At our director’s request, the authors formed a Level 1 revision committee in order to bring the courses in line with 2008 curricular reforms, among which was a qualities scale moving from fluency to clarity/complexity to accuracy. The rationale for making the change was twofold: 1) There is great theoretical support for integrated skills and inductive learning; 2) The teacher and student goals were not being met fully in that course.

Background

When we began the revision process, students met 4 hours per day for reading and writing instruction (2 hours), oral communication instruction (1 hour), and grammar instruction (1 hour). The grammar course format was traditional, explicit practice with grammatical forms, presented in textbook order. At the same time, our student demographics were shifting. Several “true beginners” were enrolling each session, and there was an increase in the number of students not passing as well as an increase in teacher feedback on students having difficulty.

We proposed a change in instruction breakdown, which would retain the 2 hours of reading and writing and give 2 hours for oral communication. The two overarching goals of “communication” were to develop fluency and meet students’ survival needs. Features of the new class included integrated speaking and listening (and other) skills, and a focus on situated meaning in our local context while also providing explicit attention to form. Grammar was still incorporated with a focus on syntax and semantics, and pronunciation was added, including phonology and sound-spelling correspondence.

Why did we replace explicit grammar? Because studies have shown that an early focus on fluency helps learners gain access to more of the language (Brown, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 200; Murphy & Byrd, 2001). Metalinguistic explanations help more at higher levels when situated within meaningful content and when they are on a level the students can understand (Ellis 2006). This was corroborated by teacher reports and student performance data, which evidenced a lack of understanding. Our goal was to provide opportunities for explicit attention to form within classes that focus first on communicative needs (Snow 2001; Spada & Lightbrown, 2008).

Why did we choose integrated skills?Grammar instruction, especially at early levels, is more effective when taught as part of an integrated skill class than as a “discrete skill” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). In addition, many students displayed a gap between oracy and literacy skills. That is, they use one to “bootstrap” the other, and it increases the number of ways the language is experienced and/or processed.

Why did we choose to embed lessons in context? First, providing personally relevant contexts for language use helps to increase motivation, salience, and learning rate (Schumann, 2010; Ellis, 2008; Hinkel, 2006). Second, beginners have immediate, practical needs such as being able to ask for help, providing basic personal information, or understanding simple instructions. Practically speaking as teachers, embedding the task makes it easier to explain.

Why did we include pronunciation? First, according to research (Best & Tyler, 2007), learners show the most improvement in pronunciation in the first few months after arrival. Second, early-level pronunciation instruction can help improve intelligibility, especially when embedded in meaningful communication (Bradlow, et al,, 1997; Rvachew et al., 2004). What's more, learners may use emerging knowledge of the spelling system to help develop new sound categories, and vice-versa. Further, perfect grammar won’t result in successful communication if their pronunciation is unintelligible. Finally, spelling is a pervasive problem that might affect reading, writing, and even oracy skills.

In concrete terms, we started with student learning outcomes (SLOs). One of these, for example, is “Use appropriate social greetings, introductions, and invitations,” which includes “a) Introduce yourself, and b) Ask and answer questions about personal details such as where you live, people you know, and things you have and do.” Another SLO is “Distinguish between singular and plural in the present, past, and future.” We matched these outcomes to real-life situations that best illustrate the context (Murphy, 1991) and then determined what language forms were necessary for successful communication in those contexts.

The units in our initial course planner (see the final version in Figure 1) were based on what functions we anticipated would be of immediate need for the students.

Figure 1. New course planner (click on image to enlarge)

In Practice: Four Challenges

Once we implemented the new course, we discovered several challenges.

Challenge One: Changing Proficiency Level.Level 1 is a catch-all for all students below Level 2. Real Level 1 classes have true beginners, multiple repeaters, orally proficient speakers with developing literacy skills, and everything in between.

Our Adaptations:When possible, we assigned different roles, work, and expectations to higher-level students. Tasks included extensions and adaptive rubrics for a variety of answers and levels. We recruited the help of a translator to explain the syllabus and course expectations (we had a homogeneous L1 population).We also gathered production data to track what our students were able to do and to what degree (in the four skills).

Challenge Two: Varying Needs.Not all the students always needed what we had predicted they would. Some students were proficient in many or all of the functions in the course planner, and yet were not ready for Level 2. Also, students’ needs vary depending on their circumstances (e.g., upcoming registration, visa deadlines, e-mail notices; IEP trips and community events; or extreme weather and safety concerns). Our concern was that if new teachers attempted to follow a prescribed path, they might end up boring or losing students.

