An evaluation of the writing curriculum for first year and second year students of english at hanoi university of language and international studies, vietnam national university (HULIS VNU)

After teaching students of English of the firstand second year students at Hanoi University of Languages and International studies,Vietnam National University HULIS-VNU I have found out

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF

LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LE DIEM PHUC

AN EVALUATION OF THE WRITING CURRICULUM FOR FIRST YEAR AND SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (HULIS-VNU)

(Đánh giá chương trình môn Viết của năm thứ nhất và năm

thứ hai cho sinh viên Tiếng Anh tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại

học Quốc gia Hà Nội)

M.A Combined Programme Thesis

Major: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60 14 10

Hanoi, 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF

LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ DIỄM PHÚC

AN EVALUATION OF THE WRITING CURRICULUM FOR FIRST YEAR AND SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (HULIS-VNU)

(Đánh giá chương trình môn Viết của năm thứ nhất

và năm thứ hai cho sinh viên Tiếng Anh tại Đại học

Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội)

M.A Combined Programme Thesis

Major: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60 14 10

Supervisor: Dr TÔ THI ̣THU HƯƠNG

Hanoi, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE

Acknowledgements i

Abstracts ii

Table of contents iii

List of figures, tables and abbreviations vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the problem and the rationales for the study 1

2 Aims and objectives 2

3 Significance of the study 2

4 Scope of the study 3

5 Methodology 3

6 Organization 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Definition of curriculum, syllabus, course books 5

1.1.1 Curriculum 5

1.1.2 Syllabus 6

1.1.3 Curriculum vs Syllabus 6

1.1.4 Course books 7

1.2 Classification of curriculum 7

1.2.1 Curriculum as content 7

1.2.2 Curriculum as experience 8

1.2.3 Curriculum as framework 8

1.2.4 Outcomes-based curriculum 8

1.2.5 Standards-based curriculum 9

1.2.6 Criticism of different curriculum development methods 9

1.2.6.1 Limitations of a top down model 9

1.2.6.2 Bottom-up/school-based curriculum development 11

1.3 Curriculum development 13

1.3.1 Preparation for curriculum development 13

1.3.1.1 Establishing the curriculum development task 13

1.3.1.2 Clarification of the task 14

1.3.1.3 Support structures for the project 14

1.3.2 Curriculum evaluation 15

1.3.2.1 Why to evaluate 15

1.3.2.2 When to evaluate 16

1.3.2.3 How to evaluate 17

1.4 Continuity and coherence through various stages in curriculum development 20

1.5 Summary 24

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 2.0 Research questions 26

2.1 Participants 26

2.2 Data collection instrument 27

2.3 Procedures of data collection 28

2.4 Procedures of data analysis 29

2.5 Summary 30

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 How do the syllabus components and course book contents match course objective? 31 3.2 How do the syllabus components and course book guarantee the continuity and coherence through stages in curriculum development? 45

3.3 How do the syllabus components and course book guarantee the internal consistency

of the curriculum? 48

3.4 What problems occur as a consequence? 49

3.5 Summary 52

CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 4.1 BA TEFL Course/Context description 54

4.2 Suggestions for improvement 55

PART C: CONCLUSION 57

REFERENCES 59

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 I APPENDIX 2 XVII APPENDIX 3 XXX APPENDIX 4 LVI APPENDIX 5 LX APPENDIX 6 LXI APPENDIX 7 LXII

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

Page Figure 1

Evaluation of curriculum development process

The checklist for Continuity and coherence throughout stages in curriculum developmentThe differentiations between stages in learning and teaching process

Survey and Interview participant description:

Students’ result in reflection and summary exercisesHanoi University of Languages and International Studies – Vietnam National University

162433

4451

2021

23

2732

1, 2, 3, 26,

30, 31,

LX, LXI,LXII

Thank you for evaluating AnyBizSoft PDF Splitter.

A watermark is added at the end of each output PDF file

To remove the watermark, you need to purchase the software from

http://www.anypdftools.com/buy/buy-pdf-splitter.html

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study

Curriculum development has always been intensely attended by educators and teachersbecause a good curriculum can guarantee the success of a course Curriculum reforms havebeen carried out very often in education in general and English Language teaching inparticular to make it up-to-date and efficient After teaching students of English of the firstand second year students at Hanoi University of Languages and International studies,Vietnam National University (HULIS-VNU) I have found out some unreasonable things inthe writing curriculum in general and course book in particular For example, students ofthe first year are required to master complicated types of writing like summary andreflection while they are supposed to reach level 2 of ALTE Besides, their writings are inthe format of an essays with standard structure of introduction, development andconclusion paragraph whilst second year students start with learning about writingparagraphs This breaks the continuity throughout stages of the whole English languageskill program In addition, the first year and second year writing programs share a number

of common learning contents but each item is developed and taught to students differentlywith no explicit reason All of these can cause a lot of difficulties and problems to teachingand learning process especially the waste of time and energy Furthermore, there areincreasing complaints from both teachers and students that the language program atEnglish Teacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU last too long (three fourth of theuniversity study duration) while its graduates’ English competence is sometimes muchlower than that of students who undertake short English courses at English centers forIELTS or TOEFL preparation

With a view to finding out firstly the problems and then the ways to increase the quality ofthe English writing program for first year and second year students at HULIS-VNU inparticular and the whole English language program in general, I have decided to do a

research on the topic “An evaluation of the writing curriculum for first year and second year students of English at Hanoi University of Languages and International studies, Vietnam National University (HULIS-VNU).

