Course Description

English 578 provides a survey and analysis of L2 curriculum and syllabus design, an exploration of the role of action research for continued teacher development within L2 curricula, as well as an examination of language program administration issues.  More specifically, it will familiarize students with theoretical and practical issues related to the selection of content and the development of corresponding instructional materials for ESL/EFL courses. It will provide students with an opportunity to engage in a semester-long project, tailored to a teaching setting of individual student interest, that highlights select curriculum planning issues.

Required Textbooks

Christison, M.A., & Stoller, F. L. (Eds.).  (1997).  A handbook for language program administrators.  Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.

Graves, K. (Ed.).  (1996).  Teachers as course developers. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Richards, J. C. (2001).  Curriculum development in language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Required Readings 

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001).  The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods, and challenges.  In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 177-194).  NY: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, A. M., & Price-Machado, D. (2001). English for specific purposes (ESP):  Tailoring courses to student needs—and to the outside world.  In Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 43-54).  Boston:  Heinle & Heinle. 

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Conclusion.  In Techniqiues and principles in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 177-189).  NY: Oxford University Press. 

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001).  The post-methods era.  In Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 244-255).  NY: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, M. A. (2001).  Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching.   In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303-318).  Boston:  Heinle & Heinle. 

Stoller, F. L. (1999). Time for change: A hybrid curriculum for EAP programs. TESOL Journal, 8(10), 9-13. 

Stoller, F. L. , & Grabe, W. (1997).  A six-T's approach to content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content  (pp. 78-94). NY: Longman.

Wallace, M. J. (1998).  Why action research?  In Action research for language teachers (pp. 4-19).  NY: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996).  The TBL framework: Overview and pre-task phase. In A framework for task-based learning (pp. 39-51).  Essex, England: Longman.

Suggested Readings

Brown, J. D. (1995).  The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development.  Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. 

Krahnke, K. (1987).  Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D.  (1989).  Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation.  In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176-186). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Course Expectations and Requirements

1. Graduate level performance is expected from all students.  At the graduate level, it is assumed that students are, to a great extent, responsible for their own learning.  Therefore, assignments are to be completed PRIOR to the class for which they are assigned in a thorough and quality manner.  Class attendance and quality in-class participation is expected.

2. Students are expected to complete all assignments on time.  All out-of-class assignments should be typewritten, unless otherwise stated, following standard academic conventions. Late work will not be accepted.

3. Students will complete a multiple-step curriculum/syllabus/ materials project.  See full description on appended handouts.  The project will be reviewed in stages; students will have the opportunity to revise most sections before turning in the final version.

4. Students will submit four reflection papers in response to select course readings.  Rather than summarize the readings, students will a) explore general insights of personal professional relevance, b) discuss predictable challenges, and/or c) explore generalizable "lessons-to-be-learned" that can be applied to students' own teaching interests.  For case studies in the Graves (1996) volume, one possible way to get started is to consider the questions posed in Graves, on pages 9-10.  Response papers should be 2-3 pages long, typewritten, double-spaced.  Response papers longer than 3 pages will not be accepted.  Response papers will be graded as follows: 1 point for grasp of content;  2 points for depth of discussion;  1 point for proper language use.

5. Students, in pairs or groups, will conduct a 10-12 minute class lesson on aspects of program administration highlighted in different chapters of the Christison & Stoller (1997) volume.  The lesson should be interactive and involve all classmates in a critical thinking activity (through, for example, case studies, ranking or prioritizing activities).  At the end of the lesson, a handout with 5-10 important insights from each chapter covered should be distributed to classmates.  (This handout should be seen not only as a convenient summary of important points in the targeted chapters but also as a study guide for the comprehensive exam.)

6. Students will complete a take-home exam (covering course content from weeks 1-4). 

7. Students will complete an in-class final exam (covering material from the entire course) during finals week.

8.  Final evaluation is based on a point system of 100 points total.  Totals are the sum of these weights:
 

Take-home exam	15
Multiple-step project	30
First drafts of steps 1-5 @ 2 points each	10
Reflection papers (4 @ 4 points each)	16
Mini lesson on program administration	8
Final exam	15
Class participation and other short assignments	6

Tentative Syllabus
 

Date	Subject Matter	Assignments
M 8/27	Course introduction
W 8/29	The basics: Curriculum & syllabus development	Richards Ch 1 & 2
M 9/3	Labor Day (no class)
W 9/5	The basics (continued); Approaches to ESP	Richards, pp. 151-165; Graves Ch 1; Johns & Price-Machado (2001);  Step 1 due (Parameters)
M 9/10	Approaches to EAP	Flowerdew & Peacock (2001)
W 9/12	Approaches to task-based instruction	Willis (1996)
M 9/17	Approaches to content-based instruction	Stoller & Grabe (1997), Snow (2001); Reflection paper 1 (on Stoller & Grabe; Snow)
W 9/19	Hybrid curricula; Distribution of take-home exam	Stoller (1999)
M 9/24	Project work as part of curriculum design	Take-home exam due
W 9/26	Course development and the role of needs analysis	Richards Ch 3 & 4; Graves Ch 2
M 10/1	Needs analysis (continued) and the role of goals & objectives in course development	Graves Ch 3 & 4; Reflection paper 2 (on Graves 3 & 4)
W 10/3	Goals & objectives (continued)	Richards Ch 5
M 10/8	Course development and the role of conceptualizing content	Graves Ch 5; Steps 2 & 3 due: (Needs & situation analyses)
W 10/10	Course planing and syllabus design	Richards Ch 6
M 10/15	Role and design of instructional materials	Richards Ch 8; Graves Ch 6; Reflection paper 3 (on Graves 5 & 6)
W 10/17	Developing materials	Graves Ch7; Step 4 due (Goals & objectives)
M 10/22	Curriculum evaluation	Richards Ch 9; Graves Ch 8
W 10/24	Curriculum evaluation through action research/teacher-initiated inquiry	Wallace (1998); Reflection paper 4 (on Wallace)
M 10/29	Future directions in curriculum design	Richards & Rodgers (2001); Larsen-Freeman (2000)
W10/31	Future directions (continued)	Step 5 due (Syllabus & content specifications)
M 11/5	Introduction to program administration	Richards Ch 7; Christison & Stoller Ch 1 & 2
W 11/7	Administrator as leader	Christison & Stoller Ch 3 & 4; (group mini lesson)
M 11/12	Veteran’s Day (no class)
W 11/14	Discussion of curriculum projects	Entire curriculum project due
M 11/19	Administrator as leader (continued)	Christison & Stoller Ch 5, 6 & 7; (group mini lesson)
W 11/21	Research day (no class)
M 11/26	Administrator as promoter	Christison & Stoller Ch 8, 9, & 10; (group mini lesson)
W 11/28	Administrator as promoter/organizer	Christison & Stoller Ch 11, 12, & 13; (group mini lesson)
M 12/3	Administrator as organizer/visionary	Christison & Stoller Ch 15, 16, & 17; (group mini lesson)
W 12/5	Course wrap up
T 12/11	Final exam (3:00-5:00 pm)

Multiple-Step Course Project

Over the course of this semester, you will be involved in a multiple-step curriculum project. The first five steps of the project will be turned in for feedback; it is expected that you’ll do the best job possible on these versions.  It is assumed that you will revise each step in response to my comments, peer comments, and information learned from subsequent course readings and activities. The final version of your project will include all seven steps.  The project components should be reformatted with continuous pagination, a title page, some sort of introductory statement (preface), sections (corresponding to steps 1-7) with appropriate APA headings, reference page, appendices (properly referenced in the body of your project).  The project can be submitted in a spiral notebook, as a bound packet, or in some other appropriate fashion. 

Step 1:  Parameters of teaching situation (1 page)

Write a prose description of your targeted teaching situation.  Define the parameters listed below.  The situation, as you describe it, should influence all other decisions made in this curriculum project.

a) location of course (ESL or EFL); b) level of instruction (i.e., elementary, secondary, adult, higher education); c) nature of course (e.g., VESL, EAP, ESP); d) age(s) of students;  e) language background(s) of students; f) educational background(s) of students; g) language proficiency of students (beginners, false beginners, intermediate, advanced); h) student motivation; i) size of class; j) resources available to language teachers. 

For the final version of this parameters statement, add a summary of other pertinent information (from steps 2-5) to depict the teaching situation/settings in clear terms.

Consider the purposes of a needs analysis for your targeted teaching situation and then do the following:

· Hypothesize, to the extent possible, your learners' needs and "hidden agendas" (Nunan, 1989).
· Consider the types of information that you need to collect to confirm and/or rework your hypotheses.
· Identify at least three types of procedures/instruments that you might use to conduct a needs analysis and state the purpose of each type. 
· Design two needs assessment instruments that you could use to confirm your hypotheses and/or to gather additional information on learner needs. (Include actual instruments in different appendices.  Remember to refer to each appendix in your written discussion.  See APA to determine how to refer to appendix.)
· Discuss (a) the purpose of your needs assessment instruments, (b) how you might use the information obtained, and (c) their limitations. 

(Refer to Richards, chapter 3, and Graves, chapter 2 & 3, to guide your discussion and instrument design, if appropriate.)

Identify 2-3 factors (e.g., societal, institutional, teacher, learner, adoption) that might play a significant role in your target situation. Explain their potential impact (positive and negative) on the target setting. 

Consider why and how you might conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis.  (Refer to Richards, chapter 4, to guide your discussion.)

With your needs and situation analyses in mind, do the following: 

· State the goals (aims) of the overall target program 
· Specify the content-, language-, and strategy-learning objectives of the specific course you are planning. 

(Refer to Richards, chapter 5, and Graves, chapters 2 & 4, to guide your discussion.)

It is assumed that you will adopt some form of hybrid syllabus to meet your students’ needs.  With this assumption in mind, do the following:

· Identify the predominant syllabus frameworks that will be used to structure your course and define your instructional priorities.  Provide a well articulated and well developed rationale for your choices, making appropriate reference to course readings.  (Include an APA formatted reference page.)
· Based on these syllabus frameworks, identify course content that will facilitate your ability to meet program goals and objectives.

(Refer to Richards, chapter 6, course readings, and Graves, chapter 5, for guidance.)

Develop THREE  related 60-minute lessons (following the lesson plan template introduced in ENG 558 and 559) that illustrate key features of your curriculum/syllabus framework.  Preface your lessons with a detailed statement that identifies key features of your lessons and that explains how those features complement students needs, program goals, course objectives, predominant syllabi frameworks, etc. 

(See Richards, chapter 8, and Graves, chapters 6 & 7, for guidance.) 

If you were in a position to implement your curriculum as it is currently designed, you would have an opportunity for systematic reflection/action research, a type of self-monitoring that would provide you with valuable information about yourself as an ESL/EFL professional and about your curriculum/ syllabus. 

· Identify one aspect of your teaching—that represents a natural extension of your lesson plans—that you are interested in learning about and/or wish to improve. 
· Respond to these questions: How would you go about organizing your action research activity?  What questions would you pose?  How would you go about monitoring yourself?  What would you hope to learn (e.g., about your teaching, teaching persona, curriculum, syllabus) from these observations? 

(Refer to Wallace, 1998, and other pertinent information from class to guide you.  Add relevant references to your reference page.