Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T06:09:56.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

Kathleen Graves
Kathleen Graves*
Affiliation:
School for International Training, USAkathleen.graves@sit.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines curriculum from a social contextual perspective in which enactment – teaching and learning – is the central process, to which planning and evaluation contribute. It looks at the ways two kinds of contexts, target-language embedded and target-language removed, influence language curriculum planning and enactment. It provides a brief history of syllabus design and a rationale for moving beyond syllabus as the primary construct for curriculum planning. It then explores the classroom as the context of enactment and the role of the teacher as catalyst for curriculum change. It reconceptualizes the classroom as a learning community with potential links with real, virtual and imagined communities. It briefly explores integrated approaches to evaluation and assessment and concludes with examples of promising directions and suggestions for further research. Examples of practice that illustrate concepts are provided throughout the article.

Information

Type
State of the Art
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 147 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

de Abreu-e-Lima, D. M., de Oliveira, L. C., Augusto-Navarro, E. H. (2008). Focusing on teaching from the get-go: An experience from Brazil. In Carroll, (ed.), 177–198.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7.3, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal 89.3, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (in press). The developing language learner. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions and directions. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, V. & Oldfield, J. (2007). Sowing the seeds: An innovative gardening project. In Burns & de Silva Joyce (eds.), 15–42.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Basturkman, H. (2003). Beyond the individual speaker in New Zealand. In Coombe & Hubley (eds.), 91–102.Google Scholar
Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly 30.4, 723–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the non-native speaker graduate student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 1. Language Teaching 20.1, 81–92, Part 2. 20.2, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. P. & Candlin, C. N. (2001). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 9–26.Google Scholar
Breen, M. & Littlejohn, A. (2000). Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In Salomon, G. (ed.), Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 188–228.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, A. & de Silva Joyce, H. (eds.) (2007a). Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for adult learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Burns, A. & de Silva Joyce, H. (2007b). Challenging requirements: How teachers navigate to make changes within required curricula. In Burns & de Silva Joyce (eds.), l–14.Google Scholar
Burns, A., Joyce, H. & Gollin, S. (1996). ‘I see what you mean’. Using spoken discourse in the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Sydney: NCELTR.Google Scholar
Burton, J. & Daroon, Y. (2003). Constructing an English as a foreign language curriculum from learner discourse. In Burton, J. & Clennell, C. (eds.), Interaction and language learning. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 143–160.Google Scholar
Cammerata, L. (2006). Understanding and implementing content-based instruction: An exploration of foreign language teachers' lived experience. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2006). TESOL at 40: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly 40.1, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M. (ed.) (2008a). Developing a new curriculum for adult learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. (2008b). Creating a new curriculum: Leadership and communication. In Carroll, (ed.), 1–10.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Clavijo, A., Hine, N. & Quintero, M. L. (forthcoming). Exploring the EFL curriculum through the use of a virtual forum. In Graves, & Lopriore, (eds.).Google Scholar
Coombe, C. A. & Hubley, N. J. (eds.) (2003). Assessment practices. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dubin, F. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Dupuis, D. (forthcoming). Are you valiant enough for ESL content design? In Graves, & Lopriore, (eds.).Google Scholar
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination (2nd edn.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. In Carlgren, I., Handal, G., Gunnar & Vaage, S. (eds.), Teachers' minds and actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice. London: The Falmer Press, 43–61.Google Scholar
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: NCELTR.Google Scholar
Feez, S. (2001). Curriculum evolution in the Australian adult migrant English program. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 208–228.Google Scholar
Franson, C. & Vazquez, M. (2006). Adaptation and contingency: teaching history to learners of English as an additional language in the mainstream classroom. In McKay, (ed.), 81–100.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching and learning in the ‘age of reform’: The problem of the verb. In Gieve, S. & Miller, I. (eds.), Understanding the language classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32.3, 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Georgetown University Department of German (2007). <http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/german/> accessed 25/09/2007.+accessed+25/09/2007.>Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2006). Steps for planning an integrated program for ESL learners in mainstream classes. In McKay, (ed.), 215–233.Google Scholar
Goff, K. (1998). Chaos, collaboration and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 14.1, 29–42.Google Scholar
Goodman, M. (2003). Cooperative ESP assessment at a Japanese university. In Coombe & Hubley (eds.) 49–59.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. (2005). The future of English next: Envisioning the future world of English language learning. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (ed.) (1996). Teachers as course developers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (2001). A framework of course development processes. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 178–196.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (2006a). Preface to P. McKay, (ed.), Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school age learners, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, v–vii.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (2006b). Does teaching hinder learning? Presented at the Thai TESOL convention, Chiang Mai, Thailand.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (forthcoming). Curriculum in teacher education. In Burns, A. & Richards, J. (eds.), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graves, K. & Lopriore, L. (eds.) (forthcoming). Developing a new curriculum for school-age learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gunn, C. (2003). Exploring second language communicative competence. Language Teaching Research 7.2, 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. R. & Hewings, A. (eds.) (2001). Innovation in English language teaching: A reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1998). The communication standards. In Phillips, J. K. & Terry, R. (eds.), Foreign language standards: Linking research, theories and practice. New York: National Textbook Company/ACTFL, 15–56.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, A., Moore, S. & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, P. (1989). DES-IMPL-EVALU-IGN: An evaluator's checklist. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1986). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, P. W. (ed.) (1992a). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jackson, P. W. (1992b). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In Jackson, (ed.), 3–40.Google Scholar
Japan MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology) (2007). <http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm> accessed 18/09/2007.+accessed+18/09/2007.>Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (ed.) (1989a). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (1989b). A decision-making framework for the coherent language curriculum. In Johnson, R. K.. (ed.), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordon, D. (2002). The notion of two-ways/both ways schooling. Ngoon-jook 22. 46–47.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kiely, R. & Rea-Dickins, P.. (eds.) (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkgöz, Y. (2006). Developing a corpus-based academic reading course. In Snow, & Kamhi-Stein, (eds.), 143–165.Google Scholar
Kirkgöz, Y. (2007). Innovation as a curriculum renewal process in a university in Turkey. In Rice, (ed.), 135–160.Google Scholar
Knox, J. (2007). Foreign eyes on Thailand: An ESP project for EFL learners. In Burns & da Silva Joyce (eds.), 119–142.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Freeman, D. (in press). Language moves: The place of languages – foreign and otherwise – in classroom teaching and learning. In Greene, J., Kelly, G. & Luke, A.. (eds.), Review of Research on Education.Google Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legutke, M. (2001). Redesigning the foreign language classroom: A critical perspective on information technology and educational change. In Davison, C., Crew, V., & Hung, J.. (eds.), Innovation and language education. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Department of Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education, 35–51.Google Scholar
Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2001). Lexis in the syllabus. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 46–54.Google Scholar
Li, D. (2001). Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 149–165.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopriore, L. (2004). Portfolio assessment in Italian secondary schools. Presented at TESOL Italy Conference, Rome.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, A. (2002). Changing contexts: Connecting teacher autonomy and institutional development. In Mackenzie, A.. (ed.), Developing autonomy. Proceedings of the JALT CUE SIG Conference 2001. Tokyo: JALT Pan-SIG Committee, 223–232.Google Scholar
Magnan, S. S. (2007). Reconsidering communicative language teaching for national goals. Modern Language Journal 91, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matus, C. & McCarthy, C. (2003). The triumph of multiplicity and the carnival of difference: Curriculum dilemmas in the age of postcolonialisation and globalization. In Pinar (ed.), 73–82.Google Scholar
McAndrew, J. (2007). Responding to learners' language needs in an oral EFL class. In Burns & de Silva Joyce (eds.), 189–204.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (2001). Designing the discourse syllabus. In Hall & Hewings (eds.), 55–63.Google Scholar
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McKay, P.. (ed.) (2006a). Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school age learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
