Working Towards a Curriculum Development Projectat the EECMark D. STAFFORD
English Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University（Educational Testing Service, 2016）, and CEF （CouncilIntroductionof Europe, 2001）as well as statements contributed byEhime

EEC teachers（Yamanashi & Hiromori, 2008）. The most

University was founded in 2001 to organize freshman

popular can-do statements according to survey results

general education English courses into a uniform

were then placed on a can-do list for each new EEC coursecurriculum. As the executive decision to establish（see Appendix 1 for an example）.

The

EnglishEducation

Center（EEC）atthe EEC was made shortly before the 2001 academic

However, as can be viewed in Appendix 1, many

year began, little time remained for formal curriculum

can-do statements represent proﬁciencies that are nearly

development. The resulting curriculum was a hastily

impossible to cultivate during a ﬁfteen week course,

assembled collection of educational materials aimed atbut are more suitable as long-term proﬁciency goals.

improving oral proﬁciency. Subsequently, EEC permanent

Consequently, the can-do items sourced from standardized

faculty members were instructed by another executive

examinations are mainly expressed as unit themes incommittee to create more organized teaching materials

textbooks created by EEC faculty members（Staﬀord,aimed at oral proﬁciency（which were unpublished）.

et al., 2010; Blight, Tanaka, & McCarthy, 2010; Murphy,

However, the contents of these materials were createdHeﬀernan, & Hiromori, 2010; Staﬀord, et al., 2010; Staﬀord,

via writersʼ subjective judgments rather than fact-based2013）.

methodology.

Needless to say, the direction of the EECʼs curriculum

Due to the growing popularity of TOEIC（Educational

has largely been determined by executive committees

Testing Service, 2016）as a standard measurement ofindependent of the EEC and whose members may not

English proﬁciency, another executive decision was madenecessarily maintain expertise in EFL education. Inin 2004 to focus the EECʼs curriculum on listening andaddition, decisions regarding the EECʼs curriculum havereading competence. Members of the EEC were againfrequently been based on anecdotal evidence rather thanasked to create new materials（Kanamori, et al. 2005;

data obtained from methodical research, both outside

Kanamori, et al. 2006a; Kanamori, et al. 2006b; Lyons, etof and within the EEC. This article describes theal. 2007）. Although time pressures were less of an issue

current need for a systematic, research-based curriculum

during this iteration of the EECʼs curriculum development,

development project from within the EEC aimed atformal investigation into the needs of students was notevaluating and revising the EECʼs curriculum to meet

conducted. Instead, concepts and contents within thesecurrent developments in English education in Japan

materials were loosely centered on increasing studentsʼ

and the changing needs of Ehime Universityʼs incoming

scores on examinations of general English ability.

students.

In 2008 another administrative decision was passed
down to divide the EEC curriculum into four separate
skills courses. This time, however, an attempt at formal
curriculum development was conducted. A few EEC
permanent faculty members conducted teacher andIssues Supporting a Curriculum
Development Project
MEXT Reforms

student surveys comprised of statements extracted fromJapanʼs Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciencecan-do lists of standardized examinations of Englishand Technology（MEXT）began to implement staged

proﬁciency such as EIKEN（EIKEN Foundation of Japan,

educational reforms in 2011 with the aim of increasing its2 016）, GTEC（Benesse Corporation, 2 016）, TOEICcitizensʼ English proﬁciency. Among the ﬁrst of MEXTʼs

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017135

Mark D. STAFFORD

reforms is requiring English as a subject for all 5th and 6th
public primary school graders and the encouragement ofA Plan for Curriculum Development

communicative language teaching methodologies（MEXT,A multitude of curriculum development models

2008a）. MEXT has also made several revisions to theexist for English language teaching, but among the mostCourse of Study Guidelines for middle schools ‒ which

cogent is oﬀered by Brown（1995）. Brownʼs model, shown

were introduced in 2012 ‒ where class hours and thein Figure 1, provides both a set of stages for logicaltarget vocabulary corpus have been increased and theprogram development and a set of components for theimportance of a balance in teaching all four language

improvement and maintenance of an already existingskills is emphasized to encourage classroom activities forlanguage program （Brown 1995, p. 19）, which is highlycommunication, not grammar teaching（MEXT 2008b）.

suitable for the EEC. Since many of the components inFurthermore, implementation of the new Course ofBrownʼs model already exist in the EEC, the logical place

