Text-based curriculum approach

NCV English curriculum designers also used a text-based approach in the design of this curriculum. The curriculum does not outline the literature aligned with the text- based approach that guides its underpinnings. The document also does not provide guidelines on what the approach means or why, as well as how, lecturers should use this approach in enhancing English development, except to say that all activities in the language classroom should be structured around a text. This applies to all the skills required to be taught: listening, reading, viewing, speaking, writing, language in context and theory (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2013: 42).

Debates about the text-based approach have been reviewed in the following section.

Multiliteracies approach is a term that is used to describe a text-based approach. This approach is associated with the work of Street (1984, 1993, 1997, 2001), and the New London Group (1996) who observed uses of literacy in language learning, especially in non-Western societies. These researchers argued that effective literacy teaching is enhanced by an understanding of the range of social practices that determine the choice and use of texts and modes to enhance language

development. This approach is practiced both in English home language classrooms as well as second and even foreign language classroom contexts, and it especially

supports curricula models oriented to communicative competence and content. The next section presents a brief description of theories of a multiliteracies approach to language teaching and learning.

2.9.5.1 Multiliteracies approach

Multiliteracies is premised on the claim that being literate in the 21st century means seeing beyond the surface of being able to read and write, and embracing the ability to make meaning in more complex ways, drawing upon life experiences, contexts and knowledge of the world to make sense of what we see and learn about (Jay, 2004; Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2000; Fairclough, 1989; Gee, 1990, 1996; Street, 1995). Street (1995) defines literacy as ‘a social practice grounded in social,

historical, cultural and political contexts of use’. This view assumes that literacy is a set of social practices that are embedded in people’s histories, and is highly

dependent on shared cultural understandings and power relations. Literacy is thus seen not just as reading and writing texts, but as a multimodal social practice characterised by specific affordances used in different contexts (Kress, 2003). A social practice model of literacy is also built upon the premise that literacy is constructed in everyday practices. Literacy scholars who have adopted a socio- cultural orientation to literacy maintain that the uses of reading and writing differ by domain, for example, school, home, work, religious institutions and so on (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Bartlett, 2007), by time period (Graff, 1987), by cultural context and by situations (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Multiliteracies approach to language teaching and learning incorporates the use of multiple texts. These include spoken, written, literacy, and other multimodal texts in the form of music, poetry, performance, and design that are believed to offer a range of verbal and non-verbal reading and

use of social media platforms and other electronic communication such as e-mail, sms, Twitter, Facebook, etc., ESL learners are provided with diverse literacy experiences. Such variation has led to the adoption of the term ‘multiple literacies’

(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

Barton and Hamilton (1998) maintain that:

Literacy is primarily something people do: it is an activity, located in the space between thought and text. Literacy does not just reside in people’s heads as a set of skills to be

learned, and it does not just reside on paper, captured as texts to be analysed. Like all human activity, literacy is essentially social, and it is located in the interaction between people. (p. 31)

Heath (1982: 93) with her concepts of ‘literacy events’ and ‘literacy practices’ describes ‘literacy events’ as any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to

the way in which people interact. An engagement in literacy events involves a focus not in the explicit development of the literacy skills but in how written language is used to mediate social life. It focuses on ‘who is doing what, when, where and how,

and what the participants have to say about their purposes, intentions, views of literacy, values, feelings and reasons for doing what they are doing and for the way they are doing it’ (Heath, 1982: 50). Literacy practices are described as culturally

recognizable ways of doing things, involve reading, writing and talk with, through and about texts (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 7).

However, this approach, like others, has some limitations. It subordinates the

acquisition of linguistic structures and emphasizes language acquisition as a situated social practice. That could create a challenge to students whose knowledge of

linguistic structures is not properly grounded, which is the case for most of the English second language students who enroll in vocational education and training colleges. Such students still need basic grammatical skills. They still lack some tools

needed to analyse and interpret visual and verbal texts and to engage in multimodal language use. This sentiment is also shared by Christie and Macken-Horarik (2003) who argue that although a theory prevails that language learners are best left to work things out for themselves, home language English speakers or those students well equipped by life experiences and opportunities to acquire English language skills would find it easy to interact in social contexts, while those unable to interact in these social spaces because of poor literacy skills, are denied an opportunity to learn. The content to be mastered in multiliteracies classrooms and the criteria that apply for evaluation of students’ performance are not explicit enough.

Another concept that emerged in the literature to describe a text-based approach is critical language awareness. NCV English curriculum also claims to be guided by this approach in its design. The curriculum refers to critical language awareness as the ability to recognize and resist persuasive texts. In engaging students in critical language awareness, leaners are encouraged to explore textual features to

determine whose purpose the content serves and who is advantaged by the

information being read by the public (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2013: 42). A brief discussion of this approach follows.