2 Aims and objectives

Using McKay’s and Scarino’s (1991) assertion that a curriculum include: A syllabus, i.e a

plan of action outlining goals, objectives and learning content; Strategies for teaching and learning in the classroom; Learning resources; An assessment scheme; and Evaluation strategies, the paper aims at making a thorough investigation into the English writing

curriculum of the first and second years mainly through analyzing their course books andsyllabuses to figure out their strengths and weaknesses In particular, the researcher isgoing to answer the four following questions:

1 How do the first and second year writing syllabus components and course book contents match course objectives?

2 How do the syllabus components and course books guarantee the continuity and

coherence through stages in curriculum development?

3 How do the syllabus components and course books guarantee the internal consistency of the curriculum?

4 If there are some mismatches, what problems occur as a consequence?

After coming up with the answers to the above questions, the researcher would like to givesome suggestions to enhance the English writing curriculum of the first and second yearand even for the language skill training program of English Teacher Education Department– HULIS - VNU More importantly, with the findings of the research, I hope to shorten thelanguage skill program to save time, money and energy for students, teachers and theinstitutions as the planning manifested through the curriculum can reduce, before a classeven meets, about half the work for teaching a course (Vogler, 1997)

3 Significance of the study

The study results would be very helpful to various groups including students at EnglishTeacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU, course curriculum developers, EnglishTeacher Education Department – HULIS - VNU and researchers in both theoretical andpractical aspects

First and foremost, the innovations that are triggered by the findings of this research willensure students achieving the highest English competence within the shortest period of

time Regarding English Teacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU, this is theopportunity for them to reform their training programs for higher quality Moreover, theycan save a lot of money, time and energy thanks to a more condensed and effectivecurriculum Concerning course curriculum developers and course book designer, they canrecognize the points in need of improvement in their products and learn valuable lessonsfor future work from the suggestions made by the participants and the researchers Last butnot least, researchers can benefit a lot from the rich and thorough literature review for theissues related especially the criteria to evaluate a English Language Teaching program and

a comprehensive curriculum construction process

4 Scope of the study

Within the scope of this study, I am going to evaluate the implemented (UNESCO-IBE,

2007) writing curriculum for the first year and second year students in 2009-2010academic year The focus is the match between the course objectives with learning contentand activities, the continuity and coherence through various stages and the consistency inthe English writing program revealed in the syllabus and the course books

5 Methods of the study

To find out the answers to the four above research questions, the researcher has adoptedboth quantitative and qualitative research methods The research tools would include:

Document analysis: Curriculum, Course guide and course book analysis: I made an

exhaustive study about the course guide with explicit explanation of course objectives,skills, structure, assignments, assessment and grading, and list of reference materials aswell as the writing course books of both English language Division1 and 2 to disclose anyteaching item that non-match the course objectives as well as that breaks the continuity andconsistency of the whole program

Students’ paper analysis, Student Questionnaire and teacher Interview: The analysis

of 100 students’ papers, questionnaires for 100 sophomores and interviews for 5 teacherswho have taught both of the target writing programs were conducted to help the researchergather practical evidence for the conclusions from course guide and course book analysis.Moreover, these data were used to elicit the respondent’s ideas for the final researchquestion about the consequences of the existing problems in the target writing programs

Syllabus Designer Interviews: Besides, interviews were also conducted with the syllabus

designers of English Language Divsion1 and 2 to have a deeper look into the weaknesses

of the curriculum and their consequences, which allows me to make suggestions forcurriculum improvements

6 Study structure

The study has six main parts: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature review, (3) Methodology, (4)Data analysis and discussion (5) Suggestions for improvement and (6) Conclusion

In the literature review, we are going to discuss four main issues: firstly, the researcher is

going to deal with the definitions of main concepts in the research including curriculum, syllabus, and course books Especially, in this part, I am going to distinguish the terms curriculum and syllabus, which are very confusing and hence misused The second point is

curriculum classification with five main types of curriculum that have been utilized in

educational history namely Curriculum as content, Curriculum as experience, Curriculum

as framework, Outcomes-based curriculum, and Standards-based curriculum To help

readers to have a more insightful look into each type of curriculum, the study also provides

a list of advantages and disadvantages of bottom-up and top-down curriculum Thirdly, theresearcher is going to discuss the curriculum development process with two important stages ofpreparation and evaluation In the end, I am presenting the role and the way to maintain thecontinuity and coherence throughout stages in curriculum development,

The third chapter is going to present the methodology of the research with detailedinformation about the participants, the research tools, the procedure of data collection, andthe procedure of data analysis

In the fourth chapter, I would like to present the results of data analysis and how theyanswer four research questions

In the fifth chapter, after describing the target course with the specific information aboutwho and how the curriculum have been built up and adjusted, I am going to make somesuggestions to improve the curriculum design of the target English language program

In the final chapter, the researcher aims at providing the readers a thorough overview ofthe research with a summary of the most important results and suggestions

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Definition of curriculum, syllabus, course books

A range of terminology may be used in the specification of curriculum development task

with curriculum and syllabus being the most popular and important.

