Planning, Implementation and Evaluation

5.1 Introduction
The preceding units have looked at curriculum philosophy and the way that different beliefs about language and learning are realised in different syllabus designs. We saw, for example, how a belief in the value of transmitting facts about the language, combined with a view of language as basically consisting of grammar entities, gave rise to a grammar syllabus organised on a scale of linguistic complexity from very simple to very complex. An alternative view of learning, however, is one that sees learning as being something experienced by, and in the control of, the learner. This belief, combined with a communicative conception of language, might be realised in a task-based syllabus, organised according to criteria of task difficulty. Whatever the syllabus that is chosen, it has little chance of being successful if it fails to take into account the needs of the learners and their particular learning context. How do you assess these needs !nevitably, a number of "uestions need to be asked. As #ubin and $lshtain %&'()* point out+ Before initiating a new language program, vital preparatory work in the form of information gathering must take place. This fact-finding stage provides answers to the key questions in any program: Who are the learners? Who are the teachers? Why is the program necessary? Where will the program e implemented? !ow will it e implemented? The answers to these questions, in turn, ecome the asis for esta lishing policy or formulating goals. "#$%&: '( ,or does curriculum management stop at this point. The decision to adopt a new syllabus can have important knock-on effects in terms of materials % Will new materials e needed?*, methodology %)oes the sylla us change involve a change in classroom teaching practices?*, teacher training %What training will teachers need in order to implement the new programme?* and testing %Will new testing procedures e needed *. -oreover, the programme will need to be evaluated, so that changes and improvements can be made if necessary. These are the issues that are dealt with in this unit, i.e. curriculum planning, implementation and evaluation.

5.2 Policy
At each stage of the curriculum planning process different groups or individuals are involved, and each stage is associated with a different kind of product or outcome. This process is summed up by Johnson (19 9! in Table ".1.

Developmental stages

Decision-making roles

Products

1. #urriculum planning %. &pecification' ( ends ( means

$olicy makers )eeds analyst

$olicy document &yllabus

*ethodologists +. $rogramme implementation *aterials writers Teacher trainers ,. #lassroom implementation Teacher -earner Teaching materials Teacher(training programme Teaching acts -earning acts

Table ..&+ /tages in curriculum design from The *econd +anguage ,urriculum, %0ohnson %ed.*+ 1*.

The first (policy(making( stage attempts to provide a general statement of curriculum philosophy and may be preceded by some kind of fact(finding stage. As we saw in .nit 1, curriculum goals are generally articulated in terms of theories of language and theories of language learning. They may also make reference to the broader social conte/t in which the language learning takes place. )ational curriculum policies tend to be enshrined in official reports and policy statements. 0n Australia, for e/ample, a )ational $olicy on -anguages ()$-! was formulated in 19 1, with the following goals' 2nglish for all. &upport for Aboriginal languages. A language other than 2nglish for all. 23uitable and widespread language services. As *oore (1994! comments' In the Australian context, these aspirations are thoroughly pluralist. They propose that the multiplicity of languages in Australia offers unique opportunities to develop a dynamic society. (1996 !"#$ 5owever, in 1991 the )$- was replaced by the Australian -anguage and -iteracy $olicy (A--$!, which re(stated the )$- goals, but with a subtle shift of emphasis so that a one(language (i.e. 2nglish! policy was emphasised at the e/pense of diversity' 6The A--$7s role was to announce that pluralism had gone6 (*oore, 1994' , 1!. The effect of this shift in emphasis has been widespread, resulting (among other things! in new testing procedures that emphasise literacy and competency. 8y contrast, the new national language policy in &outh Africa (8arkhu9en and :ough, 1994! emphasises the following principles'

1. %edressing past linguistic im&alances and encouraging educational multilingualism, ... and '. (nsuring linguistic freedom of choice for learners in terms of language as su&)ect and language of learning in the context of gaining democratic access to &roader society. (1996 !#"$ As we shall see later, such lofty ideals are not easily implemented. 0n the real world, as ;ubin and <lshtain (19 4! point out, the overall ob=ectives and philosophy of a programme may not be e/plicitly stated' This type of situation is most common in programs *hich are not part of a pu&lic educational system ... +o*ever, a&sence of a concrete statement a&out policy does not indicate that goals are totally missing. ,ore li-ely, *hat it may mean is that the general goals are represented &y the &eliefs and attitudes of the teachers and administrators in the program, even though there is no *ritten curriculum. (19.6 !!$ >e saw, in .nit %, how curriculum policy of private language schools is inferable from their publicity. #oursebooks, too, reflect a policy on the part of publishers and writers. This is usually dictated by market considerations' feedback from teachers via marketing representatives in the field forms the basis of a writing brief that is then negotiated with the writers. The writers then present a proposal to the publishers which includes a rationale for the proposed book. 2lements of this rationale find their way into publicity material, and reappear in the introduction to the Teacher7s 8ook. 5ere, for e/ample, is the 6blurb6 for 2nglish ?ile 1 (</enden and &eligson, 1994!' (nglish /ile gives students a real sense of achievement and progress. It offers clear learning o&)ectives, an organi0ed approach to revision and reference *or-, and a fully integrated home1study programme.

5.3 Needs analysis

.ntil relatively recently the idea that the needs of the learners should be taken into account when planning language programmes was unheard of. >ithin the conte/t of the knowledge(centred curriculum it was assumed that what the learners needed was knowledge, whether e/plicit grammatical knowledge (as in grammar(translation!, or implicit knowledge through the formation of correct habits (as in audiolingualism!. 0t was also assumed that all learners needed the same knowledge. The advent of a communicative methodology, and the development of 2nglish for &pecial $urposes (2&$! programmes, moved the focus on to the learner, and it became clear that the selection and ordering of items in a communicative syllabus would benefit from knowing what the learner needed to do with the language. 5ence the development of needs analysis. ?inding out what the learners need may seem like a fairly simple process, but in fact it is fraught with problems. ?or a start, there is no general agreement on

what kind of needs we are talking about. There are at least two ways of interpreting the idea of needs. According to 8rindley (19 9!' The first of these is &ased on *hat could &e termed the 2narro*2 or 2product1 oriented2 interpretation of needs *here&y the learners3 needs are seen solely in terms of the language they *ill have to use in a particular communicative situation. 4eeds analysis therefore &ecomes a process of finding out as much as possi&le &efore learning &egins a&out the learners3 current and future language use. 5n the other hand, proponents of the second interpretation of needs, *hich I *ill call the 2&road2 or 2process1oriented2 interpretation, see needs primarily in terms of the needs of the learner as an individual in the learning situation. If this vie* of needs is adopted, then needs analysis means much more than the definition of a target language &ehaviour it means trying to identify and ta-e into account a multiplicity of affective and cognitive varia&les *hich affect learning, such as learners3 attitudes, motivation, a*areness, personality, *ants, expectations and learning styles. (19.9 66$ The distinction is also phrased as a difference between objective and subjective needs. <b=ective needs can be assessed by finding out facts about what language the students use or will use in their particular language(using conte/ts. &ub=ective needs are derived from finding out the student7s opinions, attitudes, and learning style. 2/amples of 3uestions designed to elicit information about the first kind of needs might be' +o* often do the learners use (nglish in their *or-7 Are the learners learning (nglish mainly in order to spea- it or to read and *rite it7 2/amples of 3uestions aimed at the 6process(oriented6 needs might be' Are you afraid of ma-ing mista-es *hen you spea-7 8o you prefer *or-ing on your o*n or in groups7 0t is generally accepted that both types of needs ( the narrow and the broad ( should be taken into account in any kind of needs analysis. 0n fact, there are many learning situations in which there will be few, if any, product(type needs, since the learners may be too young to have formulated a clear idea of why they are learning 2nglish. 0n this kind of situation (what is sometimes called T2)<@ ( Teaching 2nglish for )o <bvious @easonA!, it is still possible to identify their motivational, attitudinal and cognitive needs. 0t is in 2&$ (2nglish for &pecial $urposes! and ( to a lesser e/tent perhaps ( 2A$ (2nglish for Academic $urposes! courses that the need for needs analysis, particularly of the product kind, is particularly acute. 0n order to discover what the learner7s special purposes are, the following 3uestions (based on *unby 191 ! need to be addressed' 1. >ho is the learnerB This is the part of needs analysis that is sometimes

