Matching Learning Objectives and Textbook Content

What are we to do when we design a course, but there is no published curriculum that matches the objectives? This is a problem that we are currently facing. Our committee has selected what it deems to be the best curriculum for one of our core courses. It is pedagogically sound, teacher friendly, and well supplemented for both teacher and student.

However, our program has been charged with selecting courses (with their descriptions and learning objectives) from a preexisting, approved list. The committee did its best to match the pre-existing courses with agreed-upon levels and textbooks. Nevertheless, there is no real match. As a consequence, it is particularly important to remember what some in the committee have tried to impress upon me, namely that “the course is not the book.” Since we have not actually designed the course (description & objectives), what does it actually consist of?

Where fortune smiles, the learning objectives overlap with the book content, and we can easily provide additional material as expansion activities. However, where the learning objectives and the book do not overlap, it is incumbent upon the teachers to find or design supplementary material for the students. To the extent that this is done, it generally becomes necessary to skip parts of the book in order to allow for time for the additional material. Students, who do not understand the difference between the course book and the course, are confused that parts of the book are skipped. The teacher is put into a very difficult position.

For me, this practice also raises another, ethical, question. I have been repeatedly told that the course must contain with is in the pre-set, official course description. However, we are free to add as much as we with (i.e., the textbook!). In practical terms, I would say that 90% or more material taught consists of the course book (the “added material”), making a mockery of the course description and objectives.

The solution? First, designing a course around the actual needs of our students in such a way that it easily meshes with the best published curricula we can find. Second, producing supplementary material to augment the books and allow them to meet the course objectives.

Textbook and Contact Hours Issues

One of the problems I have noticed is that the number of hours in a given course may not match the recommended hours of a particular textbook. This may be a problem confined to courses taught at a college because course length is usually set by custom, so that it fits in with the scheduling of other classes. However, the result is that the hours recommended for using a particular text may not match the contact hours of a given ESL course.

For example, at our college, the core ESL classes are designed to match the contact hours of credit classes: 48. At my college we have had, and I inherited, a practice of assigning one book per course. For example, a level 2 book and workbook would be used in the (48-hour) Fall term, regardless of how many contact hours the publisher actually recommended for the text.

But this inevitably caused problems: when teachers felt unable to complete the book in the allotted time, students complained that they had spent money on the book, but didn’t get to finish it. On the other hand, when teachers did manage to finish the textbook, students complained that the course moved too fast for them to really learn the material.

I adopted the solution of breaking the book into two parts, and A and a B. In fact, many textbooks are available in A and B parts from the publisher for this very purpose. At our college, we do the A half in the Fall and the B half in the Spring term. Of course, this solution brings its own problems. Our program--like credit programs—cannot offer both A and B in every course every semester. Consequently students who miss the Fall must either take the B half of the course without having taken the A, or take the B part of the previous level (which they may not need).

However, we need to remember that the division of courses into A and B parts is a bit arbitrary, given that the vast majority of ESL students (unlike EFL students) do not rise evenly through the levels of English, but have developed very uneven skills because of their vastly different histories with English. Indeed, for some students, the B part of the course is precisely what they need. Thus, in many cases, the “problem” of offering B only in the Spring is a false problem—more a problem on paper than in reality. In fact, we have exactly the same problem in the Fall with students who really need the B half, but only the A half is available.

In our program, because we offer a smorgasbord of classes, there are ample opportunities for students to continue to work at their level, particularly to focus on special skills, apart from core courses that do not match their needs for a particular term.

All in all, scheduling problems aside (and disregarding the inevitable confusion at the front office in distinguishing A classes from B classes—with perfectly identical names), the solution of allowing for the contact hours recommended by the publisher seems to be working. The most important thing seems to be to give the students the time they need to study, practice, and use English rather than simply to rush finish a books and collect certificates to prove they’ve “covered” the material.

Intensive ESL As I See It Practiced

I suspect that “intensive” ESL is often assumed to mean “immersion” ESL. We generally take “intensive” to mean “concentrated,” with the result that an intensive ESL program would be denser than the usual program. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, “intensive” is used to mean “faster” than normal.

Here is an example to explain what I mean. On my campus, our core courses total 48-hours of class time, the same as a 3-hour credit class. Thus, in the Fall semester, for example, a student make take one 48-hour Communications class, attending two hours a day, two days a week, for 24 class periods.

The “intensive” schedule, on the other hand, is offered on our other campuses. On this schedule, students still attend class for 2 hours/day, but 4 days a week. This means that the student covers the same amount of material in half the time. That also allows the college to offer two sets of classes in a semester, one at the beginning of the semester, and the other at midterm. Thus, a student may take one 48-hour course from September to October, and the next 48-hour course from October to December. That is, the savvy student, who wants “to learn perfect English as fast as possible,” as most students (in their idealistic enthusiasm) report is able to cover twice as much material at four times the pace of a college class.

Is there a problem with that? I see one, and so do student who return to my campus after having taken such classes. In covering the same material in half the time, students have half the time to study and practice outside of class—and for many students, it is difficult to find much time for study and practice as it is. Thus, students are confronted with material at an accelerated rate while they have not yet digested the material they have already covered.

On ESL Testing

The community college where I work has five campuses, and on each campus, the ESL programs, under Continuing Education, developed independently. As a result of their independent development, the placement process, levels, and coursework—though comparable—were unique to each campus. Recently, the college has instituted a computer placement test for new students across the entire district. Doubtless, the primary intention behind this move was to iron out the differences between the programs, to make data accessible from one campus to another, and to enable students to travel between campuses with as little confusion as possible. In these respects, the decision was a success.

However, the test itself is of dubious value. There is no writing or speaking section, which prevents students’ composition or even orthographic skills, not to mention conversational skills, from being evaluated at all. Without conversation with a trained advisor, speaking/listening are not considered at all.

In addition, many of our students (among whom are a large number of refugees) are not able to use computers. Some of them have no familiarity with computers at all; some have no familiarity with the western alphabet; and other have no literacy skills in any language. And since the instructions for taking the test are in English, students face yet another obstacle. Most of us do not test well when the conditions make us nervous.

In addition to a computer placement test for new students, at least one campus is requiring a computer final exam. In addition to the obvious limitations of such as a test of authentic communication skills, I have been told that instructors feel a pressure to teach to the test.

It seems to me that our schools and colleges have yet to understand the nature of language acquisition, in particular of ESL. And until we understand the nature of the teaching and learning peculiar to this area, we will not be able to test effectively. All we can do is speak out when we see that what we are doing is not working, or worse—hen we see that it is actually undermining what we understand to be our mission: helping people use English effectively for their daily needs.