Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T07:51:37.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Developments in Language Curriculum Design: An Australian Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

Jill Burton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The past decade in language curriculum in Australia has been a time of exploration and innovation, and also a time of consolidation. During this period, curriculum planning reflected, first, a swing within the teaching profession to greater teacher responsibility in curriculum (a responsive curriculum), then a swing back to teacher accountability (an explicit curriculum) due to demands external to the teaching profession. In addition, language curriculum in Australia was strongly influenced by communicative language teaching theory (CLT) and the related developments of task-based learning (TBL), needs-based programming, and language as discourse theory.

Type
Integrated Perspectives on Learning and Assessment
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 18 , March 1998 , pp. 287 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACTRAC [Australian Committee for Training Curriculum]. 1994. National framework of adult English language, literacy and numeracy competence. Frankston, Victoria: ACTRAC [Australian Committee for Training Curriculum.]Google Scholar
AEC [Australian Education Council]. 1994a. English—A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
AEC [Australian Education Council]. 1994b. ESL scales. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. 1988. Observation in the language classroom. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aston, G. 1988. Learning comity. Bologna: Editrice CLUEB.Google Scholar
Bartlett, L. and Butler, J.. 1985. The planned curriculum and being a curriculum planner in the Adult Migrant English Program. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. [Report to the Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant English Program.]Google Scholar
Baylis, P. and Thomas, G.. 1994. English in the workplace: Competency framework. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant English Service.Google Scholar
Boomer, G., et al. 1992. Negotiating the curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Bottomley, Y., Dalton, J. and Corbel, C.. 1994. From proficiencies to compe-tencies: A collaborative approach to curriculum innovation. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Breen, M. and Candlin, C. N.. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 1.89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogan, M. 1992. English for employment and training: Assessing and reporting language competence. Melbourne: Adult Migrant English Service.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. (ed.) 1984. General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Burns, A. and Hood, S. (eds.) 1995. Teachers' voices: Exploring course design in a changing curriculum. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Burns, A., Joyce, H. and Gollin, S.. 1996. ‘I see what you mean.’ Using spoken discourse in the classroom: A handbookfor teachers. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1985. What kind of Mexican bean are you? A look at ELT in 1984. Prospect. 1.1.81–86.Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1990. The NCELTR Spoken Discourse Project. Outreach. 1.2.1–2.Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1991a. Planning for a professional program: Review ofprofessional support and development in the AMEP. Canberra: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs.Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1991b. Perceptions of learning in the AMEP. Prospect. 7.1.57–72.Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1994. Discourse analysis and language teaching. Adelaide: CALUSA. [Unpublished paper prepared for the NLLIA/CALUSA Research Node on Classroom Discourse, University of South Australia.]Google Scholar
Burton, J. 1997. Sustaining language teachers as researchers of their own practice. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 54.84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J., Cormack, P. and Wignell, P.. 1997. Classroom discourse in the upper primary and early secondary years. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). [Children's Literacy National Projects 1995–6, # 5.]Google Scholar
Burton, J. and Rusek, W.. 1994. The learner as curriculum resource in English for professional employment courses. Prospect. 9.3.30–46.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second-language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1.1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M. 1994. Teacher-learner negotiation in continuing curriculum development: A case study. In Burton, J. (ed.) Perspectives on the classroom. Adelaide: CALUSA, University of South Australia. 134–152.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L. 1987. Curriculum renewal in schoolforeign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clennell, C. 1996. A model for improving oral communication skills in tertiary-directed learners of English. TESOL in Context. 6.1.28–32.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. (ed.) 1996. Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colman, J. 1988a. Curriculum structures in adult language learning: Implications for the AMEP. Prospect. 3.3.299–322. [Part 1.]Google Scholar
Colman, J. 1988b. Curriculum structures in adult language learning: Implications for the AMEP. Prospect. 4.1.25–37. [Part 2.]Google Scholar
Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (eds.) 1993. The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) 1993. Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dubin, F. and Olshtain, E.. 1986. Course design: Developing programs and materials for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. 1994. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
and Slade, D.. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feez, S., Hagan, P. and Joyce, H.. 1993. Advanced certificate in spoken and written English—Employmentfocus. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant English Service.Google Scholar
Fullan, M. (with S. Stiegelbauer). 1991. The new meaning of educational change. 2nd ed.London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. 1990. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Gerot, L. and Wignell, P.. 1995. Making sense offunctional grammar. Revised ed. Sydney: JEE [Antipodean Educational Enterprises].Google Scholar
Graves, K. (ed.) 1996. Teachers as course developers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, P., et al. 1993. Certificate in spoken and written English. 2nd ed.Sydney: NSW AMES/NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.K, A.. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogarth, W. and Burnett, L.. 1995. Talking it through: Teacher's guide and classroom materials. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Holliday, A. 1996. Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A.. 1987. English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janks, H. (ed.) 1993. Critical language awareness. Johannesburg: Hodder and Stoughton. [Four volumes.]Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (ed.) 1989. The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Legutke, M. and Thomas, H.. 1991. Process and experience in the language classroom. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R.. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 123–167.Google Scholar
Luke, A. 1989. Literacy, textbooks and ideology: Postwar literacy instruction and the mythology of Dick and Jane. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Luke, A. and Gilbert, P. (eds.) 1993. Literacy in contexts: Australian perspectives and issues. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Markee, N. 1997. Managing curricular innovation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R.. 1994. Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
McGowan, U. 1991. Learner pathways in a learner-centred, needs-based program in South Australia. Prospect. 7.1.73–84.Google Scholar
McKay, P. and Scarino, A.. 1991a. ALL manualfor curriculum developers. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
McKay, P. and Scarino, A.. 1991b. ESL framework of stages: An approach to ESL learning in schools, K-12. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
Minister of Supply and Services. 1996. Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language for adults, English as a second language for literacy learners. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. [Working Document]Google Scholar
NSW AMES. 1995–1996. Certificate in spoken and written English (I, II, III and IV). Surry Hills, New South Wales: Adult Migrant English Service.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1987. The teacher as curriculum developer: An investigation of curriculum processes within the AMEP. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second-language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. 1989a. Understanding language classrooms: A guide for teacher-initiated action. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1989b. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing discourse analysis. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. and Burton, J. (eds.) 1988–1991. Curriculum frame works for adult second language learners. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University. [An NCP production in 8 vols.]Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J.. 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second-language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 9–34.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, M., Webster, A. and Beveridge, M.. 1996. Mapping the literacy curriculum: An interactive account of classroom literacies. Changing English. 3.2.189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S.. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scarino, A., et al. 1988. Australian language levels guidelines 1–4. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. [Allen, P. and Harley, B., eds.] Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. 1990. Humanism in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. and Yule, G.. 1989. Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tudor, I. 1996. Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vale, D., Scarino, A. and McKay, P.. 1991. Pocket ALL: A users' guide to the teaching of languages and ESL. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
VEETAC [Vocational Education Employment and Training Advisory Committee]. 1992. Nationalframeworkfor the recognition of training. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. 1985. Vygotsky and the socialformation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, R. V. 1989. The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Willing, K. 1989. Teaching how to learn: Learning strategies in ESL. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University. [Teacher's guide and Activity worksheets.]Google Scholar
Yalden, J. 1983. The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Yalden, J. 1987. Principles of course design for language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar