1. English language education in the complexity of academic and professional settings - English language education in the complexity of academic and professional settings
1. English language education in the complexity of academic and
professional settings
Adriadi Novawan, S.Pd., M.Ed.
Department of Language, Communication and Tourism, Politeknik Negeri Jember,
Indonesia
Abstract
The article addresses the development of English language education (ELE) and
explores perspectives to develop better English learning climates in the higher
education settings in Indonesia. It firstly outlines the development of ELE
theories worldwide influenced by the growth of constructivism theory. Then, it
particularly views the relationship between the development of ELE theories
worldwide and the reality of English language policy within the Indonesian
context. It is to argue that the national policy and its implementation have been
somewhat inferior to providing strong fundamentals for ELE in the higher level
of education—the higher education. Thus, this article proposes ideas to develop
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in a coherent manner to create more
engaging learning environment in order to cater for dynamic growth of academic
and professional contexts.
Keywords: English language education, higher education, curriculum and
pedagogic discourse
Theoretical review
The development of English language education (ELE) worldwide is currently
enlightened with the concerns of postmodern philosophies and practices that are more
sensitive to the complexity of socio-cultural contexts of learning. There was a time
when the philosophy of positivism overwhelmed the scholarly arena and forum that
contributed to the development of well-designed curriculum and pedagogical
approaches. Aspects of ELE such as curriculum design, materials development,
teaching methodology, and assessment strategy were predominated by scientific merit
that legitimated such approaches as the objective-oriented, teacher-centred,
performance-based, content-driven/classroom-driven, and achievement test.
Nevertheless, current development indicates that English language education is
undergoing changes influenced by postmodern philosophies and methodologies that
cannot be detached from the development of constructivism and socio-constructivism.
Kumaravadivelu (2003) originates the tenet of practicality, particularity, and possibility,
that asserts the importance of creativity and innovativeness for not being overwhelmed
by the box of particular “one-best-approach” (e.g. scientific approach) and orienting all
pedagogical processes to the students as the subject of learning and their unique needs
and background within their particular and specific socio-cultural context. As a result,
English language education is concerned that the teaching and learning activity is a
cyclical and iterative process that is complex, and which requires the proliferation of
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
1
agency roles in order to produce an engaging and meaningful English language
education.
Additionally, it is of great consensus that some well-known conceptions rooted
in particular educational theories such as life-long learning, assessment for learning,
metacognitive learning, inquiry-based learning, and softskill-based learning has been
widely elaborated into the English language education. It is signified with the increasing
number of studies and researches which addressed the topics such as those posed in
British and Europe literature (e.g. Fortanet-Gomez and Raisanen, 2008). With regard to
this development, Thomas and Reinders (2010) imply the same notion in that the
presence of various educational philosophies in the context of social studies in this
postmodern era has given the extensive effects on the development of English language
education. In turn, it encourages change and innovation in many aspects, such as those
in curriculum design, pedagogic practice and assessment approach.
ELT curriculum experts like Jack C. Richards (2013) posit a conception of ELT
curriculum development by highlighting the specialty of mechanism which
distinguishes one model from the others. According to him, there are three models:
forward, central, and backward design. The ELT curriculum can be designed by using a
linear procedure, which is called forward design. This design is content-driven,
emphasising the determination of content or knowledge as the most essential driver for
curriculum development. The second is central design, which postulates the centrality
of process and methodologies during the dynamic curriculum development. This design
is commonly known as a process-driven design. The last is represented by the
prominence of learning outcomes known as a product-driven design that, by Richards
(2013), is called backward design. The classification of the three models of curriculum
design implies the compatibility and interrelatedness between ELT curriculum design
and some well-known curriculum ideologies such as content, process and product
(Schiro, 2013; Kelly, 2009; McKernan, 2008; Print, 1993). The content-driven and
product-driven are epistemologically underpinned by positivist ideology, while the
process-driven curriculum is much influenced by constructivist.
Bernstein (2003), a famous sociologist of education, categorises what underpins
the curriculum design into two ideologies embodied in a line of continuum:
conservative is at one edge that originates performance-based curriculum and at the
other edge is progressive which underlines competence-based curriculum design. The
first is characterised by the strength of boundary between its contents indicated with the
prevailing formation of subjects or courses that very much consider the insulation
among them. The content of each subject or course tends to appreciate convergence that
emphasises the accuracy of curriculum content as a basis for the students’ cognitive
development, compared with the instructional goals. In this setting, the curriculum
success is measured on the performance results from the teaching and learning process
as specifically indicated on the instructional objectives.
On the other hand, competence-based curriculum deals with the achievement of
holistic competences without being separated by the insulation among the subjects or
courses. The instructional objectives are considered necessary to give direction and
vision for pedagogic practice; nevertheless, they do not coercively control its tactical
implementation. This type of curriculum concerns itself with the “big picture” of the
2
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
goals and explores spaces in the learning context for the students’ engagement with the
support of particular relevant and prolific conceptual framework and methodology.
Moreover, ELE pedagogy has flourished with abundant studies and researches
that consequently put forward very broad and diverse practices. This can be explicated
with a spectrum of pedagogy between those with text-based or linguistic-oriented and
those with more communicative or task-based. It ranges from those with teacher-centred
and classroom-driven to those with more individualised and space-driven teaching and
learning. From the convergent pedagogy to those which requires divergence with
abundant autonomy and spaces. So that the teaching of English today greatly varies
which not only provides opportunity for further development and studies but also
creates confusion for teachers in determining which of those will be appropriate to
particular situation.
The development of a particular pedagogic practice in ELE might influence the
assessment strategy practiced by the teachers. For instance, within the setting of a
positivist curriculum, pedagogic practice appreciates convergence and performance tied
to every piece of instructional objective. In this case, the assessment practice is aimed at
measure the students’ performance as compared with particular external criteria which
is more prone to the practice of assessment of learning (AoL). This reveals that the
curriculum offered and taught to the students is supposed to have been acquired by them
as specifically planned through the syllabus and the lesson plans. Thus, the success of
the teaching and learning process is measured against the specific instructional
objectives that have been previously determined in the timeline allotted. However, the
development of constructivism has coloured the conception with the model of
competence-based curriculum that recommends that the practice of ELE pedagogy
needs not to be co-opted with the breath and the depth of the targeted teaching materials
that can impose meaningful learning. In this case, the pedagogy needs to be flexible and
focus on the intrinsic process of learning itself without being separated from the local
context. Within this notion, the assessment strategy orients to helping the students learn
better through the interactional pedagogic approaches elaborating feedback, scaffolding,
and inquiry-based learning which is called assessment for learning (AfL).
The reality of ELE in Indonesia
How has the development of ELE in Indonesia been corresponding to the fruitful
development of ELE theories worldwide?
In the ASEAN context, the approaching of the AEC (ASEAN Economic
Community) 2015is believed to have a considerable impact on academic and
professional communication within a nation and across the nations. The AEC 2015 is
one of key agendas of ASEAN countries aimed to integrate the economy of ASEAN
members—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (ASEAN, 2008). Additional to these 10, other 3 nations
which have the important role in ASEAN economic development are China, Japan, and
South Korea which is known as ASEAN+3. The integration among these countries
stimulates mobilization of employees and professionals from a country to others and
increases the intensity of business encounters and communications in ASEAN context.
Based on the agreement among the countries, English was chosen as the official
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
3
language of communication for the purpose of ASEAN integration (Bolton, 2008;
Kirkpatrick, 2010). Consequently, the proficiency of English competence of the
ASEAN members relevant to the strategic sectors of the AEC 2015 becomes
prerequisite in order to create effective academic and professional communication.
Within the context of this integration, Indonesia is one of the countries needing
to have more preparatory agendas in terms of the English communication proficiency.
This is because English is not a second language as compared with some other ASEAN
members such as Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, where English is
alternatively used in daily life and for work. English in Indonesia is taught only during
English classes and none of the population speaks it in workplace settings and in everyday life situations. Thus, the English learning environment in Indonesia is far from ideal
and natural conditions of such socio-cultural environments as that in those countries that
genuinely encourage, nurture, and enable people to make use of English as lingua
franca for daily social and professional communication.
Furthermore, the reality of ELE curriculum in Indonesia cannot be detached
from its overarching setting – that of the national curriculum. Critiques have frequently
posed questions in terms of what is behind the national curriculum reforms that are
considered more instrumental rather than demand-driven. However, there is a
strengthening aspect of curriculum such as the improvement of coherence between
primary, secondary and higher education. The new curriculum 2013 is currently
becoming more sensitive to the relationship and sustainability of education among the
overall education levels (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2012). On the other
hand, the curriculum of higher education has undergone more dramatic change
following the establishment of the Indonesian Qualification Framework (IQF) which
aims to integrate the outcomes of educational programs conducted in different types of
educational institutions ranged from vocational, academic, to professional, and either
formal or non-formal education (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2010).
Within the national curriculum, which has undergone improvement in terms of
coherence between the levels, the policy for English language education represents
consistent concern nationwide or perhaps demonstrates deficiency in some aspects. In
the perspective of the new curriculum 2013, communicative competence is regarded as
a “future” competence instead of one that is immediately needed. Within the last
change, as stated on the content structure of the curriculum (Kementerian Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan, 2012), English as a subject is mandatorily conceived into the
curriculum of secondary education with 4 hours allotment time in a week both for junior
high school and senior high school, though not in that of primary schools. Although it is
national parental demand that makes English be taught in almost all elementary schools
in Indonesia (Kirkpatrick, 2010), English subject is consistently conceived as an
optional subject into the curriculum of elementary education.
The fact that English subject is not obliged to be offered to the elementary
students implies, in the perspective of the national curriculum, that English is not an
immediate subject since it can arguably be taught in the next levels. Since English is
considered optional according to the national policy, the implementation of ELT in
elementary schools confers somewhat problematic practices related to the instructional
development and the teacher professional development which are inferior in
strengthening the fundamental for the proficiency of English in the future either for
4
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
further educational levels or for professional settings. Even within this ongoing massive
teacher/lecturer certification program that is taking an incredible amount of the national
budget, the people are still pessimistic since what is happening currently demonstrates
that the program has successfully improved the teacher/lecturers’ financial prosperity
rather than their productivity and professional development.
Additionally, English language policy in elementary education does not support
the commonly held SLA (Second Language Acquisition) principle of CPH (critical
period hypothesis) which suggests that students are better learning a new language in
their early years. In this case, putting English as one of the optional subjects in the
elementary school curriculum is somewhat dissonant with the principle of CPH and
with the policy of high-stakes examination prevailed in the secondary school. This is
because the nature of English learning can be considered a process of learning that
cannot be instant and merely oriented to achieve a high score. When English as a
subject, is required to be taught at elementary school, students can have a better chance
to prepare themselves than just relying on English learning in the secondary school.
Thus, the national curriculum policy tends to be undermined by particular visions that
stimulate misleading pedagogic practice that focuses only on cognitive aspects of the
English language education—preparing the students to face the national examination.
This prevailing practice remains a huge gap between classroom learning and the actual
contextual settings, whereas, nurturing the application of English as lingua franca
requires the creation of pedagogical settings that enable the students to experience the
actual process of English communication in real contexts.
Another issue relates to the initiation of International Standard Schools (ISS)
program by the central government. The ISS, basically signifies a globalised
educational vision of the Indonesian government in order to be more prepared for the
international and ASEAN integration. More importantly, in turning it into a reality, that
has been, for years, found less meaningful. Put simply, the ISS is not a program that
relies only on the physical facilities and financial supports. It is more on how to prepare
the subject-content teachers to be able to teach their subjects using English that is a
long-term “space-based” investment rather than short-term one in order to provide the
required fundamentals for its implementation. In fact, many programs have been
trivially executed in the absence of sustainability such as the fact that teachers are
trained within a very short-intensive period without a systemic plan coherent with the
ISS development program. As a result, not only does it indicate the insufficiency of
English communication skills owned by the actors of teaching but also it results in
problematic practices related to the effectiveness of agency in creating the appropriate
climate of meaningful learning.
In addition to that, an extensive research conducted by Emilia, Hermawan &
Tati (2008) implies that the teaching of English in Indonesia has many predicaments;
one of them is signified with the lack of coherence between policy and its
implementation. Changes in the curriculum policy nation-wide have not been followedup with the appropriate changes in the pedagogic practices. Particularly, within the
competence-based curriculum where the schools are required to apply genre-based
approaches, the pedagogic practices have found to implement a genre-based approach
that is not genre-based, but a shallow and problematic approach.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
5
Moreover, in a scholarly event involving many nationally recognised scholars in
Indonesia, TEFLIN has investigated the problem and come up with convincing
evidence on the weakness of English language education in primary and secondary
schools that are mostly concerned with pedagogic practices in the classroom (2011).
The professional development of teachers is considered paramount to improve the
condition. It reflects that, so far, the prevailing policy and practice remains a challenge
for the development of ELE programs in the future and remains inferior to the
development of students’ English skills in the next level of education, namely, higher
education.
In line with the above reality, Novawan (2008) researched a higher education
institution and found that most of the participants of the interviews with the population
of 211 freshers expressed their discontent at the process of English pedagogy they had
experienced during their previous education levels. All of them agreed that the English
learning they perceived had been too much theoretically oriented and aimed to build up
their vocabulary and grammar repertoires with the main goal of attaining a high score at
the school and national examination. A part of the research investigated more deeply on
17 participants who were highly scored at the national examination, ranged from 9 to
10. A test comprised of writing and speaking, was given, and the results demonstrated
that their high grade obtained at the national examination might not represent their
English ability.
Wrapping up all of these issues, although English has become more important in
the ASEAN context, in fact this is not followed-up with the appropriate decision
enacted on the national policy of English language education in Indonesia. Consequent
to this trivial policy, its implementation through pedagogy and assessment has been
significantly problematic and meaningless as well as merely directed to the achievement
of high grades. While ELE theories worldwide shows consensus on how ELE becomes
more meaningful, the reality of ELE in Indonesia demonstrates the contrary—there is
meaning degradation in its process. In future, the national policy of primary and
secondary education needs to undergo greater reformation, far more coherently with the
context of learning and grounded in strong English language education theories and
frameworks. At the same time, the reality poses a challenge for the higher education to
improve the condition and to be aware of the impact of the reality above that makes the
challenge become heavier due to the internal weaknesses and external pressures.
Internal weaknesses include the English proficiency of freshers, policy on teacher
professional development, academic climate and the institutional curriculum settings.
The external pressures denote how the internal reality shall correspond to the demand of
industries and the development of socio-cultural context outside the education world.
Opportunity to develop ELE in HE
Students of university in Indonesia could generally have various English learning (EGP
and ESP) experiences through 3 main pathways: formal, non-formal, and informal
(Figure 1).
6
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
English as primary
courses
English major
departments
English as
supplementary
courses
Non-English major
departments
institutional training
and certification
Language centres
external training
and certification
Language courses
student/social
programs
English club, etc.
formal pathway
(curricular)
English learning
non-formal
pathway
(non-curricular)
informal pathway
(extra-curricular)
Figure 1. The pathways of English learning
In the formal pathway, English is an element of the degree program curriculum,
which contributes to particular credits of the English course part of the total credits
offered in the program. In this case, the English courses are offered as supplementary
courses to the discipline-specific courses in the curriculum, or the main courses related
to the core competence on the degree program curriculum. The first is in applying to
non-English departments while the latter is at English major departments. English
sources in these pathways are insufficient to support the students to be proficient users
of English for the purposes of academic and professional. Especially in the setting of
discipline-specific curriculum (non-English departments), the teaching of English
tremendously depends on the local/department policy; sometimes particular
departments consider English courses are not necessary. In terms of the curriculum,
English courses are often marginalised from the overarching curriculum due to the
insulation occurred between the disciplinary competences and the English competence.
As a result, English curriculum and pedagogy inadequately receive supervision,
evaluation and refinement. This situation causes the English courses within a disciplinespecific curriculum to be disengaged from the other courses within the overarching
curriculum.
In addition, in the English major departments, the main problem is usually
around the internal construction of the curriculum. The application of a subject-oriented
curriculum leads to greater insulation between one and other subjects even though they
are interrelated to each other. Subject-based curriculum is fundamentally derived from
performance-based curriculum ideology which conceptualise boundaries among the
English skills, for instance, Structure, Vocabulary, Speaking, Listening, Writing, etc.
This conception is usually claimed useful to help student focuses their learning on
particular English skills and components. Nevertheless, within a departmental
curriculum, these courses often do not reflect coherence between one course and the
other courses that make them meaningless for students learning. Whereas, studies and
researches aimed to explore, observe, and evaluate the reality have been very scarce, if
not, tend to be very instrumental for particular interests.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
7
Non-formal, English language learning, is experienced through non-curricular
programs. Many events can be established outside the curricular frame, for instance,
those in the form of trainings and certifications of particular English competence with
general and specific orientation of English skills. For example, those of TOEIC,
TOEFL, Academic Speaking, Academic Writing, English for Work, English for
Interview, English for Business, etc. These programs are usually organised by the
institutional language centre in a higher education institution, in support of the main
English course within the curriculum, and used to equip students with certain skills
demanded by the industries. Thus, these programs will be effective and useful when
they are inclusively established, and when they consider coherence between the
programs with the formal curriculum and industry’s perspectives. In addition, external
parties such as language courses outside the university may additionally expect to
support and facilitate those programs dependent on the need.
Students who are participating in any social (student) organisations may
experience particular programs that enrich their English competence development such
as English training, English competitions, and involving in English speaking
community within the university environment. These social events can provide
powerful impacts on the English acquisition of students joining the activities rather than
relying and centralising on the classroom teaching. A basic consideration would be that
English is a language that is, as any other languages, more easily learned through using
it in its social contexts where English is used for everyday for specific purposes.
Nevertheless, this potential is commonly ignored and marginalised and therefore
remains untouchable.
This wide range of opportunity portraits the extent to which the students of
higher education may take advantage of the English learning experience. This is a
challenge for all relevant parties to continuously develop and innovate the English
language education by elaborating all possible ways in order to result in better and
quality teaching and learning process.
Reflecting the development of ELE theories to the present reality in Indonesia,
there has been a great consensus concerning with the importance of perspectives which
regard the English class as a social activity which has to be meaningful for the students
to engage in. The theories are helpful for further refinement and innovation of
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment through the elaboration of multifaceted
approaches to cater for specific contexts for the sake of authentic learning. With this
view, claiming the success of English classes should not only rely on the classroom
matters but also on the learning environments outside the classroom as a part of social
community. This is the reason that makes the reality of learning English beyond the
classroom, complicated due to its interrelatedness with its dynamic socio-cultural
context. Therefore, ELE in the future should be directed itself to deal with such issues to
guide the implementation of English language pedagogy.
Some supreme principles to consider in developing ELE in Indonesian HE
context are as follows:
1. The English language education curriculum needs to be developed, based on a
particular philosophical framework that has deliberately been evaluated and
examined for its usefulness and meaningfulness for local and institutional
setting. The availability of this framework is a paramount necessity to provide
8
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
fundamental for the process, to map and to forecast changes as the effect of
dynamic interactions between academic and professional discourse, and between
both and the wider socio-cultural contexts. With a relevant philosophical stance
and framework, the flow of dynamic changes will not damage the internal
construction of the curriculum. Otherwise, without ideology, curriculum
development could undergo shallow, problematic and even misleading practice
in its process. Examples have been of evidence such as those that are only in the
level of its peripheral, and those merely covered the written document of
curriculum without being followed by the implementation. In addition, when
claiming for having implemented the competence-based curriculum, many
universities in fact have implemented what is substantially not a competencebased curriculum, but a performance-based curriculum that is philosophically
contradictory.
Moreover, curriculum development needs to consider that the elaboration
and collaboration for language curriculum development maps out different
pathways in order to create and nurture the appropriate climate for contextual
and authentic learning. The pathways of English learning in HE, possess
different potential to be linked and elaborated. Formal pathways, for instance,
have their vigour in the ultimate status within the socio-cultural contexts, but
tend to be very instrumental and bureaucratic. Non-formal pathways concentrate
on practical programs such as certification and trainings. Moreover, informal
pathways have abundant flexibility and spaces that are not efficiently well
employed yet. Excellent English teaching and learning in the HE can be further
developed by linking the three pathways together in the proper and appropriate
ways.
2. The role of ELE pedagogy needs to be revitalised. The development of
pedagogy firstly construes the philosophical stance determined in curriculum
development. Secondly, it is not merely a milieu for teaching the students with
English, but a centre for developing the curriculum, nurturing the appropriate
academic environment to support students’ English learning, improving the
teaching methods and in turn, they all mean chances for teacher professional
development.
As a centre for developing curriculum, ELE class is a vital research side
to observe in order to gain data and evidence to inform curriculum development.
The evidence obtained from it can be very beneficial to innovate curriculum.
The evidence is essential either to study teaching methodology that will be
workable for specific context. ELE class is also central for encouraging the
students’ intrinsic motivation that can be a starting point to nurture the Englishspeaking environment. The variation of ways to learn English in the HE posits
opportunity for linking formal, non-formal and informal pathways for the sake
of designing and creating a learning climate that provides the students with the
experience of genuine English communication. Therefore, ELE pedagogy needs
to be more flexible to open possibility for negotiation to accommodate its
sociocultural context.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
9
3. The practice of assessment has to be re-shaped in order to be meaningful for the
students and relevant with the learning process. Assessment has multipurposes—to test the English ability, to diagnose weaknesses, and to support
learning. In ELE context in Indonesia, assessment practice tends to be
instrumental to know if the students have acquired the intended and targeted
skills. This is the practice of assessment of learning. It is to assert that being coopted, with assessment of learning can cause serious negative impacts on the
process of learning. For teacher, the instructional design inclines to be oriented
merely to equip the students with the knowledge (not the skills) of English so
that they can answer the questions given on the tests and successful with the
tests. With this practice, the teacher tends to ignore the opportunity to work on
spaces to nurture the climate for intrinsic learning. What is more crucial in this
situation is bringing the students to be successful in the local and national
exams, which is strongly theoretical-oriented.
For students, they are trapped on the wrong learning motivation and
strategy. For instance, they sporadically prepare themselves for the test without
sufficient time to internalise the lessons. Additionally, this climate builds
negative assumption in their minds, in which, learning English means learning
the knowledge of English rather than using English for communication. More
seriously, cheating flourishes the pedagogic practices that are overwhelmed with
the practices of assessment of learning (AoL).
Therefore, assessment for learning (AfL) needs to be nurtured in ELE.
This assessment strategy encourages the teacher and the students to orient
themselves to “what is meaningful” in the teaching and learning process. Thus,
the assessment is intended to help the students learn better than before, not to
test them. In this case, assessment is used as a vital tool to reveal what the
students “can do” rather than what the students “cannot do”. On the basis of this
evidence, the teacher facilitates interactions using relevant media (e.g. rubric,
worksheet, etc.) in which questioning and feedback are integrated into the
pedagogic interaction to help the students recognise themselves during the
learning process and to nurture autonomous and independent learning.
Conclusion
The teaching of English in the HE is characterised by its nature that closely relates to
particular academic and professional settings. Thus, developing English language
education in this context requires all parties who have concerns on it to deal with the
complexity of academic and professional context.
As presented in this article, the development of literature worldwide has not
been followed with the appropriate language policy and practice in the Indonesian
context (see TEFLIN, 2011). As a result, many predicaments remain problematic not
only in the primary and secondary education but also in the higher education. At the
same time, needs and demands in workplace are changing which have to be catered to
maintain relevance and engagement of the language programs to the target academic
and professional context. Within this situation, the teaching of English is dynamic and
contextual. The emphasis on linguistic content is not sufficient to deal with the modern
10
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
needs. Innovative conceptions that elaborate the educational framework, contentintegrated teaching, learning to learn (L2L), learning beyond the classroom, assessment
for learning, etc., are desirable in this context. It is therefore necessary to review the
tenet of English Language Teaching (ELT) that usually signifies the emphasis on
linguistic content and technicality of language teaching as compared with English
Language Education (ELE); one which represents a wider and meaningful conception of
language teaching. In this case, the tenet of English Language Education (ELE) could
be greatly useful to open the opportunity to develop particular educational concepts,
philosophies, and practices that are relevant to the English learning in this era.
Alternatively, the word “teaching” in English Language Teaching needs to be
reinterpreted in a wider perspective to avoid being overwhelmed with the linguistics
aspects and technicality of classroom-driven teaching that can reduce the meaning of
communication and the message.
In Indonesian context, what is lacking until currently is to deal with meaning.
Adopting the perspective into the curriculum development requires conceptual
framework and theories which see curriculum, pedagogy and assessment as a
comprehensive and coherent efforts to place English in the appropriate place—a social
device.
References
ASEAN (2008) ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Bernstein, B. (2003b) Class, Codes and Control: The Structuring of Pedagogic
Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bolton, K. (2008) English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency.
English Today 94. 24(2). 3-12
Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi (2010) Buku Pedoman Kerangka Kualifikasi
Nasional Indonesia. Jakarta
Emilia, Hermawan, B., and Tati, D. (2008) “Pendekatan Genre-based dalam Kurikulum
Bahasa Inggris Tahun 2006: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas di sebuah SMP Negeri di
Bandung” Laporan Penelitian. Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
UPI.
Fortanet-Gomez, I. and Raisanen, C. A. (Eds) (2008) ESP in European Higher
Education: Integrating language and content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company
Kelly, A.V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 6th edn. London: Sage
Publications.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2012) Pedoman Pengembangan Kurikulum
2013. Jakarta
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as an Asia Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of
ELT. Language Teaching, 1-13
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
11
McKernan, J. (2008) Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and
Action Research. Milton Park: Routledge.
Novawan, A. (2008) The effects of previous English learning experience on students’
current English learning motivation and strategy in academic and professional
context. Unpublished Research Report: Department of English, Politeknik
Negeri Jember.
Print, M. (1993) Curriculum Development and Design. 2nd edn. NSW: Allen and
Unwin.
Richards, J. C. (2013) Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: forward, central,
and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33
Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum Construction and Critique. London: Falmer Press
Schiro, M. S. (2013) Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
TEFLIN (2011) Pernyataan Kebijakan tentang Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia.
Focus Group Discussion. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H. (2010) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
with Technology. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
12
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
professional settings
Adriadi Novawan, S.Pd., M.Ed.
Department of Language, Communication and Tourism, Politeknik Negeri Jember,
Indonesia
Abstract
The article addresses the development of English language education (ELE) and
explores perspectives to develop better English learning climates in the higher
education settings in Indonesia. It firstly outlines the development of ELE
theories worldwide influenced by the growth of constructivism theory. Then, it
particularly views the relationship between the development of ELE theories
worldwide and the reality of English language policy within the Indonesian
context. It is to argue that the national policy and its implementation have been
somewhat inferior to providing strong fundamentals for ELE in the higher level
of education—the higher education. Thus, this article proposes ideas to develop
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in a coherent manner to create more
engaging learning environment in order to cater for dynamic growth of academic
and professional contexts.
Keywords: English language education, higher education, curriculum and
pedagogic discourse
Theoretical review
The development of English language education (ELE) worldwide is currently
enlightened with the concerns of postmodern philosophies and practices that are more
sensitive to the complexity of socio-cultural contexts of learning. There was a time
when the philosophy of positivism overwhelmed the scholarly arena and forum that
contributed to the development of well-designed curriculum and pedagogical
approaches. Aspects of ELE such as curriculum design, materials development,
teaching methodology, and assessment strategy were predominated by scientific merit
that legitimated such approaches as the objective-oriented, teacher-centred,
performance-based, content-driven/classroom-driven, and achievement test.
Nevertheless, current development indicates that English language education is
undergoing changes influenced by postmodern philosophies and methodologies that
cannot be detached from the development of constructivism and socio-constructivism.
Kumaravadivelu (2003) originates the tenet of practicality, particularity, and possibility,
that asserts the importance of creativity and innovativeness for not being overwhelmed
by the box of particular “one-best-approach” (e.g. scientific approach) and orienting all
pedagogical processes to the students as the subject of learning and their unique needs
and background within their particular and specific socio-cultural context. As a result,
English language education is concerned that the teaching and learning activity is a
cyclical and iterative process that is complex, and which requires the proliferation of
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
1
agency roles in order to produce an engaging and meaningful English language
education.
Additionally, it is of great consensus that some well-known conceptions rooted
in particular educational theories such as life-long learning, assessment for learning,
metacognitive learning, inquiry-based learning, and softskill-based learning has been
widely elaborated into the English language education. It is signified with the increasing
number of studies and researches which addressed the topics such as those posed in
British and Europe literature (e.g. Fortanet-Gomez and Raisanen, 2008). With regard to
this development, Thomas and Reinders (2010) imply the same notion in that the
presence of various educational philosophies in the context of social studies in this
postmodern era has given the extensive effects on the development of English language
education. In turn, it encourages change and innovation in many aspects, such as those
in curriculum design, pedagogic practice and assessment approach.
ELT curriculum experts like Jack C. Richards (2013) posit a conception of ELT
curriculum development by highlighting the specialty of mechanism which
distinguishes one model from the others. According to him, there are three models:
forward, central, and backward design. The ELT curriculum can be designed by using a
linear procedure, which is called forward design. This design is content-driven,
emphasising the determination of content or knowledge as the most essential driver for
curriculum development. The second is central design, which postulates the centrality
of process and methodologies during the dynamic curriculum development. This design
is commonly known as a process-driven design. The last is represented by the
prominence of learning outcomes known as a product-driven design that, by Richards
(2013), is called backward design. The classification of the three models of curriculum
design implies the compatibility and interrelatedness between ELT curriculum design
and some well-known curriculum ideologies such as content, process and product
(Schiro, 2013; Kelly, 2009; McKernan, 2008; Print, 1993). The content-driven and
product-driven are epistemologically underpinned by positivist ideology, while the
process-driven curriculum is much influenced by constructivist.
Bernstein (2003), a famous sociologist of education, categorises what underpins
the curriculum design into two ideologies embodied in a line of continuum:
conservative is at one edge that originates performance-based curriculum and at the
other edge is progressive which underlines competence-based curriculum design. The
first is characterised by the strength of boundary between its contents indicated with the
prevailing formation of subjects or courses that very much consider the insulation
among them. The content of each subject or course tends to appreciate convergence that
emphasises the accuracy of curriculum content as a basis for the students’ cognitive
development, compared with the instructional goals. In this setting, the curriculum
success is measured on the performance results from the teaching and learning process
as specifically indicated on the instructional objectives.
On the other hand, competence-based curriculum deals with the achievement of
holistic competences without being separated by the insulation among the subjects or
courses. The instructional objectives are considered necessary to give direction and
vision for pedagogic practice; nevertheless, they do not coercively control its tactical
implementation. This type of curriculum concerns itself with the “big picture” of the
2
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
goals and explores spaces in the learning context for the students’ engagement with the
support of particular relevant and prolific conceptual framework and methodology.
Moreover, ELE pedagogy has flourished with abundant studies and researches
that consequently put forward very broad and diverse practices. This can be explicated
with a spectrum of pedagogy between those with text-based or linguistic-oriented and
those with more communicative or task-based. It ranges from those with teacher-centred
and classroom-driven to those with more individualised and space-driven teaching and
learning. From the convergent pedagogy to those which requires divergence with
abundant autonomy and spaces. So that the teaching of English today greatly varies
which not only provides opportunity for further development and studies but also
creates confusion for teachers in determining which of those will be appropriate to
particular situation.
The development of a particular pedagogic practice in ELE might influence the
assessment strategy practiced by the teachers. For instance, within the setting of a
positivist curriculum, pedagogic practice appreciates convergence and performance tied
to every piece of instructional objective. In this case, the assessment practice is aimed at
measure the students’ performance as compared with particular external criteria which
is more prone to the practice of assessment of learning (AoL). This reveals that the
curriculum offered and taught to the students is supposed to have been acquired by them
as specifically planned through the syllabus and the lesson plans. Thus, the success of
the teaching and learning process is measured against the specific instructional
objectives that have been previously determined in the timeline allotted. However, the
development of constructivism has coloured the conception with the model of
competence-based curriculum that recommends that the practice of ELE pedagogy
needs not to be co-opted with the breath and the depth of the targeted teaching materials
that can impose meaningful learning. In this case, the pedagogy needs to be flexible and
focus on the intrinsic process of learning itself without being separated from the local
context. Within this notion, the assessment strategy orients to helping the students learn
better through the interactional pedagogic approaches elaborating feedback, scaffolding,
and inquiry-based learning which is called assessment for learning (AfL).
The reality of ELE in Indonesia
How has the development of ELE in Indonesia been corresponding to the fruitful
development of ELE theories worldwide?
In the ASEAN context, the approaching of the AEC (ASEAN Economic
Community) 2015is believed to have a considerable impact on academic and
professional communication within a nation and across the nations. The AEC 2015 is
one of key agendas of ASEAN countries aimed to integrate the economy of ASEAN
members—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (ASEAN, 2008). Additional to these 10, other 3 nations
which have the important role in ASEAN economic development are China, Japan, and
South Korea which is known as ASEAN+3. The integration among these countries
stimulates mobilization of employees and professionals from a country to others and
increases the intensity of business encounters and communications in ASEAN context.
Based on the agreement among the countries, English was chosen as the official
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
3
language of communication for the purpose of ASEAN integration (Bolton, 2008;
Kirkpatrick, 2010). Consequently, the proficiency of English competence of the
ASEAN members relevant to the strategic sectors of the AEC 2015 becomes
prerequisite in order to create effective academic and professional communication.
Within the context of this integration, Indonesia is one of the countries needing
to have more preparatory agendas in terms of the English communication proficiency.
This is because English is not a second language as compared with some other ASEAN
members such as Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, where English is
alternatively used in daily life and for work. English in Indonesia is taught only during
English classes and none of the population speaks it in workplace settings and in everyday life situations. Thus, the English learning environment in Indonesia is far from ideal
and natural conditions of such socio-cultural environments as that in those countries that
genuinely encourage, nurture, and enable people to make use of English as lingua
franca for daily social and professional communication.
Furthermore, the reality of ELE curriculum in Indonesia cannot be detached
from its overarching setting – that of the national curriculum. Critiques have frequently
posed questions in terms of what is behind the national curriculum reforms that are
considered more instrumental rather than demand-driven. However, there is a
strengthening aspect of curriculum such as the improvement of coherence between
primary, secondary and higher education. The new curriculum 2013 is currently
becoming more sensitive to the relationship and sustainability of education among the
overall education levels (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2012). On the other
hand, the curriculum of higher education has undergone more dramatic change
following the establishment of the Indonesian Qualification Framework (IQF) which
aims to integrate the outcomes of educational programs conducted in different types of
educational institutions ranged from vocational, academic, to professional, and either
formal or non-formal education (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2010).
Within the national curriculum, which has undergone improvement in terms of
coherence between the levels, the policy for English language education represents
consistent concern nationwide or perhaps demonstrates deficiency in some aspects. In
the perspective of the new curriculum 2013, communicative competence is regarded as
a “future” competence instead of one that is immediately needed. Within the last
change, as stated on the content structure of the curriculum (Kementerian Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan, 2012), English as a subject is mandatorily conceived into the
curriculum of secondary education with 4 hours allotment time in a week both for junior
high school and senior high school, though not in that of primary schools. Although it is
national parental demand that makes English be taught in almost all elementary schools
in Indonesia (Kirkpatrick, 2010), English subject is consistently conceived as an
optional subject into the curriculum of elementary education.
The fact that English subject is not obliged to be offered to the elementary
students implies, in the perspective of the national curriculum, that English is not an
immediate subject since it can arguably be taught in the next levels. Since English is
considered optional according to the national policy, the implementation of ELT in
elementary schools confers somewhat problematic practices related to the instructional
development and the teacher professional development which are inferior in
strengthening the fundamental for the proficiency of English in the future either for
4
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
further educational levels or for professional settings. Even within this ongoing massive
teacher/lecturer certification program that is taking an incredible amount of the national
budget, the people are still pessimistic since what is happening currently demonstrates
that the program has successfully improved the teacher/lecturers’ financial prosperity
rather than their productivity and professional development.
Additionally, English language policy in elementary education does not support
the commonly held SLA (Second Language Acquisition) principle of CPH (critical
period hypothesis) which suggests that students are better learning a new language in
their early years. In this case, putting English as one of the optional subjects in the
elementary school curriculum is somewhat dissonant with the principle of CPH and
with the policy of high-stakes examination prevailed in the secondary school. This is
because the nature of English learning can be considered a process of learning that
cannot be instant and merely oriented to achieve a high score. When English as a
subject, is required to be taught at elementary school, students can have a better chance
to prepare themselves than just relying on English learning in the secondary school.
Thus, the national curriculum policy tends to be undermined by particular visions that
stimulate misleading pedagogic practice that focuses only on cognitive aspects of the
English language education—preparing the students to face the national examination.
This prevailing practice remains a huge gap between classroom learning and the actual
contextual settings, whereas, nurturing the application of English as lingua franca
requires the creation of pedagogical settings that enable the students to experience the
actual process of English communication in real contexts.
Another issue relates to the initiation of International Standard Schools (ISS)
program by the central government. The ISS, basically signifies a globalised
educational vision of the Indonesian government in order to be more prepared for the
international and ASEAN integration. More importantly, in turning it into a reality, that
has been, for years, found less meaningful. Put simply, the ISS is not a program that
relies only on the physical facilities and financial supports. It is more on how to prepare
the subject-content teachers to be able to teach their subjects using English that is a
long-term “space-based” investment rather than short-term one in order to provide the
required fundamentals for its implementation. In fact, many programs have been
trivially executed in the absence of sustainability such as the fact that teachers are
trained within a very short-intensive period without a systemic plan coherent with the
ISS development program. As a result, not only does it indicate the insufficiency of
English communication skills owned by the actors of teaching but also it results in
problematic practices related to the effectiveness of agency in creating the appropriate
climate of meaningful learning.
In addition to that, an extensive research conducted by Emilia, Hermawan &
Tati (2008) implies that the teaching of English in Indonesia has many predicaments;
one of them is signified with the lack of coherence between policy and its
implementation. Changes in the curriculum policy nation-wide have not been followedup with the appropriate changes in the pedagogic practices. Particularly, within the
competence-based curriculum where the schools are required to apply genre-based
approaches, the pedagogic practices have found to implement a genre-based approach
that is not genre-based, but a shallow and problematic approach.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
5
Moreover, in a scholarly event involving many nationally recognised scholars in
Indonesia, TEFLIN has investigated the problem and come up with convincing
evidence on the weakness of English language education in primary and secondary
schools that are mostly concerned with pedagogic practices in the classroom (2011).
The professional development of teachers is considered paramount to improve the
condition. It reflects that, so far, the prevailing policy and practice remains a challenge
for the development of ELE programs in the future and remains inferior to the
development of students’ English skills in the next level of education, namely, higher
education.
In line with the above reality, Novawan (2008) researched a higher education
institution and found that most of the participants of the interviews with the population
of 211 freshers expressed their discontent at the process of English pedagogy they had
experienced during their previous education levels. All of them agreed that the English
learning they perceived had been too much theoretically oriented and aimed to build up
their vocabulary and grammar repertoires with the main goal of attaining a high score at
the school and national examination. A part of the research investigated more deeply on
17 participants who were highly scored at the national examination, ranged from 9 to
10. A test comprised of writing and speaking, was given, and the results demonstrated
that their high grade obtained at the national examination might not represent their
English ability.
Wrapping up all of these issues, although English has become more important in
the ASEAN context, in fact this is not followed-up with the appropriate decision
enacted on the national policy of English language education in Indonesia. Consequent
to this trivial policy, its implementation through pedagogy and assessment has been
significantly problematic and meaningless as well as merely directed to the achievement
of high grades. While ELE theories worldwide shows consensus on how ELE becomes
more meaningful, the reality of ELE in Indonesia demonstrates the contrary—there is
meaning degradation in its process. In future, the national policy of primary and
secondary education needs to undergo greater reformation, far more coherently with the
context of learning and grounded in strong English language education theories and
frameworks. At the same time, the reality poses a challenge for the higher education to
improve the condition and to be aware of the impact of the reality above that makes the
challenge become heavier due to the internal weaknesses and external pressures.
Internal weaknesses include the English proficiency of freshers, policy on teacher
professional development, academic climate and the institutional curriculum settings.
The external pressures denote how the internal reality shall correspond to the demand of
industries and the development of socio-cultural context outside the education world.
Opportunity to develop ELE in HE
Students of university in Indonesia could generally have various English learning (EGP
and ESP) experiences through 3 main pathways: formal, non-formal, and informal
(Figure 1).
6
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
English as primary
courses
English major
departments
English as
supplementary
courses
Non-English major
departments
institutional training
and certification
Language centres
external training
and certification
Language courses
student/social
programs
English club, etc.
formal pathway
(curricular)
English learning
non-formal
pathway
(non-curricular)
informal pathway
(extra-curricular)
Figure 1. The pathways of English learning
In the formal pathway, English is an element of the degree program curriculum,
which contributes to particular credits of the English course part of the total credits
offered in the program. In this case, the English courses are offered as supplementary
courses to the discipline-specific courses in the curriculum, or the main courses related
to the core competence on the degree program curriculum. The first is in applying to
non-English departments while the latter is at English major departments. English
sources in these pathways are insufficient to support the students to be proficient users
of English for the purposes of academic and professional. Especially in the setting of
discipline-specific curriculum (non-English departments), the teaching of English
tremendously depends on the local/department policy; sometimes particular
departments consider English courses are not necessary. In terms of the curriculum,
English courses are often marginalised from the overarching curriculum due to the
insulation occurred between the disciplinary competences and the English competence.
As a result, English curriculum and pedagogy inadequately receive supervision,
evaluation and refinement. This situation causes the English courses within a disciplinespecific curriculum to be disengaged from the other courses within the overarching
curriculum.
In addition, in the English major departments, the main problem is usually
around the internal construction of the curriculum. The application of a subject-oriented
curriculum leads to greater insulation between one and other subjects even though they
are interrelated to each other. Subject-based curriculum is fundamentally derived from
performance-based curriculum ideology which conceptualise boundaries among the
English skills, for instance, Structure, Vocabulary, Speaking, Listening, Writing, etc.
This conception is usually claimed useful to help student focuses their learning on
particular English skills and components. Nevertheless, within a departmental
curriculum, these courses often do not reflect coherence between one course and the
other courses that make them meaningless for students learning. Whereas, studies and
researches aimed to explore, observe, and evaluate the reality have been very scarce, if
not, tend to be very instrumental for particular interests.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
7
Non-formal, English language learning, is experienced through non-curricular
programs. Many events can be established outside the curricular frame, for instance,
those in the form of trainings and certifications of particular English competence with
general and specific orientation of English skills. For example, those of TOEIC,
TOEFL, Academic Speaking, Academic Writing, English for Work, English for
Interview, English for Business, etc. These programs are usually organised by the
institutional language centre in a higher education institution, in support of the main
English course within the curriculum, and used to equip students with certain skills
demanded by the industries. Thus, these programs will be effective and useful when
they are inclusively established, and when they consider coherence between the
programs with the formal curriculum and industry’s perspectives. In addition, external
parties such as language courses outside the university may additionally expect to
support and facilitate those programs dependent on the need.
Students who are participating in any social (student) organisations may
experience particular programs that enrich their English competence development such
as English training, English competitions, and involving in English speaking
community within the university environment. These social events can provide
powerful impacts on the English acquisition of students joining the activities rather than
relying and centralising on the classroom teaching. A basic consideration would be that
English is a language that is, as any other languages, more easily learned through using
it in its social contexts where English is used for everyday for specific purposes.
Nevertheless, this potential is commonly ignored and marginalised and therefore
remains untouchable.
This wide range of opportunity portraits the extent to which the students of
higher education may take advantage of the English learning experience. This is a
challenge for all relevant parties to continuously develop and innovate the English
language education by elaborating all possible ways in order to result in better and
quality teaching and learning process.
Reflecting the development of ELE theories to the present reality in Indonesia,
there has been a great consensus concerning with the importance of perspectives which
regard the English class as a social activity which has to be meaningful for the students
to engage in. The theories are helpful for further refinement and innovation of
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment through the elaboration of multifaceted
approaches to cater for specific contexts for the sake of authentic learning. With this
view, claiming the success of English classes should not only rely on the classroom
matters but also on the learning environments outside the classroom as a part of social
community. This is the reason that makes the reality of learning English beyond the
classroom, complicated due to its interrelatedness with its dynamic socio-cultural
context. Therefore, ELE in the future should be directed itself to deal with such issues to
guide the implementation of English language pedagogy.
Some supreme principles to consider in developing ELE in Indonesian HE
context are as follows:
1. The English language education curriculum needs to be developed, based on a
particular philosophical framework that has deliberately been evaluated and
examined for its usefulness and meaningfulness for local and institutional
setting. The availability of this framework is a paramount necessity to provide
8
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
fundamental for the process, to map and to forecast changes as the effect of
dynamic interactions between academic and professional discourse, and between
both and the wider socio-cultural contexts. With a relevant philosophical stance
and framework, the flow of dynamic changes will not damage the internal
construction of the curriculum. Otherwise, without ideology, curriculum
development could undergo shallow, problematic and even misleading practice
in its process. Examples have been of evidence such as those that are only in the
level of its peripheral, and those merely covered the written document of
curriculum without being followed by the implementation. In addition, when
claiming for having implemented the competence-based curriculum, many
universities in fact have implemented what is substantially not a competencebased curriculum, but a performance-based curriculum that is philosophically
contradictory.