calledlearner analysis, i.e. it seeks to find out information regarding the learner7s age, se/, nationality, mother tongue, command of 2nglish, etc. %. $urpose and domain' that is, what is the reason for needing 2nglish, and in what specific field or sub=ectB +. 0n what kind of setting(s!B e.g. in an academic settingB with large groups or small groups of peopleB in formal or informal settingsB etc. ,. >ith what kind of peopleB with co(e3ualsB superiorsB strangersB ". 8y what meansB e.g. written or spokenB face(to(face or by telephoneB etc. 4. ?or what communicative skills and functions does the learner need 2nglishB e.g. for socialisingB for giving lecturesCpresentationsB for negotiatingB etc. 1. To what degree of proficiencyB elementaryB fluent, even if inaccurateB native(speaker(likeB 5ere, for e/ample, is the sort of information that can be gathered using the above categories' 1. Learner. Twenty(year old Dene9uelan male (&panish speaker!. 2lementary command of 2nglish. )o other languages. %. Purpose and domain. 2ducational ( to study agriculture and cattle breeding. +. Setting. 2ducational institution in Dene9uela. 0ntellectual, professional setting. ,. nteractants. $rincipally with teachers and other students. ". !ode. &poken and written, receptive and productive. ?ace(to(face and print. 4. Skills and "unctions. &tudying reference material in 2nglish, reading current literature ( note(taking and summarising. 1. Pro"iciency. @eceptive ( reading' upper intermediateE listening' mid( intermediate. $roductive ( writing' mid(intermediateE speaking ( low( intermediate. 0t should be clear that the above information is almost entirely ob=ective, with little or no reference to the student7s attitudes, opinions or wishes. 0n terms of planning the content of the course, such information is probably sufficient. 8ut in terms of planning themet#odology, more information is needed about learners7 preferred learning styles, their previous language learning e/perience, their motivation, and their e/pectations. &uch information is not always easy to obtain, especially in advance of a course, nor very reliable once obtained. This is because the learners themselves may have only a vague and barely(articulated idea of their learning styles and motivation. ?urthermore, the learners may not all share the same styles, e/pectations and attitudes etc. And even if they do, there may still be a mismatch between the learners7 preferred learning style, and the teacher7s teaching style. A curriculum that aims to take into account the learners7 needs, both narrow and broad, will need to provide opportunities for both consultation and negotiation, not =ust at the start of a course of studies, but throughout the programme (the

logical e/tension of such a view is the process syllabus (see .nit ,!. As 8rindley (19 9! e/plains' 65ngoing negotiation ... has to &e seen as part of a continuing cycle of needs analysis6 (19 9' 14!. 5e offers the following model of a learner(centred curriculum'
?igure ".1' 2lements of a learner(centred system (Johnson (ed.! 19 9' 11!.

5.$ %oal setting

5aving established the learners7 needs as accurately as possible, the curriculum planner7s ne/t task is to represent these needs as curriculum goals ( that is, general statements of the intended outcomes of the programme. <f course, such goals can be formulated without any overt needs analysis ( and this is generally the case with national educational policies. 0n such cases, the goals may be derived from educational, philosophical and political beliefs, and are an e/tension of the general policy motivating the curriculum reform. 5ere, for e/ample, are some general goal statements for the &panish @eforma #urriculum' 1. 9nderstanding the general and specific information of spo-en and *ritten messages in the foreign language, related to different, common communicative situations, transmitted directly &y spea-ers or through other channels. 5. %eflecting a&out the functioning of the linguistic system in communication as an element *hich facilitates the learning of a foreign language and *hich operates as an instrument for improving pupils3 o*n output. 7. :aluing the richness of different languages and cultures in codifying experience and organising personal relationships in different *ays. 9. 9sing strategies of autonomous learning of the foreign language constructed on the &asis of experience *ith other languages and reflection on the processes of learning. (;tatutory ;econdary (ducation 5fficial <urriculum /oreign =anguages$ )otice that the focus of these goals varies from what can be described ascommunicative (1!, cognitive ("!, socio-cultural (1!, and educational (9!. :oal statements tend to be very broad and general. They can be made more concrete, in the form of ob=ectives, which provide guidelines for syllabus planners and materials writers. <b=ectives are typically stated in terms of either kno&ledge, orbe#aviours'skills'competencies. 2/amples of knowledge(based ob=ectives from the &panish %eforma include'

=exis referring to the most common communicative situations and the specific interests of the pupils. %ules governing the comprehension and production of coherent discourse. &kills(based ob=ectives from the %eforma include' 9nderstanding texts related to classroom activities (instructions,

comments on *or-, advice, etc.$ and the a&ility to deduce from context the meaning of un-no*n *ords.

<omparison or particular aspects of the *ay of life of the countries *here the language &eing studied is spo-en, *ith those of the pupils3 o*n country. The %eforma documents also include attitudinal goals' Interest in reading *ritten texts in the foreign language autonomously, in order to o&tain information, &roaden one3s -no*ledge, derive pleasure, etc. <onfidence in one3s o*n a&ility to progress and to attain a good level of use in the foreign language. #learly, for evaluation purposes, the greater the specificity of the ob=ectives, the easier they are to test. @ichards (199F! 3uotes the following 3ualities of ob=ectives that specify behavioural outcomes (sometimes called per"ormance objectives!' 1. They must unam&iguously descri&e the &ehaviour to &e performed> '. They must descri&e the conditions under *hich the performance *ill &e expected to occur> 6. They must state a standard of accepta&le performance. (199? !$ As an e/ample, @ichards cites the following ob=ective' @iven an oral request, the learner *ill say hisAher name, address and telephone num&er to a native spea-er of (nglish and spell hisAher name, street and city so that an intervie*er may *rite do*n the data *ith 1??B accuracy.
&uch narrow specificity of ob=ectives has been criticised on various grounds, not least because it misrepresents the concept of language proficiency, reducing it to a set of measurable behaviours. *oreover, it is not always easy ( especially in general 2nglish programmes ( to define learning ob=ectives so precisely. )evertheless, this competency(based view of language learning is popular with many curriculum planners, since it provides clear guidelines for both teachers and students, and implies a degree of accountability on the part of teachers. A less tightly specified statement of ob=ectives might take the form of skillsbased objectives. These are statements of ability in a particular language skill, but without reference to specific situations or tasks. ?or e/ample, @ichards (199F! lists among the goals of a conversation teaching programme the following'

+o* to use conversation for &oth transactional and interactional purposes. +o* to produce &oth short and long turns in conversation. ;trategies for managing turn1ta-ing in conversation, including ta-ing a

turn, holding a turn and relinquishing a turn.

;trategies for opening and closing conversations. +o* to maintain fluency in conversation, through avoiding excessive pausing, &rea-do*ns, and errors of grammar or pronunciation. +o* to produce tal- in conversational mode, using a conversational register and syntax. +o* to use conversational routines.
(199F' 19, 1! &uch a list provides a course planner with a clear specification of the aims of the course (or part of a course! and forms the basis for designing a syllabus. #oursebooks often provide a statement of ob=ectives, usually framed in terms of a standard of proficiency to be reached over a given time period. The Teacher7s 8ook for(nglish /ile, (</enden and &eligson, 1994!, for e/ample, includes the following statement under the heading <ourse Aims' (nglish /ile is a t*o1level course *hich ta-es &eginners and false &eginners to lo*1intermediate level. Cy the end of =evel 1, students *ill have learnt to express themselves simply &ut correctly in the present, past, and future, -no* approximately 1,'?? high frequency *ords and phrases> and &e a&le to 2survive2 in a variety of practical situations. (1996 .$ The syllabus of the book is an operational document that specifies how these aims are to be achieved. ?or e/ample, in order to achieve the ob=ective of enabling learners to e/press themselves in the past, the following structures are included in the syllabus'
(nit )' $ast simple' *asA*ere There *asA*ere (nit *' $ast simple' goAhave $ast simple' regularAirregular *as &orn (inAonAat! $ast simple' pronunciation

5.5 !aterials c#oice and design

The stage that usually follows the setting of ob=ectives is the design of the syllabus itself. >e looked at the principles underlying syllabus design in .nit +, and different syllabus types in .nit ,. 0n some situations, there may not be a specific syllabus document as such. There may only be the materials themselves ( that is, teachers design schemes of work based entirely on the coursebook, or whatever other materials are available, including pedagogical grammars. 0n e/treme cases, there may not even be published materials. 0n this case, teachers may base instruction around materials they produce themselves, andCor around the students7 6te/ts6 (the language the students themselves

produce (this is sometimes the case in one(to(one teaching!. 8ut in the ma=ority of teaching situations, there will be, at the very least, a published coursebook, typically consisting of the student7s book, a teacher7s book, a workbook, plus cassettes for classroom and home use. The decision as to which coursebook to use may be made by the policy makers, administrators, or teachers (or combinations of these in consultation (the students are rarely involved in this decision, although negative feedback from students may result in a coursebook being abandoned!. #oursebooks are chosen according to their degree of 6fit6 with curriculum goals and ob=ectives. 0n the absence of an e/plicit statement of goals, the coursebook becomes the curriculum (that is, it is it may be the only material representation of the institution7s beliefs and values. #learly, in such a case, the choice of coursebook can have important conse3uences. #riteria for coursebook choice include the following (after &heldon 19 ( @ationale ( .ser definition ( -ayoutCgraphics ( Accessibility ( &electionCgrading ( Appropriacy ( &ufficiency ( #ultural bias ( 2ducational validity ( ?le/ibility ( :uidance .nder each of these headings, &heldon (19 e/ample' ! asks specific 3uestions. ?or !'

Rationale 1 Dhy *as the &oo- *ritten in the first place, and *hat gaps is it intended to fill7 1 Are you given information a&out the 4eeds Analysis or classroom piloting that *as underta-en7 1 Are the o&)ectives spelt out7 User definition 1 Is there a clear specification of the target age range, culture, assumed &ac-ground, pro&a&le learning preferences, and educational expectations7 1 Are entryAexit levels precisely defined7 etc. (;heldon 19.. '!6$ 4ot all materials used in classrooms come from pu&lished (=T sources. Teachers commonly use authentic materials (ne*spaper and maga0ine articles, videos, songs etc.$, and also *rite their o*n materials (such as *or-sheets, grammar exercises, and informal tests$. Eou *ill recall from the su&)ect ,aterials and %esources in (/= that Folly and Colitho (199.$ provide a

model of ho* such materials are typically produced. As an example, they descri&e ho* a student3s question a&out the use of the past tense form in the sentence It3s time she listened prompted a teacher to research this grammar area and design a *or-sheet, consisting of discovery learning activities, for her class. 5ccasionally, teachers colla&orate in a team *riting pro)ect for a particular audience. Included in the advice that 8u&in and 5lshtain (19.6$ offer to teachers involved in a )oint materials *riting pro)ect are the follo*ing points

Conceptualization Is the pro)ect really *orth underta-ing7 Are there existing materials that *ill serve the purpose7 Objectives +ave *e clearly assessed actual needs and goals of our intended audience7 +o* *ill these needs and goals &e reali0ed7 Congruence +ave *e related the pro)ect3s o&)ectives to those of any sylla&us or curriculum that *as produced to guide us7 If *e are not *or-ing *ith an esta&lished sylla&us, ho* *ill *e go a&out ma-ing decisions regarding *hat language content to include7 Internal format Dhat *ill constitute a lesson7 A unit7 A section7 Dill each contain the same elements7 !e"uencing#grading In *hat order *ill the separate parts &e presented7 ;hould the lessons increase in difficulty7 ;hould *e consider a story1line, or cyclical ordering7 $ncillar% Dhat additional elements should &e included7 /or example, *ord lists, art *or-, index. &valuation Dhat measures *ill *e include for assessing learners3 mastery of the content7 (adapted from 8u&in and 5lshtain 19.6$

5.) !et#odology
&o far in this unit we have looked at the planning decisions involved in a curriculum change. This section looks at what is involved in implementing those decisions. Those most directly affected by a change in curriculum are the teachers and the students. ;ubin and <lshtain (19 4! suggest that the teachers7 role is critical' The teacher population is the most significant factor in determining success of a ne* sylla&us or materials. The attitudes of the teachers and their a&ilities to ad)ust to ne* thin-ing and *hat it involves in practical terms are crucial. (19.6 61$ Teachers implement other peoples7 plans. There may be considerable difference between plans and implementation, as )unan (19 ! points out'

Dhereas the planned curriculum is located in the curriculum documents and statements of intent of curriculum developers, the manifested curriculum is found in the classroom itself, *here it is manifested in the content, resources and processes of learning. (19.. 16.$ )unan suggests that there is often a mismatch between planning and implementation. <ne of the most important issues in curricular innovation, therefore, is its effect on classroom practice, that is to say, on met#odology. ,ethodology can &e characteri0ed as the activities, tas-s, and learning experience selected &y the teacher in order to achieve learning, and ho* these are used *ithin the teachingAlearning process. (%ichards 199? 11$ A distinction needs to be made between met#odology and met#od. A method (as we saw in .nit 1! is a cluster of techni3ues and procedures that are promoted as being consistent with a certain theory of learning and a certain way of describing language. &o, there is the grammar(translation method, the ;irect *ethod, and so on. The key feature of methods is that they are theory(driven. They do not emerge out of classroom practice. @ather they aim to influence classroom practice according to theoretical principles. *ethodology, on the other hand, simple refers to what the teacher does in class, irrespective of the principles that inform it. )evertheless, it is a fact that top(down curriculum changes ( that is, curriculum changes that are imposed by policy(makers, administrators, teacher trainers etc., and not changes that have arisen in the classroom itself ( carry with them a lot of theoretical 6baggage6. A syllabus, for e/ample, reflects a particular view of language (structural, notional, functional! and it will imply a view of learning (e.g. whether language learning is seen as a conscious intellectual process, as opposed to an unconscious, e/periential one!. The materials derived from the syllabus will be similarly loaded with theory. #learly, these theoretical assumptions will have an affect on the way the syllabus is interpreted, and the way the materials are used, by the teacher, that is, on her methodology. &imilarly, any tests that accompany the syllabus and the materials are liable to have a 6backwash6 effect on teaching. That is, in preparing her students for these tests, the teacher may need to alter her classroom practices. Thus, any change at the level of policy, ob=ectives, syllabus, or materials is likely to have a knock(on effect in terms of methodology. 0n fact, it would be an unusual curriculum change that didn7t have an effect on classroom practice. @ichards (199Fa! suggests that teachers need to be prepared for such changes, and that one way of doing this is to make e/plicit their beliefs and values' ;ince the assumptions underlying methodology are not necessarily shared &y teachers, administrators, and learners, it is a useful exercise for all *ho are involved in a language program to clarify their assumptions a&out the -ind of teaching and learning the program *ill try to exemplify. This can &e done

through teacher preparation activities that examine attitudes, &eliefs, and practises concerning five central issues 1. The approach or philosophy underlying the program. '. The role of teachers in the program. 6. The role of the learners. !. The -inds of learning activities, tas-s, and experiences that *ill &e used in the program. #. The role and design of instructional materials. (199? 11$ The practicalities of such training programmes will depend on a whole constellation of local circumstances, not least the willingness of the teachers themselves to embrace change. 8reen et al. (19 9! describe an in(service teacher training programme in ;enmark whose purpose was' to introduce the teachers to ne* developments in communicative language teaching and, in particular, to the adaptation and design of (nglish teaching materials incorporating communicative principles. (19.9 116$ <n the basis of their e/perience designing and overseeing two cycles of training using a fairly traditional theory(driven approach, the authors were able to formulate reasons why teachers re=ected the innovations on offer' 1. The innovation came from trainers who were outside the teacher7s own classroom e/perience. %. The innovation re3uired an unacceptable change in the teacher7s role. +. 0t involved too many risks of failure. ,. 0t was not sensitive to the local conte/t, including the teacher7s responsibilities to school and parents. ". 0t was irrelevant because the teacher had already put into practice alternative innovations. 0n the face of these criticisms, 8reen et al. (19 9! made changes in the programme so that 6the training workshops have become e/ploratory activities with the teachers as our informants6 (19 9' 1%4!. 8y encouraging cycles of teacher(led classroom(based e/perimentation and reporting back, the training was better received. The authors conclude that' The trainees3 o*n classroom and the learners *ithin it are a ma)or source of information on the nature of the language1learning process. The training course or programme could offer teachers *ays of investigating that process.... Any innovation premised on training is most usefully introduced &y &uilding on *hat teachers currently -no* and do and *hat occurs in class. %ather than maintaining that these matters must &e changed or replaced, training might &est entail reflection and development rather than assume 2deficiency2 on the part of trainees. (19.9 16!$

5.* !anaging curriculum innovation

A change of syllabus, or of course book, or the introduction of different timetables, or of new technology, is a curriculum innovation. #hanges can be wide(ranging (such as a change in the e/amination system! or relatively minor (such as replacing blackboards with whiteboards!. )evertheless, the conse3uences of such changes, and their effect on learners and teachers, are almost always impossible to predict. #hange has to be managed, so that its beneficial effects outweigh its negative ones. 0n the last section we looked at how teacher resistance might mean that an in(service training programme is less than totally effective. The implication of the 8reen et al. (19 9! study was that, unless the stakeholders ( i.e. those who are affected by the curriculum change ( have some say in planning and implementing the change, the innovation will not succeed. >hat are the stages in implementing a curriculum changeB >hite (19 Trump7s (1941! model for a five(step se3uence' ! 3uotes

1. analyse co(operatively reasons for present practicesE %. discover what people want that is different from what they are doingE +. make tentative decisions about the priority of proposed changesE ,. plan the innovation carefully in terms of teacher preparation, procedures to be followed and the anticipated effects of the innovationE ". determine the time and techni3ues for evaluation. >hite (19 ! further suggests that, before implementing a curriculum innovation, the following 3uestions need to be answered' 2Dhat is the innovation72 Is it an innovation in hard*are, soft*are, materials, methods, forms of assessment7 2Dhat do *e mean &y the terms *e use72 /or instance, *hat do *e mean &y functional or communicative or tas-1&ased learning7 2Dhy are *e carrying out this innovation72 Are *e carrying it out &ecause other sta-e1holders have told us to> or is it in response to pro&lems that have arisen through a drop in student motivation or achievement> or is to relieve teachers3 &oredom or *hat7 2Dhat is it for72 Is it to improve learning in particular s-ills> is it to raise examination performance> etc.7 2Dho is it for72 Is it for the &enefit of students or teachers7 Is it for clients and sponsors7 Dho are the intended &eneficiaries of the change7 28o *e actually need it72 <an *e really )ustify the innovation in terms of improvements and cost7 (19.. 1!!$.

5.+ ,valuation
The main focus of evaluation is to determine whether the goals and ob=ectives of a course have been achieved. The point of doing this is in order to improve the curriculum. 2valuation, then, is a wider concept than simply testing ( although the results of end(of(course tests obviously play a part in the evaluation of the pedagogical success of the programme. 8ut as &harp (199F! points out' Tests may provide diagnostic evidence a&out students3 *or-, &ut evaluation is meant to provide a &asis for future decisions a&out course planning and implementation. (199? 16'$ (?or more on testing, see the sub=ect Assessment and Testing in the <lassroom! 2valuation of the curriculum, including evaluation of the effects of curriculum innovation, is usually thought of as involving two types'

on(going (or "ormative!' that is, a process of getting feedback on the curriculum in actionE final (or summative!' that is, when the outcomes of the programme are evaluated according to the goals that were established at the outset.

