THE ELI CURRICULUM: PAST TO PRESENT
Phoebe Lyon
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT​ his paper outlines the history of the curriculum of the
T
English Language Institute (ELI) at Kanda University ofInternational Languages (KUIS), a private university in Japan.
It presents the initial design and describes subsequent,
including current, curriculum reviews and the rationales forthese changes that have occurred over the ELI's 34-year
history.
​
​
​
​

​
​

​
​
​

INTRODUCTION
The ELI has been an important entity at KUIS for over 30 years. In thattime, according to Kanda University of International Studies (2013), thephilosophy of language learning and teaching in the ELI has been informedby three interconnected components: 1. the nature of language (exchanging
information and creating meaning), 2. learners and their learning(acknowledging differences in how learners learn, and that they must takesome responsibility for their learning), and 3. teachers and their teaching(teachers promoting an environment in which learners take an active role intheir language learning to enable the learners to accomplish a wide varietyof tasks).
Of course, as with all curriculums, it is important that the ELI curriculum
stays relevant for its learners by providing them with the tools to succeed inan ever-evolving environment; one that, Pont (2018) states is increasingly
being shaped by global trends such as international trade, the growth of
online societies, and the increase in diversity within communities. To be able
to respond to these ever-changing trends, which guide what is to be learned
and therefore what needs to be taught (Gouëdard et al., 2020; Stabback,2016), it has become necessary to evaluate and reform the ELI curriculum
periodically, considering the three aforementioned facets. This paper willsummarize these changes.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

18

​
​

​
​

KUIS is a private university whose mission is to foster excellence ininternational studies. It was founded in 1987 and at that time there was onlya single faculty that was composed of a department of English language
studies whose pedagogy, according to Kushida et al. (2018), was mainly
based on the grammar-translation method. Just two years later, in 1989, the
ELI was formed, separate from the faculty. The first ELI course was designed
to produce an environment that promoted discoursal competence andemphasized a more communicative approach as opposed to a more
analytical use of language (Ford & Torpey, 1998). As such, Ford and Torpey(1998) describe this course as a communicative skills-based course that
focused on everyday language and language for discussion andpresentations.
The ELI and KUIS have both expanded since the late 1980s. Starting initiallywith only four teachers in 1989, ELI instructors currently teach English
proficiency courses to first and second-year students in two faculties andacross all four departments in the Faculty of Foreign Languages: theDepartment of English and American Languages (English), the Department
of International Communication (IC), which includes International
Communication (IC) and International Business Career (IBC) courses, theDepartment of Ibero-American Linguistics (Spanish and Brazilian
Portuguese), and the Department of Asian Languages (Chinese, Korean,
Indonesian, Vietnamese and Thai). With regards to how the ELI instructors
teach the students in the latter two departments, the students are mixed
and re-grouped into two cohorts: Multiliteracies (ML) and Chinese andKorean (CK) majors. Table 1.1 shows how these four departments cater toEnglish majors as well as a smaller group of students who major in anotherlanguage but minor in English.
Table 1.1 List of the courses taught by the ELIEnglish Majors

EnglishIC

Dual Majors

Non-English
Majors(English
Minor)ML

CK

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

19

EnglishIC

IndonesianChineseIBC

Thai

KoreanVietnamese
Brazil-Portuguese
Spanish​ he next sections of the paper introduce the multiple reviews that haveTtaken place since the ELI was first formed.
​
First Curriculum Review
From its inception, the ELI has always been defined by the interconnecting
relationships between teaching and advising, curriculum development,
research, and assessment. It has also always promoted self-awareness andautonomy in language learning. The first review of the ELI curriculum began
in 2000, prompted by a grant that was awarded from the Ministry of
Education through the “Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private
Schools of Japan” project. The grant enabled the ELI to pursue curriculum
research and further develop instructional materials. Johnson (2002)
highlights that as part of this curriculum redesign, there was a push todevelop a “personal” curriculum to promote autonomy both inside andoutside the classroom.
​
This curriculum review coincided with the establishment of the Self-Access
Learning Center (SALC) in 2001. From that time, Cooker & Torpey (2004)
explain that the ELI and the SALC worked together to help students develop
autonomous learning skills inside the classroom. As a result, in 2003, a newunit was introduced into the Basic Proficiency course that was taught instudents’ first year by the ELI in the English Department, the only
department at that time, as a way to reach all first-year students at KUIS.
The goal was to encourage learners to think about the learning process andhow to use this knowledge to reflect upon and subsequently approach theirown learning. The unit was called “Learning How to Learn - A New Way of
Learning”. It was taught during the first five weeks of a 15-week semester inthe Basic Proficiency course, during four 90-minute lessons per week, and its
goal was to help develop students’ language skills and autonomous learning
skills within a classroom context. This goal was achieved by presenting tasks
that facilitated self-evaluation and the feedback they were given on theactivities that students were exposed to in their lessons (Cooker & Torpey,2004). Later, a set of activities, called Independent Learning Component
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

20

(ILC), was implemented into the course; its focus was on language
development and goal setting. To this day, modifications of these activities
are still evident in the current ELI curriculum. As the university grew and the
ELI became responsible for teaching more courses in more departments, theBasic Proficiency course evolved to become what is known today as theFreshman English (FE) course. The FE course was, and still is, taught to all
first-year students at KUIS and has a focus on speaking and listening.
However, as the number of instructors increased along with the multitudes ofexperience and backgrounds they brought with them, it soon became clearthat this FE course, as well as other newer courses that, for example,
focused on reading and writing, had moved away from the original
theoretical vision for the program. Johnson et al. (2015) described thesituation as one in which the course content had evolved into a mostly
disorganized and ineffective set of teaching materials that were becoming
increasingly difficult for teachers to navigate.
Second Curriculum Review
The ELI’s role within KUIS continued to grow and thus 2011 saw the
beginnings of another review of the ELI curriculum. It was important,however, that as the curriculum was renewed, the ELI’s vision was redirectedback towards the goals that were formulated when the program was firstdeveloped (KUIS, 2013). ELI management began to reimagine what
language education could mean in the ever-changing Japanese tertiary
education context (Johnson et al., 2015). The team received another grant in
2012, this time from Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports andTechnology (MEXT) for the “Promotion of Global Resource Development
Project.” Its aim was to help overcome the “inward tendency” often exhibitedby the younger generation in Japan to enable them to better meet thechallenges that arise in the global arena, to improve Japan’s global
competitiveness and enhance ties between Japan and other nations (Ministryof Education Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d., para 1). KUIS’goal, therefore, was to internationalize universities to graduate students who
were able to adapt to a forever developing global environment.
First Development
One of the grant-based changes to the curriculum, commencing in 2013,
was to develop an advanced track in the first-year courses to provide bettersupport for students who would study abroad. The idea was to move awayfrom a communicative language teaching (CLT) approach in favor of a morenuanced style of education that would heed the ‘increasingly
technology-driven nature of the Japanese and global economic and social
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

21

contexts’ (Johnson et al., 2016, p. 358). Kramsch (2006) suggests that the
CLT approach is no longer appropriate in culturally diverse cultures, nor is
the idea that language is taught for the primary purpose of exchanging
personal information. Rather, she argues that there is a need for more
attention to be given to discourse in a range of modalities whereby
multimodality looks beyond language and examines multiple modes ofcommunication and meaning-making. This, Kramsch (2006) argues, isnecessary for students and graduates to perform in an increasingly
multicultural and multiliterate world. According to Kress (2003), this entails
not just focusing on spoken and written forms of communication, but alsovisual and electronic ones. Thus Kramsch and Kress highlighted otheraspects of the curriculum that were in need of readdressing, described in
more detail below.
Second Development
Related to Kress’ (2003) assertion that it is important to address a variety ofcommunication styles, a second grant-based change was to include a variety
of texts and tasks in each course, with a focus on multiple literacies.
Concurrently, the ELI management introduced a new framework, AIM, which
stands for Awareness, Interaction and Multiliteracies (Johnson et al., 2015;
Johnson et al., 2016).
The first element of the framework, Awareness, is defined as awareness of
self-as-learner as well as awareness of language and other semiotic ways tomake meaning. It is related to learner autonomy, which, for students tobecome autonomous learners, requires them to have a degree of awarenessand control over cognitive, metacognitive and affective dimensions.
Cognitive awareness is concerned with observable behaviors (Zimmerman,
2002). Metacognitive awareness relates to the awareness of the language
learning process (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) which includes evaluating one’s
strengths and weaknesses, implementing a course of action based on what
one has determined needs to be learned, selecting appropriate resources forlearning, monitoring one’s own learning, reflecting on one’s learning andapplying what has been learned beyond one’s current context. Finally,affective awareness is concerned with one’s awareness of their feelings,
emotions and attitudes toward learning, which can in turn affect theirmotivation (Dörnyei, 2001; Hurd, 2008). Another component of awareness isawareness of language, i.e. recognizing how grammar and lexis reflect theauthoritative purpose of a text, the relationship with the reader and the text
type being created.

