The Language Teacher

The new Ministry of Education guidelines, development of a nationwide entrance exam, and the dwindling student population have all sparked much speculation about the future of English education. Some predict its demise. Others see opportunity and freedom sufficient to respond to the urgency of innovating and integrating curricula. Gossman and Cisar describe the efforts of the members of one program to maximize its effectiveness and meet the challenges of the future by integrating courses.

Impetus

This article reports on an on-going renovation project designed to make Kanto Gakuen University curriculum relevant to its customers and its users. The renovation of the English curriculum has demonstrated cooperation between the administration and faculty and serves as an exemplar for other disciplines in the university. Kanto Gakuen is a private university of about three thousand students in Gunma with the number of students roughly equal in three departments -- Law, Economics, and Management. All students are currently required to obtain credits in three specified English courses in order to graduate.

Prior to the 1995 school year, the required English courses (four courses instead of the current three) had unity in name only. All professors selected their own objectives, methods, and materials. There was no concordance between any two classes except by accident. In some cases, for example, the same textbooks were used in English I and English II. This resulted in the students repeating the same material in consecutive courses, only with different teachers.

With growing awareness of the demographic change of fewer students graduating from high school, the administration began in 1994 to look for ways to make the university viable into the next century. Simultaneously, some native speaker English professors, dissatisfied with the existing situation, began to work together to establish some common objectives. Those professors recognized that the program had to appeal to both the customers (i.e., the parents who often actually decide which university their sons and daughters will attend) and the users (i.e., the students who actually attend the university). Many ideas were batted about and a core set of objectives was decided on as something to take to the administration. The vice-regent, the president, and the three deans picked up on the ideas and set up a working committee to move toward quick implementation of these objectives.

The changes implied by accepting these objectives would affect the curriculum throughout the entire university structure. For the changes to work effectively and be accepted by all, they needed to be phased in over several academic years. Reasons for this include such things as staffing considerations, course development considerations, administrative adjustments to the scheduling and structure of the university, and allowance for human acceptance of change.

Implementation

The first implemented change was the establishment of common objectives for English 1. In doing this, the administration decided that all English 1 classes would be taught by native speakers. To support the common goals, the English professors recommended and the administration agreed to the use of a common examination for all sections of English 1. However, the professors decided that there was no need for all professors to adopt the same texts or to use a single methodology when presenting material. Each of the four professors was well aware of what needed to be covered both for the classes and for the common exams. (See appendices A and B.) They worked together to produce the common mid-year and final exams.

The exams were revolutionary for the university in several ways. First, the fact that it was a common exam for classes given by different professors in different departments was a major revolution in procedures at this university. Although many professors had been teaching in more than one department, there had not been any institutional integration of courses before this. Second, the fact that the exam included a listening section which was given to 750 first-year students simultaneously was a major administrative change. Listening components had been used in the past, but not for such a large number of students who were seated in several different rooms and taking the test at the same time. The third major revolution was the use of machine readable answer sheets. Scoring was simplified. The success of this testing and scoring procedure led to changes in the writing of and administrative policies for the entrance exams of the university.

For evaluating the test results the administration purchased Rascal, a software package that performs Rasch analysis on data. It calculates levels of difficulty of questions, levels of ability of examinees, gives standard deviations, and will also score exam data and give information on the reliability of questions based on internal data within the examination. Both the exam and the students were analyzed. The exam analysis is a continuing procedure with the aims of establishing fair criteria and improving the individual items. Each professor assigned grades based on test performance and other factors such as participation, homework, and attendance. Test performance provided the students and the professors with a better understanding of where the students stood in relationship to common objectives in the program.

Outcomes

What was accomplished in this first year of renovating? First, a common curriculum with common objectives was instituted. Crucial to this is the fact that not only the administration but also the other disciplines have accepted this renovation. Second, students have gained confidence because they can now discuss with students from other classes what they need to know for all English exams. They are no longer isolated. Third, the administration saw how it would be able to administer the nationwide Central Entrance Exam even after it adds the listening component. Fourth, the "customers" can now be assured that the school is looking toward the future with their sons' and daughters' interests in mind.

