LICS from CATS - a managed approach to the curriculum

Authors: Elspeth Jones and Ricarda Zoellner

© Jones and Zoellner, Leeds Metropolitan University

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Context
• Features of LICS
• Issues
• Benefits
• Summary
• Appendix 1 Leeds Metropolitan University - Taxonomy of Undergraduate Assessment Domains
• Appendix 2 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages - Summary
• Appendix 3 Assessment of Key Skills - Languages for International Communication Scheme
• Appendix 4 Sample Module Description

This paper was originally presented at the Setting the Agenda: Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies in Higher Education conference, 24-26 June 2002.

Introduction

It is widely accepted that language departments currently face a number of pressures, whether through the decline in applications from school leavers, from the need to widen participation, resource efficiency requirements or a reduction in the full-time student body. This paper considers how the Centre for Language Study at Leeds Metropolitan University (CLS) has sought to address these challenges through an innovative approach to the curriculum, which draws, inter alia, on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. A Centre-wide scheme now offers a series of awards for all of its 2,500 undergraduates, whether they be full or part-time, home or international and incorporates all 26 languages offered by the Centre.

Context

CLS already had in place a Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (CATS), which enabled part-time students to achieve a series of staged target awards, ultimately leading to a BA Honours. The curriculum and assessment methods were different from those in place for full-time undergraduates, which created a situation where:

• staff had to cope with a wide range of modules and assessment methods;
   
• although standardisation was undertaken, different language modules meant some inconsistencies in learning outcomes across languages;
   
• there were few transfer opportunities for those wishing to change from part-time to full-time mode or vice versa.

In addition, there were issues which many other departments face such as:

• a declining number of full-time students requiring efficiency gains to be made;
• the need to benchmark language competence against agreed university descriptors of levels one, two and three (See Appendix 1 for Leeds Metropolitan University's Taxonomy of Undergraduate Assessment Domains);
• quality assurance requirements and the need to rationalise academic management;
• the need to widen participation and provide a framework for lifelong language learning;
• a large body of part-time staff.

CLS has around 2,500 students from diverse backgrounds and with a variety of learning needs:

• full-time undergraduates;
• part-time students (mainly mature) in 26 languages;
• students training to be teachers in any one of the above languages;
• business clients learning languages for specific purposes;
• students of English as a Foreign Language from around 60 countries.

It was decided to attempt to develop a single scheme which would cover all these learners and try to resolve the issues raised above. The title chosen was Languages for International Communication Scheme, or LICS and the scheme was implemented in 2001/02 for the first time.

Features of LICS

As noted above, one of our primary concerns was to resolve the issue of level of language competence in relation to university levels one, two and three. Along with many other departments, we have been under constant pressure to explain how, for example, pre-A level language competence can be justifiable at, say, level two in the university curriculum. We decided to divorce language competence from university level descriptors to put this argument to rest once and for all. Five generic language modules were developed for each of levels one, two and three, based on the transferable and academic skills as defined by the University's taxonomy. (See Appendix 1)

Table 1 Example of Leeds Metropolitan University's Level descriptors

These generic modules can be adapted for different languages and levels of language competence. Differing degrees of language competence can be accommodated in any of these modules at any level, with learning outcomes as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. See Appendix 2 for summary). This was chosen because:

• the six levels fit well with university awards and levels;
• it describes virtually every possible use of language and can be adapted to all assessment tasks;
• it articulates in detail what the learner can do, making it easy for tutors to understand.

Assessment is then devised taking into account the language, level of language competence and the transferable skills to be assessed. This offers the significant advantage of flexibility (See Appendix 4 for an example of a full module description with associated assessment). Students from different courses studying at the same level of language competence can be grouped together. The assessment, however, must reflect the university level of the students, which is achieved by clearly-defined assessment criteria. (See Appendix 3 for identification of Key Skills assessment across the language modules in the scheme).

Issues

• Working with many part-time tutors means that information has to be spelled out in detail to avoid confusion. This has led to greater complexity than originally planned, although the scheme design remains very flexible.
• There are some issues with the Common European Framework, for example, level B1 is extremely broad and covers a wider range of language competence than the other descriptors.
• A desire for academic simplicity has resulted in complex administrative systems, with students studying modules at different university levels in the same class as a result of their equivalent language competence.
• Rate of progress is an issue in some languages, for example Japanese and others with a non-Roman script.

Benefits

• Ease of delivery for tutors has been a major benefit in the context of diverse awards and a varied student body.
• The scheme is an excellent vehicle for staff development, both operationally and in terms of professional development such as pedagogy and language acquisition processes.
• Standardisation of language competence across languages has been made easier.
• Flexible course delivery for students has resulted in a wider range of languages as options.
• Resource efficiency reduces the threat of languages being under pressure.

Summary

Although the creation of the scheme was a complex and time-consuming development, the resulting benefits so far seem to outweigh the disadvantages. It remains to be seen whether this continues to be the case.

Appendix 1 Leeds Metropolitan University - Taxonomy of Undergraduate Assessment Domains

Appendix 2 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages - Summary

Appendix 3 Assessment of Key Skills - Languages for International Communication Scheme

Leeds Metropolitan University
The grid shows where key skills are assessed across the generic language modules in the scheme

Appendix 4 Sample Module Description

Leeds Metropolitan University
Languages for International Communication Scheme

Prerequisites

To have achieved the language competence as specified for admission to the route.

Learning Outcomes

All tasks in the target language will be at a level appropriate to the language descriptors specified for the award.

On completion of this module students will be able to:

• discuss or write effectively about a number of everyday topics in the target language;
• understand spoken and written simulated and authentic texts on a range of non-specialist topics;
• operate effectively and constructively in pairs and groups.

Indicative Content

The exact content will vary according to the target language. Areas for focus, however, will include:

• oral interaction in a range of everyday communication contexts;
• writing texts for a range of everyday communication contexts;
• comprehension of simulated and authentic spoken and written texts;
• vocabulary development.

Assessment Procedures

The mode of assessment will vary according to the route. In selecting the mode of assessment, consideration will be given to the students' overall study programme. The mode of assessment which is most sympathetic to and coherent with other modules will be selected. Synoptic assessment with other language modules will be encouraged where possible.

i) Presentation and project
Students will give an oral presentation based on a written group project.

or

ii) Coursework
Assignments and class tasks will be completed to reflect the four language skills and will include group work. They may be conducted under tutor or student-controlled conditions.

Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy

Language classes based on an interactive approach to language learning and teaching including, individual, pair and group work activities.

Indicative Distribution of Learning Hours

Key and Associated Skills

This module reflects the level 1 competencies identified by the Taxonomy of Assessment Domains and the following are specifically assessed on this module:

• Communication
• Group/Interpersonal skills

This module is offered in the following languages:

Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, EFL, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish Gaelic, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish.