What's an Objective Anyway?

12 Pages·2009·0.53 MB·English

What's an Objective Anyway?
Janet L. Eyring
Teachertrainers (and thusteachertrainees)canoftenbeconfusedbythearrayof
terminologyusedfordescribinggoalsandobjectivesinclassroom/programplan
ning. With the popularity of learner-centered and task-based learning, is it
possible or even necessary to specify objectives when holistic "communicative
competence"isthetargetofinstruction?Thisarticleacknowledgesthecontrover
sy among various language experts with regard to the definition and value of
objectives.Italsoconfirmstheimportantrolethatvarioustypesofobjectivescan
playinthesecondlanguageclassroom.
Despitethecomplaintsthatsomestudentsmakeaboutwritingperformance
or instructional objectives, as a teacher trainer of ESL methods and cur
riculum courses, I still believe this is still a valuable endeavor, especially
whenobjectivesareusedinservicetocommunicativeinstructionratherthan
asareinforceroftraditionallearningmethods.Thispositionissupportedby
many professionals in the field (Brown, 1994; Brown, 1995; Nunan, 1988;
Wulf & Schave, 1984; Richards, 1984). Because many discussions of objec
tives havebeenconfusingand importantdistinctions havenotalwaysbeen
explicitlystated,thisarticleprovidesclarificationbyplacingobjectivesclear
lyinthe contextofprogram planning, distinguishinggoalsfrom objectives,
relating objectives to syllabus design, sequencing objectives in a syllabus,
andfinallydescribingperformanceobjectivesanddiscussingtheirvalueina
language program. To many reading this article these ideas may seem ob
vious;however,anyoneworkinginthefieldforalongtimecanconfirmthat
students,andevenexperiencedteachers,oftenhavedifficultygettingafirm
graspoftheseconceptsandusingthemformoreeffectiveteaching.
The RelationshipofObjectives to Program Planning
Many inexperienced teachers first write "objectives" (either performance
objectivesorothertypes) whendesigningtheirfirst lessonplans. However,
this seems premature unless some discussion ofgeneral program planning
precededsuchassignments. Variousauthorshavedescribed thecurriculum
or program design process in different ways, but without exception they
seem to include a needs analysis somewhere in the process (Brown, 1995;
Richards,1984;Dubin& Olshtain,1986;Taba,1962).Onemodeloflanguage
programdesignappearsinFigure1.
AscanbeseenfromFigureLaneedsanalysisoftenprecedestheformula
tion of objectives. The procedure may involve a simple questionnaire or
24 JANETL.EYRING
!
NEEDS ANALYSIS E
r V
A
OBJECTIVES
I l
U
TESTING
A
I
T
MATERIALS
I
I
0
TEACHING N
r
Figure1.Aspectsofprogramdesign (Brown, 1995).
consist ofan array of procedures (e.g., observations, examinations, records
analysis, checklists, materials analysis) to determine program participants'
needs, both subjective (attitudes, preferences, interests) and objective (lan
guage proficiency, aptitude, Richards, 1984; Johnson, 1989; Brown, 1995).
Other types of information from the teaching context (e.g., testing results,
responses to materials and teaching and program evaluation) may also in
fluence what types ofobjectives are set. Byemphasizingthe idea earlyina
teachertrainingprogramthatobjectivesmustbesetaccordingtorealneeds
andrealcontexts,trainees realize the danger ofsimplyallowingatextbook,
notbasedonanytypeofanalysisoftheirownprogramneeds, to determine
coursecontent.
Goals and Objectives
Another confusing issue for teachers in training is that they may have no
senseofadistinctionbetweengoalsandobjectives.Infacttheremaybegood
reason for this misunderstanding, because in practice many program
TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 25
VOL.15,NO.2,SPRING1998
descriptions or published guides interchange these two terms, and, in fact,
usethetermobjectivestorefertowhattechnicallyshouldbeconsideredgoals.
Whatneeds tobeemphasizedisthatgoalsandobjectivesbothspecifywhat
participants (usually students, but also teachers, parents, administrators,
aides,etc.) inthecurriculumdo,butobjectivesaremorespecificthangoals.
AccordingtoZais(1976)ascitedinWulfandSchave(1984),goalsare"school
outcomes," reflecting long-range, general effects. Objectives are "specific
learning outcomes as a result of classroom instruction." Gronlund (1991)
furtherrefinesthenotionofobjectivesbytalkingabout"generalinstruction
alobjectives"thatrequireasetof"specificlearningoutcomes"togiveamore
preciseideaofstudentperformance.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to propose the use of
inherently transparent labels for the specificity of goals and objectives de
scribed.Tostart,theeducatorneedstodeterminewhatlevelofspecificityis
necessarytodescribethepurposesofaprogram.Ifthereareonlytwolevels,
thenZais' (1976) definitionofgoaland objectiveshouldbeused. Ifthereare
more than two, then the terms goals, general objectives, and specificobjectives
shouldbeintroduced(seeFigure2). Notethatitwouldnotbecorrecttouse
thesamelabelfor To increasepracticalwritingskills and To addressanenvelope
because the former describes a general outcome after much practice and
instruction, whereas the latter describes a more specific outcome after a
classroom lesson or two. The adoption of this terminology would reduce
confusioninthisarea.
At first glance one might think that specificobjectives describe behaviors
generally associated with performance objectives (Vallette & Disick, 1972).
However, performance objectives typically specify four features of a class
room activity: purpose, studentbehavior, conditions, and criterion. For ex
ample,Inordertodemonstratecomprehensionofashortstory,studentswill
be given50 minutes to read "The Lottery" and must respond correctlyto 8
outof10true/falsestory-based questionsinordertopass. Inmyopinion,a
discussion of these type of objectives should be introduced at a later time
becausetheygenerallyrefertoadifferentlevelofprogramdesign,thatis,the
specifyingofday-to-dayclassroomlessons,oftenwithreferencetomethod
ology, materials, and evaluation. The goals, generalobjectives, and specific
objectivestowhichIreferoftenrelatetotheresultsofmultipleinstructional
sessions.Theyarealsooftenstatedintheinfinitive(e.g.,Towriteapersonal
letter)orgerundform(e.g.,Writingpersonalletters),butinsomecasesmight
bestatedasatopicoracontentarea(e.g.,personalletters).
Anotherwell-acceptedconventioninobjectiveswritingisthatobjectives,
especially specific objectives, need to be stated using verbs that refer to
observablebehaviorssuchaswrite,recite,list,compareratherthanverbsmore
open to interpretation and less easily measured such as know, understand,
grasp, believe. Sometimes the objectives are written using several phrases to
26 JANETL.EYRING
-------- More
GOAL
Broad
Toincreasepracticalwritingskills.
GENERALOBJECTIVE GENERALOBJECTIVE
Towritepersonalletters. Tofilloutjobapplications.
~
SPECIFIC SPECIFIC SPECIFIC SPECIFIC SPECIFIC SPECIFIC
OBJECfIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE More
Topractice Touse Toaddress Tolistprevious Touseprint TofilloUI Specific
varioussalu paragraph anenvelope jobexperiences andcursive varioustypes
tationsand fonnat appropriately ofapplication
closings fonnats
Figure2. Goalsandobjectives.
describe the category of language behavior that will be exhibited, for ex
ample,Canwriteonsomeconcreteandfamiliartopic;Isabletoorganizeand
provide some support; Demonstrates limited control of sentence structure
and punctuationto indicate sentenceboundaries; Oftenuses inappropriate
vocabularyorwordforms (DescriptorforIntermediate-Lowlevelinwriting
in Second Language Proficiency Descriptors, Browning et al., 1995). This
typeofobjectiveisdescribedinmoredetailbelow.
The Syllabus
With the precedingdefinitionofgoalsand objectives,itis now mucheasier
to speak of a syllabus. In this case we do not mean the type ofsyllabus or
course outlinethat professors distribute the first day ofclass to show read
ings, course assignments, due dates, and so forth. Rather, a syllabus of a
language program is a taxonomy or categorization of goals and objectives.
However, the taxonomy is not a random list, and depending on the par
ticular needs ofa group oflearners, it provides, as McKay (1980) states, "a
focusforwhatshouldbestudied,alongwitharationaleforhowthatcontent
shouldbeselectedandordered"(p.73).InthissectionIdealspecificallywith
this idea of focus and save discussion of selection and ordering for the
followingsection.
Are the goals and objectives in a syllabus of the same type? Richards
(1984) sheds some light on this matter with his discussion ofthree types of
objectives: proficiency,process,andcontent. Thesetermscouldalsobeuse
fulindescribingthreebroadgeneraltypesofsyllabus(AppendixesAandB).
The first type, the proficiency-related type, enjoys wide acceptance in
foreignlanguageteachingasevidencedbytheAmericanCouncilofForeign
Language Teachers (ACTFL) Guidelines and possible future acceptance in
TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 27
VOL.15,NO.2,SPRING1998
ESL teaching (California Pathways, Second Language Proficiency Descrip
tors,Browningetal.,1995)andpresentsaparticularviewaboutthenatureof
languagelearning.Thefocusofthislistofobjectivesisthedescriptionofthe
type of language that a student should be able to produce in listening,
speaking, reading, and writing and culture as a result of communicative
languageuseinside(andoutside)oftheclassroom.Theseobjectivestheoreti
callyneed notbetied to anyprogramofstudy, butseekto describe normal
languagedevelopmentofsomeoneacquiringfacilitywithfunction, context,
and accuracy in a language. Because ofthe more vague or broad nature of
these objective statements, they might more precisely be called goals, but
theyarestatementsofpurposeasearlierdescribed.1
ThesecondtypeofobjectivethatRichards(1984)describedistheprocess
related objective. He defined these types of objectives as "specifications of
processeswhichunderliefluencyinspecificskillareas."Thistypeofsyllabus
would be favored by proponents of skill-based programs, where holistic
type skills are being developed (e.g., improving listening comprehension,
increasingreadingspeed,generatingideasfor writing).Thisisalsothetype
ofobjectivethatsyllabusdetractors(oranti-syllabusproponents)hesitateto
describe, because language learning is viewed as requiring repeated and
varied practice oflanguage for real purposes and, therefore, is not entirely
predictable. Task-based, project work, and fully communicative syllabi (as
describedbyYalden,1983)arethreetypesthatspecifyobjectivesintermsof
processes (e.g., Negotiating what to study, researching an historical figure,
reading a train schedule and planning a trip). These types ofobjectives are
meant to describe processes that can transfer to broader situations (e.g.,
negotiating a business deal, researching any topic of interest, reading any
typeofchartandapplyingtheinformationtosomeotheractivity).
The third type of objective is the content-based objective. This objective
refers tolinguisticorcommunicativecontentand is the mostwidespreadin
ESL/EFL programstoday. Thiscontentcanbedescribed as grammar,func
tions, survival situations, popular topics, literature, business/medicine/
science and correspondinglyrelates to manyofthe most popular syllabiin
use: for example, the structural syllabus, the functional syllabus, the com
petence-based syllabus, the literature-based syllabus, and the English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) syllabus. Although some of these syllabi are quite
modern, their main focus is product-oriented-to promote the learning of
content. The later specification of program features may include process
elementsor evenacknowledge a universaldevelopmentofproficiency,but
asamainorganizingstrand,thecontent-basedsyllabusisameans-endtype
ofsyllabus.2
The reason for presenting these three types of objectives (proficiency,
process,andcontent)asiftheyweremutuallyexclusiveistoemphasizethat
different major focuses may be selected by language educators to guide a
28 JANETL.EYRING
program. However, it is important to note that most language curriculum
experts see the combining of these purposes as more common than not.
Yalden (1983) proposedthatthefocus ofinstructionmightchangefrom the
beginning to advanced levels with content-based (more structured) syl
labuses having higher priority at the beginning levels, and process-based
(more communicative) syllabuses having higher priority at the advanced
levels. DubinandOlshtain (1986) also spoke oftheintertwiningofsyllabus
typesasstrands,whereonemaytakeprecedenceoveranother. Forexample,
asyllabusmayincludetopics,skills,andstructuralstrands(seeFigure3).
AlthoughBrown(1995)considerstopicallybasedsyllabiandsituationally
based syllabi as separate categories, it is clear that simply listing topics or
situationsisnotasyllabusinthesensedescribedhere. Infactatopicsuchas
"the garden" or a situation like "in the garden" could be quite ambiguous
becauseitcouldeasilyimplyvarioustypesofobjectivesandthusmorethan
onetypeofsyllabus(e.g.,Tokeepagardenjournal[process-relatedobjective;
projectworksyllabus] orUsingthepresenttensetodescribeplantingcycles
and growing methods in a garden [content-based objective; structural syl
labusD. The curriculum designer must realize that when lists of topics or
situations constitute the only strand of a syllabus, the focus or theoretical
orientation, as described by McKay (1980), is not entirely clear without
furtherspecification.
Sequencing Objectives in the Syllabus
With the types ofobjectives and accompanying syllabi defined, the teacher
trainer now needs to help trainees understand how to sequence objectives.
Of course, with proficiency-related objectives, this has already been done
wherelevelshavebeendescribedfromNovicetoSuperior(Omaggio, 1986).
With other types ofobjectives, different criteria can be used to decide how
objectives should be ordered at the beginning through advanced levels.
Some criteria that have been suggested are complexity, cognitive demand,
frequencyofuse,immediacyofneed,andorderofacquisition.Insomecases
onecriterionmightsuggestthatoneobjectiveisorderedbeforeanother,but
a competing criterion would contradict the first decision. In this case, the
educatormustmakeajudgmentcall.Asanexample,considerthetwoitems
from a functional syllabus-expressing gratitude and expressing necessity.
On the one hand, ifimmediacy ofneed is considered most important, per
haps newcomers to an English-speaking country would need to express
thanks before they would need to express what they want. However, if
difficultyoftheitemisconsideredintermsofgrammar,perhapsinstruction
ina statement suchas "1 need anapartment" should precede instructionin
the grammar for "Thank you for helping me" The educator can make a
choicebasedonhisorherownintuitioninthiscaseorensurethatrecycling
occurs in the syllabus and objectives that appear atone levelrecur at more
TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 29
VOL.15,NO.2,SPRING1998
Topics Skills Structures
TurningPoints Sharingpersonalexperiences VerbTense
HolidaysandCelebrations Givingpresentations Adjectives
Hobbies Teachingaprocess Connectors
Conductinginterviews ModalVerbs
Education
Debatingissues Complementation
MaleandFemaleRoles
Figure3.Exampleofintertwinedobjectivesinaspeakingcourse.
advancedlevelsatincreasinglevelsofcomplexity.Intheprecedingcase,the
educatorcouldsimplyteach"thankyou" atthebeginninglevelandsavethe
gerundstructure("Thankyouforhelpingme.")forlaterinthesyllabus.
Quiteabithasbeenwrittenabouttheneed to orderobjectivesaccording
tocognitive,affective,andpsychomotordevelopment. Bloom(1956),Krath
wohleta1. (1964),andHarrow(1972) designed taxonomies thatcould assist
teachersinorderingobjectivesina syllabus. Although these weredesigned
for instructors in general education, they can also apply to ESL educators.
Usinganexamplefrom thecognitivedomain, itcouldbesaidthatinterpret
ing something is generally more cognitively difficult than describing some
thing. In the affective domain verifyingsomethingis more challenging than
pointingto something. Finally, in thepsychomotordomain,arrangingsome
thing requires greater psychomotor skills than simply detecting something.
The responsibleESLeducatorshould consultsuchlistsinmakingdecisions
aboutsequencingESLobjectivesfrommoresimpletomorecomplex.
PerformanceObjectives
Finally, what are performance objectives, and are they still important to
state? As mentioned above, a performance objective contains four parts: a
purpose, a student behavior, conditions, and a criterion (Valette & Disick,
1972). Taking the general objective of "writing a personal letter" and the
specific objective of "practicingvarious salutations and closings" as a start
ingpoint, severalperformanceobjectiveswould need tobewritteninorder
todescribethemanyactivitiesandaccompanyingstudentbehaviorsneeded
to show that a student has learned to use an appropriate salutation and
closinginaletter.ThreeexamplesinFigure4illustratehowactivitiesmight
begradedsothatanelementaryschoolstudentisfinallyabletodemonstrate
hisorhermasteryofjustonegeneralobjective
Forthebeginningteacher(andsometimestheexperiencedteacher),writ
ingobjectivesconciselyand correctlycanbea challenge. Toillustratethis,a
beginningteacher'sfirstattemptatwritingaperformanceobjectivefollows:
Todisplayknowledgeandabilitytoretaincorrectuseofcount-non
countnouns.Studentswillbeabletocompleteashortexercise.
30 JANETL.EYRING
Goal:Toincreasepracticalwritingskills
GeneralObjective:Towritepersonalletters
SpecificObjective:Topracticevarioussalutationsandclosings
PerformanceObjective#1:Inordertoincreaseunderstandingofthevarietyofwaystoopen
andcloseapersonalletter,thestudentwillskim10personallettersonahandoutandcircle
thesalutationandclosingoneach(e.g.,Hi,Howdy,Seeya,Tilllater,etc.).Inordertoshow
mastery,studentsmustcircleall20oftheitemsinfiveminutes.
PerformanceObjective#2:Todemonstrateknowledgeofhowtoinsertappropriate
openingsandclosingstopersonalletters,thestudentwillinsertthecorrectwordsinblanks
providedbeforeandafterthebodyofshortpersonalletters.Topass,thestudentmust
provideanappropriatewordorphrasein8outof10blanks.
PerformanceObjective#3:Topracticewritingappropriateopeningsandclosingsto
personalletters,thestudentwillwriteashortnotetoafriendinvitinghimorherforan
afternoonvisit.Inordertopass,thestudentmustusebothanappropriateopeningor
closingtotheletter.Thebodyoftheletterwillnotbegraded.
Figure4. Understandingperformanceobjectives.
Severalproblemscanbenotedhere.Theactivitydoesnotclearlycorrespond
to the purpose, the conditions and criterion are not stated, and the reader
does not have a clear idea of what it is the students will do. Stated more
appropriately,theobjectivemightread:
Inordertorecognizeandusenoncountnouns,studentswillbegiven15
minutestoformdyadsandwritefivetrueandfalse statementsabouta
setofnoncountnouns(e.g.,luggage,furniture,money,research,work).
Theywillthenregroupwithasecondpairwhoweregivenadifferent
setofnounsandthesametask.Onepairwillreadtheirsentenceswhile
theotherpairguessesifthesentencesaretrueorfalse. Theotherpair
willdothesame(e.g.,ThefurnitureinLisa'sapartmentismodern.)Stu
dentswillpassiftheyinteractwitheachotherforapproximately20
minutesandtheyuseappropriateverbagreementwiththenoncount
nounsapproximately80% ofthetime.
On reading a fully stated objective, it is not hard to understand why a
beginningteacherhassomedifficultywritingsuchobjectives.Heorshedoes
nothavethefullarrayofteachingexperiencethatwouldmakethewritingof
objectives automatic. For example, she may not be entirely familiar with
variousmethods(e.g.,SilentWay,AudiolingualMethod,NaturalApproach,
Counseling Learning, Problem-Posing), procedures (e.g., jazz chants, dic
tocomps, cloze exercises, jigsaw tasks), materials (songs, texts, charts), and
management options (e.g., dyads, whole class, small group) to specify an
activity clearly. In addition, she may not understand that certain activities
arebestdescribed asexpressiveobjectives (Vallete& Disick,1972)inwhich
TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 31
VOL.15,NO.2,SPRING1998
theconditions and criterionarestated ingeneralorapproximate terms (see
approximatelyandappropriateintherevisedexampleabove)ornotatall.
This difficulty with writing objectives is only one of the reasons that
performance objectives have been under attack for decades. Schwab (1996)
stated that objectives also "anatomize matters that may be of great impor
tance into bits and pieces which, taken separately, are trivial or pointless."
Anotherreasonisthattheyhaveappearedtobeconstrictingintheclassroom
to the experienced teacher. By explicitly stating behaviors, conditions, and
criteria,noroomisleftfortheflexibilityorcreativitythatoftenoccursduring
in-flight decision-making. It is also true that the practicing teacher, under
tremendous time pressures, rarely has time to write a full array of perfor
mance objectives for every class he or she plans to teach, even if he or she
wantedto.
Despite these criticisms, performance objectives can be a useful teacher
trainingtoolbecausetheyrequirenewandlessexperiencedteacherstothink
about major program goals and relate these to what they are doing in the
classroom(e.g.,determinethepurposeofanactivity,definekeyaspectsofan
activity, estimate a time frame, and know whether studentshavebeen suc
cessful). They are essential for planning IO-IS-minute teaching demon
strations in preservice programs, where teachers must be held strictly
accountableforwhattheydobecauseofthelimitedtimeavailablefor doing
suchoraldemonstrationsduring classtime. Theycanalsobeusefulfor any
type ofindividualizedprogrammedinstructionmaterials ordistancelearn
ingmaterialswheretheinputofaliveinstructormaybelimited.
Conclusion
This article underlines the importance ofspecifying objectives in language
instructionbased ona needs analysis. Dependingonthe levelofspecificity
desired, either goals, general objectives, or specific objectives canbestated.
Programdesignerstendtostategoalswithaccompanyinggeneralobjectives,
whereas classroom teachers often rely mostly on specific objectives for plan
ningclassroomteaching. Program planners specifysyllabithatcontainlists
of objectives of three general types (proficiency, process, and content).
Dependingonthe type ofprogram, one ormore types ofobjectives maybe
intertwinedwhendescribingthepurposesofaprogram.Performanceobjec
tivesinmodernlanguageclassrooms,ontheotherhand,seemtobelimited
to particular settings such as preservice training, teaching demonstrations,
andprogrammedinstruction.Insum,thestatementofalltypesofobjectives
isvaluablefortheteacher,aswellasforthestudents,asaguideforlearning.
By encouraging student input in setting goals and objectives and revising
thesealongtheway,studentsbecomecoparticipantsinthelearningprocess,
whichisthekeytomotivationinsuccessfullanguagelearning.
32 JANETL.EYRING
Notes
IThis proposition may be unpopular to those who strenuously deny that the proficiency
guidelinesarenotasyllabus.However,inpracticetheguidelinesdoservetofocusinstruction
(albeitbroadly)intheclassroom,whichisthenatureofasyllabusasearlierdefined.AsRichards
(1984)states,theForeignServiceInstitute (FSI)OralProficiencyscale,whichissimilarto the
ACTFLscale,"canbeusedtonotonlyassessproficiencyfordiagnosticorplacementpurposes
butalsotoestablishlevelsofproficiencyasprogramobjectives."Richardsadds,however,that
theseproficiencydescriptions"complementratherthanreplacetheuseofprogramobjectives."
2Thisdefinitionofcontent-basedmaycontradicttheframeworkdevelopedbyBrinton,Snow,and
Wesche(1989)becauseofthebasicpurposesassociatedwiththethreeso-calledcontent-based
syllabi. The theme-based syllabus may in fact be more closely related to the process-based
syllabus,becauseitsmainpurposeistoreinforcelanguageskills,withcontentcreatinginterest
forthispurpose.Theothertwotypes,shelteredandadjunct,moreclearlyhaveamajorpurpose
toteachcontenttostudentswiththedevelopmentoflanguageskillsasapositivesideeffect.
The Author
JanetEyringistheTESOLCoordinatorintheDepartmentofForeignLanguagesandLiteratures
atCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton.ShehasbeenanESLteacherandESLteachertrainerfor
thepast18years.
References
Bloom,B.S.(1956). (Ed.).Taxonomyofeducationalobjectives:HandbookI,CognitiveDomain.New
York:DavidMcKay.
Brinton,D.,Snow,M.A.,&Wesche,M.(1989).Content-basedsecondlanguageinstruction.New
York:NewburyHouse/Harper&Row.
Brown,B.D.(1994).Teachingbyprinciples:Aninteractiveapproachtolanguagepedagogy.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHallRegents.
Brown,J.D.(1995).Theelementsoflanguagecurriculum.Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.
Browning,G.etal.(1995).Californiapathways:Thesecondlanguagestudentinpublichighschools,
collegesanduniversities.ESLIntersegmentalProject.
Dubin,F.,&Olshtain,E.(1986).Coursedesign:Developingprogramsandmaterialsforlanguage
learning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gronlund,N.(1991).Howtowriteanduseinstructionalobjectives.NewYork:Macmillan
Harrow,A.J.(1972).Ataxonomyofthepsychomotordomain.NewYork:DavidMcKay.
Johnson,RK.(1989).Thesecondlanguagecurriculum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Krathwohl,D.Retal.(1964).Taxonomyofeducationalobjectives:HandbookII,affectivedomain.
NewYork:DavidMcKay.
McKay,S.(1980).Towardsanintegratedsyllaus.InK.Croft(Ed.),ReadingsinEnglishasa
secondlanguage(pp.72-84).Cambridge,MA:Winthrop.
Nunan,D.(1988).Syllabusdesign.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Omaggio,A.(1986).Teachinglanguageincontext:Proficiency-orientedinstruction.Boston,MA:
Heinle&Heinle.
Johnson,RK.(1989).(Ed.).Thesecondlanguagecurriculum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Richards,J.(1984).Languagecurriculumdevelopment.RELCJournal,15(1).
Schwab,J.(1996).Thepractical4:Somethingforcurriculumprofessorstodo.InE.Hollins
(Ed.),Transformingcurriculumforaculturallydiversesociety.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Taba,H.(1962).Curriculumdevelopment:Theoryandpractice.NewYork:Harcourt,Braceand
World.
TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 33
VOL.15,NO.2,SPRING1998