Towards an evidencebased language curriculum at KMUTT History

Towards an evidence-based language curriculum at KMUTT

History of language education at KMUTT • 1980 s • EST • 1990 s • Self-access • 2000 s • Task-based • 2010 s • ? ? ?

Basis for curriculum decisions • Currently decisions about curriculum revision are based on beliefs and feelings, not evidence. • Alternatives: – Basing decisions on clear principles – Basing decisions on evidence

Principle-based curriculum decisions • Example: Evaluation of course assessment • Principles for evaluation: 3 theoretical constructs important in assessment: validity, reliability, practicality • Problem: Still reliant on evaluator’s beliefs – About what principles to use – Applying the principles • Limited number of focuses with generally agreed principles

Evidence-based language education • “The integration of professional wisdom with the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver instruction” • (Whitehurst, 2003 quoted in Moran, 2004: 4)

Sources of evidence • Advice from effective teachers – But who is an effective teacher? • General published research leading to lists of best practices – Meta-analyses – Large-scale multiple-location studies – Lists of best practices derived from synthesising research • Research conducted at KMUTT

General research for best practices • Meta-analyses – Task-based teaching, especially where a linguistic feature is essential for completing the task, aids acquisition (Keck et al. 2006) – Strategy training can be effective where the number of strategies trained is limited to less than eight (Plonsky, 2011) – Explicit teaching of reading strategies helps reading comprehension, especially for students of university age (Taylor et al. , 2006)

General research for best practices • Large-scale multiple-location studies – The most effective teachers are ‘class enquirers’ who emphasise whole-class interactive teaching – Use of challenging tasks – Ensuring that students have some responsibility and independence

General research for best practices • Syntheses of research explicitly identifying best practices (for writing) – – – Process writing is an effective approach to teaching writing Writing strategies should be taught Collaborative student writing is effective Tasks should have high but realistic expectations Students write (and learn writing) best when they are writing for a real audience and purpose and when their writing is shared (e. g. by publishing it) – Feedback on writing should be given on multiple drafts and is most effective when selective in the errors treated – Feedback should be provided from multiple sources

Research at KMUTT • 2005 -2015: 30 studies • Findings concern: – teaching objectives – classroom practice – classroom interaction – administration

Research at KMUTT • Teaching objectives – Employers of KMUTT graduates use TOEIC – Students are weakest at writing • Classroom practice – Peer feedback is effective (using Facebook? ) – Collaborative writing is beneficial (using Google Docs? ) – Student work should have real-world impacts

Research at KMUTT • Classroom interaction – Use meaning-focused referential questions – Use L 2 for most purposes • Administration – Student learning drops when classes are larger than 25, and drops again above 45 – Need systems to provide evidence

Evidence-based findings 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A task-based element should be retained in the curriculum. These tasks should be challenging and encourage student responsibility and independence. Strategy training should be included, although only a limited number of strategies should be covered. A substantial part of the teaching-learning process should be based around whole-class interactive teaching incorporating meaning-focused referential questions. Writing needs to be emphasised in the curriculum. Writing can be taught through a process writing approach, and writing tasks should be aimed at a real audience with some form of publication. Some tasks may involve collaborative writing (possibly using Google Docs). Opportunities should be provided for students to receive feedback from multiple sources, including peer feedback (possibly using Facebook).

Curriculum approach • Majority of findings at the level of curriculum approach i. e. large-scale decisions that concern the way teaching is delivered in the classroom

Future directions • Implementing the 7 evidence-based findings – Some curriculum approach findings already used in some courses – Add to other courses? – Changes involve course manuals for teachers

Future directions • Identifying key areas to address – Teaching of speaking – Use of formative assessment • Need for more sources of evidence • Need for more findings from existing sources • Need for more research studies

Future directions • Need for more sources of evidence • Missing source of evidence: Advice from effective teachers – Use student evaluations of teachers? – Other ways of identifying effective teachers?

Future directions • Need for more findings from existing sources • Further searching for general research for best practices • Wider collection of KMUTT-based research (e. g. MA theses) • Expand coverage to similar Thai universities?

Future directions • Need for more research studies • Conduct a coherent set of research studies at KMUTT focused on identifying beneficial curriculum approaches • Possibility of a seminar and book as with the task-based approach (2001)

Work to do 1. 2. 3. Agree on the use of an evidence-based approach as the future direction for the undergraduate language curriculum Implement changes to course manuals for the 7 key findings already identified Enlarge the knowledge base a. b. c. d. e. Identify effective teachers and collect advice Further searching for best practices from the literature Collate evidence from MA theses Identify best practices from Thai publications outside KMUTT Conduct new research to identify best practices