Study Guidelines for high schools began in 2013 which

to begin curriculum development project is with a throughalso recommend that class time and vocabulary corpus

evaluation of objectives, testing, materials, and teaching.

size be increased, the four skills be given more equalThis process, which could take place during the 2017-attention, and that

language activities should be2018 academic year, is facilitated by current surveys andinterlinked for comprehensive learning （MEXT 2009, p.

tests or ones that are being developed. Before starting2）. Most noteworthy, however, is that MEXT declared

a thorough curriculum evaluation project, however, itʼsthat grammar instruction should be given as a means to

expedient to identify certain areas of the program that

support communication rather than be the main purpose

require evaluation most.

of instruction（MEXT 2009, p. 7）.
Although time will ultimately determine the successof MEXTʼs reforms, in coming years, many of Ehime
Universityʼs incoming students will have studied underENEEDS ANALYSIS

more rigorous primary and secondary EFL curriculums.

OBJECTIVES

The anticipated enrolment of these students and theVAL

governmentʼs recent will to foster greater communication

UTESTING

abilities in Japanʼs English education systems make theApresent a golden opportunity for the EEC to embark on aMATERIALS

curriculum development project.

TI

TEACHING

Reforms Within Ehime UniversityONFactors within Ehime University and the EEC also
Figure 1

make the present an ideal time to implement a curriculum
development project. For one, Ehime University began a
new cycle of curriculum in the 2016-2015 academic year,

Productive Skill Courses

which will continue to the end of the 2019-2020 academic

Since the EECʼs courses were divided into four

year when new curriculum can be implemented. Also,

separate skills in 2008, a distinction between productive

the three year time span leaves plenty of time toskills and receptive skills became very apparent. Within

conduct a research-based curriculum development project.

the EEC, the receptive skills courses of speaking and writing

Furthermore, the transition from a semester schedulerequire students to use their existing knowledge of English

to a quarter system has brought about many changes

to produce a conversation and a paragraph（respectively）

which may oﬀer advantageous teaching opportunities

with a minimum of quality as described in a scoring

because of the new sequential（compared to concurrent

rubric based on the sub-skills necessary to complete thefor semesters）format of courses oﬀered. These factors,

overall task.

in addition to MEXTʼs reforms warrant a thorough,research-based curriculum development project.

From an evaluation perspective, because of theirdecidedly criterion-based nature, progress with learning
goals in these courses are rather easily measured
compared with those of the receptive courses for two136

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Working Towards a Curriculum Development Project at the EEC

main reasons. Firstly, because their tertiary educationis perhaps more suitable for a years-long program rather

focused mainly on listening and reading proﬁciency（forthan a 22.5-hour listening or reading course which thethe sake of university entrance examinations）, incomingEEC oﬀers. While incremental listening and reading

EEC students commonly have little experience with

progress in proﬁciency is possible under the limited scope

the productive skills of speaking and writing. Secondly,of the EECʼs freshman English program, it does not appear

compared to the rather open-ended goals of improving

on standardized examinations such as the GTEC（Benessegeneral proﬁciency in the reading and listening courses,

Corporation, 2016）which the EEC uses to measure

the goals of generating a spoken conversation and astudentsʼ improvement over their freshman year. Table1written paragraph in the productive courses are rather

shows rather disappointing average scores for freshmen

clearly deﬁned.

students during the 2015-2016 academic year.

The merits of the EECʼs content-based, productive
courses under the limited 22.5-hour terms are obvious ‒Listening

ReadingTotal

the concise goals and objectives of these courses are new tostudents, they are clearly deﬁned, and studentsʼ progress
can be readily measured. However, although anecdotal

Pre

Post

PrePostPre

Post

107.84108.64111.17110.95219.00219.59evidence suggests a high degree of learning among

Table 1

speaking and writing course students, an intervention
study should be conducted during the curriculum

Moreover, according to the Common Europeanevaluation process to conﬁrm this. Pre and post-tests

Framework of Reference for Languages scale of English

would not only inform of the extent of learning, but would

proﬁciency（Common European Framework of Reference

also reveal which speaking and writing objectives arefor Languages, 2013）, it would take students an additional

being learned more successfully than others and which

150-250 guided learning hours to advance from theirstudent proﬁles are more（and less）successful than others

incoming average B1 level（as correlated to the averageat doing so.

GTEC score）to the next level of B2 ‒ an impossibility
under the limited time of the EECʼs 90-hour education

Receptive Skill Courses

program.

While the content-based goals and objectives of theTherefore, a thorough evaluation of the goals of the

productive courses of speaking and writing are clearly

listening and reading courses should also be conducteddeﬁned, relatively new to students, and learning progresswith special attention given to whether students makeis therefore comparatively easy to measure, the situation

progress, not with scales of general proﬁciency such as

for the receptive skills courses of listening and reading isGTEC, but with thee EECʼs own common examinations.

less straightforward.

Such an intervention study would produce data valuable

Indeed, for admissions purposes, most incoming

for assessing: to what extent do beginning proﬁciency

freshmen have at least six yearsʼ experience studying

levels determine success with the common test and ﬁnal

English through thesystem for the goal ofgrades; whether there is indeed learning progress of theobtaining an acceptable score on the National Center Test forreceptive skills among students during the course; which

University Admissions ‒ whose English portion is basicallygroups of incoming proﬁciency beneﬁt from the current

a test of general reading and listening proﬁciency（Nationalcurriculum and which do not; and（taking MEXTʼs newCenter Test for University Admissions, 2015）. This means

guidelinesthat many students have already mastered basic reading

listening and reading proﬁciency is still worthwhile.

intoconsideration）whether

teachingforand listening skills such as previewing, predicting,skimming, scanning, and understanding main ideas

Incoming Level Diﬀerencesand details, which the current EEC receptive skills

Another issue that should be addressed during

curriculums aim to teach. In contrast to the speaking andthe curriculum evaluation is the diﬀerences in English

writing courses where students learn objectives which are

proﬁciency among incoming students and how this aﬀects

new to them, the receptive courses chieﬂy aim to increase

learning success during each course. Currently, students

general English listening and reading proﬁciency.

must study under a uniﬁed curriculum using a common

While increasing proﬁciency is not at all a bad goal, it

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

textbook and take common ﬁnal test. Higher proﬁciency

137

Mark D. STAFFORD

students may have an advantage with passing the course,

forward with this opportunity is the will and commitment

while others will certainly have a disadvantage.

that it takes to carry out such a project.

The diﬀerence in levels may not be so pronounced
Appendix 1

under the criterion-based productive courses wherestudents learn relatively new content, but such diﬀerences
may be more pronounced in the proﬁciency-based
receptive courses. Incoming level diﬀerences will likely

Writing Course Can-do List
１．Can write texts that convey content about memorable
events（school events, travel, etc.）

widen in future years as MEXT deemphasizes the２．Can write simple texts introducing the area one lives in

National Center Test for University Admissions（National

３．Can write oneʼs impressions of books read and movies

Center Test for University Admissions, 2015）in favorof a more accommodating policy starting in 2018. Data
gatheredabout

proﬁciency

diﬀerences

duringthecurriculum evaluation process would certainly reveal
whether: streaming students into classes of standardized
levels is beneﬁcial; teaching methodology should beoﬃcially adopted for multi-level classes; or the creation ofa remedial program are warranted.

seen
４．Can write postcards（or e-mail）giving recent information
to friends
５．Can write texts explaining matters of interest（simplerecipes, instructions for using appliances, etc.）
６．Can write summaries of content heard or read about
matters of interest（newspaper and magazine articles,lecture content, etc.）
７．Can write oneʼs thoughts and opinions about familiar
topics from daily life（ Food and Health, etc.）

Sequential Quarters
A new quarter system has been implemented atEhime University which, because of its sequential format,
may oﬀer advantageous teaching opportunities comparedto the semester system. The quarter system oﬀers theopportunity to continue building studentsʼ individual

８．Can write simple texts introducing Japanese culture（food,holidays, festivals, etc.）
９．Can write explanations and reasons for something one
wants to do（desire to study abroad, take a job, etc.）
10．Can write texts understanding principles ofprocess

writing （drafting, revising, proofreading, editing, etc.）
11．Can write texts understanding principles of paragraphEnglish skills throughout the academic year in contrast towriting （introduction, main body, and conclusion / topic

the current curriculum where the four skills are oﬀered

sentence and supporting sentences）

separately. Therefore, the current curriculum should be
evaluated in relation to how it might be improved to better
suit the features of the quarter system.

12．Can write texts using maps, graphs, statistical data, andother visual aids
13．Can write greeting cards or thank-you notes to friends,teachers, or family
14．Can write simple texts expressing apologies or excuses（notConclusion
Although the EECʼs current curriculum may be

being able to attend the scheduled meeting or class, etc.）
15．Can write texts on unlikely matters or imaginary（hypothetical）eventsfunctional by some measures, it is one that has come froman outside executive committee and it is also one which

References

was tentatively based on research. Fortunately, now is aBenesse Corporation（2016）. GTEC, Global Test of English

time of opportunity where the EEC could spend threeyears researching and developing a progressive, wellfounded, accommodative, and forward-looking curriculum
for its students.
While the conversion to a quarter system and MEXTʼs
new educational guidelines may be a catalyst for change,
the need to reconsider the merits of proﬁciency-based
courses, the responsibility of accommodating students ofa variety of incoming proﬁciency levels, and the potentialCommunication. Okayama, Japan: Benesse Corporation.
Blight, R., Tanaka, E., & McCarthy, T.（2010）Real-world
Listening. Tokyo: Cengage Learning.
Brown, J. D.（1995）The Elements of Language Curriculum.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cambridge University Press（2013）. Introductory Guide tothe Common European Framework of Reference（CEFR）
for English Language Teachers. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Council of Europe.（2001）. Common European Framework ofof transitioning from a separate-skills curriculum to a

Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.

more sequential and integrated one strongly underscore

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

the need for such a change. The only barrier to moving

138

Educational Testing Service（2016）. Test of English for

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Working Towards a Curriculum Development Project at the EEC

International Communication. Princeton, New Jersey.
EIKEN Foundation of Japan（2016）. EIKEN Test in PracticalEnglish Proﬁciency. Tokyo: EIKEN Foundation of Japan.
ETS.（2016）. TOEFL Test and Score Data Summary for
TOEFL Internet-based and Paper-based Tests: 2015 Test
Data（TOEFL-SUM-10）. Retrieved from < https://www.
ets.org/s/toeﬂ/pdf/94227̲unlweb.pdf >.
Kanamori, T., Ercanbrack, J., Lyons, P., Marlow, A., Murphy, R.,& Orimoto, S.（2005）English Fast Lane. Tokyo: Seibido.
Kanamori, T., Lyons, P., Orimoto, S., Blight, R., Brasier, A.,
Smillie, B., & Staﬀord, M.（2006b）Global Ways Intermediate.
Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten.
Kanamori, T., Lyons, P., Orimoto, S., Smillie, B., & Stafford,M.（2006a）Global Ways Introductory. Tokyo: KiriharaShoten.
Lyons, P., Orimoto, S., Hiromori, T., Campbell, I., Fukuda, S.,
Goltz, K., Guinn, M., Lander, B., Marlow, A., Murphy, R.,
Poonja, Semin., Taylor, M., & Travers, N.（2007）Fundamentals
of Eﬀective Speaking. Tokyo: Seibido.
MEXT.（2008a）. Shogakkou gakushu shidou yoryo kaisetsu
gaikokugo katsudouhen [Description for study of course
guideline for foreign language activities in elementaryschools]. Retrieved from <www.mext.go.jp/a̲menu/shotou/newcs/youryou/syokaisetsu/index.htm>.
MEXT.（2008b）. Chugakkou gakushu shidou yoryo kaisetsu
gaikokugo hen [Explanatory comment for the new study ofcourse guideline for foreign languages in junior high schools].
Retrieved from <www.mext.go.jp/component/a̲menu/education/micro̲detail/̲̲icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/01/05/1234912̲010̲1.pdf>.
Murphy, R., Heﬀernan, N., & Hiromori, T.（2010）Skills ThatThrill. Tokyo: Cengage Learning.
National Center Test for University Admissions（2015）.
Tokyo: National Center Test for University Admissions.
Staﬀord, M.（2013）Writing Design. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Stafford, M., Heffernan, N., Matsumoto, H., & Nakayama, A.
（2010）Speaking Focus. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Stafford, M., Hiromori, T. & Yamanishi, H.（Eds.）（2008）.
Stepping Stones to Effective Writing. Tokyo: KiriharaLongman.
Staﬀord, M., Hiromori, T., Yamanishi, H., Barclay, S., Serag, A.,
Crosby, R., Heinel, A., Lyons, P.（2009）Stepping Stones toEﬀective Writing. Tokyo: Pearson Longman.
Yamanashi, H., & Hiromori, T.（2008）Improving the General
English Education Curriculum in Ehime University: The
Development and Significance of English Language
Proﬁciency Benchmarks（Can-Do Lists）. ARELE: Annual
Review of English Language Education in Japan, 19 263‑272.

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017139