McKay, P. (2006b). Teachers introducing change in required curricula for school-age English language learners: Influences and processes. In McKay, (ed.), 1–12.Google Scholar
Mok, A., Chow, A. & Wong, W. (2006). Strengthening language arts in English language teaching in Hong Kong. In McKay, (ed.), 59–80.Google Scholar
Moraes, S. E. (2003). In search of a vision: How Brazil is struggling to envision citizenship in its public schools. In Pinar. (ed.), 205–220.Google Scholar
Morrow, K.. (ed.) (2004). Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphey, T. (2001). Videoing conversations for self-evaluation in Japan. In Murphy & Byrd (eds.), 179–196.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. & Byrd, P.. (eds.) (2001). Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. (2000). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In Breen, M. P. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning. London: Longman, 159–171.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2000). Teaching language in context (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Pennington, M. (1998). Designing language programme evaluations for specific purposes. In Li, E. & James, G.. (eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 199–213.Google Scholar
Pinar, W. F. (ed.) (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, D. & Park, P. (2007). Partnering with students in curriculum change: Students researching students' needs. In Rice, (ed.), 181–202.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, V. & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly 41.3, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. & Germaine, K. P. (1998). Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. (1978). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A.. (ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, A. (ed.) (2007a). Revitalizing an established program for adult learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Rice, A. (2007b). English language programs and change: Be prepared. In Rice, (ed.), 1–14.Google Scholar
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinner, S. & Weigert, A. (2006). From sports to the EU economy: Integrating curricula through genre-based content courses. In Byrnes, H.Weger-Guntharp, H. & Sprang, K. (eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1–14.Google Scholar
Sato, K. & Takahashi, K. (2003). Teacher and student learning in the workplace: The impact of performance tests. JALT2000: Towards the new millennium. Proceedings of the 26th JALT International Conference on Language Teaching/Learning. Tokyo: JALT, 325–336.Google Scholar
Sfard, Anna. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27.2, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McHardy & Coulthard, M. C. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English used by teacher and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. G. (2003). Curriculum and teaching face globalization. In Pinar (ed.), 35–52.Google Scholar
Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. (1997). The content-based classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Snow, M. A. & Kamhi-Stein, L., (eds.) (2006a). Developing a new course for adult learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Snow, M. A. & Kamhi-Stein, L. (2006b). Developing a new course for adults: Transforming challenges into solutions. In Snow, & Kamhi-Stein, (eds.), 1–16.Google Scholar
Snyder, J., Bolin, F. & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In Jackson, (ed.), 402–435.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stoller, F. L. (1997). The catalyst for change and innovation. In Christison, M. A. & Stoller, F. L.. (eds.), A handbook for language program administrators. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center, 33–48.Google Scholar
Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-based instruction: perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 261–283.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (2000). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). Young foreign language learners and collaborative group work: A socio-cultural perspective. Colloquium on Sociocultural Perspectives of Learning and Second Language Acquisition. San Antonio, TX. 37th annual TESOL Conference.Google Scholar
van Ek, J. (1975). Threshold level. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J.. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245–260.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Norwell, MA.: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning 1.1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A perspective on recent trends. In Howatt, A. P. R. with Widdowson, H. G., A history of English language teaching (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 353–372.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins Cobuild.Google Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2006). English in academic setting: A postgraduate course for students from non-English speaking backgrounds. In Snow, & Kamhi-Stein, (eds.), 197–218.Google Scholar
Wu, Z. (2002). Teachers ‘knowledge’ and curriculum change: a critical study of teachers' exploratory discourse in a Chinese university. Ph.D. dissertation. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yashima, T. (2007). Autonomy and willingness to communicate. Presented at the Independent Learning Association conference, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
Yeh, H. & Cheng, Y., (2006). Learning how to teach creatively: A collaborative action research approach. In McKay, (ed.), 41–58.Google Scholar
Zappa-Holman, S. (2007). EFL in Argentina's schools: Teachers' perspectives on policy changes and instruction. TESOL Quarterly 41.3, 618–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar