# data[].attributes.body
Building on the importance of needs analysis from our previous module, it seems one great debate of contemporary ESL/EAP is which type of syllabus (or combination of syllabi) constitutes the best approach to language instruction. I recognize that traditional approaches may have their limitations, however I am also apprehensive of contemporary critical approaches, perhaps best embodied by Benesch (2001), that seem to focus too intently on their ‘critical’ dimension as a content area in and of itself.

Flowerdew (2005) favours a multi-strand approach. In designing an EOP course for a tertiary-level institution in Hong Kong, she draws on elements of task, text, and content-based syllabi, using a CBI approach to task design and a critical approach to text selection. This approach seems to allow the course designer use of each approach’s most effective strategies, and may help address any shortcomings arising from the use of a single-syllabus approach.  The attempt to consolidate traditional syllabi and contemporary critical approaches is a direction that merits further research.

In a video interview produced by Trent University (2015), several EAP instructors discuss their institution’s attempt to introduce a similarly multi-faceted approach to ESL instruction. They espouse a combination of genre, CBI, and process approaches to cover content ranging from general transferable academic skills, such as academic honesty and basic research methods, to more discipline-specific text and task types. The Trent approach is ambitious in attempting to employ such a range of instructional methods, however this practice would seem to require a concerted effort in coordinating curricula, as well as sufficient resources and ESL/EAP specialists, which may not be possible at all institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Flowerdew - 2005 - Critical apporaches to syllabus design

# data[].attributes.headline
Core Documents: Course syllabi and a scheme ofwork

# data[].attributes.subject
Core Documents: Course syllabi and a scheme ofwork

# data[].attributes.body
For syllabus and course outline materials, I wanted to compare those used in native and nonnative-speaking countries, as I work in Asia and plan to pursue future ESL/EAP work here. For this purpose I’ve selected course syllabi for undergraduate EAP courses at City University of Hong Kong (2016) and London School of Economics (n.d.). While these sources may not be entirely representative of their regions, they do display some notable differences that may be indicative of cultural (or at least institutional) priorities and preferences.

Both syllabi have a similar framework, essentially goals, teaching methods, tasks, and materials. The CUHK syllabus is more technical and numeric in its focus: for example, it includes percentages for assessment and task weighting, and provides cross-referencing of course learning outcomes with teaching methods and activities. In contrast, the LSE syllabus is often ambiguous; two of the course aims are presented as “development of overall academic skill areas” and “consolidation in general of the 4 language skills”. Overall the CUHK syllabus seems indicative of a desire for accurate measurements and precise definitions, while the LSE syllabus prefers more open descriptions requiring user interpretation. It might be effective—and a challenge—to combine both styles.

Designing a scheme of work for the course proposal has also proven challenging. Many of the work schemes I’ve researched are vague in their descriptions of course content and objectives, however those produced by Trinity College London (n.d.) for their Integrated Skills in English (ISE) courses provide extensive details, particularly in methods of instruction and course tasks. I appreciate the level of detail and hope to produce similar documents for any courses I design in the future; however, I wonder if such a comprehensive document might be better split into a more general syllabus and individual lesson plans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Core Documents: Student feedback forms, design, and interpretation

# data[].attributes.subject
Core Documents: Student feedback forms, design, and interpretation

# data[].attributes.body
Designing course feedback and evaluation strategies is an area in which I’ve experienced considerable difficulty. Much of the research I’ve found focuses on theory and lacks practical measures for actual application (Greene 1994; Stufflebeam 2001); however, this material has been helpful in understanding the types of evaluative techniques in contemporary use, as well providing a theoretical foundation for design. I have been more successful in finding research that addresses the importance of course feedback (Lecky & Neill 2001) and its interpretation (Chan et al 2014).

Two documents that have proven valuable in understanding the design, application, and interpretation of course feedback are Stanford University’s Course Evaluation Committee Report (2013)and Interpreting and Working with your Course Evaluations (n.d.). The latter explains in detail the process involved in researching, designing, and implementing a comprehensive feedback system, while the former addresses concerns about how feedback can be interpreted effectively. Stanford employs several novel ideas for helping to generate feedback. For example, they offer incentives, such as the ability to access course grades early, to increase student participation in online feedback questionnaires. Such a measure may be capable of enhancing the quantity of data available for analysis, however whether it could improve the quality or usefulness of that data seems questionable.

Having looked at several student feedback questionnaires, I find that the form used by Mount Allison University (n.d.) contains an effective range of questions designed to generate exclusively quantitative data; questions address multiple course issues, particularly those relating to teacher performance. This type of questionnaire could be paired with a mechanism to generate qualitative data, such as Kiely’s (2001) group discussion method, to produce a comprehensive feedback system for course evaluation.

# data[].attributes.body
Benesch, S. (2001) Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics, and Practice. London: Routledge.

Chan, C. et al (2014) ‘Teachers’ perceptions of student evaluations of teaching’, Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(4), pp. 275-289.

City University of Hong Kong (2016) City University of Hong Kong Course Syllabus: EAP 1. Available at: https://www.cityu.edu.hk/ug/201617/course/EL0200A.pdf (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Flowerdew, L. (2005) ‘Integrating traditional and critical approaches to syllabus design: the ‘what’, the ‘how’ and the ‘why?’’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), pp. 135-147.

Greene, J.C. (1994) ‘Qualitative program evaluation’, Handbook of qualitative research 530, pp. 530-544.

Kiely, R. (2001) ‘Classroom evaluation – values, interests and teacher development’, Language Teaching Research, 5(3), pp. 241-261.

Lecky, J. & Neill, N. (2001) ‘Quantifying Quality: the importance of student feedback’, Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), pp. 19-32.

London School of Economics and Political Science (n.d.) English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Foundation Programme. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/language/pdf/LN903.pdf (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Mount Allison University (n.d.) Course Evaluation Form. Available at: https://www.mta.ca/uploadedFiles/Community/Academics/PCTC/Teaching_Evaluations/scantron_evaluation_form.pdf (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Spector-Cohen, E. et al (2001) ‘Designing EAP reading courses at university level’, English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), pp. 367-386.

Stanford University (2013) Course Evaluation Committee Report. Available at: https://vptl.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/cec_report_dec_18_1.pdf (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Stanford University (n.d.) Interpreting and Working with your Course Evaluations. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/interpret.pdf (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Stufflebeam, D. (2001) ‘Evaluation Models’, in Stufflebeam, D. (Ed.) New Directions for Evaluation, Number 89, pp. 7-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Trinity College London (n.d.) Scheme of work – ISE I (CEFR B1). Available at: http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=3194 (Accessed 02 May 2017).

Trent ESL (2015) Academic Communication: Productive Skills Instruction in English for Academic Purposes. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4HtOr1ItMk (Accessed 02 May 2017).

# data[].attributes.headline
Research: Teacher perception of student feedback

# data[].attributes.subject
Research: Teacher perception of student feedback

# data[].attributes.body
The audio lecture in Unit 3 touched on on how teachers perceive feedback on their performance from students, noting that it is not always well-received and that teachers can react negatively to criticism that comes from sources considered unqualified to give it.

Chan et al (2014) expand on teacher perceptions of student feedback, considering it in the context of teachers’ priorities as lecturers and researchers at universities. Their data, gathered from Science lecturers at a Hong Kong university, shows that there was a general agreement that student feedback scores were determined to a large degree by the students’ level of interest in a course and its difficulty level, with difficult, low-interest courses receiving generally poor feedback (p.282); however, 83% of the lecturers surveyed admitted to using student feedback in course development (p.282). Additionally, Chan et al found that the majority of teachers not only preferred research to teaching, but also believed research was more important due to the performance review and tenure system (p.280-281).

There seems to be a discrepancy between the negative view of student feedback and its use as a course development tool; perhaps institutional use of student feedback to gauge a teacher’s effectiveness (and potentially review teacher performance) provides an incentive to adopt, as one lecturer put it, “a grinning-monkey style” (p.282).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chan et al - 2014 - Teacher perceptions of student evaluations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academic Communication - Productive Skills Instruction for EAP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trent University EAP instructors discuss strategies for teaching effective productive skills lessons. Part of what makes Trent ESL's program unique and effective is its approach to skills instruction in our English for University levels 4 and 5.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mount Allison: Student feedback questionnaire

# data[].attributes.subject
Mount Allison: Student feedback questionnaire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mount Allison - Scantron student eval form