching (micro- level curricular planning), discussed in Chapter1 (see also Fig.2.1). For instance, in step with backward design,

The Learning Paradigm … . supports any learning method and structure that works, where “works” is defined in terms of learning outcomes, not as the degree of conformity to an ideal classroom archetype. In fact, the Learning Paradigm requires a constant search for new structures and methods that work better for student learning and success, and expects even these to be redesigned continually and to evolve over time. (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 20)

The learning paradigm emphasizes the learner’s needs and strengths, rather than instruction (content, methods), and aims to foster learning environments that help learners to successfully achieve their goals. Put differently, it “ends the lecture’s privileged position, honoring in its place whatever approaches serve best to prompt learning of particular knowledge by particular students” (Barr & Tagg,1995, p. 14)—a move that is

(34)

Fig. 2.1 The relationship between the learning paradigm, backward design, and TBLT

clearly well suited to language learning, particularly from a communicative or task-based language teaching perspective. Some of the ways that the learning paradigm moves learners from the periphery to the centre of their own learning include:

• Stepping out of the students’ way. According to Barr and Tagg (1995), learning environments may even be “teacherless”: “While teachers will have designed the learning experiences and environments students use - often through teamwork with each other and other staff - they need not be present for or participate in every structured learning activity.” (pp. 21–22)

• Recognizing that learning may take more or less time than the arbi- trary demarcation of time on the academic calendar. Students who master the specified learning skills and outcomes more quickly are rewarded with commensurate progress through the program, while students who take longer are rewarded with more time to master those same skills. (Barr & Tagg,1995)

• Providing the framework for students to be successful in achieving their goals—i.e., “the achievement of overall student educational objectives such as earning a degree, persisting in school, and learning

(35)

the ‘right’ things - the skills and knowledge that will help students to achieve their goals in work and life” (Barr & Tagg,1995, p. 15), rather than to simply access the institution that confers degrees.

• Recognizing the skills and talents of all students as relevant to their learning, and working with them to apply them, while identifying and developing areas for further growth. (Barr & Tagg,1995)

Despite offering what appears to be a highly relevant and useful framework for EAP programs, there do not appear to be many (if any) EAP programs whose curricula have been explicitly informed by the teaching and learning paradigm (see Guardado & Light,2018). Nevertheless, a number of EAP instructors in Canada use TBLT in their classrooms (Douglas & Kim, 2014). Most instructors who reported using TBLT in Douglas and Kim’s (2014) research also reported deriving benefits from this student- and learning-centered method, although they did characterize one drawback as cultural mismatches in expectations about teaching and learning (Douglas & Kim,2014). Students used to more traditional models of teaching and learning (e.g., the teaching paradigm) may find the use of such learning-focused methods initially disorienting. Students are not alone in this sense of disorientation, however. We also found similar skepticism among some of our EAP instructors when we began the process of curriculum renewal, who voiced concerns about the degree to which optimal learning and teaching environments could truly be distin- guished. Nevertheless, resistance among instructors was minimal, and was mitigated largely by involving them in every stage of the process, which ultimately fostered a sense of pride and ownership of the new curriculum, as well as a sense of responsibility to implement it. Interestingly, the participants in Douglas and Kim’s (2014) research who reported students’

initial reluctance to embrace learning-centered methods also came to see their benefits through active participation in their own learning at all levels, and derived a sense of accomplishment that came with completing tasks that were relevant to their learning goals.

A Process for Re-framing and Developing a Program Philosophy In this section, we present a meaningful set of criteria against which programs and practitioners can organize their thinking and curricular planning. By the end of this process, practitioners will be able to describe

(36)

the dominant paradigm in the EAP program and recognize some significant ways to shift to a more learning-centred approach. We also consider how a paradigm shift might evolve our thinking around what Barr and Tagg called learning structures. Through the use of practical, practice- oriented questions, it is possible to focus on how a program can create an optimal environment for learning. Rather than focusing onteaching- oriented questionssuch as:

• What technology did we need to provide for teachers?

• How quickly could grades be posted?

• How could we ensure that class attendance played a pivotal role in course completion?

• How could we ensure that the teacher was central in determining whether a student had passed a course, rather than a final, standard exit assessment?

We demonstrate how an evolution of philosophy turns up a different set of questions with an evolved thinking, which will be addressed in a section below.

I. Developing a philosophy: Our own process

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

(37)

most important aspect of language proficiency. Given that our EAP program was housed in a university and almost all students were enrolled in post-secondary study or planned to attend university in an English speaking 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 academic 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 curricula, 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 undergraduate 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 university, 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.

(38)

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 determining 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 considering how best to produce learning, to creating optimal language learning 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 curricula 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

(39)

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 language 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 principles 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 consider, 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 significant, over-arching, and deeply meaningful. These shifts will prove vital when designing documents, framing research questions, developing professional 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

(40)

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 program. 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.

(41)

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 program 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 stakeholders who will be responsible for implementing curriculum change or who will ultimately be part of determining if such a change has been successful. 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 comprehensive environmental scan.

Keywords Environmental scan·Program goals·Needs analysis ·EAP stakeholders

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47468-3_3

27