Moreover, curriculum development needs to consider that the elaboration
and collaboration for language curriculum development maps out different
pathways in order to create and nurture the appropriate climate for contextual
and authentic learning. The pathways of English learning in HE, possess
different potential to be linked and elaborated. Formal pathways, for instance,
have their vigour in the ultimate status within the socio-cultural contexts, but
tend to be very instrumental and bureaucratic. Non-formal pathways concentrate
on practical programs such as certification and trainings. Moreover, informal
pathways have abundant flexibility and spaces that are not efficiently well
employed yet. Excellent English teaching and learning in the HE can be further
developed by linking the three pathways together in the proper and appropriate
ways.
2. The role of ELE pedagogy needs to be revitalised. The development of
pedagogy firstly construes the philosophical stance determined in curriculum
development. Secondly, it is not merely a milieu for teaching the students with
English, but a centre for developing the curriculum, nurturing the appropriate
academic environment to support students’ English learning, improving the
teaching methods and in turn, they all mean chances for teacher professional
development.
As a centre for developing curriculum, ELE class is a vital research side
to observe in order to gain data and evidence to inform curriculum development.
The evidence obtained from it can be very beneficial to innovate curriculum.
The evidence is essential either to study teaching methodology that will be
workable for specific context. ELE class is also central for encouraging the
students’ intrinsic motivation that can be a starting point to nurture the Englishspeaking environment. The variation of ways to learn English in the HE posits
opportunity for linking formal, non-formal and informal pathways for the sake
of designing and creating a learning climate that provides the students with the
experience of genuine English communication. Therefore, ELE pedagogy needs
to be more flexible to open possibility for negotiation to accommodate its
sociocultural context.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
9
3. The practice of assessment has to be re-shaped in order to be meaningful for the
students and relevant with the learning process. Assessment has multipurposes—to test the English ability, to diagnose weaknesses, and to support
learning. In ELE context in Indonesia, assessment practice tends to be
instrumental to know if the students have acquired the intended and targeted
skills. This is the practice of assessment of learning. It is to assert that being coopted, with assessment of learning can cause serious negative impacts on the
process of learning. For teacher, the instructional design inclines to be oriented
merely to equip the students with the knowledge (not the skills) of English so
that they can answer the questions given on the tests and successful with the
tests. With this practice, the teacher tends to ignore the opportunity to work on
spaces to nurture the climate for intrinsic learning. What is more crucial in this
situation is bringing the students to be successful in the local and national
exams, which is strongly theoretical-oriented.
For students, they are trapped on the wrong learning motivation and
strategy. For instance, they sporadically prepare themselves for the test without
sufficient time to internalise the lessons. Additionally, this climate builds
negative assumption in their minds, in which, learning English means learning
the knowledge of English rather than using English for communication. More
seriously, cheating flourishes the pedagogic practices that are overwhelmed with
the practices of assessment of learning (AoL).
Therefore, assessment for learning (AfL) needs to be nurtured in ELE.
This assessment strategy encourages the teacher and the students to orient
themselves to “what is meaningful” in the teaching and learning process. Thus,
the assessment is intended to help the students learn better than before, not to
test them. In this case, assessment is used as a vital tool to reveal what the
students “can do” rather than what the students “cannot do”. On the basis of this
evidence, the teacher facilitates interactions using relevant media (e.g. rubric,
worksheet, etc.) in which questioning and feedback are integrated into the
pedagogic interaction to help the students recognise themselves during the
learning process and to nurture autonomous and independent learning.
Conclusion
The teaching of English in the HE is characterised by its nature that closely relates to
particular academic and professional settings. Thus, developing English language
education in this context requires all parties who have concerns on it to deal with the
complexity of academic and professional context.
As presented in this article, the development of literature worldwide has not
been followed with the appropriate language policy and practice in the Indonesian
context (see TEFLIN, 2011). As a result, many predicaments remain problematic not
only in the primary and secondary education but also in the higher education. At the
same time, needs and demands in workplace are changing which have to be catered to
maintain relevance and engagement of the language programs to the target academic
and professional context. Within this situation, the teaching of English is dynamic and
contextual. The emphasis on linguistic content is not sufficient to deal with the modern
10
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
needs. Innovative conceptions that elaborate the educational framework, contentintegrated teaching, learning to learn (L2L), learning beyond the classroom, assessment
for learning, etc., are desirable in this context. It is therefore necessary to review the
tenet of English Language Teaching (ELT) that usually signifies the emphasis on
linguistic content and technicality of language teaching as compared with English
Language Education (ELE); one which represents a wider and meaningful conception of
language teaching. In this case, the tenet of English Language Education (ELE) could
be greatly useful to open the opportunity to develop particular educational concepts,
philosophies, and practices that are relevant to the English learning in this era.
Alternatively, the word “teaching” in English Language Teaching needs to be
reinterpreted in a wider perspective to avoid being overwhelmed with the linguistics
aspects and technicality of classroom-driven teaching that can reduce the meaning of
communication and the message.
In Indonesian context, what is lacking until currently is to deal with meaning.
Adopting the perspective into the curriculum development requires conceptual
framework and theories which see curriculum, pedagogy and assessment as a
comprehensive and coherent efforts to place English in the appropriate place—a social
device.
References
ASEAN (2008) ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Bernstein, B. (2003b) Class, Codes and Control: The Structuring of Pedagogic
Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bolton, K. (2008) English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency.
English Today 94. 24(2). 3-12
Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi (2010) Buku Pedoman Kerangka Kualifikasi
Nasional Indonesia. Jakarta
Emilia, Hermawan, B., and Tati, D. (2008) “Pendekatan Genre-based dalam Kurikulum
Bahasa Inggris Tahun 2006: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas di sebuah SMP Negeri di
Bandung” Laporan Penelitian. Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
UPI.
Fortanet-Gomez, I. and Raisanen, C. A. (Eds) (2008) ESP in European Higher
Education: Integrating language and content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company
Kelly, A.V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 6th edn. London: Sage
Publications.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2012) Pedoman Pengembangan Kurikulum
2013. Jakarta
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as an Asia Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of
ELT. Language Teaching, 1-13
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014
11
McKernan, J. (2008) Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and
Action Research. Milton Park: Routledge.
Novawan, A. (2008) The effects of previous English learning experience on students’
current English learning motivation and strategy in academic and professional
context. Unpublished Research Report: Department of English, Politeknik
Negeri Jember.
Print, M. (1993) Curriculum Development and Design. 2nd edn. NSW: Allen and
Unwin.
Richards, J. C. (2013) Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: forward, central,
and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33
Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum Construction and Critique. London: Falmer Press
Schiro, M. S. (2013) Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
TEFLIN (2011) Pernyataan Kebijakan tentang Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia.
Focus Group Discussion. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H. (2010) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
with Technology. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
12
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 1(1) 2014