Input – în predarea unei limbi = conținutul lingvistic al cursului
- Organizarea conținuturilor într-o manieră favorabilă predării și învățării diferă în
funcție de perspectivele diferite asupra naturii limbii și ierarhiei la nivelul pilonilor
care alcătuiesc competența lingvistică (vocabular, gramatică, tipuri de text, funcții
- Organizarea conținuturiloe = syllabus
Forward Design
‘waterfall’ model (Tessmer and Wedman, 1990) where the output from one stage serves as
the input to the stage that follows. This approach is described in Richards and Rodgers
(2001:143-44), summarizing Docking (1994):
the traditional approach to developing a syllabus* involves using one’s understanding of
subject matter as the basis for syllabus planning. One starts with the field of knowledge
that one is going to teach (e.g. contemporary European history, marketing, listening
comprehension, or French literature) and then selects concepts, knowledge, and skills that
constitute that field of knowledge. A syllabus* and the course content are then developed
around the subject. Objectives may also be specified, but these usually have little role in
teaching or assessing of the subject. Assessment of students is usually based on norm
referencing, that is, students will be graded on a single scale with the expectation that they
spread across a wide range of scores or that they conform to a pre-set distribution.
[* ‘curriculum’ in North American usage and as it is used in this paper]
Wiggins and McTighe (2006:15) give an illustration of this process with an example of a
typical forward-design lesson plan:
• The teacher chooses a topic for a lesson (e.g. racial prejudice)
• The teacher selects a resource (e.g. To Kill a Mocking-bird)
• The teacher chooses instructional methods based on the resource and the topic (e.g. a
seminar to discuss the book and cooperative groups to analyze stereotypical images in
films and on television)
• The teacher chooses essay questions to assess student understanding of the book.
John Trim was a key member of the group of experts commissioned by the Council of
Europe to develop a new approach to language teaching, and he described what they wanted
to achieve:
We set out to identify a number of coherent but restricted goals relevant to the
communicative needs of the learner. We then attempt to work out in detail the knowledge and
skills which will equip the learner to use the language for the communicative purposes
defined. In the light of his characteristics and resources we then have to establish a formal
language program leading to the mastery of this body of knowledge and skills, and a means
of testing and evaluation to provide feedback to all parties concerned as to the success of the
programme (Trim, 1978: 9).
Syllabus Design
Syllabus design was a growth industry from the mid 1920s through to the latter part of the
twentieth century and led to a number of key publications in which different approaches to
syllabus design were proposed (e.g. Wilkins, 1976; Munby, 1978; Willis, 1996). Debate over
criteria for the choice of syllabus items (selection) as well as criteria for their sequencing
(gradation) was a dominant issue in applied linguistics in the early and mid twentieth
century, as described in Mackey’s (1965) influential book Language Teaching Analysis.
Intuition, frequency counts as well as text analysis have all been used as procedures in
syllabus design.
Word Lists, Grammar Syllabuses, Corpora and Discourse Analysis
English language teaching has been strongly influenced by the use of lists as input
English as a Second/Foreign Language professionals, from teachers to testing specialists,
repeatedly make decisions about language, including which features and vocabulary to teach
and/or test. In recent years, most ESL/EFL professionals have adopted a preference for
“authentic” materials, presenting language from natural texts rather than made-up texts.
Corpora provide a ready source of natural, or authentic texts for language learning (Reppen,
2010: 4).
Corpus analysis has revealed the importance of units beyond the level of vocabulary (e.g.
phrases, multiword units and collocations) and provides information that can be used to
update or replace the earlier generations of lists that have been used in syllabus design.
Another approach that has been used to provide authentic input to teaching is through the use
of discourse analysis – a procedure that is used to study the nature of different text types, the
ways they are used, and their lexical, grammatical, and textual features. This is particularly
important in the design of courses in English for Special Purposes where the identification of
the lexical, syntactic and textual structures of different genres is a pre-requisite to teaching
specialized genres.
Syllabus and Methodology
With a forward design approach, decisions about teaching processes or methodology follow
from syllabus specification.
Two Examples of Forward Design Approaches in Language Teaching
The audiolingual method, the audiovisual method and the structural situational method have
already been cited as examples of forward design methods. More recent examples include
communicative language teaching and content based teaching/CLIL:
1. communicative language teaching:
the impetus for the development of CLT came from a change in the understanding of the
nature of language, prompted by Hymes’ notion of communicative competence. While the
concept of communicative competence was embraced enthusiastically by the language
teaching profession, an initial concern in CLT was with the operationalization of the notion
of communicative competence and the development of a communicative syllabus to replace
earlier grammar-based syllabus models.
The audio-lingual approach conceptualized a communicative ability in terms of good
grammatical habits. The audio/visual situational approach focused on the ability to
understand and produce appropriate phrase related to particular situations. Topic-based
approaches emphasized the ability to cope with certain topics. The functional-notional
approach has focused on mastery of formal means to interpret and express certain
predetermined meanings (Clark, 1987: 23).
2. Communicative Syllabus Design : Munby’s (1978) a course based on learners’
communicative needs: Methodological issues are described as a ‘dimension of course design
which is subsequent to syllabus specification’ (Munby, 1978: 217)
3. Content-based Instruction (CoBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
They seek to develop language proficiency as well the mastery of subject matter, critical
thinking, and other cognitive skills through the use of a syllabus that integrates both language
and subject matter (e.g. science, geography, history, environmental studies). Like other
communicative approaches, the instructional processes used in CoBI/CLIL are varied and no
specific teaching methods are prescribed.
Implementing a Forward Design Curriculum
The curriculum design process associated with forward design can be represented as:
Content - syllabus - methodology - outcomes - assessment
In some contexts the planning and development of each stage in the curriculum devel-
opment process is carried out by different specialists who have expertise in each process,
such as specialists in syllabus design, methodology, and assessment. Graves (2008: 150)
describes this as a ‘specialist approach’, and comments:
In the specialist approach, the potential for mismatch [i.e. lack of alignment between the
different components of the curriculum –author’s note] is great because each different group
of people performs different curricular functions, uses different discourses, and produces
different curricular products.
CENTRAL DESIGN
With central design, curriculum development starts with the selection of teaching activities,
techniques and methods rather than with the elaboration of a detailed language syllabus or
specification of learning outcomes. Issues related to input and output are dealt with after a
methodology has been chosen or developed or during the process of teaching itself.
Research on teachers’ practices reveals that teachers often follow a central design approach
when they develop their lessons by first considering the activities and teaching procedures
they will use. Rather than starting their planning processes by detailed considerations of input
or output, they start by thinking about the activities they will use in the classroom. While they
assume that the exercises and activities they make use of will contribute to successful
learning outcomes, it is the classroom processes they seek to provide for their learners that
are generally their initial focus.
Despite the approach they have been recommended to use in their initial teacher education,
teachers’ initial concerns are typically with what they want their learners to do during the
lesson. Later their attention turns to the kind of input and support that learners will need to
carry out the learning activities (Pennington and Richards, 1997). This contrasts with the
linear forward-design model that teachers are generally trained to follow.
Summarizing research on teachers’ planning, Freeman (1996: 97) :In other words, teachers
tended to plan lesson as ways of doing things, for given groups of students rather than to meet
particular objectives.
Education as induction into knowledge is successful to the extent that it makes the
behavioural outcomes of the students unpredictable (Stenhouse, 1970 in Clark, 1987: 35).
Central design can thus be understood as a ‘learner-focused and learning-oriented
perspective’ (Leung, 2012).
Clark’s description of the features of ‘progressivism’ captures the essence of central
design:
• It places less emphasis on syllabus specification and more on methodological principles
and procedures.
• It is more concerned with learning processes than predetermined objectives.
• It emphasizes methodology and the need for principles to guide the teaching learning
process.
• It is learner-centered and seeks to provide learning experiences that enable learners to
learn by their own efforts.
• It regards learners as active participants in shaping their own learning.16 RELC Journal
44(1)
• It promotes the development of the learner as an individual.
• It views learning as a creative problem-solving activity.
• It acknowledges the uniqueness of each teaching-learning context.
• It emphasizes the role of the teacher in creating his or her own curriculum in the
classroom
(Clark, 1987: 49-90).
were built instead around specifications of classroom activities.
- there is no need for clearly defined outcomes or objectives.
- The purpose and content of a course ‘will vary according to the needs of the students and
their particular interests’ (Krashen and Terrell, 1983: 65).
- Hence there are no syllabuses or published courses based on the Natural Approach.
Ex: Curran’s Counseling Learning: Students typically sit in a circle and express what they
want to say. Translation by the teacher is used to help express the learner’s intended meaning.
Later, interactions and messages are recorded and revisited as a source of reflection, analysis,
and further practice. a syllabus emerges from the interactions between the learner’s expressed
communicative intentions and the teacher’s reformulation of these into suitable target-
language utterances (Richards and Rodgers, 2001: 93).
Central-design versions of TBLT are those which employ primary pedagogical tasks as the
basis for classroom instruction – specially designed classroom activities that are intended to
call upon the use of specific interactional strategies and may also require the use of specific
types of language (skills, grammar, vocabulary). The tasks drive the processes of second
language learning and linguistic and communicative competence are the outcomes of task
work (Willis, 1996). There is no pre-determined grammatical syllabus and the goals are to
develop general language ability rather than the ability to use language in specific contexts
and for specific purposes
Dogma: Teaching should be done using only the resources that the teachers and students
bring to the classroom- i.e. themselves and what happens to be in the classroom.
A Dogme approach focuses on emergent language; teaching is not a question of imposing
an external language syllabus, but of nurturing the students’ in-built language-learning
mechanisms and language acquisition agenda
(www.deltapublishing.co.uk/content/pdf/teaching-unplugged/TU_TEFL_review.pdf ).
Post-method Teaching. draws on the teacher’s individual conceptualizations of language,
language learning and teaching, the practical knowledge and skills teachers develop from
training and experience, the teacher’s knowledge of the learners’ needs, interests and learning
styles, as well as the teacher’s understanding of the teaching context (Kumaravadivelu,
1994). The kinds of content and activities that the teacher employs in the classroom as well as
the outcomes he or she seeks to achieve will depend upon the nature of the core principles
that serve as the basis for the teacher’s thinking and decision-making.
The Ecological Classroom: Van Lier refers to the classroom as an ‘ecology’.
Implementuing a Central Design Curriculum:
learning takes place in a context and evolves through the interaction and participation of the
participants in that context. Learning is not viewed as the mastery of pre-determined content
but as constructing new knowledge through participating in specific learning and social
contexts and through engaging in particular types of activities and processes.
What they have in common, however, is the priority they attribute to learning processes,
classroom participation, and the role of the teacher and the learners in creating opportunities
for learning. The syllabus or learning input – rather than being something that is
predetermined or prescribed and regarded as essential in initiating curriculum development, is
rather an outcome of teaching and learning.
In the older method-based proposals referred to above, testing has the role of assessment of
learning (i.e. achievement testing) while in the more recent proposals a more dynamic role for
assessment is assumed – assessment for learning – where teaching and assessment inform
each other at every stage of the teaching/learning process. The ongoing interaction between
the different curriculum elements can be represented as follows:
Backward Design
The third approach to curriculum design is to begin with a specification of learning outputs
and to use these as the basis for developing instructional processes and input.
The process consists of:
assessmentassessmentcontentcontentoutcomesoutcomesTEACHING
Figure 7. Interaction between Elements of a Central DesignRichards 21
Step 1: diagnosis of needs
Step 2: formulation of objectives
Step 3: selection of content
Step 4: organization of content
Step 5: selection of learning experiences
Step 6: organization of learning experiences
Step 7: determination of what to evaluate and of the ways of doing it (Taba, 1962: 12).
- There is no place for individually-determined learning outcomes: the outcomes are
determined by the curriculum designer.
Ex:
Backward Design through Objectives.
The planning process begins with a clear understanding of the ends in mind. It explicitly
rejects as a starting point the process or activity-oriented curriculum in which participation in
activities and processes is primary
In backward design they recommend that three steps are required:
1. Identify desired results.
2. Determine acceptable evidence of learning.
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction.
Needs Analysis. Identifying learning outcomes or objectives is often seen to depend upon a
systematic analysis of the learners’ communicative needs, and emerged in the 1960s as part
of the systems approach to curriculum development – an aspect of the prevalent philosophy
of educational accountability from which the use of objectives was also derived (Stufflebeam
et al., 1985).
The steps involved are:
1. Identify learner’s communicative needs.
2. Develop statements of learning objectives.
3. Identify linguistic content and skills needed to attain the objectives.
4. Prepare course plans.
5. Select materials and teaching methods.
Task-based Language Teaching (Version 2).
The design of a task-based syllabus* preferably starts with an analysis of the students’ needs.
What do these students need to be able to do with the target language? What are the tasks
they are supposed to perform outside of the classroom? Using different sources and different
methods (such as interviews, observations, and surveys) a concrete description of the kinds of
tasks students will face in the real word is drawn up. This description, then, serves as the
basis for the design and sequencing of tasks in the syllabus (Van den Branden, 2012: 134).
[*i.e. ‘curriculum’ as used in this paper].
use. In a task-based approach, students are confronted with approximations and simulations
of the kinds of tasks they are supposed to be able to perform outside the classroom and learn
about relevant forms of language while trying to understand and produce the language that
these communicative tasks involve (Van den Branden, 2012:133).
Thus in this model of TBLT the sequence is:
1. Identify target tasks through needs analysis.
2. Design classroom tasks.
3. Apply TBLT methodology.
4. Identify language and other demands of the tasks.
5. Follow up language work.
This can be represented as:
Competency-based Instruction (CpBI). Competency-Based Instruction is another widely used
example of backward design. With CpBI the starting point of curriculum design is a
specification of the learning outcomes in terms of ‘competencies’ – the knowledge, skills and
behaviors learners involved in performing everyday tasks and activities and which learners
should master at the end of a course of study
The process can be represented as:
An example of how this approach was used in developing a vocational curriculum for
refugees and immigrants in the US is given in Mrowicki (1986). The process consisted of:
1. Needs analysis.
2. Identify topics for the survival curriculum (e.g. banking, health, shopping).
identify targettasksdesigntasks identifylanguage needsfollow upinstructionteaching
Figure 8. Development Stages in Task-based Language Teaching
Figure 9. Development Stages in Competency Based InstructionRichards 25
3. Identify competencies for each topic.
4. Group competencies into instructional units.
5. Identify the language knowledge and skills needed for each instructional unit (e.g. the 4
skills, vocabulary, grammar).
6. Choose instructional materials.
As with other backward design approaches, needs analysis is the starting point in curriculum
development
Standards and the Common European Framework of Reference
Standards are descriptions of the outcomes or targets students should be able to reach in
different domains of curriculum content, including language learning, and are generally
specified in very general terms. For example standards related to the use of both oral and
written language could include:
Students will develop knowledge and understanding of:
• The relationship between texts and contexts
• Cultural reference in text
• The relationship between purposes and structures of texts
• Language forms and features of texts (McKay, 2000).
The following is an example of a standard with related indicators in the domain of oral
language use:
Standard: the learner can participate in casual conversation
Indicators:
• Can use strategies to open and close conversations.
• Can initiate a topic in casual conversation.
• Can select vocabulary appropriate to the topic.
• Can give appropriate feedback responses.
• Can provide relevant evaluative comments through back channeling.
• Can take turns at appropriate points in the conversation.
• Can ask for clarification and repetition.
• Can use strategies for repairing misunderstanding.
• Can use appropriate intonation and stress patterns to express meaning intelligibly (Adapted
from Goh and Burns, 2012: 180).
