European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
10.5281/zenodo.58533
Volume 2│Issue 1│2016
JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF
INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Charles M. Magomai
Department of Educational Management, Policy and Curriculum Studies,
Kenyatta University, P.O. Box 43844 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract:
This study focused on the justification for initiation and introduction of integrated
English curriculum in secondary schools in Kenya. The study used a qualitative
approach to get the views from selected teachers, head teachers and heads of English at
Kenya Institute of Education (KIE), Ministry of Education (MoE) and Kenya National
Examinations Council (KNEC). Basic quantitative techniques such as frequencies and
percentages were used to analyse some of the data that were obtained. The study
employed questionnaire and interview instruments to collect data from the
respondents. The researcher organized raw data collected from questionnaires and
interviews. It was realized from the study that integrated English curriculum was
introduced to enable teachers use integration as a teaching approach across the two
disciplines and between and/or among their constituent parts. Despite this good
intention, it was found that majority of the teachers of integrated English 57.4 % did not
undergo any type of in-service training before they started the actual teaching of
integrated English curriculum. The study recommends that the teachers and their head
teachers should be helped to acquire and develop necessary skills on how to integrate
English language and Literature. Equally, the study recommends that pre-service
training in colleges, universities should be reformed, and an integrated approach
adopted.
Keywords: curriculum initiation, curriculum introduction, integrated curriculum;
integrated English curriculum, secondary schools
i
Correspondent author: magoma.charles@ku.ac.ke
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved
Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015.
70
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Background to the Study
English language plays a very significant role in Kenya. It is the official medium of
instruction in all school subjects (starting from Standard 4) except for other languages
such as Kiswahili, French and German. This means that English language is a service
subject across the curriculum and also the language of examinations. English language
is also used in the judiciary, commerce and in parliament (Waithaka, 1993; Sereti, 1993;
Teyle and Okatch, 1991; Republic of Kenya (RoK), 1964). Further, English language is a
language of regional communication, used in East African regional forums. The
language is also one of the leading media for communication in international
conferences and meetings (Okwara, Shiundu and Indoshi, 2009). The importance of
English language in the Kenyan school curriculum cannot therefore be overstated.
Due to the importance and role that English language plays in education in
Kenya, the Ministry of Education (MoE) places a lot of emphasis on the development of
the subject.
The Ministry also has tasked teachers of English language with the
responsibility of helping the learners to be able to express themselves effectively in both
oral and written work (Sereti, 1993).
Curriculum Innovation in Kenya
Curriculum is by nature very dynamic and it is usually necessary to change it according
to the ever-changing needs of the society, new knowledge and new ways of organising
the curriculum [Kenya Institute of Education (KIE), 1999]. To accommodate the
dynamism of any society, the school curriculum should be reviewed from time to time
to take into account any emerging concerns, changes and challenges (Abagi, et al., 2000;
and Kiminza, 2000). Consequently, a number of curriculum innovations have been
mounted by the government of Kenya since independence. The rationale for most of the
curricula innovations has been to improve the value of the curricula offered in schools.
The result of the syllabus review of 1984/85 (that resulted in the 8-4-4 system of
education) brought about a diversification of the curriculum in schools. Many new
subjects were introduced, others gained new names and others underwent changes in
their content and objectives. Amongst the subjects affected was the secondary school
English language curriculum. English language was integrated with Literature and the
resulting subject was renamed integrated English. As a result of these changes, an
integrated course of English language and Literature was introduced into the secondary
schools in 1986 [Muutu, 1993; Ministry of Education (MoE), 1984]. Otherwise, in the
previous system of education, English language and Literature were taught separately
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
71
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
and not necessarily by the same teacher. In fact, Literature in English fell under Group 2
(Humanities) while English language was classified on its own as Group 1 (Kenya
National Examinations Council (KNEC), 1986).
The integration of English language and Literature in its broad sense meant that
the same teacher would teach the two subjects as one subject: English (KIE, 1987).Thus,
the teacher of English was expected to have a sound command of the English language
as well as possess sufficient understanding, knowledge and skills in Literature. Despite
this requirement and expectation that the teachers teach English language and
Literature as one subject – English, the two subjects continued to be examined
separately. This practice worked against the demand to teach the two subjects in an
integrated manner.
The 8-4-4 curriculum was revised in 1992 and 1995 (MoE, 2010 and Kiminza,
2000). The 1992 revision entailed re-organization of subject content across subjects and
levels, revision of some examination requirements and reduction of some content in
some subjects. In its evaluation of the secondary curriculum in 1995, KIE recommended
separation of English language and Literature, arguing that the combination of the two
subjects tended to seriously overshadow English language. The Commission of Inquiry
into the Education System of Kenya (RoK, 1999) also recommended that the integration
of the two subjects be stopped.
Despite the recommendation that integration be done away with, the 2002
English syllabus has retained integration. The current secondary English curriculum, in
its re-organized form, has adopted an integrated approach not only to teaching, but also
to the assessment of English language and Literature (KIE, 2002).This re-organization is
meant to improve the standards of teaching and performance in English (MoE, 2006;
KIE, 2002). At this point, it is important to note that performance in integrated English
has been consistently below average, contrary to expectations, at both the national and
provincial levels since 1989 when the first 8-4-4 examinations were conducted. The
national mean percentage marks ranged between 24.50 and 42.74 between 1989 and
2010.
According to the Ministry of Education (2006), the re-organized and
strengthened secondary English curriculum is supposed to be taught through the four
language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and grammar. The content for
language and that of the various genres of Literature (poetry, drama, short stories and
novels) is, therefore, covered under these skills. This means that the teacher is expected
to focus on both the skill and the content. For example, the teacher is required to use
content from oral Literature and poetry to teach the four English language skills.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
72
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Further, according to the Ministry of Education (2006), the teacher is also
expected to teach the features and the content of oral Literature and poetry. By doing
this, oral Literature and poetry are taught in a natural context, thus making learning
more meaningful and interesting. However, since the two genres call for reading, they
are also taught under the reading skill.
Grammar is another area that has been re-organized such that parts of speech,
phrases, clauses, and sentences are the broad areas under which grammar content will
be taught (MoE, 2006). This content is presented in a spiral approach so that each of the
areas is taught from Form One to Form Four but the level of difficulty of the content
varies according to the class level.
Written Literature should be covered under the reading skill. The learner
should be introduced to the reading skills: silent reading, interpretive reading, critical
reading and study reading, among others taught (MoE, 2006). According to the MoE,
these skills prepare the learner for intensive reading through which the learner will be
expected to do a critical analysis of the novels, plays, short stories and poems.
The secondary English curriculum is currently organized in such a way that
none of the language skills should be taught or assessed in isolation (MoE, 2006). The
teacher should, therefore, as much as possible integrate the teaching and assessment of
the skills. This will help avoid segmentation of the teaching and assessment of the
individual skills and will make the learning of the skills complementary. For example,
while teaching reading, the teacher may reinforce the mastery of grammar by pointing
out instances of grammatical items already taught.
The teacher may also generate writing tasks and debates from the reading
materials. The teacher can also use a novel, which is being studied under intensive
reading to generate a descriptive essay for the teaching or assessment of writing skills.
This will not only make the teaching or assessment of the writing skill more meaningful
but will also provide the learner with more opportunities to interact with the literary
text and consequently enhance their understanding of the text (KIE, 2002). Kenya
Institute of Education recommends that grammar should also be taught using this
integrated approach. Content drawn from literary and non-literary materials should be
used either to introduce a grammatical concept or to reinforce the learner s
understanding of the concept.
The Ministry of Education (2006) points out that integration are based on the
premise that good masterly of language enhances effective appreciation of literary
material. On the other hand, it points out that literary material provides a natural
context for teaching of language. This means that the methods used in the
teaching/learning and assessment of English language and literature should facilitate
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
73
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
integration. The teacher should, therefore, endeavour to understand the integrated
approach.
According to KNEC (2006), major changes have been introduced in secondary
English examination format. It now adopts an integrated approach, where English
language is tested together with Literature. Previously, the two were tested separately,
with language being tested in papers One and Two; and Literature in Paper Three. In
the new format, English Paper One examines functional skills- application of language
in daily life; while Paper Two contains comprehension, literary appreciation and
grammar. Paper Three assesses writing through creative composition and composition
based on set Literature books.
Previously, Paper One was on composition; Paper Two grammar and Paper
Three Literature. The Literature paper comprised oral Literature, poetry and set literary
books. But now these (Composition, Grammar and Literature) have been integrated and
are being tested together in all the three papers. For example, functional skills tested in
Paper One are about prose; literary appreciation in Paper Two is about writing
techniques used in writing Literature; and so is Paper Three s creative composition
based on set texts.
A Strong Case for the Integration of English Language and Literature
The approach to English which relies on a sharp division between Literature and
English language and between the component parts of the latter cannot succeed in
practical classroom teaching (Brumfit, 1985). Brumfit feels that teaching of English
language and Literature, as one subject will make the teaching of language more
practical than when the two areas are taught separately. Literature, according to
Brumfit, is a vital component of English language teaching. This is because Literature as
an appropriate vehicle for language learning and development since the focus is now
authentic language and authentic situations. Brumfit, further states that Literature
provides learners with a convenient source of content for language teaching by making
language learning practical.
According to Radhika (1991), literature is an activity involving and using
language. It is an example of language in use, and is a context for language use. Thus,
studying the language of literary texts as language in operation is seen as enhancing the
learner s appreciation of aspects of the different systems of language organization.
Carter (1986) insists that English language and Literature teaching should be more
closely integrated and harmonized so that Literature would not be isolated, possibly
rejected, on account of literariness of its language.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
74
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Radhika (1991) further argues that some of the language activities and work with
models on the literariness of texts can aid such development, and that responses can
best develop with increased response to and confidence in working with a language
using a variety of integrated activities, with language-based hypotheses and in classes
where investigative, student-centred learning is the norm. He feels that if students are
encouraged to use language imaginatively, their interest and motivation for learning
English language will increase, and eventually lead to improved use and performance.
For him, to assess or to examine literature in an integrated way, demands teaching
strategies that also integrate language and Literature, allowing activities which require
language, which involve students in experiencing language, playing with language,
analysing language, responding to language and enjoying language.
The use of literature promotes language acquisition (Sivasubramaniam, 2006). It
provides interesting contexts for students to generate input, negotiate meaning and
develop motivation. Literature thus becomes an efficient vehicle for language
acquisition. As literary texts contain multiple layers of meaning, they can promote
classroom activities that call for exchange of feelings and opinions (Sivasubramaniam,
2006). Literature develops a sense of involvement in the students (Lazar, 1993; Carter
and Long, 1991; Collie and Slater, 1987).
The study of literary genres develops language awareness in students. The
interesting contexts provided by literary texts serve to illustrate the noticeability of
lexical and syntactical features (Sivasubramaniam, 2006). Sivasubramaniam further
argues that prolonged exposure to literary texts not only familiarizes students with the
numerous interesting features of the written language but also develops the response
potential in them. As students respond to literary texts, they begin to realize how
meaning as an outcome of response can open up contexts for imaginative use of
language (Gibbs, 1994; Collie and Slater, 1987).
Povey (1972) argues that literature increases all language skills because it extends
linguistic knowledge by giving evidence of extensive and subtle vocabulary usage, and
complex and exact syntax. Therefore, it can be concluded that Literature contributes to
knowledge of language use. Literature, by fostering an overall increase in reading
proficiency, may well contribute to promoting the students
academic and or
professional goals (Sivasubramaniam, 2006).
Savvidou (2004) suggests that rather than perceiving literary discourse as
separate and remote from non-literary discourse, we ought to consider the variety of
text types along a continuum with some being more literary than others. According to
Savvidou, the separation of Literature from language is a false dualism since literature
is language and language can indeed be literary. She points out that it is not difficult to
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
75
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
find instances of standard transactional forms of discourse which make use of a whole
array of literary devices. Savvidou further says that the boundaries that are thought to
exist between literary and non-literary discourse are not so distinct. Indeed, as
Widdowson (1979) suggests, the procedures, which are used to interpret literary
discourse, are essentially the same for interpreting any type of discourse.
Literature, according to Savvidou (2004), offers a distinct literary world, which
can widen the learners understanding of their own and other cultures, and it can create
opportunities for personal expression as well as reinforce learners knowledge of lexical
and grammatical structure. She adds that an integrated approach to the use of
Literature offers learners strategies to analyze and interpret language in context in order
to recognize not only how language is manipulated but also why. An integrated
approach to the use of Literature in the language classroom offers learners the
opportunity to develop not only their linguistic and communicative skills but also their
knowledge about language in all its discourse types. Therefore, the use of literary texts
in the language classroom can be a potentially powerful pedagogic tool in the learners
linguistic development.
According to Salih (1986), student surveys show that language skills seem to
develop through studying literature in English. The positive impact of Literature upon
language skills is by no means novel, since students exercise or practice all of the skills
in Literature courses. During Literature class, students are required to listen to what an
instructor is saying, jot down notes, ask or answer questions, and to read passages
relevant to the idea s under consideration. Obeidat s 1997 observations of his
students in a Literature classroom showed that Literature helped them:
1. Acquire a native-like competency in English;
2. Express their ideas in good English;
3. Learn the features of modern English;
4. Learn how the English linguistic system is used for communication;
5. See how idiomatic expressions are used;
6. Speak clearly, precisely, and concisely, and
7. Become more proficient in English, as well as become creative, critical, and
analytical learners.
John (1986) says that a student of linguistics learns about language, while a
student of Literature learns language as used in poetry, drama, fiction, or any other
genre. Literature should not and cannot be taught solely for a linguistic purpose as
people prefer to propose (Obeidat, 1997). Obeidat argues that Literature has more to
offer than language would normally do, since it has greater freedom and since it
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
76
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
acknowledges no linguistic barriers that restrain our ability to use language. Therefore,
students gain a lot from its quality and excellence.
Indangasi (1988) opines that integration of English language and Literature will
compel learners to appreciate the special relationship between the two subjects and
consequently the special way in which literary writers use language. Integration of
language and Literature aids the learning of vocabulary and reading skills since the
latter has a lot of materials (Omollo, 1990; Brumfit, 1985). Indangasi (1988) further
asserts that effective teaching of English language can be done through the use of
literary texts.
An integrated syllabus, according to Muthiani (1988), can help teachers to teach
their learners all the possible meanings of polysemic words using relevant texts such
that when they meet the same words again, they are able to discover their meanings in
the new contexts. He is of the opinion that a teacher of Literature and English language
should teach language and usage, not as ends in themselves, but as tools for
understanding and expression. Mwanzi (1987) points out that Literature is language in
context; language used creatively for aesthetic purposes.
For Carter (1986), literary texts are a fertile ground, which allows mutual
supportive integration of areas, which are often kept distinct in the English language
classroom. He adds that creative writing can spring from the involvement with literary
aspects especially when English language and Literature are taught complementarily.
Omollo (1990) says that skills such as narration are best enhanced when learners read
and appreciate literary works where such style of writing is used. Thus, through
constant writing practice, the teacher of English language can ensure that the format of
writing is mastered.
Oxford (1996) argues that the integrated–skill approach, as contrasted with the
purely segregated approach, exposes English language learners to authentic language
and challenges them to interact naturally in the language. Learners rapidly gain a
picture of the richness and complexity of the English language as employed for
communication. This approach allows teachers to track students progress in multiple
skills at the same time. Integrated-skill approach can be highly motivating to students
of all ages and backgrounds.
Welleck and Warren (1949) point out that language forms the raw material for or
the vehicle through which Literature is passed. They also assert that in reading literary
texts, learners have a lot to cope with the language intended for the native speakers.
They gain familiarity with the different linguistic uses, forms and conventions of the
written mode. They further emphasize the importance of extensive reading and indicate
that learners develop the ability to make references from linguistic cues and deduce
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
77
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
meaning from the context. In this context, KIE (1987:15) recommends that the reading
component of the English syllabus should expose the learner to applied language by
stating:
Reading plays a pivot-point role without which the integration of language and
Literature becomes impossible. A lot of quality reading (intensive and extensive) must
therefore be undertaken and sustained throughout the course.
The integration of English language and Literature is also supported by Senanu and
Drid (1995). They propose that the teaching of English be more closely tied to the
teaching of Literature. Hence, English language must be taught through Literature
written in English to provide students with live and communicative situations in the
classroom through dramatization and discussion of literature texts. Muchiri (1986) talks
of the inseparability of language and Literature in that the study of one would facilitate
the teaching of the other. Therefore, Literature should form the central core of English
language.
For Evans (1984), drama contributes to the realization of the aims for English
teaching through:
1. Providing opportunities for learners to practice a wide range of language
registers, thus extending vocabulary, particularly that which is demanded by
unfamiliar contexts
2. Encouraging particular kinds of language use, essential in drama process, but too
often neglected in English teaching
3. Building confidence, particularly through group co-operation and sharing of
ideas
4. Furthering appreciation and interpretation of the written word and stimulating
the learner s own writing work
5. Allowing the less conventionally academic pupil learner scope for success, thus
re-orienting all the learners notion of areas for success
6. Helping to explore and destroy stereo-types (particularly sexist and racial ones).
Thus, drama has far more to offer English language than simply a shared interest
in the script play, which is where the relationship has too often ended in the past.
According to Broughton and Brumfit (1978), poetry teaching stimulates language
learning. Through poetry, all the four skills of language learning can be taught and
learnt (KIE, 1987). On the other hand, in an integrated language course, the ideas that
come from reading a story become a catalyst for listening, speaking, reading and further
writing (Morganthau, 1998). Reading, according to Collie and Slatter (1987), exposes the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
78
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
learner to many functions of the written language and makes the learner gain
familiarity with the many features of the written language and different ways of
connecting ideas.
