Why to Involve Teachers in the Process of Language Curriculum Development?

Year 2014, Volume: 1 Issue: 1 - Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 26 - 39, 04.06.2016

Asuman Cincioğlu

Abstract

One of the prerequisites of language curriculum development process is to enable the active participation of teachers as the primary stakeholders in all the stages. Being the practitioners, teachers are the ones who transmit theory into practice, which necessitates them to be in the decision-making process of language curriculum development. The aim of this studyis to emphasize the prominence of the contribution of teachers to curriculum development process and discuss the roles and responsibilities of teachers in pertinent to each step while designing curriculum. To this end, first the definition of ‘curriculum’ will be clarified, differentiating its meaning, then the steps to be taken while designing language curriculum will be presented. The article will go on with the discussion of what is expected from classroom teachers in the studies of a school’s curriculum. In the concluding part, why to involve teachers in language curriculum development process will be justified.

Keywords

Curriculum development, teachers’ roles in curriculum development process, stakeholders in curriculum development, decision-making mechanisms, organizational structure, collaboration in language teaching.

References

• Beane, J.A. & Apple, M.W. (2007). The case for democratic schools. In M.W. Apple & J.A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (pp.1-29). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Candlin, C. & Rodgers, T. (1985). Talking Shop: Curriculum and Syllabus Design. ELT Journal, 39/2, pp.101
• Davis, J. & Osborn, T.A. (2003). The Language Teacher‟s Portfolio: A Guide for Professional Development London: Praeger.
• Earle Chaffee, E. & Sherr, L.A. (1992). Quality: Transforming Postsecondary Education.
• Washington DC: The George Washington University.
• European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (2009). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki
• Education and Culture DG. Retrieved from http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_v03.pdf (June 14, 2011).
• Fenton-Smith, B. & Stillwell, C. (2011). Reading Discussion Groups for Teachers: Connecting Theory to Practice ELT Journal, 65/3, pp.251-259. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq058
• Graff, N. (2011). An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn: Backwards Design and New Teachers‟ Preparation for Planning Curriculum Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer, pp.151-168. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&hid=1&sid=a70eed8b-2f50-456e-8aa3- ab73295c7d1b%40sessionmgr15 (April 11, 2012).
• Graves, K. (2008). The Language Curriculum: A Social Contextual Perspective. Language Teaching, 41/2, pp. 181.
• Hadley, G.S. (1999). Innovative Curricula in Tertiary ELT: A Japanese Case Study. ELT Journal, 53/2, pp.92
• Kosunen, T. & Huusko, J. (2002). Shared and subjective in curriculum making: Lessons from Finnish teachers.
• In C. Sugrue & C. Day (Eds.), Developing teachers and teaching practice (pp.234-244). London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Leuven Communiqué (Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve), Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education (28-29 April 2009). The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf (December 1, 2010).
• Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centred Curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ricento, K. T. & Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30/3, pp. 401-427.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richwine, J. & Biggs, A.G. (2012). Critical Issues in Assessing Teacher Compensation. Backgrounder, No.: Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED528492.pdf (April 11, 2012).
• Rowan, B. (1998). The task characteristics of teaching: Implications for the organizational design of schools. In R. Bernhardt et al. (Eds.) Curriculum leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st century (pp.37-54), New Jersey: Hampton Press.
• Segovia, L.P. & Hardison, D.M. (2009) Implementing Education Reform: EFL Teachers‟ Perspectives ELT Journal, 63/2, pp. 154-162. doi:10.1093/elt/ccno24
• Storey, C.W. (2007). Insights into Language Curriculum Development Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4/1, pp.86–107. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4n12007/storey.htm (June 29, 2008).
• Thomas, P.L. (2003). A Call to Action The English Journal, 93/ 2, pp. 67-69. Retrieved From http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00138274%28200311%2993%3A2%3C67%3AACTA% E2.0.CO%3B2-6 (February 13, 2008).
• Tosi, H.L. & Hamner, W.C. (Eds.). (1985). Organizational Behavior and Management Ohio: Grid Publishing Company.
• Vo, L.T. & Nguyen, T.M. (2010). Critical Friends Group for EFL Teacher Professional Development. ELT Journal, 64/2, pp. 205-213. doi:10.1093/elt/ccpo25
• Wette, R. (2011). Product-process Distinctions in ELT Curriculum Theory and Practice ELT Journal, 65/2, pp. 144. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ doi:10.1093/elt/ccq022 (March 4, 2013).
• Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice. N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.