Richards ch 8 and 9

Sheila Wallace
Ling 611
Richards chapters 8 and 9 reflections

Richards, J.C. 2007. The role and design of instructional materials. In Curriculum development in language teaching (chap. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In most language programs, teaching materials are the main components that serve as an anchor for language input for learners and language output (practice). Instructional materials include printed materials like books, workbooks, worksheets, or readers. Nonprint materials also serve as teaching materials such as cassettes/audio materials, videos, or computer-based materials, and the internet. Other materials might include magazines, newspapers, and t.v. materials.
The role of teaching materials should encourage the spoken and written of a language, provide practice and communicative interactions, teach grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, provide stimulating activities, provide learning objectives, and give support for teachers to teach a language effectively. The design of instructional materials could be authentic while others may be created . In addition, prepared materials may be in form of textbooks and workbook excersizes.
In curriculum development for language programs in our region, I have found that the biggest aspect that lacks connection between created materials and language development is the fact that Yup’ik is an unstudied language as far as what is generally learned first and the developmental progression of the language thereafter. Often times, especially for Yup’ik as a second language teachers, the created materials are designed for Yup’ik first language learners. Immersion language teachers are constantly revising and editing teaching materials to fit the needs of their learners. Furthermore, much of the materials created by the district office are heavy on primary grades k-3. Beyond those grades, there are less and less materials available for teachers. Many of the Yup’ik first language school sites have Yup’ik in grades k-3 as their primary mode of instruction then beyond those grades, it is more designed to maintain the language with the heavy emphasis on English language development.
Teachers of language are continually creating their materials or adapting what is available to them to fit the learning language needs of their students. It is important then, as materials developers, to keep in mind the language development of Yup’ik through these instructional materials. Often times, instruction can be a choppy process especially when the language development of an unstudied language is being implemented. Furthermore, the use of different modalities may not be found in many sites of our area due to the lack of materials. These may include video, internet, and audio materials. Teachers then have to be creative in terms of meeting the needs of all learners.

Richards, J.C. 2007. Approaches to evaluation. In Curriculum development in language teaching (chap. 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evaluating a language curriculum needs to consider the following aspects of the language program:
a. How is the curriculum achieving its goals
b. How is the curriculum being implemented
c. Is the curriculum satisfactory to teachers, students, administration, and parents
d. How well did the curriculum developers put the curriculum together
e. How does the curriculum compare with others of the similar kind
The major components of evaluating a curriculum centers around program accountability and program development. Accountability examines the language program’s effectiveness to language learners while development oriented evaluation seeks to improve the quality of a program and how well it is being implemented. The purposes for evaluation are referred to as formative, illuminative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation centers around continued evaluation of language development and improvement. Illuminative evaluation seeks to evaluate how the different aspects of the curriculum are being implemented and ways to provide deeper understanding of the process of teaching and learning. Summative evaluation determines the effectiveness of the language program by evaluating its effectiveness and acceptability.
In our region, Yup’ik language programs are evaluated by student summative tests, not necessarily measuring the language growth and development. These tests are driven by translation of English tests that reflect the state standards. Furthermore, the way that the district measures the Yup’ik language proficiency is also questionable; the proficiency test is a direct translation of the English language proficiency test. The content and concepts in the test often times do not match the language development of the district’s language curriculum. The test is standardized nationally and is designed to identify whether the student is language limited in English. It is a district requirement and each student, whether they are in the English program or the Yup’ik language program are required to take this test.
The other concern that I have with standardized tests for Yup’ik is that the people who are translating the tests are teachers who are not necessarily trained to create these tests. Test makers are a big business and are often developed by people who are trained and educated in that specific field. Furthermore, another concern is that there are many different regional dialects of Yup’ik making a standardized test difficult to all learners from these different dialects. The test takers may not be familiar with the word families used in the test or may not be proficient in another dialect which may skew the results.