1) ―The educational purpose of the program (the ends)

2) The content teaching procedures and learning experience which will be

necessary to achieve this purpose (the means)

3) Means for assessing whether or not the educational ends have been achieved.‖

(Richards & Platt, 1993, p.94)

Sharing this stance, McKay and Scarino (1991, p.23) claim that a curriculum includes: 1) A syllabus, i.e a plan of action outlining goals, objectives and learning content 2) Strategies for teaching and learning in the classroom

3) Learning resources

4) An assessment scheme

5) Evaluation strategies

Holding the strong belief that a curriculum should involve the consideration of “the whole

complex of philosophical, social, and administrative factors that contribute to the planning

of an educational program.” (Nunan, 1988, p.6); in this research, I have adopted thedefinition in broad view given by McKay and Scarino (1991) Furthermore, I use

UNESCO definition of an implemented curriculum as what is “actually carried out in

school or followed by teachers and school administrators for the students” (UNESCO-IBE,2007) to refer to the writing curriculum under investigation in this thesis

1.1.2 Syllabus

Regarding the definition of syllabus, many people try to conceptualize syllabus by making

a clear distinction between syllabus and methodology They believe that methodology is concerned with the selection and grading of tasks and activities while syllabus relates to the

selection and grading of content Whereas, others question this strict separation so they

seek to define syllabus in a different way Widdowson (1984) states that a syllabus is a

framework within which activities can be carried out or in other words a teaching device tofacilitate learning Another representative of this approach is Breen (1984) who claims thatany syllabus will show indirectly certain assumption about language, about thepsychological process of learning and about the pedagogic and social processes withinclassroom This paper adopts the expanded definition of syllabus as a statement of content,tasks, and activities, and that the tasks of the syllabus designer are to select and grade thiscontent (Nunan, 1998)

1.1.3 Curriculum vs Syllabus

Questions concerning the differences between the two terms curriculum and syllabus have

arisen One of the reasons for this confusion may be the North American understanding of

the term curriculum, which is often used interchangeably with syllabus For American

people, both can be used in America to mean teachers' requirement for a particular course

In fact, do these two terms have the same or different reference? Nunan (1998) confirmed

there are several conflicting views on just what distinguishes syllabus design and curriculum development However, up to now, scholars seem to have come to an agreement about the scope of those two concepts A syllabus is more specific and more concrete than a curriculum “a curriculum is a very general concept” while “syllabus

concerns with a specification of what units will be taught” (Allen, 1984, p.61) Krahnke, K

(1987) shared this view by saying that syllabus is a statement of the plan for any part of a

curriculum excluding the element of curriculum evaluation itself and the syllabus should

be viewed in the context of an ongoing curriculum development process.

To sum up, curriculum and syllabus cannot be interchanged; a curriculum is broader than asyllabus in scope Syllabus is more localized and is based on accounts and records of whatactually happens at the classroom level

1.2.1 Curriculum as content

This is a classical way of understanding curriculum In this model, curriculum means adetailed description of contents of teaching (syllabuses or syllabi) that teachers shoulddeliver to their pupils through teaching This model derives from the classical Tylerianeducation rationale that views teaching and learning process as a linear causal relationship(Tyler, 1949) According to this curriculum logic, carefully pre-determined educationalobjectives lead to appropriate selection of content that will be taught and to choice ofrelevant teaching methods that fit with the qualities of students and teachers Evaluation oflearning outcomes will then be used to regulate the new “input” or planning of teaching.This curriculum model has been typical in many countries It is a common solution in lessdeveloped education systems especially when there is a shortage of adequately trainedschoolteachers The reasons for the prevalence of this approach are that it is systematic,follows the ideas of industrial management, and has therefore considerable organizing

power For example, many European countries used to have a content-oriented curriculum

in 1970s when a school curriculum was rapidly renewed

1.2.2 Curriculum as experience

This curriculum model is based on an assumption that the process through which the goals

of schooling are achieved is more important than the content that is used as an object ofstudy Probably the best-known advocate of this curriculum modal was Americaneducationalist John Dewey in early 20th century Later on, curriculum as experiencebecame alternative to classical content-based curriculum However, curriculum model thatemphasizes experiences rather than transfer of information is more vulnerable to externalcritics (especially from traditional academic spheres) and also more difficult to use as abasis for educational evaluation and assessment for student learning

1.2.3 Curriculum as framework

Another alternative to often relatively fixed content-based curriculum has been so calledframework curriculum that only sets an objective and provides broad guidelines for actualcurriculum planning Framework curriculum is normally a comprehensive document thatdescribes the overall aim of schooling, more specific goals of education, and objectives ofteaching subjects or integrated subject groups The purpose of such a frameworkcurriculum is to leave decision-making and curriculum planning authority to teachersthemselves

Framework curriculum model also requires that the education system has highly qualifiedand committed personnel in place

1.2.4 Outcomes-based curriculum

In 1980s mostly in North America, the focus of curriculum planning started to shift fromteaching, i.e subjects, content, methods, and other arrangements, to what students shouldactually learn as a result of school education An idea of outcome-based curriculumexpanded widely and was also adopted as a learning principle of many large-scalecurriculum reforms The key idea of outcomes-based curriculum is that it guides theplanning of teaching by more precise description of intended learning outcomes In otherwords, this curriculum model consists of descriptive attainment targets for learning invarious subjects For example, it may provide teachers with very detailed lists ofknowledge and skills that students should achieve in any given level of their schooling

This outcomes-based curriculum became very popular model in many education reforms in1990s because it gave politicians, parents, and students more specific picture of what isexpected from schools in terms of learning outcomes Moreover, it also made externalassessment and testing of that learning more relevant due to commonly agreed expectationsthat the curriculum spelled out

1.2.5 Standards-based curriculum

The next generation of outcomes-based curriculum was standards-based curriculum modelthat goes even further in setting the criteria what students should know and be able to do indifferent subjects and at different phrases of schooling The basic logic of standards-basedcurriculum model is that the State sets the standards for learning and learning that are thesame for all students, teachers, and schools These standards are normally subject-specific,detailed descriptions of expected learning outcomes per grade or phase of schooling Aparticular strength of standards-based curriculum is their provision of measurable criteriafor evaluating the quality of the course

However, the current trend is the combination and integration of more than one curriculumtypes Curriculum is an ongoing process, not a product that never ceases once a curriculumframework and a package of prescribed teaching/learning materials are produced andintroduced in an educational system It is no doubt that curriculum t is the heart ofeducational improvement (Pinar et al, 1995)

1.2.6 Criticism of different curriculum development methods

1.2.6.1 Limitations of a top down model

A top-down model of curriculum development may be conceptualized in terms of a set ofhierarchically ordered processes that are centrally initiated and controlled and that areusually performed by selected expert committees A decision is made by the supremeauthority in the educational system to start the whole process A steering committee will beentrusted with the production of the educational philosophy A number of workingcommittees will be selected for producing the curriculum guides/ frameworks for differentstages and school subjects or subject areas A co-coordinating committee will be entrustedwith the co-ordination of work done in different committees at different levels The duties

of the working committees might include the production of a retrospective sequence through the analysis of existing curriculum documents and then producing the

prospective scope-and-sequence based on the goals and broad guidelines specified in theeducational philosophy/strategy Materials will then be produced or selected Materialsproduction takes many forms and involves various processes depending upon severalfactors In most cases, however, this will be the work of committees including textbookwriters and editors In the different variants of the top-down model, attempts will be made

to make those materials teacher-proof through the production of teacher manuals thataccompany different textbooks for different stages and grades This process might alsoinclude lots of brainstorming, fact finding, pooling of ideas, proof reading, revising andpublicizing conferences in which the views of all stakeholders are sought

Proponents of this model or its variants normally consider such activities major efforts toget all parties concerned, including teachers, involved Teachers’ involvement here might

be viewed as attempts to familiarize them with what is going on and, probably, ensure thatthe products are suitable for or feasible in the local market Only during theimplementation stage are teachers actually involved The implementation committees willarrange for textbook training, and in some cases trialing language teaching materials on asmall scale before they are finally introduced nation-wide Presumably, this model has itsown ways of market evaluation However, the teachers’ role will be confined toimplementation of the new product in exactly the same way in which expert designersintended it to be implemented All measures are taken to suppress/circumvent anycriticism; and any difficulties encountered by implementers will normally be interpreted asindicators of their ignorance of, or at least lack of familiarity with, the new product But themost important advantage of this model is that tremendous nation wide changes that arecentrally controlled can be coercively introduced in a relatively short time

Depending entirely on this model may have both short-term and long-term disadvantages.First, curriculum development in this model looks like an educational raid that ends withreplacing the currently used textbooks by a new series that may, or may not, constitute agreat improvement on the old ones depending on a host of other factors such as theexcessive caution of the change agents to be system-sensitive (Markee, 1997) This isspecially clear when the change agent is an expatriate as is the case in foreign languageteaching More often than not I am being reminded by teachers of very interesting features

of the old materials that they miss in new ones Moreover, no change agent will ever dare

to introduce too many theoretically motivated innovative features given the filtering roleoften played by system constraints Therefore, the newly introduced textbooks may, in veryfew years, require a new educational raid in which they meet the same fate of theirpredecessors This is specially disturbing because most educational systems cannot affordsuch costs of frequent textbook replacement Second, and perhaps more disturbing, is that

it can result in teacher resistance to and/or misinterpretation of innovative features Thisargument is supported by the often dwelt upon phenomenon of the gap between theory andpractice To this issue we return later in the section about teacher professional growth.With all attempts made to produce teacher-proof materials through the production ofhighly prescriptive teacher manuals, teachers may reinterpret any task or language learningexperience Third, detailed guidance given to teachers about how to implement materialsdesigned by experts can lead to guidance jams and feelings of insecurity, anxiety and arelatively low level of self-efficacy It might be argued that such phenomena are expectedonly in the initial stages of implementation However, this prescriptive approach candevelop what might be called pedagogical dogmatism Fourth, as Markee (1997, p 64)argues, it

“…discourages individual initiatives – a quality indispensable to the long termmaintenance of innovation – because it turns teachers into passive recipients of changeagents’ dictates.”

