Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:08:23.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovation in Curriculum Planning and Program Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Ron V. White
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following definitions by Havelock and Huberman (1978) and Nicholls (1983), innovation can be defined as a deliberate effort, perceived as new and intended to bring about improvement. As such, innovation is distinguished from change which is any difference that occurs between Time one and Time two. What is crucial in innovation is that it is change involving human intervention.

Since human agency is involved, innovation can be viewed from many angles: individual, social, organizational, political, technological, and historical. Not surprisingly, much attention has been given to the technological aspects of innovation, among which can be included language pedagogy.

Information

Type
Innovation In Second Language Teaching
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 13 , March 1992, pp. 244 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bachman, L. F. 1989. The development and use of criterion-referenced tests of language teaching ability in language program evaluation. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, K. 1992. The process of innovation in language teacher development: What, why and how teachers change. In Flowerdew, J., Brock, M. and Hsia, S. (eds.) Perspectives on second language teacher education. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. 1990. The program evaluator: The ESL researcher without portfolio. Applied Linguistics. 11.1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. (ed.) 1990. The second language curriculum in action. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. and Hood, S.. 1990. Curriculum innovation in adult ESL. In Brindley, G. (ed.) The second language curriculum in action. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1989. Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 222–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D., Lotto, L. S. and MacCarthy, M.. 1980. Factors associated with success in urban elementary schools. Phi Delta Kappa. 61.467–470.Google Scholar
Clark, D. L. S. and Astuto, T.. 1984. Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly. 20.3.41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. F. 1989. Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. Language Teaching. 22.73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edge, J. 1992. Co-operative development. ELT Journal. 46.62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elley, W. B. 1989. Tailoring the evaluation to fit the context. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 270–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J., Brock, M. and Hsia, S. (eds.) 1992. Perspectives on second language teacher education. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. 1989. Teacher training, development and decision-making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly. 23.27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A.. 1991. What's worth fighting for in your school. Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.Google Scholar
Fullan, M., with Stiegelbauer, S.. 1991. The new meaning of educational change, 2nd ed.Toronto and New York: OISE Press and Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Galton, M. (ed.) 1980. Curriculum change. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. 1986. Critical theory and education. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Handy, C. A. 1984. Taken for granted? Understanding schools as organizations. London: Longman and Schools Council.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1990. The second language programme evaluation literature: Accommodating experimental and multifaceted approaches. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 3.83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havelock, R. G. and Huberman, A. M.. 1978. Solving educational problems: The theory and reality of innovation in developing countries. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, L. E. 1989. Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC effort in Japan. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Holliday, A. 1990. A role for soft systems methodology in ELT projects. System.18.77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huberman, A. M. 1973. Understanding change in education: An introduction. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Irujo, S. 1990. How to plan content-based teaching units for ESL. Paper presented at the 24th Annual TESOL Convention. San Francisco, March 1990. [ED320452, FLO18663]Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K. (ed.) 1989. The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, B. (ed.) 1990. Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Joyce, B. and Showers, B.. 1988. Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kelly, P. 1980. From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspectives of curriculum development. In Galton, M. (ed.) Curriculum change. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 65–80.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. 1988. Evaluation of the management of change in ELT Projects. Applied Linguistics. 9.329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lonergan, J. 1991. A decade of development: Educational technology and language learning. Language Teaching. 24.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loucks-Horsley, et al. 1987. Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands and National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. 1990. A context-adaptive model of program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 24.23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B. (ed.) 1964. Innovation in education. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. 1990. Evaluation of second language teaching projects and programmes. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 3.3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. 1983. Managing educational innovation. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1989. Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: A case study. TESOL Quarterly. 23.9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. 1991. Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly. 25.279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C. (ed.) 1991. Language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 1989. The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 23.589–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992a. ELT: The native speaker's burden? ELT Journal. 46.12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992b. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F.. 1971. Communication of innovations: A cross cultural approach, 2nd ed.New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Schoppa, L. J. 1991. Education reform in Japan: A case of immobilist politics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheerin, S. 1991. Self access. Language Teaching. 24.137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, M. A., Met, M. and Genessee, F.. 1989. A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly. 23.201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, F. L. 1992. Analysis of innovations in selected higher education intensive English programs: A focus on administrators’ perceptions. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Ed.D. diss.Google Scholar
Tripp, S. D. 1990. The idea of a lexical meta-syllabus. System. 18.209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, A. 1992. The role of groups in developing teacher self-awareness. ELT Journal. 46.71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, R. 1990. Using complementary approaches to evaluate second language programmes. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 3.19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ur, P. 1992. Teacher learning. ELT Journal. 46.56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J. 1988. Innovation in foreign language teaching. AILA Review. 5.99–117.Google Scholar
White, R. V. 1987. Managing innovation. ELT Journal. 41.211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. V. 1988. The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar