Aurbach's paper 'Competency based ESOL: ONe step forward of two steps back?' is very interesting. Firstly what is interesting is when it was written 1985. And it includes a historical context the refers back to ESL from the 1900's. The basic premise is that competency based ESL courses are socially/economically deterministic - designed to maintain migrants as working/blue collar.
The resonances between Auerbach's commentary on then USA policy and current Skills for Life are striking.
To examine Auerbach's claims in more detail its necessary to assess what CBE is, whether it actually is fundamentally still the foundation of Skills for Life and then look at Skills for Life in relation to Auerbach's claims.
Auerbach claims CEB is :
Based on humanistic, communicative based language approaches.
The emphasis is on what learners can do with language rather than what they know about language.
Auerbahc identified several features of CBE:
1. A focus on successful functioning in society: The goal is to enable
students to become autonomous individuals capable of coping
with the demands of the world.
2. A focus on life skills: Rather than teaching language in isolation,
CBAE/ESL teaches language as a function of communication
about concrete tasks. Students are taught just those language
forms/skills required by the situations in which they will
function. These forms are determined by "empirical assessment
of language required" (Findley & Nathan, 1980, p. 224).
3. Task- or performance-centered orientation: What counts is what
students can do as a result of instruction. The emphasis is on
overt behaviors rather than on knowledge or the ability to talk
about language and skills.
4. Modularized instruction: "Language learning is broken down
into manageable and immediately meaningful chunks" (Center
for Applied Linguistics, 1983, p. 2). Objectives are broken into
narrowly focused subobjectives so that both teachers and
students can get a clear sense of progress.
5. Outcomes which are made explicit a priori: Outcomes are public
knowledge, known and agreed upon by both learner and
teacher. They are specified in terms of behavioral objectives so
that students know exactly what behaviors are expected of them.
6. Continuous and ongoing assessment: Students are pretested to
determine what skills they lack and posttested after instruction in
that skill. If they do not achieve the desired level of mastery, they
continue to work on the objective and are retested. Program
evaluation is based on test results and, as such, is considered
objectively quantifiable.
7. Demonstrated mastery-of performance objectives: Rather than
the traditional paper-and-pencil tests, assessment is based on the
ability to demonstrate prespecified behaviors.
8. Individualized, student-centered instruction: In content, level,
and pace, objectives are defined in terms of individual needs;
prior learning and achievement are taken into account in
developing curricula. Instruction is not time based; students
progress at their own rates and concentrate on just those areas in
which they lack competence.
Auerbach's critiques:
1. Curriculum as fact versus curriculum as practise: co-construction of knowledge. essentially critical thinking - the question arises why economic migrants and asylum seekers arent encouraged to engage in critical thinking and university students are. This is a two tier system. The question does arise of basic ability to communicate, but in a plurilingual society that communication should be a two way street, not a transmission of one set of norms imposed on another. Need to justify plurilingualism as a philosophical position??? Need to get round the problem of basic communication. re-read Auerbach and ask if the curriculum is efficient in languge teaching.
See Competency based paper on desk top
Functional Language Objectives in a Competency Based ESL Curriculum
Author(s): Charles A. Findley and Lynn A. Nathan
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 221-231
No comments:
Post a Comment