Finally, lack of teacher involvement results in feelings of a lack of ownership Beingexcluded from ELT curriculum development decisions and the associated feelings of lack

of ownership detrimentally affect teachers’ commitment to the success of the newlyintroduced innovative features

1.2.6.2 Bottom-up/school-based curriculum development

In many parts of the world such as USA, Britain, Australia and some other European andSouth-Asian countries, many attempts have been made to develop curricula using bottom-

up models (Bolstad, 2004) In almost all these attempts, teachers in a particular school orregion of a country will be entrusted with developing their school curricula collaboratively.Several definitions of school based curriculum development (SBCD) are available in theliterature Skilbeck (1984, cited in Bolstad, 2004, p.14) defines it as

“ the planning, design, implementation and evaluation of a program of students’ learning

by the educational institution of which those students are members.”

Bezzina (1991, p 40) defines SBCD as

“…a process in which some or all of the members of a school community plan, implement,and/ or evaluate an aspect or aspects of the curriculum offering of the school This mayinvolve adapting an existing curriculum, adopting it unchanged, or creating a newcurriculum SBCD is a collaborative effort which should not be confused with theindividual efforts of teachers or administrators operating outside the boundaries of acollaboratively accepted framework.”

In her literature review on SBCD, Bolstad (2004) sums up its main characteristics:

Teachers are responsible not only for the implementation of curricula, but also for its development

 SBCD is a collaborative process.

Several arguments are frequently made to justify SBCD One major argument is that ithelps avoid the problems involved in top-down models Another argument is that it makescurricula meet the needs of learners and local communities It is also argued that SBCDensures teacher autonomy, a goal that is currently believed to be part and part of teacherprofessionalism (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) But the most important rationale for SBCD lies

in the realization that curriculum development and teacher professional growth areinseparable

Before moving to teacher professional growth, it should be noted that a wholly bottom-upstrategy to curriculum development has got its own limitations and practical problems.Bolstad (2004) gives examples of such problems Examples of such projects show thatSBCD can be very slow and piecemeal Besides, a lack of central governance andmonitoring can have serious detrimental effects on the quality of the teaching learningprocesses Furthermore, many teachers may simply be unwilling to participate in suchattempts thinking that curriculum development is beyond their role commitments This is

perhaps the reason behind the fluctuation between top-down and bottom-up strategies ofcurriculum development in many countries (Elliot, 1997) Hence, the need for a model isthe combination of both strategies in an attempt to preserve the strengths of each

1.3 Curriculum development

1.3.1 Preparation for curriculum development

To prepare for the curriculum development, McKay and Scarino (1991) emphasized threepoints including the establishing the curriculum development task, clarification of the taskand support structure for the project

1.3.1.1 Establishing the curriculum development task

There are a number of options to choose curriculum developers as follows:

 School-based: Practicing teachers are given regular release time from teaching

 A combination of school-based and regional or system wide structures is used

(McKay & Scarino, 1991, p.11)The processes of curriculum development followed can also vary:

 The project team writes an initial draft with limited consultation The team thenconsults teachers and others to gather responses and rewrite according to reactions

 The project team coordinates the input of the teachers to the writing task and finalizes the material for publication

1.3.1.2 Clarification of the task

To guarantee the quality of the curriculum, McKay and Scarino (1991) state that all thoseinvolved and influenced by the planned curriculum development need to establish a clear,shared understanding of the task before proceeding Clear statements of goals, objectives,and outcomes need to be determined, and the roles and responsibilities of participatingmembers need to be negotiated Some significant questions concern:

 The nature of the learner group: the age, number, their language experience and competence

 The nature of the program: type of target program

 The nature of the target audience: the suitability of the curriculum to the target teachers and students

 The nature of curriculum development task: the understanding of the

terminology used

 Management processes within the writing group and consultative processesbeyond the writing group: who will be affected by the task? Who will be asked for consultancy?Who will give the final decision?, etc

 The time frame: What are the time lines for the project?

Answers to all the above questions will influence the time and energy spent on different aspects of curriculum development process

Curriculum developers should be flexible and modify the plan as required, modification should be expected after consultancy

1.3.1.3 Support structures for the project

- Management: A management group may assist the financial and administrative aspects ofthe projects; particularly, if more than one system or agency is involved in the task Themanagement group may be organized by and comprise personnel from the administrativestructures supporting the project It is likely to include personnel representing the project, thesystem and funding agency It is useful to establish clear roles and responsibilities regardingmanagement process

- Professional consultancy: A reference group may provide invaluable support A referencegroup may consist of:

 personnel from management group

 colleagues with expertise in the area, e.g other curriculum writers on the same and in other languages as well as in other areas of the curriculum, teachers

 representatives from a range of interested areas, e.g early childhood education

Meeting of the groups can be held:

 on a regular basis during the life of the project

 once only, with further guidance or feedback provided by correspondence Reference group can provide:

 guidance on directions to take

- Information dissemination: this must be done to collect feedback for the curriculum

1.3.2 Curriculum evaluation

1.3.2.1 Why to evaluate

Both teachers and learners need to evaluate the learning activity, the syllabus and otheraspect of the learning and teaching activity Narrowly, it is for students to judge, to makecomments on the teaching and learning activity (which is important for the teachers to look

at for making changes/ innovations) and adjust their own learning More broadly, teachersneeds evaluation “because it can provide a wealth of information to use for the future

