The findings of the present study lend support to many scholars’ and researchers’
view that course design creates a room for teachers to develop professionally (Graves, 1996; Shawer et al., 2009; Shawer, 2010a, 2010b, 2017; Zeegers, 2012). This activity helped the teachers learn certain knowledge that were similar to the teachers in the previous studies in which individuals developed their course for their own classrooms (Graves, 1996; Shawer et al., 2009; Shawer, 2010a, 2010b, 2017) or in which the design activity was intentionally planned (Zeegers, 2012): knowledge of the subject matter and curriculum development knowledge. Although the knowledge of the subject matter varies in different studies (i.e. knowledge of language in Shawer’s (2010b) study, knowledge of teacher education in Zeegers’s (2012), and knowledge of EAP in the present study), the findings reveal that the content focused during the course of the professional activity is acquired by the teacher participants. The present findings about curriculum development knowledge are also coherent with those of these authors in that the teachers improve material selection and development.
However, curriculum development process and approach to curriculum development are not counted as the improved knowledge in these previous studies; instead, they reveal the improvement of the other knowledge and skills such as need analysis (Nunan, 1987), curriculum evaluation and adaptation, and content integration (Shawer, 2010b).
One noticeable thing from the findings of the present study is that the teacher participants did not gain the same knowledge. With regard to conceptualization of EAP, only two out of ten teachers (Hong and Hue) seemed to have a mind to clarify it during the design process while the teachers in Team 1 (Thu, Thuan, Huong, Xuan, Bach) did not show clear distinction between EAP and ESoP in their course materials.
The other teachers (Duong and Diem in Team 2, and Thanh in Team 3) accepted the conception postulated by their leaders (Hong and Hue). Moreover, eight out of ten teachers (except Thuan and Hue) did not learn the theoretical knowledge of curriculum development but practical knowledge by developing and revising the courses.
163
Another noticeable thing is that the knowledge they learned was limited to curriculum development process, approach to course design, material selection and organization, and test item difficulty; it was not comprehensive knowledge in the areas that are relevant to curriculum development (i.e. curriculum knowledge and skills, language acquisition, teaching methodology, assessment, language description and material production according to Nation and Macalister, 2010). Take Hong and Hue as examples. They shared the same view that students should be equipped with the skills useful for their future academic studies. This new object is compatible with part of the theory of curriculum development. Nation and Macalister (2010) postulate three types of needs: necessities (what is necessary in learners’ use of language?), lacks (what do the learners lack?), and wants (what do the learners wish to learn).
According to these authors, “consideration of the type of need that is being looked at and the type of information that is being gathered is important”. Meanwhile, Hong seemed to be satisfied when she could be sure that her course focused on academic study skills, and it was a right track (excerpt 86). Similarly, Hue could articulate the emphasis of competence-based approach: building up the competences needed for students in the future; that was why the objectives should have been written in the way that described what learners could do (Excerpt 78). However, Hong and Hue did not seem to pay attention to the competences her target students already had or wanted to develop. It can be implied that these two teachers based more on their prior experiences as language learners instead of being provided with relevant experts’
theories in time. As a result, even though the new object drove them towards actions different from the other teachers, the knowledge they gained from this process was not comprehensive theoretical knowledge of need analysis.
Such outcomes can be explained through the interaction between three levels of the activity (i.e. activity – action – operation) as well as the interaction between the subject and the object. Although these teachers shared the same motive: completing the assigned activity of course design, they took different actions during the process, and each of these actions had its own goal. Particularly, the team leaders (i.e. Thu, Hong, and Hue) had to analyze the needs and conceptualize the content of the course
164
in order to give an orientation to the other teacher designers while most of the other team members took specific actions as searching materials suitable with the given orientation. In this case, the team leaders had a goal of developing clear understanding of the subject matter while the other members had a goal of following their leaders’
demands. These different goals led to different operations (i.e. reading and reflecting, discussing, or adopting the shared knowledge). On the other hand, that the teachers had various operations to reach the goals within their given conditions had a certain impact on their motive. For example, both Thu and Hue did a search for academic textbooks for reference, but the conditions for these teachers were not the same. Thu had to make a decision on the core materials in such a short time, and her team was the first to design an EAP course with limited available resources (excerpt 12).
Therefore, Thu still adhered to her primary motive of completing the assigned task.