Our Adaptations:In class, we removed and added to functions as necessary, constantly communicating those changes with each other. For example, buying clothing was not an immediate concern for our students in the initial sessions. However, accepting and declining invitations had been overlooked and came up unexpectedly often. In addition, communicating via e-mail and being able to use campus computers is a real need.

Challenge Three: Form Accountability. Focusing on fluency alone may promote the use of non-target-like forms because they work (e.g., “I am no understand” or “Can you again teacher?”). Also, students who are able to complete the task and acquire the necessary information may self-assess as proficient in the form.

Our Adaptations: We designed activities where a degree of accuracy in the form is needed to achieve the function (Bigelow, Ranney, & Dahlman, 2006). We used activities such as information relays and presentation preparation. Even for basic fluency activities, we included a “reduced degree of freedom” (Gibbons, 2002). Our assessments attempted to measure task completion as well as attention to the form.

Challenge Four: Passing the Baton.Embedding instruction in local, immediate needs means that teachers have to make many materials and this requires experience and time. In addition, new teachers needed a transparent way of understanding the curriculum and adapting it to their needs. (Our course originally used the Heinle Picture Dictionary with an open, flexible design that was intimidating to some.)

Our Adaptations:After we had tested out the curriculum, we found supporting textbooks and materials (e.g., Cambridge’s Touchstone series) and previous worksheets and activity types were collected in an electronic folder. Teacher feedback and student performance data are now updated on an ongoing basis.

The Final Product

Our syllabus (i.e. the course planner) is open to teacher adjustments, while still providing specific details and structure. Because Level 1 is such a moving target, we found this met our needs well. Also, the new syllabus provides ample opportunities for meaningful, authentic communication and inductive learning. Asking, “What do they need to be able to do?” helped greatly in guiding material selection and specific lesson planning.

Other programs attempting to reform their curriculum would benefit from similar course designs because: 1) there is theoretical support for integrated skills and a focus on inductive learning for beginners, and 2) an adaptive, context-based syllabus better matches beginning students’ real-world needs. Accepting this level of flexibility may be intimidating. However, flexibility does not mean a lack of structure. Course planners are even easier to implement than a traditional syllabus after an adjustment period. What’s more, the students’ needs are not static, and teacher discretion is necessary regardless of course design.

Conclusion

Our new course design better matches our program’s goals and students’ needs. It is highly communicative, focused on relevance to real life, and promotes integrated skill development. Although it is a work in progress, we believe many of the lessons learned from this process are relevant to other IEPs, and other levels as well.

REFERENECES

Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, 13-34.

Bigelow, M., Ranney, S., & Dahlman, A. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum-planning. TESL Canada Journal, 24, 40–58.

Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. I. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299-2310.

Brown, R. (2007). Extensive listening in English as a foreign. Language Teacher, 31, 15-18.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2^nd edition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. (pp.729-769).

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Working with ESL children in the mainstream elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40¸109-131.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2^nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, J. (1991). Oral communication in TESOL. Integrating speaking, listening and pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 51–75.

Murphy, J., & Byrd, P. (Eds.). (2001). Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.

Rvachew, S., Nowak, M., & Cloutier, G. (2004). Effect of phonemic perception training on the speech production and phonological awareness skills of children with expressive phonological delay. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 250-263.

Schumann, J. H. (2010). Applied Linguistics and the Neurobiology of Language. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 2^nd edition (pp.244-259).Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Snow, M. (2001). Content-based teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3^rd Edition (pp. 303-318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.

Ryan Lidster is a PhD second language studies student from Vancouver, Canada, with experience in Japanese EFL, French FL, and French immersion instructional environments. His interests include assessment design, washback, language policy, teacher training, materials development and use, L2 phonological acquisition, dynamic assessment, and Complex Systems Theory.

Kate Nearing has an MA in second language studies from Indiana University. She now teaches for the Intensive English as a Second Language Program in the Department of Humanities at Michigan Technological University. Her interests include understanding research and practice as they relate to phonetics, phonology, and pronunciation.

Stacy Sabraw has an MA in TESOL and applied linguistics from Indiana University. She now teaches in the English Language Center at Michigan State University. Her current research is on the integration of assessment and instruction in second language pedagogy, and the needs of students as they transition from a language program to mainstream university.