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 Nộ

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 chƣơng 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 chƣơng 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 HƢƠNG






Hanoi, 2010










iii

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
iv

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
v

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

vi

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND ABBREVIATIONS





Page
Figure 1
Reasons for evaluation
16
Figure 2
Figure 3

Figure 4
Figure 5
Differences across ESL/ ALL stages – report writing
Students’ evaluation of the difficulty of Summary and
Reflection
Causes of students’ mistakes
Reasons for students’ paragraph writing structure
mistake
24
33

44
51
Table 1
Evaluation of curriculum development process

20
Table 2
The checklist for Continuity and coherence throughout
stages in curriculum development
21
Table 3
The differentiations between stages in learning and
teaching process
23

Table 4
Table 5
HULIS_VNU
Survey and Interview participant description:
Students’ result in reflection and summary exercises
Hanoi University of Languages and International
Studies – Vietnam National University
27
32
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
/>1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
Curriculum development has always been intensely attended by educators and teachers
because a good curriculum can guarantee the success of a course. Curriculum reforms have
been carried out very often in education in general and English Language teaching in
particular to make it up-to-date and efficient. After teaching students of English of the first
and second year students at Hanoi University of Languages and International studies,
Vietnam National University (HULIS-VNU) I have found out some unreasonable things in
the writing curriculum in general and course book in particular. For example, students of
the first year are required to master complicated types of writing like summary and
reflection while they are supposed to reach level 2 of ALTE. Besides, their writings are in
the format of an essays with standard structure of introduction, development and
conclusion paragraph whilst second year students start with learning about writing
paragraphs. This breaks the continuity throughout stages of the whole English language
skill 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 differently
with no explicit reason. All of these can cause a lot of difficulties and problems to teaching
and learning process especially the waste of time and energy. Furthermore, there are
increasing complaints from both teachers and students that the language program at
English Teacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU last too long (three fourth of the
university study duration) while its graduates’ English competence is sometimes much
lower than that of students who undertake short English courses at English centers for
IELTS or TOEFL preparation.
With a view to finding out firstly the problems and then the ways to increase the quality of
the English writing program for first year and second year students at HULIS-VNU in
particular 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

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 and
syllabuses to figure out their strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the researcher is
going 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 give
some suggestions to enhance the English writing curriculum of the first and second year
and 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 the
language skill program to save time, money and energy for students, teachers and the
institutions as the planning manifested through the curriculum can reduce, before a class
even 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 English
Teacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU, course curriculum developers, English
Teacher Education Department – HULIS - VNU and researchers in both theoretical and
practical aspects.
First and foremost, the innovations that are triggered by the findings of this research will

ensure students achieving the highest English competence within the shortest period of
3

time. Regarding English Teacher Education Department – HULIS – VNU, this is the
opportunity for them to reform their training programs for higher quality. Moreover, they
can save a lot of money, time and energy thanks to a more condensed and effective
curriculum. Concerning course curriculum developers and course book designer, they can
recognize the points in need of improvement in their products and learn valuable lessons
for future work from the suggestions made by the participants and the researchers. Last but
not least, researchers can benefit a lot from the rich and thorough literature review for the
issues 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 2009-2010
academic year. The focus is the match between the course objectives with learning content
and activities, the continuity and coherence through various stages and the consistency in
the 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 adopted
both 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 as
well as the writing course books of both English language Division1 and 2 to disclose any
teaching item that non-match the course objectives as well as that breaks the continuity and
consistency 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 teachers
who have taught both of the target writing programs were conducted to help the researcher

gather 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 research
question about the consequences of the existing problems in the target writing programs.
4

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 for
curriculum 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, the
researcher is going to discuss the curriculum development process with two important
stages of preparation and evaluation. In the end, I am presenting the role and the way to
maintain the continuity and coherence throughout stages in curriculum development,
The third chapter is going to present the methodology of the research with detailed
information about the participants, the research tools, the procedure of data collection, and
the procedure of data analysis.
In the fourth chapter, I would like to present the results of data analysis and how they
answer four research questions.
In the fifth chapter, after describing the target course with the specific information about

who and how the curriculum have been built up and adjusted, I am going to make some
suggestions 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 of the
research with a summary of the most important results and suggestions.
5

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.
1.1.1. Curriculum
In view of the literature, a number of definitions of curriculum have been proposed in both
narrow and broad approach. For supporters of the narrow view, curriculum is the totality of
learning experiences provided to students so that they can attain general skills and
knowledge at a variety of learning sites (Marsh & Willis, 2003). The broad view define
curriculum as an educational program, which states:
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
6

of an educational program.” (Nunan, 1988, p.6); in this research, I have adopted the
definition 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 to
facilitate learning. Another representative of this approach is Breen (1984) who claims that
any syllabus will show indirectly certain assumption about language, about the
psychological process of learning and about the pedagogic and social processes within
classroom. 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 this
content (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
7

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 a
syllabus in scope. Syllabus is more localized and is based on accounts and records of what
actually happens at the classroom level.
1.1.4. Course books
Unlike curriculum and syllabus, defining course books or textbook is not complicated and
controversial. A course book is a source of the core materials for a course. It aims to
provide as much as possible in one book and is designed so that it could serve as the only
book, which the learners necessarily use during a course (Tomlinson, 1998, p9). Therefore,
it is obvious that textbooks represent the “visible heart of any ELT program" (Sheldon,
1988, p.237)
1.2. Classification of curriculum
Enormous effort and energy have been spent on classifying ELT syllabus; however, none
has been done to ELT curriculum. However, scholars have managed to list educational
curriculum throughout the history as follows:
1.2.1. Curriculum as content
This is a classical way of understanding curriculum. In this model, curriculum means a
detailed description of contents of teaching (syllabuses or syllabi) that teachers should
deliver to their pupils through teaching. This model derives from the classical Tylerian
education rationale that views teaching and learning process as a linear causal relationship
(Tyler, 1949). According to this curriculum logic, carefully pre-determined educational
objectives lead to appropriate selection of content that will be taught and to choice of
relevant teaching methods that fit with the qualities of students and teachers. Evaluation of

learning 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 less
developed education systems especially when there is a shortage of adequately trained
schoolteachers. The reasons for the prevalence of this approach are that it is systematic,
follows the ideas of industrial management, and has therefore considerable organizing
8

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 of
study. Probably the best-known advocate of this curriculum modal was American
educationalist John Dewey in early 20
th
century. Later on, curriculum as experience
became alternative to classical content-based curriculum. However, curriculum model that
emphasizes experiences rather than transfer of information is more vulnerable to external
critics (especially from traditional academic spheres) and also more difficult to use as a
basis 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 called
framework curriculum that only sets an objective and provides broad guidelines for actual
curriculum planning. Framework curriculum is normally a comprehensive document that
describes the overall aim of schooling, more specific goals of education, and objectives of
teaching subjects or integrated subject groups. The purpose of such a framework
curriculum is to leave decision-making and curriculum planning authority to teachers
themselves.
Framework curriculum model also requires that the education system has highly qualified
and committed personnel in place.

1.2.4. Outcomes-based curriculum
In 1980s mostly in North America, the focus of curriculum planning started to shift from
teaching, i.e. subjects, content, methods, and other arrangements, to what students should
actually learn as a result of school education. An idea of outcome-based curriculum
expanded widely and was also adopted as a learning principle of many large-scale
curriculum reforms. The key idea of outcomes-based curriculum is that it guides the
planning of teaching by more precise description of intended learning outcomes. In other
words, this curriculum model consists of descriptive attainment targets for learning in
various subjects. For example, it may provide teachers with very detailed lists of
knowledge and skills that students should achieve in any given level of their schooling.
9

This outcomes-based curriculum became very popular model in many education reforms in
1990s because it gave politicians, parents, and students more specific picture of what is
expected from schools in terms of learning outcomes. Moreover, it also made external
assessment and testing of that learning more relevant due to commonly agreed expectations
that the curriculum spelled out.
1.2.5. Standards-based curriculum
The next generation of outcomes-based curriculum was standards-based curriculum model
that goes even further in setting the criteria what students should know and be able to do in
different subjects and at different phrases of schooling. The basic logic of standards-based
curriculum model is that the State sets the standards for learning and learning that are the
same for all students, teachers, and schools. These standards are normally subject-specific,
detailed descriptions of expected learning outcomes per grade or phase of schooling. A
particular strength of standards-based curriculum is their provision of measurable criteria
for evaluating the quality of the course.
However, the current trend is the combination and integration of more than one curriculum
types. Curriculum is an ongoing process, not a product that never ceases once a curriculum
framework and a package of prescribed teaching/learning materials are produced and
introduced in an educational system. It is no doubt that curriculum t is the heart of

educational 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 of
hierarchically ordered processes that are centrally initiated and controlled and that are
usually performed by selected expert committees. A decision is made by the supreme
authority in the educational system to start the whole process. A steering committee will be
entrusted with the production of the educational philosophy. A number of working
committees will be selected for producing the curriculum guides/ frameworks for different
stages and school subjects or subject areas. A co-coordinating committee will be entrusted
with 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 scope-and-
sequence through the analysis of existing curriculum documents and then producing the
10

prospective scope-and-sequence based on the goals and broad guidelines specified in the
educational philosophy/strategy. Materials will then be produced or selected. Materials
production takes many forms and involves various processes depending upon several
factors. In most cases, however, this will be the work of committees including textbook
writers 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 that
accompany different textbooks for different stages and grades. This process might also
include lots of brainstorming, fact finding, pooling of ideas, proof reading, revising and
publicizing conferences in which the views of all stakeholders are sought.
Proponents of this model or its variants normally consider such activities major efforts to
get 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 that
the products are suitable for or feasible in the local market. Only during the
implementation stage are teachers actually involved. The implementation committees will
arrange for textbook training, and in some cases trialing language teaching materials on a

small scale before they are finally introduced nation-wide. Presumably, this model has its
own ways of market evaluation. However, the teachers’ role will be confined to
implementation of the new product in exactly the same way in which expert designers
intended it to be implemented. All measures are taken to suppress/circumvent any
criticism; and any difficulties encountered by implementers will normally be interpreted as
indicators of their ignorance of, or at least lack of familiarity with, the new product. But
the most important advantage of this model is that tremendous nation wide changes that are
centrally 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 with
replacing the currently used textbooks by a new series that may, or may not, constitute a
great improvement on the old ones depending on a host of other factors such as the
excessive caution of the change agents to be system-sensitive (Markee, 1997). This is
specially clear when the change agent is an expatriate as is the case in foreign language
teaching. 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
11

to introduce too many theoretically motivated innovative features given the filtering role
often played by system constraints. Therefore, the newly introduced textbooks may, in
very few years, require a new educational raid in which they meet the same fate of their
predecessors. This is specially disturbing because most educational systems cannot afford
such 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. This
argument is supported by the often dwelt upon phenomenon of the gap between theory and
practice. 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 of
highly prescriptive teacher manuals, teachers may reinterpret any task or language learning
experience. Third, detailed guidance given to teachers about how to implement materials
designed by experts can lead to guidance jams and feelings of insecurity, anxiety and a

relatively low level of self-efficacy. It might be argued that such phenomena are expected
only in the initial stages of implementation. However, this prescriptive approach can
develop what might be called pedagogical dogmatism. Fourth, as Markee (1997, p. 64)
argues, it
“…discourages individual initiatives – a quality indispensable to the long term
maintenance of innovation – because it turns teachers into passive recipients of change
agents’ dictates.”
Finally, lack of teacher involvement results in feelings of a lack of ownership. Being
excluded from ELT curriculum development decisions and the associated feelings of lack
of ownership detrimentally affect teachers’ commitment to the success of the newly
introduced 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 and
South-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 or
region of a country will be entrusted with developing their school curricula collaboratively.
Several definitions of school based curriculum development (SBCD) are available in the
literature. Skilbeck (1984, cited in Bolstad, 2004, p.14) defines it as
12

“ 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 may
involve adapting an existing curriculum, adopting it unchanged, or creating a new
curriculum. SBCD is a collaborative effort which should not be confused with the
individual efforts of teachers or administrators operating outside the boundaries of a
collaboratively 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.
 It is an on-going process.
 It has to be centrally supported and facilitated.
 It may be adaptive rather than wholly creative.
Several arguments are frequently made to justify SBCD. One major argument is that it
helps avoid the problems involved in top-down models. Another argument is that it makes
curricula meet the needs of learners and local communities. It is also argued that SBCD
ensures teacher autonomy, a goal that is currently believed to be part and part of teacher
professionalism (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). But the most important rationale for SBCD lies
in the realization that curriculum development and teacher professional growth are
inseparable.
Before moving to teacher professional growth, it should be noted that a wholly bottom-up
strategy to curriculum development has got its own limitations and practical problems.
Bolstad (2004) gives examples of such problems. Examples of such projects show that
SBCD can be very slow and piecemeal. Besides, a lack of central governance and
monitoring can have serious detrimental effects on the quality of the teaching learning
processes. Furthermore, many teachers may simply be unwilling to participate in such
attempts thinking that curriculum development is beyond their role commitments. This is
13

perhaps the reason behind the fluctuation between top-down and bottom-up strategies of
curriculum development in many countries (Elliot, 1997). Hence, the need for a model is
the 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 three

points including the establishing the curriculum development task, clarification of the task
and 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 to
develop materials
 Clusters of schools, districts, or regions: One project officer coordinates the
curriculum development work of teachers in schools
 System wide: A central team forms a core working party, consulting regularly
with teachers. The team carries out the writing, and teachers respond to the
drafts and participate in trialing.
 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 then
consults 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.


14

1.3.1.2. Clarification of the task
To guarantee the quality of the curriculum, McKay and Scarino (1991) state that all those
involved 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 participating
members 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 processes
beyond 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 of
the projects; particularly, if more than one system or agency is involved in the task. The
management group may be organized by and comprise personnel from the administrative
structures supporting the project. It is likely to include personnel representing the project,
the system and funding agency. It is useful to establish clear roles and responsibilities
regarding management process.
15

- Professional consultancy: A reference group may provide invaluable support. A reference
group 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
 tertiary representatives

 the project writers
Meeting of the groups can be held:
 on a regular basis during the life of the project
 on a short-term basis to deal with particular document or issue
 once only, to deal with a particular document or issue
 once only, with further guidance or feedback provided by correspondence
Reference group can provide:
 guidance on directions to take
 assistance in the development of materials, e.g. feedback on drafts
 perspective from the range of related interest groups
 contacts in related curriculum areas.
- 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 other
aspect of the learning and teaching activity. Narrowly, it is for students to judge, to make
comments 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, teachers
needs evaluation “because it can provide a wealth of information to use for the future
16

direction of classroom practice, for the planning of the courses, and for the management of
learning tasks and students” (Germaine et al., 1992, p.3).
As summarized by Dickins and Germaine (1992, p. 10), there are two reasons why
evaluation is called for:


Is practice OK

Figure 1. Reasons for evaluation
In other words, evaluation is considered as the confirmation of practice if the practice is
good. In the other case when there is any problem with the practice. Evaluation is for the
consideration 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) suggests
that evaluation of the curriculum can occur at different levels and different points during
the development process. Curriculum developers can undertake evaluation formatively and
summatively:
 During and towards the end of the curriculum development process: curriculum
developers evaluate their own materials, checking for a range of broad features
(consistency, progression, integration, comprehensiveness) as well as specific
aspects within the materials which 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
Evaluation
Yes
No
Innovate
Confirm
17

 By employing external consultant who may carry out an evaluation with teachers
and others, leading to a report for further considerations.
1.3.2.3. How to evaluate
McKay & Scarino (1991) designed a checklist for curriculum evaluation, which in the
researcher’s point of view is quite good due to the specific criteria and evaluable factors.

EVALUATION OF CURRICULUM AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
PROCESSES
Statement of essential learning0
 Has a statement of Essential learning been included?
 How was it arrived at?
 Is it sufficiently comprehensive for the syllabus?
 How does it compare with the Statements of Essential learning in other States?
 Is a clear statement of development through states evident in the statement of
Essential learning?
Goals and general objectives
 Have general objectives been stated?
 Have they been stated in holistic terms?
 Is there an adequate range?
 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?
 Are they presented in a coherent order?
18

 Do the general objectives relate to the goals and activities?
Suggested activities
 Is there an adequate number and range of activities?
 Check range through activity-type and macro-skills
 Are they expressed sufficiently clearly and consistently?
 Have they been categorized accurately according to according to the activity-type
framework? 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? Are
the criteria for sequencing evident?
 If more than one activity-type is indicated for an activity, is it necessary? Can the
activity 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?
 Is a range of resources implied?
 Do some of the activities lend themselves to assessment? Have these been
indicated?
Modules
 On what basis have the organizational focus been chosen? Is it explicit? Is the
basis justifiable and appropriate?
 On what basis have the organizational focus been chosen? Is it explicit? Is the