Download - Search

incould1 or22 MICHAEL P. BREEN AND CHRISTOPHER N. CANDLIN(e) DirectionTraditionally, learners have been expected to follow the direction implicit in someprescribed content. Typically an emphasis on content led the learner from the beginning,through the middle, to the end. From \\.hat has been indicated so far, a communicativemethodology would not cxxploit contrnt as somc’ lire-drtcrminctl route with specific entryand exit points. In a communicative methodology, content ceases to become some externalcontrol over learning-teaching proerdurw. Choosing directions becomes a part of thecurriculum itself, and involvcs negotiation bct\vccn lcarncrs and learners, learners andteachers, and learners and text. Who or what directs content becomes a justification forcommunication about the selection and organisation of content with methodology, andabout the various routes to he adoptctll>y thc learners through any agreed content. Contentcan be predicted within methodology only to the extent that it serves the communicativelearning process of thc participants in the group. It might \vcll be that the teacher, innegotiation with learners, will ~iroposc the adoption of aspects of the target rcpcrtoirc asappropriate content. Ilo\vcvcr, the teacher \vould recognisc that thc ccntral objective ofdeveloping underlying communicative knowledge antl atiilities can lic achirange of alternative content, not nccesrarib. including aspects of the target repertoire. Such*carrier’ content can tic as tli\crsc as the different routes learners may take towards acommon target: perhaps contcnt can bc more various antl morc varialile. Also, the teacher\voultl remain frer to build upon the contriliutions of learners their initial competencesand expectations and exploit thc inevitably different \vays in which learners may attainthe ultimate target. [. . .]7 How is the curriculum process to be evaluated?Thc communicativc curriculum insists that c,valuation is a highly significant part ofcommunicativc intcraction itscll. Wc judge ‘grammaticalit?’, ‘appropriatcncss’, ‘intelligibility’, and ‘cohcrrncc’ in communicative performance on the basis of shared, negotiated,antl changing convcntions. Evaluation ivithin the curriculum can exploit this ‘judging’clement of everyclay communicative hchaviour in the asscssmcnt of learners’ communicationantl mctacommunication.‘I‘hc highlj evaluative aspect of communication can be atloptcd asthc evaluation proccdurc of thc curriculum. If so, the csscntially intcrsuhjectivc nature ofevaluation can be seen as a strong point rather than, possilily, a Lveakncss.How might lve evaluate lcarncr progrc Evaluation of oncsclf, cvaluation of others,and evaluation of self‘ by others is intersuhjcctivc. In this xvay, evaluation need not beregarded as external to the purposcs of the curriculum or external to the actual process oflearning and teaching. In rccognising that relative su or failure in the sharing of meaning,or in the achievement of somc particular task, is most often an intcrsubjccti\-c matter, thecommunicative curriculum ~vould rely on shared and negotiated evaluation. Criteria foreventual succcss ~ some particular task ~ lie initially ncg ctl, achirvemcnt ofthe task could be rclatctl to thcsc agreed criteria, antl degrees of su failure could hethemselves further negotiated on thc tiasis of the original criteria. Evaluatiyr criteria,therefore, \vould be rstahlishcd antl applied in a thrcc-stage process: (i) What might ‘success’mean? (ii) Is the learner’s perhrmancc of the task succcssful! (iii) If so, hom succcssful isit? Each stage \vould lit, a matter for communication. Instcad of the teacher hcing obligedto teach toxvards somc cxtcrnally imposed criteria ~ manifested most often by some externalexamination or stantlartlisetl test ~ he can exploit the interpretation of these external orstandardiscd criteria as part of the joint negotiation within the classroom. The group’s