What were the problems of the first year? An ongoing assessment of the exams, objectives, and procedures is being carried out. The professors have not been able to certify that the objectives are at the appropriate level for the students. Based on previous experience, it appears that the objectives are appropriate but there is no concrete evidence at this point. Test administration showed several weaknesses that are being corrected. For example, such things as the proper preparation of test papers for such a massive testing. (Handing out nine separate sheets of paper at the beginning of a test to one hundred students in a room within ten minutes by two people leads to mass confusion. Stapling is important.) In addition, the professors found that they did need to make some adjustments in the order of the presentation of material to cover the proper material before each exam.

As the first year of this renovation came to a close, the administration, working with recommendations from the faculty, implemented changes for the second year. First, the principle of having common objectives was extended from English 1 to include English 2. Second, English 1 & 2 classes would meet twice weekly instead of once a week. This was a major change to the base structure of classes at the university. That means that English 1 & 2 are done in the first year with English 1 being in the first term and English 2 in the second. Third, an extra test period was added during each half of the year so that the students now have four exams during the course of the year. To recognize the major shift in the course structure, the administration renamed the English courses Unified English Curriculum (UEC). The administration continuously emphasizes that the new UEC courses are not the same as the old English courses. Because of the added intensiveness, it is hoped that more will be accomplished in the courses.

Several university-wide changes have occurred because of the changes in the English curriculum. First, the administration decided to use a multiple-choice format for certain entrance exams. The machine readable format allowed for speedier results, more accurate recording of information, and for less controversy over how to score tests. The second change was that several professors from other disciplines inquired about using machine scorable tests for their classes. Third, there is more discussion in the faculties about setting common standards for courses. Fourth, university-wide tracking is being given serious consideration by the curriculum committees as they see the effects of the tracking in the English courses.

In conclusion, Kanto Gakuen has begun to adjust its programs to continue to offer a good education to its students as it moves into the 21st century. Kanto Gakuen has looked at the changing population structure and is attempting to respond positively to it. The entire university recognizes that it needs to restructure for the 21st century. Trust and cooperation between all the various disciplines grows with the restructuring. The authors would like to exchange information with others doing similar projects.

Appendix A:

Principles of the Midterm UEC 1

I. Listening

A. Distinguishing names based on hearing.

B. Distinguishing phone numbers: Japanese and Foreign

C. Distinguishing addresses: Foreign only

D. Distinguishing simple numbers.

1. Groups

a. zip codes
b. social security numbers

2. Common errors

a. fifteen/fifty, and so forth.

II. Listening for information

A. Being able to answer simple questions for information about material heard.

B. Being able to choose the appropriate, subsequent sentence for a conversation.

III. Grammar

A. Making the correct grammatical choice.

1. pronoun substitutions

2. verb tenses

a. present, past, future, perfect, progressive

B. Supplying the correct question word to arrive at the answer given.

IV. Reading

A. Being able to read a simple passage and decide what it means.

B. Being able to read simple signs and know what they mean.

V. Writing -- not tested on this test.

Appendix B

Principles for the Final

I. Listening

A. Pictures on a page; listening to physical/verbal descriptions and answering questions

B. What type of sentence; what type of usage

1. Thanking, Apologizing, Asking for action, Asking permission, Making a suggestion, Inviting & refusing, Inviting & accepting.

II. Directions

A. Listening to directions with a map on the page. Answering the question, Where are you now?

B. Written directions on the page, scrambled, to be put into appropriate, logical order.

III. Grammar

A. Verb tenses, pronoun substitutions from Midterm

B. Prepositions

IV. Writing

A. Descriptions, for example, clothing, people, and so forth.

Daniel Gossman has been an Associate Professor at Kanto Gakuen University for the past five years. His primary interest there is the improvement of the English program. He can be contacted at: <dgossman@gol.com>.

Larry Cisar has been an Associate Professor at Kanto Gakuen University for the past six years. He has been involved in JALT since the early days. He can be contacted at: <ljc@gol.com >