@elated to the formative(summative distinction is whether the focus of the evaluation is on the curriculum process, or on the curriculum products. $roduct(based evaluation aims to decide whether the goals of the programme have been attained. There has been a move away from product(based evaluation to a more process(based approach(a movement that, according to 8rown (19 9!' &egan *ith the reali0ation that meeting program goals and o&)ectives *as indeed important &ut that evaluation procedures could also &e utili0ed to facilitate curriculum change and improvement. (19.9 ''6$ There has also been a move away from e/ternal evaluators (i.e. a specialist brought in from outside! to entrusting the evaluation process to those actually involved in the planning and implementing of the curriculum ( i.e. the stake( holders. This is the difference between what is sometimes called e/trinsically( vs intrinsically motivated evaluation. 0t is felt that intrinsically(motivated evaluation is more effective, since those who are responsible for making the curriculum work are directly involved' they have more ownership of the evaluation, and are therefore likely to be more committed to its results. 8rown proposes a model of evaluation that emphasises its formative, on(going nature (see ?igure ".%!.
?igure ".%' &ystematic approach for integrating evaluation (Johnson (ed.! 19 9' %+"!.

8rown argues that' the ongoing program evaluation is the glue that connects and holds all of the elements together. (19.9 '6#$ At each stage of the evaluation process, the following 3uestions need to be asked'

-o& e""ective is t#is stage o" t#e curriculum. That is, are the different stages of the curriculum achieving their desired resultsB ?or e/ample, are the students7 needs, as diagnosed in the needs analysis, being addressed in the syllabusB -o& e""icient is t#is stage o" t#e curriculum. That is, are the resources being used in the most efficient way to achieve the desired changesB ?or e/ample, is money being wasted on photocopying materials when a coursebook might be as effectiveB /#at are attitudes like. That is, how do those involved feel about the curriculum at this stageB This includes administrators, teachers, and students.

Among the procedures that can be used to answer the above 3uestions are the following'

Data collection and analysis0 including policy statements, publicity information, needs analysis documents, goal statements, syllabus, materials, student work, tests (placement and end(of(course!, budgets and balance sheets. 1uestionnaires' opinion surveys of administrators, teachers, students, parents etc. 2bservations' of classes, teacher training sessions, administrative procedures. 3ase studies0 focusing on one or two individual students or teachers. ntervie&s' with all parties involved. !eetings' whole staff or special interest groups.

0n organising an intrinsically(motivated evaluation at the university where he works, 8rown (19 9! concludes that' there *ere three elements that *e have found important in -eeping the process going marshalling personnel, organi0ation and assigning responsi&ilities. De *ere a&le to marshal personnel &y finding release time for three of our teachers ... *ho *ere already experienced in curriculum development, and &y finding funding through grants for t*o graduate students to help these 2lead2 teachers develop, administer and analyse the procedures (of the evaluation$.

(19.9 '!?$ <nce the data has been collected and analysed, the stake(holders are in a position to e/amine and interpret it. $riorities for subse3uent action can than be set, based on a clear estimate of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme. <ne advantage of an intrinsically(motivated evaluation, as *acGay (1994! points out is that the information' can &e presented in an appropriate and summari0ed form to meet the interests and concerns of the &ureaucracy. A pro)ect or programme *hich can sho* the &ureaucracy *hat its strengths and *ea-nesses are, and ho* it plans to reinforce the former and overcome the latter, cannot fail to impress the 2po*ers that &e2, and runs less ris- of having an extrinsically1motivated evaluation imposed upon it. (1996 6!6$

5.4 3onclusion
2ducational institutions are comple/ organisations in which many different decisions made by many different parties can have a profound impact on learning outcomes. The study of curriculum and course design attempts to lay bare this interlocking network of factors, the better to understand it, and the better to improve it. >e have seen how the beliefs and values of policy makers can filter down through syllabuses and materials, and, ultimately, into the classroom itself. &pecifically, we have looked at the way knowledge(centred views of learning can determine the kinds of syllabus and materials that prioritise the learning of discrete items of language, and which lend themselves to transmission type 6chalk and talk6 styles of teaching. <n the other hand, we have seen how person(centred views encourage e/periential, process(type learning, with the teacher taking a more interpretative role. <f course, these are black and white distinctions, where in fact there are probably many different shades of grey. >e have also seen how innovations in curriculum design are planned, effected and evaluated. Again, the process has been simplified somewhat, and little has been said about the #uman "actor ( the unpredictable, and unaccountable ( the way, for e/ample, the best laid plans of curriculum designers can be subverted by teachers and students once the classroom door is closed and the lesson is underway.