Figure 1 Reasons for evaluation

In other words, evaluation is considered as the confirmation of practice if the practice isgood In the other case when there is any problem with the practice Evaluation is for theconsideration of ways to innovate or change the practice for a better one

1.3.2.2 When to evaluate

In view of the time point to evaluate the curriculum (McKay & Scarino, 1991) suggeststhat evaluation of the curriculum can occur at different levels and different points duringthe development process Curriculum developers can undertake evaluation formatively andsummatively:

 During and towards the end of the curriculum development process: curriculumdevelopers evaluate their own materials, checking for a range of broad features (consistency,progression, integration, comprehensiveness) as well as specific aspects within the materialswhich will contribute to their final usefulness and effectiveness

 With a planned evaluation process of evaluation through trial of the curriculum materials

 Through consultations, questionnaires, interviews with teacher and other users about the curriculum

Statement of essential learning0

 Has a statement of Essential learning been included?

 Is a clear statement of development through states evident in the statement of Essential learning?

Goals and general objectives

 Have general objectives been stated?

 Check initially through dimensions and communication goals (activity types) Then check through the four macro-skills

 Are they sufficiently generalizable? Sometimes is it possible to combine some of the objectives?

 Are they assessable?

 Do the general objectives relate to the goals and activities?

Suggested activities

 Is there an adequate number and range of activities?

 Have they been categorized accurately according to according to the activity-typeframework? Are they activities and not exercises? Apply the context, audience, purpose

framework (or alternatively use the field, tenor, mode framework) to elaborate the activities

 Are the activities appropriate to the stage? Is stimulus language or a specific

resource indicated to help clarify the level? Are sufficient examples provided?

 Do the activities match the goals and/ or objectives?

 Are there any other activities which could be added to bring in another aspect of the organizational focus?

 Are the activities ordered and/ or sequenced in any way? If so, is it coherent? Arethe criteria for sequencing evident?

 If more than one activity-type is indicated for an activity, is it necessary? Can theactivity be easily divided into work or three activities, or is the focus of the activity clearly in one particular activity-type?

 Do the activities relate to the organizational focus of the module?

 Do some of the activities lend themselves to assessment? Have these been indicated?

basis justifiable and appropriate?

 Is an overview of the module (in terms of the range of dimensions, modes and activity- types) provided?

 Have some suggested units been provided in each module? Is there a sufficient range and scope for a unit? Does the module allow for several units?

Exercises

 Are they in fact exercises?

Assessment

 Is an assessment scheme included for each module, and for the overall syllabus,

or curriculum?

 Does it allow for an appropriate spread of dimensions, modes, and activity-types?

General questions

 Are the writers clear about the expected outcomes of the project, i.e the

curriculum package: syllabus, resources package and teachers’ manual? How is work in each ofthe originality?

 What does the curriculum look like as a whole? Is it fully developed? Is it internally consistent? How is the issue of sequencing deal with? Is there an element of

originality?

 Is the difference between Stages sufficiently clear in terms of level?

Has a time-line been established?

(McKay & Scarino, 1991, p.76-77)

Table 1 Evaluation of curriculum development process 1.4 Continuity and coherence through various stages in curriculum development

The issue of maintaining continuity and coherence across phases of schooling is an

important one (Mc Kay, P & Scarino, A 1998, p 24)

When developing curriculum materials for learners, curriculum designers need to:

 attend the detail, range and coherence within materials designed for each Stage (micro-approach)

 maintain an overview of the Stages in order to check for progression, continuity and coherence (macro-approach)

To facilitate the above requirements, Mc Kay and Scarino make some suggestions Inparticular, curriculum developers should approach the task from both these angles from theearliest stages of the project It is useful, for example, to outline the broad developmentacross Stages before working in depth on any one Stage or to work in broad brush-strokeacross a number of Stages while completing one Stage in detail with frequent reference tothe outline

Activities can be graded and sequenced according to the:

 activity itself: number of participants, level of cognitive demand, etc

 text used: grammatical complexity, whether it is conceptually easy or difficult to understand, etc

 conditions under which the activity is undertaken: access to a dictionary, degree of teacher support, degree of redrafting allowed, degree of redeemability, etc

 expectation: degree of grammatical accuracy, level of appropriateness, breadth, anddepth of vocabulary

Syllabus designers can use the following checklist for their work reference

Checklist

Recognizing that the Stages are interlocking, check that there is evidence through the

Stages of a progression in range and depth, and a recycling of:

 general objectives

text types (or genres)

 organizational focuses, e.g themes, topics

(Adapted from Mc Kay, P & Scarino, A 1998, p 24)

Table 2 The checklist for Continuity and coherence throughout stages in curriculum

development

Stages in learning and teaching process can be differentiated as follows

STAGES

by activity

 Context embedded  Context-reduced

 Little assumed knowledge  More assumedprior to activity knowledge prior to activity

 Experientially known  Experientially new

 Not socioculturally specifc Socio-culturally specific

processing (e.g information is processingpresented in a clear, logical  Increased number ofmanner, short manageable chunks

by text  Reduced information  Extensive information

 Simple structure the learner

 Clear ogranization of  More complex structureinformation organized  Information may be less

 Clear layout, assists clearlycomprehension of meaning  Layout less significant in