The use of standards in curriculum planning thus involves the following sequence of
activities:
• Identify the domains of language use the learners need to acquire (e.g. reading, writing,
listening, speaking).
• Describe standards and performance indicators for each domain.
• Identify the language skills and knowledge needed to achieve the standard.
• Select teaching activities and materials.
Perhaps the most widespread example of backward design using standards in current use is
the Common European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe,
2001), which is designed to provide a ‘common basis for explicit description of objectives,
content and methods of the study of modern languages, within a wider purpose of elaboration
of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks’ etc. across Europe’
(Council of Europe, 2001:1). It describes six levels of achievement divided into three broad
divisions from lowest (A1) to Richards 27
highest (C2) which describe what a learner should be able to do in reading, listening,
speaking and writing at each level.
Basic user – A1, A2
Independent user – B1, B2
Proficient user - C1, C2
No specifications are given for input or process. It is the teacher’s or course designer’s
responsibility to work out how the outcomes can be achieved and to develop teaching
strategies and materials and content relevant to the context in which they are teaching.
Backward design with CEFR thus involves: outcomes, syllabus, materials and tests, teaching,
assessment
forward design option may be preferred in circumstances where a mandated curriculum is in
place, where teachers have little choice over what and how to teach, where teachers rely
mainly on textbooks and commercial materials rather than teacher-designed resources, where
class size is large and where tests and assessments are designed centrally rather than by
individual teachers. Since forward design can be used to develop published materials there
will generally be a wide range of teaching resources and materials to choose from. Forward
design may also be a preferred option in situations where teachers may have limited English
language proficiency and limited opportunities for professional development, since much of
the planning and development involved can be accomplished by specialists rather than left to
the individual teacher.
Central design approaches do not require teachers to plan detailed learning outcomes, to
conduct needs analysis or to follow a prescribed syllabus, hence they often give teachers a
considerable degree of autonomy and control over the teacher learning process. In the case of
method-based approaches, however, teachers may be required to understand the sometimes
obscure theory underlying the method as well as to master techniques and procedures that
may initially prove difficult. Or they may simply adopt the practices without worrying about
their claims and theoretical assumptions since they offer a supposedly ‘tried and tested or
expert-designed’ teaching solution. Adoption of a central design approach may also require a
considerable investment in training, since teachers cannot generally rely on published course-
book materials as the basis for teaching. With post-method and learner-community
approaches, teaching strategies are developed according to the teacher’s understanding of the
context in which he or she is working as well as on his or her individual skill and expertise in
managing the instructional process and in developing teaching materials and forms of
assessment. High levels of professional knowledge as well as of language proficiency are
probably a prerequisite.
A backward design option may be preferred in situations where a high degree of
accountability needs to be built into the curriculum design and where resources can be
committed to needs analysis, planning, and materials development. Well-developed
procedures for implementing backward design procedures are widely available, making this
approach an attractive option in some circumstances. In the case of large-scale curriculum
development for a national education system, much of this development activity can be
carried out by others, leaving teachers mainly with the responsibility of implementing the
curriculum. In other circumstances such as a private institute developing company specific
courses, a much more bottom-up approach may be adopted and the work required is carried
out by a well-trained and skilful individual teacher or group of teachers working together.
The characteristics of forward, backward and central design are summarized in Table 2.
Syllabus was displacing method as a way of conceptualizing language
teaching and learning. Communication as the basis for teaching and learning languages
had begun to take hold around the world. Dubin & Olshtain’s (1986) Course design provided
guidelines for developing a curriculum based on communicative goals, and Yalden’s (1987)
Principles of course design for language teaching advocated a proportional approach that
balanced
focus on form with focus on communication. In 1987, the journal Language Teaching
published
a seminal two-part article on contemporary paradigms in syllabus design (Breen 1987). Breen
outlined a paradigm shift from syllabus design as the pre-packaging of language content to be
learned, to a view of syllabus as negotiated classroom tasks in which the boundaries between
the WHAT of language and the HOW of acquisition were blurred. The frame of reference
drew on changing views of language, its acquisition, and the social processes within the
language classroom.
One of the most important curriculum publications in the last decade is the Council
of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001) that
seeks to provide descriptions that apply to competence in all languages across all levels.
As such, the terms curriculum, program, course and syllabus can
be used in either a concrete or abstract sense. They refer to something concrete when they
are used to describe specific examples of practice. They are abstract when they are used to
describe theories or views about how they should be conceptualized
This review will examine curriculum from both a contextual perspective – how curriculum
is shaped by the multiple contexts in which it is situated – and a classroom perspective –
how the classroom context shapes what is possible in a language curriculum.
Table 1, adapted from
R. K. Johnson (1989b), depicts planning and implementation in a SPECIALIST curriculum.
It encompasses four main domains: curriculum planning, specification of ends and means,
programme implementation and classroom implementation. In the first three domains there
are specialists responsible for decision-making and for producing curriculum products. In
the last domain, classroom implementation, teachers and learners, through their actions,
implement the received curriculum. These four domains can also be viewed as stages that
follow each other in a linear fashion.
Each of the products is both
a curriculum resource and a curriculum constraint. Policy gives direction to a curriculum,
but also sets parameters that limit it. A syllabus and materials may organize and facilitate a
curriculum, but they also constrain classroom practice.
Problems with the specialist approach
Figure 1 has been adapted from the original to visually highlight fundamental problems in
the specialist approach or view of curriculum. The first is the potential for lack of alignment
between each stage and a resulting lack of coherence in the curriculum. By alignment I mean
the agreement among persons with a common cause so that, for example, policy is formulated
in such a way that it informs and facilitates needs analysis, needs analysis is conducted in
such a way that it informs and facilitates development of methodology and so on. The lack
of alignment may result in a mismatch between domains and thus contribute to a lack of
coherence in the curriculum (R. K. Johnson 1989b.)
The second fundamental problem is that by putting the classroom at the end of the
chain of decisions, it positions teachers – and learners – as recipients and implementers
of received wisdom, rather than decision-makers in their own right. The specialist view
of curriculum is congruent with the FIDELITY PERSPECTIVE on curriculum
implementation
(Snyder, Bolin & Zumwalt 1992) in which experts plan a curriculum that teachers are
expected to faithfully implement. If there are problems in the implementation, the fault
is seen to be with teachers because they were not faithful to the curriculum, not with
the curriculum and those who designed it.
However, a third problem in the specialist
approach is that, unless evaluation is built in at each stage – which it generally is not –
(Hargreaves 1989; Kiely & Rea-Dickens 2005) there is usually no room for evaluation of the
curriculum once it is implemented in the classroom. Especially for large-scale curriculum
projects so much time and effort is put into the creation of syllabuses, materials and tests that
there is a reluctance to go back and change what has been invested in.
At present, in a
pilot project, curriculum developers are working with a group of Inspectors, who, in turn, are
working with teachers, to develop a set of principles that can form the basis of a shared
discourse about learning and teaching.,
1.4 A different definition of curriculum
This article is constructed around a different view of curriculum, one that retains the three
core processes of curriculum – planning, implementing and evaluating – but renames the
middle one ENACTING to reflect the agency of teachers and learners in the classroom.
In this view of curriculum, enactment – the
teaching and learning processes that happen in the classroom – is at the heart of education.
Planning and evaluating are both directed at the classroom and are closely allied with it. The
three processes that make up curriculum are embedded in social and educational contexts
that determine their purpose and scope.
The reasoning behind this view is that without enactment, there is no curriculum. A
curriculum cannot exist BEFORE it is enacted. Or, put another way, curriculum must be
enacted to exist. One cannot claim to have a curriculum without teaching and learning
experiences. Curriculum plans, policies, syllabuses, and materials are not ‘the curriculum’.
In this view, curriculum is a complex, dynamic system ‘where everything is interconnected,
nonlinearity and adaptation is the norm’ (Larsen-Freeman&Freeman in press). The processes
of planning, enacting and evaluating are interrelated and dynamic, not sequential.They move
back and forth to inform and influence each other. Classroom enactment shapes planning
and vice versa. Planning shapes evaluation and vice versa. The aim of evaluation is to
improve teaching and learning, not just to measure it. The enacted curriculum is always
LOCAL. Finally, and centrally, teachers, as the orchestrators
of enactment, are crucial to a successful curriculum.
2. Curriculum enactment
2.1 ENACTMENT happens within and in relationship to CONTEXT
In their research on curriculum implementation, Snyder et al. (1992) identified three
perspectives: the FIDELITY PERSPECTIVE, the MUTUAL ADAPTATION
PERSPECTIVE and the CURRICULUM ENACTMENT PERSPECTIVE.
Fidelity research looks at the degree to which
something has been implemented as planned, the match between design and outcome,
irrespective of how it has been implemented. The mutual adaptation perspective, on the
other hand, is concerned with how a curriculum is adapted during the implementation
process by both curriculum developers and teachers.
The curriculum enactment perspective is concerned with how ‘curriculum is shaped
through the evolving constructs of teacher and students’ (ibid: 404). Externally created
syllabuses and materials are viewed as tools that students and teacher use as they construct
the enacted experience of the classroom. It views the process of enactment as one of growth for
both teachers and learners. Research in curriculum enactment is concerned with classroom
experiences and how the participants create them, the effect of externally created materials,
policies, and participant characteristics on those experiences, and the effects of the experiences
on the participants themselves. In
curriculum enactment, what happens in classrooms is the core of curriculum. What happens
in classrooms is the evolving relationship between teacher, learners and subject matter.
2.2 CONTEXT is more than place
An enactment perspective focuses our attention on the classroom aswhere/when the language
curriculum happens. However, a classroom is not an isolated environment; it is embedded in
specific, complex and overlapping cultural, social, educational and political contexts. (These
will hereafter be compressed into the term socioeducational contexts.)
Contexts are more than physical places, they are communities of people, enmeshed in social systems that
operate
according to tacit and explicit norms, hierarchies and values (Freeman & Johnson 1998;
Graves forthcoming). As depicted in Figure 2, the contexts of a language curriculum include
the educational institution in which the curriculum is enacted, the larger community the
institution is a part of, the provincial, and the national political context, and, increasingly, the
global context (Pinar 2003; Smith 2003; Graddol 2005). The classroom, where curriculum
is enacted, is itself a sociocultural context with its own social systems, norms and values.
I shall argue that the relationship between socioeducational contexts and language
are defining features of how language curriculums are planned, enacted and evaluated and
that the relationship makes the subject matter of a language curriculum unique.
2.4 Two kinds of contexts, two different approaches
Language curriculums differ according to the relationship between language inside the
classroom and language outside the classroom. The
first are TARGET LANGUAGE(TL)-REMOVED CONTEXTS. These are contexts in which a language
is learned in classrooms that are removed or separate from the contexts in which the target
language is used. The second are TARGET LANGUAGE(TL)-EMBEDDED CONTEXTS. These are
contexts in which a language is learned either within or closely connected with a ‘context
of use’, a surrounding context in which the target language is used.
2.5 TL-removed contexts
TL-removed contexts include foreign languages in schools e.g. Japanese in an American
secondary school, or English in a Japanese secondary school; foreign languages in universities,
e.g. English in a French university, and French in an Australian university, and foreign
languages in adult community programs, e.g. Italian at a community center in Denmark.
For example, a fifteen-year-old American who studies Japanese in a secondary school in Los
Angeles is studying in a TL-removed context. She does not have a context of use for the
target language since Japanese is not commonly used or spoken by most people in the school,
community, state and nation.
In these contexts, especially in schools, language is a subject in itself, like science or
history. Larsen-Freeman & Freeman (in press) have termed this a SUBJECT LANGUAGE, that
is ‘a language that has been designated as subject matter within a school curriculum and
therefore has certain teaching practices and learning expectations associated with it’