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

22

The second element, Interaction, encompasses different modes of interaction
such as face-to-face and online interaction as well as interaction withresources. It also highlights that the notion of communicative competence
and intercultural and symbolic competencies and capacities are important.
This means that being understood goes beyond grammatical accuracy(Bourdieu, 1991) as it requires an interlocutor to not only be able toapproximate their own language or that of someone else’s for themself but
to also “shape the very context in which the language is learned and used”(Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008, p. 664). Doing so shows they are able tosuccessfully navigate the complexity of power relations in a language.
Multiliteracies, the third element, denotes the importance of assistinglearners to communicate effectively in our “culturally and linguisticallydiverse and increasingly globalized societies” (New London Group, 1996, p.
61). For this to happen, students need to be multiliterate, which requires
them to do more than simply interpret and produce their own versions of
traditional printed texts. Ultimately, it is necessary to extend beyond simply
having our learners acquire foreign language proficiency by includingintercultural and discourse competence into programs to help learners moreeasily integrate into a world that is becoming increasingly multicultural andmultiliterate (Kramsch, 2006). The ELI curriculum aims to integrate textual
analysis and language awareness with learners’ communicative interests andexperiences to help learners develop competencies with a variety ofauthentic multimodal texts, allowing them to participate in the digital society
and providing them with the literacy skills required in a global workforce.
Examplesofliteracies
includefoundational(reading,
writing,meaning-making), cultural, visual, digital, emotional and social literacies.
Resulting Changes to the Curriculum
The AIM framework provides the skills and opportunities that KUIS hopes todevelop in its learners as they engage in their studies in their first andsecond-year ELI courses. One of the initial changes began with a redesign of
the Freshman English (FE) course, starting in 2011, replacing what
resembled a traditional task-based course with a process-based framework.
This was considered a way to best maximize individualized learning whilst
also maintaining the already present focus on self-reflection. The premise isthat objectives are open-ended and that processes are not mastered, butrather, improved (Johnson, 2014). The curriculum for the FE course isdesigned around six processes: self-analysis, audio-visual analysis, data
analysis,extendedinteraction,communication
strategies
andproblem-solving (Johnson et al., 2016). See Appendix A for a detailed
description of each of these processes. They were chosen to provide learners
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

23

with a variety of experiences whilst meeting the goals of the course andhelping the learners become more multiliterate. Some complemented thematerials that were in use at that time, while others fit with the push tomove to a more multiliteracies-based approach (Johnson et al., 2016).
These processes are repeated in each of the six units taught (teachers andstudents can negotiate the choice of units) throughout the year to help
students reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and to help them make aplan for how to improve the next time they encounter the same process.
Each of the FE units culminates in one of the following rhetorical assessment
modes: exposition (explaining), description (describing), narration (telling),argumentation (giving a point of view) or mixed (using a combination of two
or more rhetoric types). Ideally, each of the rhetoric types should be coveredat least once over the course of the year, in which six units will have been
completed. These modes were chosen by the ELI management teambecause they are recognized as socially constructed ways of understanding
and making textual meaning and according to Johnson et al. (2016), a wide
variety of texts “can be categorized under only the four rhetoric “modes” ortypes.” (p. 369).
Aside from changes to the FE curriculum, another major change occurred in
the first-year reading and writing courses. Prior to the change, these courses
were taught separately, with the reading course based around extensive
reading and an in-house produced set of fiction-based reading texts, whilst
the writing course was designed around students producing a five-paragraphessay (Owens & Johnson, 2016). The change resulted in a new course which
combined the reading and writing courses for a more unified approach,which according to Kern (2000) allows for a “discussion of relationships
between readers, writers, culture, and language learning” (p. 2). The newcourse, aptly named Foundational Literacies (FL) uses a genre-based
approach, presenting five genres (Email, Narrative, Recount, Information
Report and Essay) using a variety of text types and modalities. The goal isfor students to be able to first recognize key features of a genre to then beable to manipulate the key features such as register, lexicogrammar, andformat, among others, for themselves (Owens, 2017). Through theintroduction and study of these skills, the intent is that our students will beable to function more effectively both in their classes at KUIS and also in a
global environment beyond the classroom.
To aid in the development of these skills (recognizing and manipulating
features of a genre), each course unit includes five elements of a genre
learning cycle. See Figure 1.1. The genre cycle elements included in the FL
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

24

course are: negotiating the field, deconstruction, joint construction,
independent construction (see Feez & Joyce, 1998 for more information
about these) and critical review, with the fifth being a slight modificationfrom the five Feez and Joyce (1998) present. These elements act to provide
a basic structure, providing a streamlined and consistent experience for all
learners, whilst not being overly prescriptive. Although there is a naturalorder in which the learning cycles appear, over the course of each unit, theorder of the elements can be skipped, revisited, extended or even shortened
according to the learners’ needs (Feez, 1999).
Figure 1.1 The Genre Learning Cycle: Foundational Literacies (adapted fromFeez & Joyce, 1998)

Another major change commenced in 2013 after the ELI management
conducted a satisfaction survey among ELI instructors in July of that year.
One of the findings of the survey showed that the number of ELI courses had
become unmanageable as it consisted of what was ultimately 26 different
courses. The revised structure resulted in six core courses (See Table 1.2)
that were instituted in 2017, a change deemed necessary, according toKushida et al. (2018), to develop 1) stronger courses with a more coherent

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

25

curriculum and 2) increase the opportunities for instructors to collaborate
both within and across the different departments.
From Table 1.2, it can be seen that the course name may be the same ordifferent based on the department it is taught in. For example, one of the six
courses is called Freshman English for students taking the course in the
Department of English and for ML and CK students taking the course in the
Department of Spanish and the Department of Asian Languages, but isnamed International Communication 1 for students taking the course in the
Department of International Communication. Regardless of the name,however, the fundamentals of the course are the same. Similarly, anothercourse, Foundational Literacies, is the name of the course for students intheir first year in the Department of English, but it is named Reading/Writing
for students in their first year in the Department of International
Communication. It is also taught to students in the Department of Spanish
and the Department of Asian Languages in their second year, but for them, it
is called Sophomore English. Once again the names are different but thecontent is the same. In the second year courses, Academic Literacies:
Reading (Department of English) and Advanced Reading (Department ofInternational Communication) are also one and the same course.
Table 1.2 List of courses taught by the ELI from 2017 and the departments
they were taught inCourseDepartment

Freshman English

First
year

Freshman English
English for International Communication 1 (EIC1)
Freshman English

EnglishIC
ML & CKFoundational Literacies
Foundational Literacies
Reading/Writing* Sophomore English (This course is taught in thesecond year)

EnglishIC
ML & CK

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

26

Media English
Media English

EnglishIC
ML

Academic Literacies: Reading
Secondyear

Academic Literacies: Reading
Advanced Reading

EnglishIC

Academic Literacies: Writing
Academic Literacies: Writing

EnglishEnglish for International Communication
English for International Communication 2 (EIC2)

