|
Curriculum Development Project
ESP – MA Preparatory Course
|
Christopher Stern
|
I . BACKGROUND
Research Background
In response to
observing greater levels of challenge for some students in our program, in
October 2011 I carried out needs analysis research in order to determine some
of the potential design parameters for an ESP course for non-native speaker
students on MA programs such as the MA-TESOL offered at Payap University. My research took two forms: casual observation and interaction with other
students, in particular non-native speaker students on our program, and,
secondly, CMC based interviews conducted through Facebook’s chat function with
three non-native speaker students. The
reasons for selecting a CMC format for interviews are the casual nature of the
interaction, along with the aspect of automatic transcription.
Interviews with
three students matched my general impressions and predictions for outcomes of
interviews with teaching staff. Non-native speaker (NNS) students find the
greatest difficulties in two areas:
participating in class discussions, and familiarity with the genre of
academic writing. Thus, these would be
the logical two areas for main focus.
Another area of focus identified is that of familiarizing students with
the types of activities and reading they will be doing on an MA program, as it
is significantly different from what they have experienced as undergraduate
students. The final area of possible
focus is the development of critical thinking skills (as yet addressed only
incidentally in this particular curriculum design), which, as one student
states, entails the development of reflective activity: “learning and observing why my ideas are
different from others and reading more the related further reading.”
Social Context
Non-native
speakers of English studying on Master’s Degree programs conducted in English
in non-English speaking environments such as Thailand, Slovakia, Germany or
Japan face a unique set of challenges.
While they must be prepared to do all of their coursework in English,
the environment outside of the university rarely serves to further enhance
their English abilities. As such, the
stimulus for the further development of their English ability occurs almost
only within the confines of their university experience.
(N. B.
This paper makes reference to a separate Needs Analysis document)
Additional
difficulty arises in the classroom, in which students are expected to
participate in discussions in seminar-type courses, as opposed to being silent
recipients of lectures. Asian students
in particular may experience lower levels of comfort with this style of
education. This occurs on both
linguistic and cultural levels, and may stem from lack of exposure to this type
of teaching and learning style in their educational histories.
Curriculum Ideology
This course is
founded upon a combination of text-based, genre-based and skills-based
approaches. A text-based syllabus is
“one that is built around texts and samples of extended discourse.” (Richards,
2001: 163) Furthermore, a text-based
syllabus is a form of integrated syllabus (ibid). It is through this text-based, along with a
genre-based approach that the formal aspects of academic writing can best be
addressed. Graves (2000: 48) in summarizing Feez, states: “A course organized
around genre or text would involve learners in understanding and analyzing
texts on a number of levels including the lexico-grammatical level, the
discourse level, and the socio-cultural level; it would also involve them in
producing texts.” This type of depth of
analysis and understanding is exactly what is required at the MA level, and is
exactly what is so challenging for NNS to undertake. In
order to address the process of writing, as well as listening, reading and
speaking sub-skills, a skills-based syllabus best fits the bill. Regarding skills-based syllabi, Richards
states “Approaching a language through skills is based on the belief that
learning a complex activity such as “listening to a lecture” involves mastery
of a number of micro-skills that together make up the activity.” (2001:
159) In examining sub-skills, such as
writing topic sentences, differentiating main and supporting ideas, listening
for key information and discourse markers, reading for gist, guessing words from
context, and using communication strategies (ibid, 160), it is evident that
these are exactly the sort of skills students need to focus on.
II. NEEDS ANALYSIS
Students’ Proficiency Level and Needs
The students who
comprise the audience for this course generally have an upper-intermediate to
advanced level of English ability. They have
a strong academic background, but may still be unprepared in some ways for MA
level coursework. Richards comments:
“The first step in conducting a needs analysis is therefore to decide exactly
what its purpose or purposes are.” (2001:52)
The purpose of the needs analysis conducted was to discover which
specific tasks involved in the undertaking of a MA program (in the field of
social sciences) conducted in English that NNS students find most difficult and
indicate appropriate teaching / learning activities which will best address
them. Among many possible needs
mentioned by Richards are the identification of language skills learners need
“in order to perform a particular role” and “to identify a gap between what
students are able to do and what they need to be able to do” (2001: 52). It was found that those ‘gaps’ common to most
students involved active participation in class discussions, and academic
writing. It is with these particular purposes in mind that I have created the
following curriculum design.
III. Scope and
Sequence
Goals & Objectives
At the end of this course,
students will be able to:
§ Read,
comprehend and analyze academic writing.
§ Participate
effectively in class discussions.
§ Produce
academic writing based on an understanding of both academic genre (product) and
the steps or stages of writing (process).
§ Engage
critical thinking skills.
§ Utilize
listening, reading, time management, word attack and text attack strategies.
Time frame & Schedule
The course is
optional for students scoring 6.5 or above on IELTS, and mandatory for those
scoring 6 or below. It is a 50 hour
course, meeting for 20 hours per week for the two weeks prior to the first term
of MA coursework (4 hours x 5 days/week), followed by two hours per week for
the first five weeks of the first term.
Coursework undertaken
after the start of the term utilizes materials and projects from the students’
MA coursework in class. Activities
consist of groupwork; discussion, brainstorming, peer review and editing.
Methods of Instruction
Instruction of reading
and writing initially follow a text-based discourse analysis approach, using
model texts both for comprehension and product-based instruction of writing. Texts are authentic academic or research
documents and may come from a variety of social sciences, based on the balance
and interests of the students enrolled.
Reading and writing includes both extensive in-class and homework
activity.
Instruction of
reading additionally follows a skills-based approach, teaching sub-skills of
skimming, scanning, and inferring. This
methodology is primarily addressed through in-class activities. Other skills are also addressed through a skills-based
approach. In addition to genre-based
writing instruction, students learn the process of writing through a
skills-based approach, learning sub-skills of note-taking, paraphrasing,
brainstorming, understanding relevance, outlining, drafting, editing, sourcing
and formatting.
Both listening
and speaking skills are addressed through instruction combining genre-based and
skills-based approaches. Listening
activities ideally make extensive use of pre-recorded class lectures and
discussions from actual course activity on TESOL and other MA level social
science programs, and involve both strategy instruction and practice, and the
implementation of specific listening tasks.
(Field, 2002: 244) such as
mapping an argument. Recordings are also
analyzed for main points, supporting points, discourse markers, etc. from both
a discourse and sub-skills framework. Speaking skills can be addressed not only
through class and small group discussion of reading materials, but also through
a sub-skills approach examining initiating, supporting and closing an argument
as well as rebuttal, and also through a genre-based analysis of turn-taking and
conversational dynamics.
Activity & Task Types
In-class
activity includes a large focus on writing (at least 40% of class time),
examining both the formal details of academic writing as well as the process of
producing good writing. In-class activity is also devoted to reading skills,
text-attack and word-attack strategies, as well as other strategy instruction
and practice. A good deal of time (2-4
hours per day ) of after-course (homework) activity is also required of
students, the largest portion comprising reading and writing.
Activities to
improve students’ speaking skills include guided discussions and group
discussions much as those seen on the MA course, as well as presentation
activities. Group discussions make use
of both divergent tasks, such as informal debate, and convergent two-way
activities such as problem-solving tasks (Nunan, 1991: 50).
Students additionally engage in pair and group discussion exercising
their “ability to reflect critically on one’s performance as a language user”
(ibid, 49). Further in-class activity
revolves around PowerPoint and presentation skills, making the best use of
academic resources such as ProQuest, and time management strategies.
Sequence
The first 40
hours of coursework occurs in a two-week period, meeting four hours per day,
from 8:00 am to 10am, then 10:30 am to 12:30 pm, five days per week, from
Monday until Friday. The instruction is
as follows:
Unit 1. Reading academic
texts: genre analysis - formal details
of academic writing. Identifying main
points, highlighting. Word and text attack strategies. Reading strategies,
including prediction, questioning, and summarizing (Farrell, 2009: 39-44), skimming
and scanning, understanding inferences and analyzing texts.
Unit 2. Listening strategies: genre analysis of classroom discussion,
listening for main points and signposting words. Pre-listening schema building and
training in listening strategies (Nunan, 2002: 238-41) Discussing texts: identifying and agreeing or disagreeing with
aspects of an argument. Supporting your
opinion. Note-taking. Time-management strategies.
Unit 3. Process writing I: understanding assignments, brainstorming,
finding relevance, organizing ideas, using sources, outlining, main points and
supporting points, drafting.
Unit 4. Process writing II: creating coherence and cohesion, signposting,
editing for content and style, formal considerations, quotes, references and
sources. Identifying and fixing common
mistakes.
Unit 5. Putting it all
together: group written assignment /
presentation, peer editing for content and style, discussion. Keeping
a vocabulary notebook and other
vocabulary building strategies. Powerpoint basics. Public speaking. Managing your time and
maximizing your resources.