Meanwhile, Hue had an opportunity to experience dissimilar views on EAP, resulting in her further reading and reflection (excerpt 13). In other words, Hue’s motive was not limited to searching core materials for her EAP course, but transformed into a new one: reconceptualizing the content of an EAP course, which, in turn, drove the way Hue performed her task later on. It can be said that three level of the activity of course design are interrelated during the teachers’ participation, which reflects the theory postulated by Leont’ev (1981). Following is a more detailed discussion on the interaction between the subject and the object (motive) of the activity as well as the contribution of the personal and social conditions to this interaction.
The raw object in the activity of course design was to develop integrated EAP courses. Some teachers followed the raw object; they selected one commercial book of EAP as the core material of their course and divided the contents for the sake of convenience instead of caring about the nature of that subject matter in their context (excerpt 76). In this case, it is said that the object directed the subject’s (i.e the participant teacher) actions, or there was no emerging contradiction between the subject and the object. Therefore the knowledge of the subject matter gained by these teachers (e.g. Team 1) was limited. In contrast, Hong and Hue made an attempt to conceptualize EAP in their context (excerpts 5 and 14). This is considered to be a
165
newly-developed object in Hong’s and Hue’s activity systems. In this case, there emerged a contradiction between the subject (i.e. teachers’ prior experience of designing EAP courses) and the object, and then better understanding of the subject matter was achieved (Excerpts 86 and 87). Similarly, Thu and Thuan developed a cultural more advanced object related to testing and assessment. Instead of selecting a test from available resources, they made an attempt to design tests in accordance with the given test specifications as well as define what it was meant by difficulty level of test items. In this case, there also emerged a contradiction between the subject (i.e. teachers’ prior knowledge of test design) and the object, and then better understanding of item difficulty level was achieved (see 4.7.3). These cases lend support to the Activity Theory Framework (Engestrửm, 1987, 2015) in that the resolution of an emerging contradiction is likely to result in professional development in certain areas.
It is equally noticeable that the emergence of these contradictions may result from the influence of their prior knowledge or the available reference materials. In case of Hong and Hue, the contradiction emerged when they compared her own knowledge of EAP with that of the other teachers (see 4.3.1) while for Thu and Thuan, the contradiction emerged when they were provided with the sample test specifications (see 4.3.1 and 4.7.3). These findings serve as evidence for the concept of
“contradiction” in the Framework as “historically accumulating structural tensions”
(Engestrửm, 2001, p.137). The personal factor (i.e. teachers’ prior knowledge) and the social factor (i.e. the provision of a reference material) are considered to be the activity system’s histories that are accumulated to form a contradiction within it.
Moreover, according to the Activity Theory Framework (Figure 5.1), all of the components of the activity system are interrelated, but in this study the two-way relationship between components does not always exist. It is evidenced by the resolution to the above-presented contradictions between the subject and the object.
In case of Hong and Hue, the contradiction was resolved by the subjects’ (i.e Hong and Hue) actions of reading the available materials and reflecting on their own prior
166
knowledge (excerpts 13 and 27) without any influence of the other factors. Put it another way, it shows the influence of the subject on the mediating artifacts rather than the two-way interaction of these two components. In the same vein, the contradiction in case of Thu and Thuan was resolved by the shared knowledge within the community of teachers-as-course-developers while neither of them did further research on the field (see 4.3.3 and 4.7.3). This might be the reason why the theoretical knowledge gained by these teachers about curriculum development is not comprehensive or not in depth.
In addition, many scholars and researchers (Freeman, 1989; Curtis, 2001; Desimone et al., 2002; Desimone, 2009; Truong, 2015; Vu, 2011) have pointed out in their studies that the needs of the teachers should be coherent with those of the professional development program so that the program can yield effective outcomes. It means that when course design can be considered to be a professional development activity (see 2.4.2), the teachers involved in this project should have built up their needs of developing the competence of curriculum development. In other words, their professional learning is expected to be resulted from their perceived needs. In case the activity was not grounded on the subjects’ needs, the subjects (i.e. the teachers in this case) were unlikely to benefit a great deal from the activity itself. However, unlike the documented studies (e.g. Desimone et al., 2002; Desimone, 2009), findings from the present study reveal that despite the absence of the initial needs (teachers’
involuntary participation in the activity), the teachers’ professional development needs emerged dynamically through the interaction between the subject and the object of the course-design activity. It is also revealed from the findings that these needs varied among participants at different timescales of the process. In short, the findings of the present study confirm that course design can be considered to be a professional development activity for EFL teachers at university level. Besides, these findings raise a notice of how and when teachers’ professional needs, which stimulate their professional learning, are likely to emerge when they participate in a professional activity at workplace.
167