2.9.5.2 Critical language awareness

Critical language awareness is one of the strategies in language learning that could enhance the development of critical thinking skills, critical literacy and critical

discourse analysis skills. This strategy treats language learning as a site of struggle (Fairclough, 1992; Janks, 1995) where learners are shown how language positions them and how their language choices are shaped by conventions, and construct their identities. According to Janks (1995), critical language awareness is essential since

meanings are maintained, challenged and changed. Critical language awareness is intended not only to raise learners’ consciousness about language and social

contexts, but also to help them gain control over their roles in discourse (Ivanic, 1997: 117). It thus aims to develop critical thinkers who resist the power of print and do not believe everything they read. It emphasizes that texts are constructed and that they can be de-constructed. For learners to develop such critical language awareness skills they should be engaged in critical discourse analysis reading activities. Such activities can empower them and make them aware of choices that the writer of the text has made, and why.

Critical language awareness is regarded as one form of critical pedagogy that explores relationships between language and power and how language is realized syntactically, lexically, semantically and morphologically in discourse (Fairclough, 1995: 222). Learners with critical language awareness competence can engage in analysis of practices of domination implicit in academic discourse, contest and even change such practices. Teachers are encouraged to ask students to consider: ‘how meanings are assigned to a certain figure or events in a text’, ‘how a text attempts to get readers to accept its constructs’, ‘the purpose of the text’, ‘whose interest are served and disseminated in the text and whose are not served’, ‘what views of the world are put forth by ideas in the text’ and ‘what views are not possible

constructions of the world presented in the text’ (Cervetti et al, 2001). Rice (1998:

56) used the following questions to help students critically examine and discuss texts as part of reading comprehension exercise: Where might you find this text? What is the topic? What is its purpose? To whom was it written? Why was the text written? How does the language of the text help to achieve its purpose? What other ways of writing about the topic are there? What sort of ideal reader has this text constructed?

For Rice (1998) these are critical questions that can help readers consider texts from critical perspectives. He argues that reading critically contributes to better

comprehension.

In order for second language students to become successfully critical thinkers, their reading and writing skills must be well developed. This argument is supported by Cummins (1981) with his cognitive/academic language ability (CALP) theory, the dimension of language proficiency that is strongly related to cognitive and academic skills or general intelligence. This theory argues that learners cannot acquire ESL from ordinary conversations, but complex, synthetic reasoning needs to be practiced in the second language in order to master and challenge second language and argument. This does not necessarily mean that students do not come to the ESL classroom without critical thinking skills, but exposure to sustained content and extensive reading of literary texts offers students adequate practice in second language critical thinking, which scaffolds their advancement towards academic study and the workplace.

Hinkel (2011: 535) argues that the pedagogic viability of the text-based approach and the teaching of genre-driven discourse conventions and language features are limited. A text-based approach focuses on the products of learning rather than the process involved (Richards, 2006: 41). Emphasis on individual creativity and personal expression is missing in a text-based approach since its methodology focuses more on the creation of texts based on models.

In as much as theorists of multiliteracies and critical language awareness advocate strong views about these approaches, there are some intersections between them

in the chapter. For instance, multiliteracies advocate that literacy develops as social practice in different domains. The approach incorporates production of multiple texts which learners can use when interacting with each other in different social contexts. This is the same principle evoked in sociolinguistic competence as well as discourse competence. On the other hand, critical language awareness shows some

similarities with discourse competence, in particular its emphasis on interpretation and construction of texts.

Research outlines limitations of communicative approach. Bax (2003) argues that communicative approach seems not to be considerate of ESL students’ contextual

issues such as their attitudes and motivation to learn the target language, and their cultural expectations as they interact with the native speakers of the target language. In his study of various types of language institutions in Japan that have implemented communication-oriented curriculum, Kamiya (n.d.) maintains that teachers find the approach challenging to adopt in their classrooms. The challenge emanates from the view that the communicative approach has been developed on native-speaker norms that are different to the sociocultural and educational experiences of the Japanese. In addition, it was found that teachers struggled to understand what was expected of them when implementing communicative competence curriculum.

Drawing on the discussion of the communicative approach seemed to be integrated with each other. Competence in one approach depends on success in other

competencies. Communicative approach and the text-based approach seem to be different concepts whilst they denote similar characteristics. Both approaches emphasize that ESL development is enhanced through the production of different text genre and analysis of texts.