 Numerous non-linguistic assisting comprehension of

 High quality print or  Less non-linguistic clues

 Print or recording may be

recording and no redundancies of low quality and contain a

 Reduced speed and/ or greater number ofnumber of speakers redundancies

 Greater speed and/ ornumber of speakers

by conditions

 Extensive time available for  Reduced time available

 Extensive preliminary work  Reduced redeemability

to introduce the activity

 Opportunity available toredeem an initial effort

Differentiation  The response may be short  The response is longer

 Reduced reliance on

 Extensive reliance on use of communicationcommunication strategies strategies

(McKay, & Scarino, 1991, p 28)

Table 3 The differentiations between stages in learning and teaching process

To illustrate the differentiation framework, McKay and Scarino (1991) provided an

example o across ESL/ ALL stages – report writing

Stage 1: Learners write a short report, with teacher guidance: models and

headings given, vocabulary supplied, and teacher support right through,

including individual support, e.g conferencing and redeemability

Stage 2: Learners write a longer report, still with strong teacher support: theteacher describes the process step-by-step, goes through the suggested contentfor report, and supplies a model, heading and skeleton outline, learners copyfrom the model into books, changing key words or sections as needed

Stage 3: Learners write a report appropriate to the requirements of the subjectarea, some discussion before writing, teacher reminds learners of structuralrequirements, etc and vocabulary, short discussion on content, support fromteacher during writing process

Stage 4: Learners write a long, more detailed report by themselves; structuresand content of report is expected to be appropriate to the requirements of thesubject area; minimal support before or after writing process, feedback interms of a mark, and comments

Figure 2 Differences across ESL/ ALL stages – report writing

1.5 Summary

To sum up, in this chapter, the researcher has already reviewed the literature of curriculumdevelopment and construction Initially, I provided the definition of key terms includingcurriculum, syllabus and course books as well as the clear distinction between two ofteninterchangeable concepts namely curriculum and syllabus to avoid confusing readers Afterthat, the researcher presented the classification of curriculum approach throughout theeducational history and the insightful critique of the advantages as well as the

disadvantages of top-down and bottom-up curriculum models In the next step, I elaborated

on the process to design and build up a curriculum from preparation to evaluation Theimportant issues including who are qualified enough for constructing and consulted forcurriculum development; when and how feedback for the project is collected and treated;why, when and how a curriculum should be evaluated were also stated clearly herein.Finally, to provide readers with firm background knowledge of the focused aspect of thecurriculum in this research, I mentioned the necessity and ways to create the consistencyand continuity throughout syllabus design stages

The next chapter presents the methodology used in this research

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

2.0 Research questions

1 How do the first and second year writing syllabus components and course book contents match course objectives?

2 How do the syllabus components and course books guarantee the continuity and

coherence through stages in curriculum development?

3 How do the syllabus components and course books guarantee the internal consistency of the curriculum?

4 If there are some mismatches, what problems occur as a consequence?

2.1 Participants

To collect data for this research, the researcher approached two writing syllabus designers

of the first and second year program, 100 second year students at English TeacherEducation Department _ HULIS _ VNU who belong to 4 groups of E8, E10, E11, E14 and

5 teachers from English Teacher Education Department _ HULIS _ VNU who have beeninvolved in teaching the writing program of both the English language Division1 and 2

Table 4 Survey and Interview participant description

The students were randomly chosen to make the research objective and representativewhile the 5 teachers involved in delivering the first year and second year writing programwere selected based on their consent The first year students were not included becausethey are not competent (both linguistically and psychologically due to the transitionalnatures of their first year experience in higher education) enough to provide valid andreliable information

2.2 Data collection instrument

To find out the answers to four research questions, the researcher has exploited 4 researchtools Firstly, along with the knowledge acquired from the literature review and ALTEframework, I investigated and analyzed the BA TEFL curriculum, the course guide withclaims about course objectives, materials, structure, assessment and grading, assignments;and the course books This enabled the researcher to have firstly the overview of the wholewriting programs and then a closer look into specific items to find out any conflictsbetween the course objectives and syllabus components like activities or assignmentsdesigned to achieve those objectives; the teaching and learning activities and coursematerials that fail to guarantee the continuity and consistency throughout stages of thewhole English language program

The second tool utilized by the researcher is the analysis of the papers and writing portfoliothat 100 sophomores produced in their first and second year to find out the consequences

of designing the above assignments and activities Also, the findings of the students’results and mistakes help me confirm the suitability of the assignment to students’ leveland reveal the consequences of the discontinuity and inconsistency in curriculumdevelopment stages

Besides, I conducted a survey among 100 second year students and interviewed 5 teachers

to answer the questions of whether students and teachers face any problems and whatproblems they face due to the discontinuity and inconsistency in the syllabus or themismatch between the course objectives and other curriculum components These students

who have undertaken the first and second year English writing program can have anappropriate and exhaustive evaluation of the target syllabus while 5 teacher intervieweeswho have taught first year and second year writing program can also give professionalreflections of the issue based on their real experiences

Interviews were also conducted with the two syllabus designers to clarify the factorsinfluencing their syllabus design, their evaluation of the suitability of certain types ofassignments to students’ level and suggestions to guarantee the continuity of the six -semester English language program

2.3 Procedure of data collection

The data collection procedure comprised 4 main stages:

Stage 1:

In the first stage, the researcher had to read and study the BA TEFL curriculum, courseguide with specifics of course objectives, materials, structure, assessment, grading, andassignments and then the course books for the first year and second year English writingprogram Then, based on the literature review especially, the framework of ALTE, which isthe standards set for the BA TEFL graduates (see Appendix 1) and my own experience inteaching these writing programs, I drew out a list of items that are not equivalent to courseobjectives and fail to meet the requirement of continuity and consistency in the curriculum

Stage 2:

To confirm the list, the researcher approached 100 second - year students of 4 groups ofE8, E10, E11, and E14 and collected the papers of reflection, and summary, which theyfinished in their first year, and the writing portfolio they compiled in their second year toevaluate their performance They handed in the required documents one day after beingasked for consent to participate in the research with provision of the original versions

Stage 3:

After completing the second step, the researcher analyzed the students’ papers andportfolio for English Writing to get the basis for designing the student questionnaires The

list of questions for the survey was pondered for one week The questions aimed atclarifying students’ evaluation of some certain types of writing that mismatch the courseobjectives, the mistakes they often make in these types of writing, and the reasons for theirmaking those mistakes and their suggestions for bettering the writing syllabus and coursebooks To carry out the survey, the teacher arranged a meeting with the monitor of 4groups of E8, E10, E11, E14 - K4, explaining the purpose of the survey, requesting theirconsent to participate and asking them to pass the questionnaires on to their classmates.Three days after the meeting, the monitors returned the completed questionnaires to theresearcher To avoid the situation in which the monitor cannot deliver the questionnaire tothe classmates and answered all of them by himself/ herself, the researcher contacted anumber of students in each group to cross-check These students were in fact randomlychosen based on their agreement

At the same time, I produced a list of questions for interviews (see Appendix 5) with 5teachers who have taught both the first and second year writing programs and the twosyllabus designers (see Appendix 6) based on the analysis of the course guide, thetextbooks, and students’ papers

At the agreed time, the researcher had face-to-face conversations with those teachers one

by one The required procedure of an interview was strictly followed and for thepreciseness and convenience for deeper analysis, all the interviews were recorded withtheir consent

When it comes to the latter subjects, I had to conduct email interviews because both of thesyllabus designers were away from Hanoi on business I send email to the participants andreceived their answer just two days later As the list of questions was very clear so theinterviews could be done in such a way

2.4 Procedure of data analysis

Stage 1:

In the first stage, I had to study the course guide and course books very carefully to figureout: 1) the conflict between any component of the syllabus and course books with courseobjectives, 2) any syllabus component and course book content that breaks the continuity

and consistency requirement of curriculum development In order to come up with anaccurate list, I had to refer to ALTE framework during the analysis process carefully andregularly To increase the accuracy of the analysis, I turned to a colleague in the samedivision for help with another list Then, we compare the lists together, finding out anddiscussing the differences to come to the agreed final list

Stage 2:

In the second stage, we treated the data collected from the students survey, student testscore, and interviews with syllabus designers and other year 1 and year 2 writing teachers.The quantitative data from questionnaires and from test scores were processed andpresented with descriptive statistics such as percentages, mean, range, standard deviationvia the special statistical software SPSS version 15

The qualitative data was processed interactively with the synthesis of the open and closed questions in interviews and questionnaires

semi-2.5 Summary

In a nutshell, the research involved two writing syllabus designers of the first and secondyear program, 100 second year students at English Teacher Education Department _HULIS _ VNU who belong to 4 groups of E8, E10, E11, and E14 and 5 teachers fromEnglish Teacher Education Department _ HULIS _ VNU who have experienced thewriting program of both the English language Division1 and 2 The researcher exploitedfour research tools including the analysis of the course guide with claims about courseobjectives, materials, structure, assessment and grading, assignments; and the course booksbased on ALTE framework The second tool is the investigation into the papers and writingportfolio that 100 sophomores produced in their first and second year to find out theconsequences of designing the above assignments and activities Two other tools aresurvey for 100 sophomores and interviews for 5 teachers and two syllabus designers.Results of the data analysis are presented in the next chapter

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 How do the syllabus components and course book contents match course objectives?

Studying the syllabus objectives and the teaching items, discussing with course teachersand syllabus designers, the researcher has realized some inconsistent points In particular,students at English Department _ HULIS _ VNU are required to achieve ALTE level 2 atthe end of the first year, and level 3 for the second year Level 2 goes beyond merely beingable to pick out facts and may involve opinions, attitudes, moods and wishes For level 3,learners can “pick out items of factual information, distinguish between main andsubsidiary points and between the general topic of a text and specific detail or producewritten texts of various types, and develop an argument” (ALTE framework) Meanwhile,

in accordance with the course guide for the first year language program, students have to

“master” summary and reflection writing at the very beginning of the first semester(Course guide for English language skills _ Semester 1, p.3) and learn about argumentativewriting in the second semester Whereas, the second-year students are supposed to

“familiarize” with these types of writing only (Duong Thu Mai et al, 2004)

As such, the fact that the first year writing program requires students to master summaryand reflection writing is quite unreasonable This was also mirrored by the poor results ofthe reflection and summary assignments the participants did in their first year

6 6

Median = 4