The final ten
hours of instruction is scheduled two hours per week, in late afternoon on
Thursday or Friday of each of the first five weeks of the academic term. In-class activity follows up on what students
have been doing in their MA coursework and how they have been applying, and can
continue to apply what they have learned in this course. As such, it involves the practical
application of Units 1 though 5 to their MA coursework. In-class activities include discussion of
course readings, and peer group discussion and editing of written
projects. Additional activities could
include ongoing time-management monitoring, and practice runs, with feedback, of
presentations that students will have to give for MA coursework.
Sample Unit of Study
Unit 4.
Process writing II: (8 hours
instruction)
- Creating coherence and cohesion – material: students’ draft essays produced for homework during the previous Unit 3. Students work in groups of 3 or 4, reading each others’ essays for understanding and clarity of argument. Where students notice breakdown of coherence or clarity they mark their peer’s work for discussion and improvement.
- Editing for content and style - class discussion of students’ texts regarding breakdown of coherence and cohesion. Teacher introduces and outlines elements of coherence and cohesion (reference pronouns, proper sequencing, transitional & relational conjunctions) through sample texts and in-class activities. An example of such an activity might include groups of students grouping phrases (printed on card, and placed physically on classroom walls with blu-tack), based on indication of addition, contradiction, cause, effect, etc. Students then engage in groupwork editing for content and style, especially with respect to coherence and cohesion.
- Formal considerations, signposting words - class discussion and group editing. Teacher and class discuss paragraphing, introduction, body, and conclusion as they normally occur in academic writing. Other, less academic written rhetorical modes such as narration, description, and causal analysis (McCuren and Winkler, 1998: 299), focusing on formal similarities and differences, are examined through use of sample texts. Discussion of the use and proper formats for appendices.
- Quotes & references - class discussion and group editing. Teacher and class discuss APA style, using quotes, and paraphrasing. Instruction and activities concerning the process of paraphrasing, including identifying key points, use of synonyms, antonyms, and substitution. Strategy instruction: keeping track and making best use of sources.
- Identifying & fixing common mistakes - class discussion and group editing: fragments & run-ons, verb agreement & tense, singular/plural, pronoun agreement, simple & complex sentences, prepositions, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Activities include strategies for identifying and fixing common problems, making use of student writing samples in class, group and individual work.
Course Implementation and Evaluation
As this course
has been developed from a purely conjectural standpoint, there is no plan for
actual implementation. However, were
there a single or inter-departmental approval for such a course, it could
potentially be implemented through any of a number of organizations at Payap
University. Additionally, this is
clearly a curriculum design which could hold interest for any number of
universities offering international master’s degree programs in the social
sciences.
Evaluation of
the effectiveness of the program should be accomplished through a number of
means. As proof of the value of the
course lies in students’ enhanced ability to undertake the MA coursework, students
would not be required to take a summative exam.
Therefore, this is not an appropriate means of evaluation for the
success of the students or the course itself.
This is not problematic, as evaluation does not necessarily require
testing. The value in collecting data in
this case is in acquiring reliable and relevant information regarding the
effectiveness of the course. This
information does not need to be quantitative – qualitative information can be
equally of value. (Bachman, 1997:
22) Student feedback in the form of
questionnaires, including both open and closed-ended questions should be given
both after the first forty hours of instruction, and again at the end of the
course. Feedback from instructors on
associated MA courses should also be sought, either through questionnaires or
formal interviews, in order to assess their perception of students’
preparedness for MA coursework in comparison to students from previous terms
who had not had such a preparatory course.
Results from such feedback can then be used in improving further
iterations of the course.
References
¨ Bachman, L.F. (1997) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
OUP.
¨ Basturkmen,
H. (2010). Developing Courses in
English for Specific Purposes.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
¨ Farrell, T.S.C. (2009)
Teaching Reading to English
Language Learners. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
¨ Field, J.
‘The Changing Face of Listening,’ in Richards & Renandya (Eds.) Methodology
in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
¨ Genesee, F. & Upshur, J.A. (1998)
Classroom-based Evaluation in
Second Language Education.
Cambridge: CUP.
¨ Graves, K.
(2000). Designing Language
Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
¨ Masuhara, H. (2003) ‘Materials for Developing
Reading Skills,’ in Tomlinson, B. Developing
Materials for Language Teaching.
London: Continuum.
¨ McCuren, J. & Winkler, A. (1998)
Readings for Writers, 9th
Edition. Harcourt Brace.
¨ Nunan, D.
(1991) Language Teaching Methodology.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
¨ Nunan, D.
(2002) ‘Listening in Language
Learning,’ in Richards & Renandya (Eds.)
Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
CUP.
¨ Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
