Reimagining Contemporary EFL Curricula

14/12/18  

REIMAGINING CONTEMPORARY EFL CURRICULA NEIL H. JOHNSON, MARK EVAN NELSON, ALEX SELMAN, PAUL LYDDON KANDA UNIVERSITY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

ALEX WORTH

OSAKA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

CURRICULUM CONTEXT •  Small private university Eastern suburbs of Tokyo •  English Language Institute •  65 lecturers, English proficiency across several departments for years 1 and 2

1  

14/12/18  

CHANGING TIMES: KUIS •  ‘Global Citizen’ push from MEXT (TOEFL) •  Demographic pressure in enrollment •  More diversity in student background •  iPad technology and wi-fi •  Comprehensive review of the entire 1st and 2nd year program •  ‘AIM’ Framework – Awareness, Interaction, Multiliteracies

BACKGROUND TO FRESHMAN ENGLISH Freshman English: Foundational course, spoken proficiency 1995-2001: Individualized Self-Access Syllabus Learner choice Self-direction Instructor as guide/facilitator 2001 – 2012: Materials Bank Language proficiency based on thematically organized communicative tasks Fluency, affect Content as vehicle for interaction and instrumental exchange views/ideas BUT… Dated, lockstep, content pre-decided, trivial, non-academic, ‘Strong’ version of CLT – native speaker model, stable view of target culture and language

2  

14/12/18  

CURRICULUM RE-DEVELOPMENT IN CHANGED TIMES Accounting for: •  •  •  •  • 

Translingual and transcultural competence, “between languages” (MLJ, 2007) Division between language and content/culture (Byrnes, 2006) ‘Tourist-like’ competencies of CLT (Kramsch, 2006) ‘Native speaker’ model no longer viable Culture as ‘Food, Festivals and Famous Men’ (Coehlo, 1998)

3  

14/12/18  

CORE CONCERNS •  Rapid, dynamic movements of people and texts around the globe •  Shifting affiliations, beyond locality or nationality, toward affinity •  Changing economic realities and working lives •  Increasingly digital, multimodal character of textual and interpersonal communication

WE MUST ASK •  What are language and languages? •  What are the collective and individual interests of our students? •  What must we prepare our students to do and be, and how? •  What constitutes learning at present?

4  

14/12/18  

A Pedagogy of ‘Multiliteracies’ “We want to extend the idea and scope of literacy pedagogy to account for the context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalized societies; to account for the multifarious cultures that interrelate and the plurality of texts that circulate.” “We argue that literacy pedagogy must now account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies.” (New London Group, 1996, p.9)

MULTILITERACIES AND EFL •  Focus on Productive Diversity •  Linguistic representation and communication as fundamentally Multimodal •  Communication and learning as processes and products of Design •  Critical Framing and Transformation •  Crossing boundaries and ‘borders’

5  

14/12/18  

PROCESSES •  Self analysis •  Audio-visual analysis •  Data analysis •  Extended interaction •  Communication strategies •  Problem solving

6  

14/12/18  

PROJECTS •  Topic •  Genre •  Rhetoric mode/type

RHETORIC TYPES •  Introduction unit •  Exposition •  Narration •  Description •  Argumentation •  Mixed

7  

14/12/18  

UNIVERSITY GOALS TOEFL PBT Req.

Global Jinzai

Study Abroad

3rd-Year Electives

600

500-550

480-520

Current TOEFL Range: 333-547 (= CEFR A1-B2)

PROGRAM STANDARDS CEFR (TOEFL PBT) Semester

Does Not Approach

Approaches

Meets

Exceeds

1

A1 (< 400)

A2.1 (400)

A2.2 (420)

B1.1 (450)

2

A2.1 (400)

A2.2 (420)

B1.1 (450)

B1.2 (480)

3

A2.2 (400)

B1.1 (450)

B1.2 (480)

B2.1 (520)

4

B1.1 (450)

B1.2 (480)

B2.1 (520)

B2.2 (550)

8  

14/12/18  

INITIAL PLACEMENTS: (3*TOEFL PBT) + KAP GROUP ORAL Class (Prop.) TOEFL range CEFR (Stand.)

Bottom (1/6)

Low Mid (1/6)

Mid (1/3)

Hi Mid (1/6)

Top (1/6)

333-410

390-447

407-470

440-487

453-547

A1 (DNA)

A2.1-A2.2 A2.1-B1.1 A2.2-B1.2 B1.1-B2.2 (A-M) (A-E) (M-E) (E)

PLAN FOR KEY ASSESSMENTS •  Standard program-level learning outcomes •  Subskills within each category of AIM: Awareness (3), Interaction (5), Multiliteracies (4) •  Example: Interaction •  •  •  •  • 

Interactional Awareness Rhetorical Strategies Voice: Register & Expression Voice: Pronunciation & Fluency Body Language & Gesture

•  Standards described in CEFR terms, then mapped onto course-specific evaluative descriptors (i.e., Exceeds, Meets, Approaches, Does Not Approach Standard)

9  

14/12/18  

EXAMPLE CEFR DESCRIPTORS

Outcome 6: Voice – Register and Expression

CEFR Level

A2

Some evidence that the student is controlling voice or register to communicate meaning within the text/task. The register of the text/task includes some examples of inappropriate choices that distract from the meaning of the text. There is evidence of some awareness of mode, audience, and purpose through the expression and choices made. There is a limited range of vocabulary with elaboration and detail only partially achieved through appropriate word choices and generally correct use of word forms.

A1

No or very little evidence that the student is controlling voice or register for the audience and purpose of the text/task. The register of the text/task includes numerous examples of inappropriate register choices that distract from the meaning of the text. There is no or very little awareness of audience and text type evident through the expression used. Vocabulary appears limited and student is not able elaborate through word form use.

LEARNING OUTCOME DISTRIBUTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 3 key assessments for each course Freshman English example: Semester Focus Task

1

2

Exposition Description Narration Persuasion Mixed RT Slide show present.

Poetry perform.

Readers theatre

Team debate

Trade show

Autonomy Learning plan

Standardized rubrics, benchmarking, local norming

10  

14/12/18  

COURSE STANDARDS Criteria Evaluation Effort

Achievement

100% of all graded assignments All required assignments ‘Approaches Standard’ or higher, 80% of completed satisfactorily and on which ‘Meets Standard’ or higher and at time. least 60% of which ‘Exceeds Standard’.

Exceeds standard

No more than 3 hours of late, missing, or unsatisfactorily completed work.

Meets standard

Approaches tandard

Does NOT approach standard

100% of all graded assignments ‘Approaches Standard’ or higher, 80% of which ‘Meets Standard’ or higher, but less than 60% ‘Exceeds Standard’.

60% of all graded assignments More than 3 but less than 7.5 ‘Approaches Standard’ or higher, but hours of late, missing, or less than 80% ‘Meets Standard’ and/or unsatisfactorily completed work. some ‘Does NOT Approach Standard’.

More than 7.5 hours of late, missing, or unsatisfactorily completed work.

Less than 60% of all graded assignments ‘Approaches Standard’ or higher.

COURSE GRADES ACHIEVEMENT

Exceeds Meets EFFORT

Approaches Does NOT Approach

Approache Does NOT s Approach

Exceeds

Meets

A+

A

B

F

A

A

B

F

B

B

C

F

F

F

F

F

11  

14/12/18  

SUBSEQUENT PLACEMENTS AND PROGRAM MONITORING

•  Rasch analysis of course grades •  ePortfolios to facilitate communication among various stakeholders (e.g., learners, teachers, program directors, administrative staff)

12