IC

Before his departure at the beginning of the 2017 academic year, theAssistant Director of Curriculum formulated a set of eight outcomes. These
are awareness of self as learner, textual awareness and control, criticality
and interpretation, textual fluency, interactive capacity, interpretation andexpression of multimodal meaning, lexico-grammatical control, andintercultural capacity. Appendix B shows the generic list of outcomes that heprovided to the two newly appointed Principal Lecturers of Curriculum andAssessment (PLCAs), whose job is to oversee the development of the ELI’s
curriculum and assessment (N. Johnson, personal communication, April 21st,2017). The PLCAs shared the document with each of the six course
coordinators and they, along with respective course instructors, spent the2017 academic year making revisions to the outcomes to make them more
applicable to each of the six core courses. These revised outcomes are now
referred to as the eight overarching course outcomes (OCOs).
More Recent Curriculum Reviews
Since 2018, modifications have been made to the outcomes and corecurriculum to help teachers better understand each of the outcomes andcourse materials so that we ensure we are achieving our curriculum goals.
This has involved two long-term ongoing projects. One is providing moredetail in the form of more specific student learning outcomes (SLOs) tobetter clarify and support understanding of the eight OCOs. The second has
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

27

been integrating standardized
second-year ELI courses.

reflective

activities

into

the

first and

Adding to the Overarching Course Outcomes with Student Learning
Outcomes
In the years following the introduction of the OCOs, it was becoming clear
through lesson pre-observation meetings, orientation sessions, and course
meetings that many instructors (and even coordinators) were not confident
in their understanding of the meaning of some of them. Instructors weresometimes also unclear about the connection between OCOs and the content
of each of the six courses.
At the same time, requests were coming in from course teachers for more
specific can-do statements for several of the courses. It was deemed
important that more detail was needed, including possibly adding examples
and clarification on how the OCOs better connect to the courses. After a
discussion between one of the PLCAs and the course coordinators, it was
decided that the format used when preparing syllabus proposals to teach 3rd
and 4th year courses, known as Eiso/Sogo3s (Department of English), EIC3s(Department of International Communication) or EMCs (Department of
Spanish and Portuguese and the Department of Asian Languages) would bebest. These are: 1. What students will be able to (SWBAT) do, 2. What
students are expected to learn (content), 3. How students will demonstrate
what they have learned, and 4. Conditions for practice (in groups asindividuals etc.) (Academic Affairs Committee, English Department, 2021).
These would be more familiar to instructors who were perhaps more familiar
with this format.
It was decided that it would be important to have all instructors in the ELI
give input on the new SWBATs for each course. The rationale was based on a
‘distributed leadership’ approach (Crowther et al., 2009; Harris, 2014; Sol2021), which research has shown to be very effective in achievingorganizational improvements and higher student achievements in many
schools (Hallinger & Heck, 2009; Harris, 2014; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008).
This process began in 2020 with one of the PLCAs working with individual
course coordinators to compile a list of preliminary SWBAT ideas for eachcourse. These ideas were then shared with all instructors teaching therelevant courses in course meetings (see Ito Maitland et al., 2023 for a moredetailed explanation of the process). The final versions of the teacher
versions of the new SLOs, including the conditions for practice, were
presented at the beginning of the 2022 academic year and student versions
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

28

were implemented in the six courses’ syllabi at the start of the 2023
academic year. The SLOs have all been cross-referenced with the OCOs toensure they help to clarify and connect with the OCOs.
The process is still ongoing with the current six course coordinators each inthe process of leading course development groups to further clarify and/or
simplify the language of the SLOs to be ready for the 2024 academic year.
The changes will be based on feedback from teachers (on the teacher
versions) and students (on the student versions). All ELI lecturers are
members of a course development group for one of the six core courses andas such, they play an integral role in developing the materials and resources
for their respective course groups.
Supporting OCO 1: Awareness of Self as Learner
Another recent adaptation of the ELI curriculum commenced when the
Principal Learning Advisor of Curriculum and one of the PLCAs discussed theinconsistency among teachers, and therefore in classes, when it came topresenting students with opportunities to reflect on their learning. It wasapparent that some activities were merely asking students to report on theirlearning rather than reflect. Since self-awareness is one of the cornerstonesof the ELI curriculum, and with ‘awareness of self as learner’ being the firstof the eight OCOs, it was clear that action needed to be taken.
Thus 2018 saw the beginning of an integration project between the ELI and
the SALC. After discussion, it was decided that it would be beneficial tointroduce self-directed learning (SDL) skills into the ELI curriculum. Curry(2019) believed that this development would help learners see these
activities as a natural part of their learning, which was also supported by anearlier observation made by Curry et al. (2017). Materials were initiallytrialed in first-year and second-year classes in 2020 (see Curry et al., 2023;
Lyon et al., 2023), which involved having students reflect on their language
and learning skills. Initial feedback from students showed that they valued
the opportunity to reflect on their studies and that they were able to learn
about their learning needs and think about how to improve their skills (Lyonet al., 2023). However, the workload for students, instructors and learning
advisors (LAs) was deemed to be overwhelming since students wererequired to submit written reflections several times a semester (that werethen checked by their instructor/and or LA) after completing in-classsmall-group discussions.
The materials were revised in 2021 (see Ambinintsoa et al., 2023;
Polczynska et al., 2023), adding in more visual and tactile activities and also
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

29

more scaffolding to teach students (and to help instructors less familiar withreflection to better understand) what reflection is and how to reflect.
Furthermore, the written component was no longer compulsory but could bedone if teachers thought they had enough time or wanted a written record of
the feedback. The final activities were implemented into the first-year FE andsecond-year Media English (ME) courses at the beginning of the 2022
academic year.
After getting feedback from instructors and LAs (Kelly et al., 2022), further
modifications were made to make the materials (slides, visual resources anddocuments) more user-friendly for instructors, LAs and students. The
pre-discussion document no longer needed to be used each time, as this wasfound to be redundant for some classes, especially for those withhigher-level students. Finally, instructors and LAs were more strongly
encouraged to work together both inside and outside the classroom to utilize
LAs' expertise. According to Yoshida (2023), this can be especially beneficial
if the instructor lacks the knowledge or confidence to give learners
appropriate feedback during the reflection process.
CONCLUSIONThe ELI curriculum has undergone multiple changes over the last 34 years,
some big, and some small. Even with the most recent changes, the original
goals of learner awareness and interaction have been retained, with theaddition of multiliteracies. The goal is for learners to be able to excel in a
multicultural and multiliterate world by helping them navigate cultural andlinguistic differences. These reforms have also resulted in providing teacherswith more information about the ELI courses and their respective learning
outcomes. A recent development in 2023 that has garnered a lot of attention
is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This year, ELI instructors will continue
with curriculum review, this time focusing on preparing our learners for AI
information literacies. This new development will once again be done byseeking input from various stakeholders (learners, teachers andmanagement) whose voices continue to be an important part of curriculum
reform.
​REFERENCES
Academic Affairs Committee, English Department. (2021). Maximizing
success in the proposal development process for Eiso/Sogo 3 / EIC3 / EMC
courses 2022-2023. [Internal Communication]
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

30

Ambinintsoa, D. V. & MacDonald, E. (2023). A reflection intervention:
Investigating effectiveness and students’ perceptions. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, &J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflecting on language learning. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University
Press.
​​​​

Cooker, L. & Torpey, M. (2004). From the classroom to the self-accesscentre: A chronicle of learner-centred curriculum development. The
Language Teacher, 28(6), 11-16.
Crowther, F., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2009) Developing teacher leaders.
(2nd Ed.). Corwin Press.
Curry, N. (2019). A new direction: Developing a curriculum for self-directed
learning skills. Relay Journal, 2(1), 75-85.
https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/020112
Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J. & Watkins, S. (2017). Evaluating aself-directed language learning course in a Japanese university. International
Journal of Self Directed Learning, 14(1), 37–57.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-008
Curry, N., Lyon, P., Yoshida, A., Yoder, H., MacDonald, E., & Ambinintsoa, D.
V. (2023). Developing instruments and tools to examine reflection in ourcontext. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflecting on
language learning (pp. 68-80). Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.

​​Feez, S. & Joyce, H. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Feez, S. (1999). Text-based syllabus design. TESOL in Context, 9(1), 11-14.
https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.661538732574164”
Ford, K. & Torpey, M. (1998). Principles and practice of materials design for
promoting interaction and interdependence in the EFL classroom. The
Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 10, 397–436.

​
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

31

Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform:
A literature review to support effective implementation, OECD Education
Working Papers, (239), OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en

​
​
​
​

​
​
​

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does
system policy make a difference? In A. Harris (Ed), Distributed leadership:
Different perspectives (pp. 101-107). Springer Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_6
Harris, A. (2014, September 29) Distributed leadership. Teacher.
http://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/distributed-leadership
Hurd, S. (2008). Affect and strategy use in independent language learning.
In: Hurd, Stella and Lewis, Tim eds. Language Learning Strategies in
Independent Settings. Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters,
pp. 218–236.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690999-014
Ito Maitland, A., Kettle, M., Jurns, K., Yoshida, A., de Veas, K., Lyon, P., &Burke, M. (2023). Reimagining the English Language Institute’s course
outcomes: A Distributed Leadership Approach. The Journal of Kanda
University of International Studies, 35, 253-273.
Johnson, F. (2002). Learner autonomy: From concept to curriculum - The
Kanda Experiment. The Conceptual Framework of the Kanda Experiment.
Presentation at the 13th AILA World Congress in Singapore, December 2002.
Johnson, N. (2014). New Freshman English syllabus. Tue, 14 Oct 2014.
[Internal Communication].
Johnson, N. H., Lyddon, P. A., Nelson, M. E., Selman, A., & Worth, A. (2015).
JALT forum: Reimagining contemporary EFL curricula. In P. Clements, A.
Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014 Conference Proceedings, 102-118.
Tokyo: JALT.

​​​

Johnson, N. H., Selman, A. and Lyddon, P.A. (2016) Redesigning theFreshman English syllabus: A pedagogy of process and transformation. The
Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 28, 355–376.
Kanda University of International Studies. (2013). The ELI handbook
2012–2013. Tokyo: KUIS English Language Institute.
Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

32

​

​

​

​

​
​
​

Kelly, T., Lyon, P., MacDonald, E., Yoshida, A. & Krasnansky, A. (2022).
Teachers’ and learning advisors’ perspectives on integrating reflection
activities into a language curriculum. Presentation at the 7th IAFOR
International Conference on Education in Hawaii, Jan 7th, 2022.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symboliccompetence.
The
ModernLanguage
Journal,90,249-252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00395_3.x
Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual
settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence, Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn022
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299234
Kushida, B., Lege, R., Lyon, P., Murphy, P., Nguyen, A., Owens, J. & Roloff
Rothman, J. (2018). The evolution of the English language institute:
Curriculum and structural reform. The Journal of Kanda University ofInternational Studies, 30, 471–492.
Leithwood, K. & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321221
Lyon, P., Yoshida, A., Yoder, H., MacDonald, E., Ambinintsoa, D. V., & Curry,N. (2023). Fostering learner development through reflection: How the
project started. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflecting
on language learning (pp. 53-67). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-007
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (n.d.).
Project for promotion of global human resource development.
https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/sdeta
il02/1373895.htm

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

33

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

​
​
​

​

​
​

O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U., (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. London: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
Owens, J. & Johnson, N. (2016) Connecting reading, writing, and culture
through a literacies-based approach to narrative. The 2015 PanSIG Journal,133-141.
Owens, J. (2017). ‘We created new, deeper meaning’: The use oftransformed practice activities in a literacies classroom. The 2016 PanSIG
Journal, 231-241.
Polczynska, M., Goncalves, J. & Castro, E. (2023). Fostering interactive
reflection on language learning through the use of advising tools. In N.
Curry, P. Lyon, & J. Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflecting on language learning(pp. 291-306). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-021
Pont, B. (2018). Curriculum reform: An education change perspective [Paper
presentation]. Policy Advice and Implementation Conference, Dublin.
Stabback, P. (2016). What makes a quality curriculum? (2). UNESCO-IBE,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243975e.pdf
Sol, K. (2021). Distributed leadership in schools: A brief review of theliterature. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research, 1, 73-80.

