Hill Publishing Group | contact@hillpublisher.com

Hill Publishing Group

Location:Home / Journals / The Educational Review, USA /

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2020.01.001

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PLANNING CONGRUENCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION: Congruence between Planning and Implementation of Undergraduate English Language and Literature Program

Author: Ali. M. Muhammad, Jeylan. W. Hussein, Abera. A. Endashaw, Dereje. T. Birbirso
Date: January 13,2020 Hits: 61

Abstract

This study was aimed at examining the congruence between the planning and implementation of the nationally harmonized undergraduate modular English language and literature program in the case of Wachemo and Wolkite universities in Ethiopia. Modularization was adopted mainly to ensure competence-based organization of the programs in Ethiopian higher education institutions, ensure the learner-centered curricula and determine students’ workload. In line with modular instruction, it is believed that almost all Ethiopian public universities have the teaching and learning of EFL as a separate program of study, named as English Language and literature. However, the congruence between the planning and implementation of the program with the realization of individuals’ views and the challenges is one of the vital steps towards achieving the expected outcomes. Accordingly, 183 participants comprising 22 instructors 159 students and 2 department heads were involved to respond and reflect their views with the challenges. The results revealed that though the participants had a relatively higher view towards the planning, they were disappointed with the incongruence of the implementation with the planning or the major assumptions of the program due to several conceptual and contextual challenges. Students’ low English language background, students’ low interest to study English language and literature as their field of study, block mode course delivery, low quality assessment mechanisms and instructors’ low commitment are among the challenges to impede the implementation. As such, to ensure effective implementation of the program, solutions should be made in accordance with the views and the challenges.

References

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? applied linguistics, 14(2), 115-129.
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: a social constructivist approach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). Policy-making in education: a holistic approach in response to global challenges. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Betts, M., & Smith, R. (1998). Developing the credit-based modular curriculum in higher education: challenge, choice and change. London: Falmer Press.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook 1 cognitive domain. Michigan: David McKay Company, Inc.
Brindley, G., & Hood, S. (1990). Curriculum innovation in adult esl. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum in Action (pp. 232-248). Sydney:
Carless, D. (1999a). Factors affecting classroom implementation: task-based curriculum renewal in Hong KongInternational journal of educational reform, 8(4), 374-382.
Cloete, N. (2006). Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dejene Chaka (2016). Practices of EFL Modular Instruction: The Case of Undergraduate Program of English Language and Literature in Three Public Universities in Ethiopia. PhD Thesis. AAU.
Dochy, F. J. R. C., Wagemans, L. J. J. M., & de Wolf, H. C. (1989). modularization and student learning in modular instruction in relation with prior knowledge. Heerlen: Centre for Educational Technological Innovation.
Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education: a faculty of introduction. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, Inc.
Eggins, H. (Ed.). (2003). Globalization and reform in higher education. London: Bell & Bain Ltd.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Gemeda, F.T., & Tyanjala, P. (2015). Professional learning of teachers in Ethiopia: challenges and implications for reform. Australian journal of teacher education, 40 (5). retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol40/issue5/1
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2010). Leading the learner-centered campus: an administrator’s framework for improving student learning outcomes. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hayes, U. (1997). Helping teachers to cope with large classes. elt journal, s(1), 31-38.
Hussein, J. W. (2006b). Experience-based reflections on the potential for critical practitioner inquiry to transform teacher education in Africa. Journal of transformative education, 4(4), 362–384.
Johnson, A., Kimball, R., Melendez, B., Myers, L., Rhea, K. and Travis, B. 2009. Breaking with tradition: preparing faculty to teach in a student-centered or problem-solving environment, primus, 19 (2): 146-160
Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in elt project. applied linguistics, 9(4), 329-342.
Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, curriculum and employability in higher education. New York: Routledge falmer.
Krashen, S. (1982). principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kreuger, R.A., (1988). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.
MoE (Ministry of Education). (2013, March). A revised guideline of modularization for Ethiopian higher education institutions. CD-ROM.
Moon, J. (2002). The module and programme development handbook: a practical guide to linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Nelson, M., & Brown, C. G. (1984). CPR instruction: modular versus lecture course. Annals of emergency medicine13(2), 118–121.
Nisbet, R. I., & Collins, J. M. (1978). Barriers and resistance to innovation. The australian journal of teacher
education, 3(1), 2-29. education, 40, 75-87.
O’Brien, J. G., Millis, B. J., & Cohen, M. W. (2008). The course syllabus: a learning-centered approach. (2nd (ed.))USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: foundations, principles and issues. Englawood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Pruthi, R.K. (2004). Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
Quinn, T. F. J. (1978). A critical appraisal of modular courses and their relevance to the british system of higher education. British journal of educational technology, 19(1), 5–16.
Sanjay, K.J. (2013). english in eastern ethiopia is learnt; not mastered. English language teaching, 6(4), 42-55.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith
Scott, P. (Ed.). (2000). Higher education reformed. London: Falmer Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The cipp model for program evaluation. Boston: KluwerNijhoff
Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. SRHE: Buckingham.
Tudor, I. (1996). learner-centeredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, C. E. (2000, March). Investigating washback from empirically derived rating scales: background and initial steps in a study focusing on ESL speaking at the secondary level in quebec schools. Paper Presented at the 22nd Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, BC.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future: from the “new sociology of education” to a critical theory of learning. Philadelphia: Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc. 

Full-Text HTML

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PLANNING CONGRUENCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION: Congruence between Planning and Implementation of Undergraduate English Language and Literature Program
Ali. M. Muhammad *, Jeylan. W. Hussein, Abera. A. Endashaw, Dereje. T. Birbirso
Haramaya University, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, P. O. Box 215, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
How to cite this paper: Muhammad, A. M., Hussein, J. W., Endashaw A. A., Birbirso D. T. (2020) Congruence between Planning and Implementation of Undergraduate English Language and Literature Program. The Educational Review, USA, 4(1), 241-262.
*Corresponding author: Ali. M. Muhammad, Haramaya University, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, P. O. Box 215, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Free HPG Newsletters

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from Hill Publishing Group.

Contact us

Hill Publishing Group

8825 53rd Ave

Elmhurst, NY 11373, USA

E-mail: contact@hillpublisher.com

Copyright © 2019 Hill Publishing Group Inc. All Rights Reserved.