​
​
​
​
​

Yoshida, A. (2023). A teacher learns how to advise. In N. Curry, P. Lyon, & J.
Mynard (Eds.), Promoting reflecting on language learning (pp. 323-335).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415591-023
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.
Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

34

APPENDIX A
Description of the Six FE Processes
Self-analysis

Students analyze their own strengths and weaknesses
based on the individual's own desire to improve alanguage-focus (e.g. vocabulary, grammar,
pronunciation) or communication-focus (e.g. gestures,
turn-taking) skill.
Students develop the ability to critically reflect on theirjourney as learners and consider what changes may beneeded in order to become autonomous learners.

Audio-visual
analysisStudents use audio and/or visual sources to increase
their multimodal understanding, making use ofauthentic texts to increase their communicative andlinguistic knowledge. Students gain an understandingof how texts are formed to create various intended
meanings.
Students develop the ability to look and listen to text
and consider meaning.

Data analysis

Students collect and analyze data sources (qualitative
and/or quantitative), either student or externallyproduced, and use these sources to develop or support
ideas or arguments.
Students develop the ability to collect, evaluate,
analyze and present and be critical of information.

ExtendedInteraction

Students lead small group discussions in class(typically 10-20 minutes per person for a total
discussion time of up to one hour) derived from texts,
experiences, and/or opinions, at times supported byresearch, to elicit others’ opinions.
Students develop the ability to engage in longer,
deeper discussions, using skills such as conversation
management, asking questions, andexplaining/supporting ideas.

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

35

Communication
strategies

Students analyze and practice effective strategies in avariety of situations to better understand register andenhance communicative skills.
Students develop the ability to deal with
communication issues in language, such as
breakdowns or misunderstandings, and build
competency in the target language.

Problem solving

Students discuss such things as problems, challenges
or relevant issues (e.g. personal lives, society, or
linguistic needs) and suggest ways to deal with them.
Students develop the ability to consider and offer
solutions for personal, local, national, or global issues.

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

36

APPENDIX B
A Generic Description of the Eight Course Outcomes in the ELI
1. Awareness of self as learner

Learners can understand own
strengths and weaknesses as alearner in a particular class. Be able totake control over own learning withstrategies and resources
for measuring success in implementing
those strategies.

2. Textual awareness and control

Learners can approach a variety ofauthentic texts and understand thesocial aspects of those texts: how
author, purpose, audience and context
shape textual form, content, anddesign. We also want learners torecognize and control for rhetoricalmode: reading, speaking and writing
for narrative, exposition, description
and argumentation.

3. Criticality and interpretation

Learners should develop anunderstanding of the differences
between facts and opinions in written
texts. They need to be able to inferauthorial purpose and meaning that
may not be evident from a surface
level reading of different texts. An
ability to
distinguish between reliable andunreliable sources of online
information is important.

4. Textual fluency

Learners need to read, speak, andwrite about a variety of topics in avariety of texts with sufficient fluency
to aid communication with educatedusers of English and participate
successfully in class work andinstitutional examinations.

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

37

5. Interactive capacity

Learners need to be able to participate
in both short and extended
interactions based on personal
experience and social/cultural issues
through a variety of texts, adopting avariety of roles and pragmatic
strategies for appropriate
communication with other educatedusers of English.

6. Interpretation and expressionof multimodal meaning

Develop and display a semiotic
awareness and understanding of how
different modes of representationinteract and create meaning indifferent texts. Learners should be
able to analyze and create/present
graphs, charts, interviews and otherlinguistic and/or visual representationsof meaning that exist in different
texts, including surveys andsocial/humanities oriented research.

7. Lexico-grammatical control

Develop a repertoire of
lexico-grammatical knowledge andawareness that furthers
communicative capacity in both
written and spoken language.
Learners should develop anunderstanding of form-meaning
relationships and see lexico-grammar
as a resource for making meaning.

8. Intercultural capacity

Learners should be able tocomprehend self as culturally
constructed and speakers of the target
language as members of foreignsocieties and cultures. Learners
should develop an understanding ofand sensitivity towards other culturesthat fosters effective communication.

Lyon, P. (2023). The ELI curriculum: Past to present. Literacies and Language Education:
Research and Practice, Autumn 2023, 18-38. English Language Institute, KUIS.

38