“ccording to Davies 1973 , Literature is seen to develop the learner s own use of
language, aids reading ability, stimulates the learner s imagination which will enrich
activities in other fields and offers the child enjoyment. Huck (1987) also sees Literature
as having educational values such as language development, improving reading,
improving writing, developing fluency, providing opportunities for reading and
introducing our cultural heritage. Indeed, integration of English language and
Literature can be of great benefit to both the teachers and their learners if the two
subjects relationships are exploited well.
The researcher will endeavour to establish whether English language and
Literature are taught complementarily as set out in the syllabus, and also whether
teachers allow mutual supportive integration of the two subjects and their constituent
areas.
Method
The study used a qualitative approach to get the views of the teachers, head teachers
and heads of English at KIE, MoE and KNEC in regard to the justification and
introduction of secondary integrated English Curriculum in Kenya. Basic quantitative
techniques such as frequencies and percentages were used to analyse some of the data
that were obtained. The study employed questionnaire and interview instruments to
collect data from the respondents.
Results and Discussions
Rationale for Integrating English Language and Literature
To understand the rationale for the introduction of integrated English curriculum in
secondary schools, the researcher interviewed three heads of English at KIE, MoE and
KNEC. In an interview with the Head of English at the Ministry of Education, it came
out that the idea of integrated English curriculum for secondary schools was meant to
enable teachers use content in Literature to teach English language and vice versa. This
means that teachers of integrated English are expected to know the content of both
English language and Literature, and also have the practical skills necessary to exploit
the relationship between the two subjects and their constituent parts.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
79
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
The Head of English at KIE further pointed out that integration was necessary since
English language is best learnt in a given context. According to her, meaningful
experiences and literary materials provide a natural context for the teaching of English
language. She also argued as follows:
Good mastery of English language enhances effective appreciation of literary materials.
Integration emphasizes masterly of English language or communication competencies;
and the best way to acquire these skills is through integration.
It can be discerned from the quote above that good knowledge of English
language can help learners to understand and enjoy literary works. Therefore it seems,
from the foregoing excerpt, that pieces of Literature cannot be appreciated well if the
learners do not have good mastery of English language.
The Head of English at KNEC explained that:
With the introduction of 8-4-4 System of Education, integration of English language
and Literature was motivated by the fact that the two are one and the same. They use the
same materials and complement each other. Accomplished writers use applied grammar
at its best. To study Literature, you need grammar. The teaching of grammar and writing
is a constituency of Literature. Analysis of written works is done through introducing
class readers. Literature, through class readers, helps learners to gather language
unconsciously. In fact, the world of Literature gives the context of use.
According to this Head of English, the thinking was that Literature and English
language are two sides of the same coin which basically support each other. Literature
thus gives the context of English language use. He pointed out that learning of English
language is found and/or is situated well in literary works which are normally varied
and graded according to the level of the learners. In the context of the current English
curriculum, integration is seen as a teaching tool, that is, using literary works to teach
grammar and vice versa.
According to Sivasubramaniam (2006), Literature fosters an overall increase in
reading proficiency and promotes students academic and/or professional goals. The
separation of Literature from language is a false dualism since Literature is language
and language can indeed be literary (Savvidou, 2006). Savvidou further says that the
boundaries that are thought to exist between literary and non-literary discourse are not
so distinct. Indangasi (1988) opines that integration of English language and Literature
will compel learners to appreciate the special relationship between the two subjects and
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
80
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
consequently the special way in which literary writers use language. Integration of
language and literature aids the learning of vocabulary and reading skills since the
latter has a lot of materials (Omollo, 1990; Brumfit, 1985).
Introduction of Integrated English Curriculum
In tracing how integrated English curriculum was introduced in Kenya, the heads of
English at KIE, MoE and KNEC were interviewed by the researcher. According to the
Head of English at KIE, the idea of integration arose from the recommendations of the
Mackay Report of 1981 which addressed the issue of relevance of our education, that is,
self-reliance. During the interview, this Head of English pointed out that the report had
noted that specialization of subjects took place at a very early stage. Due to this early
specialization, some students dropped literature or English language at Form 3. To
avoid this scenario, the idea of integrated English curriculum was mooted.
All the three heads of English at KIE, MoE and KNEC told the researcher that
before
any
curriculum
is
designed
and
eventually
implemented;
needs
assessment/consultation must be carried out among the stakeholders. They further
pointed out that, as required, needs assessment for the introduction of the first phase of
integrated English curriculum in secondary schools in Kenya was carried out before it
was designed and first implemented in 1986.
The Head of English at KNEC said that needs assessment that was carried out
before the introduction of the first phase of the integrated English curriculum, led to the
development of a unified English syllabus. This syllabus was meant to help teachers
teach English in a uniform way in all schools in Kenya. Based on the needs assessment
survey that was conducted, integrated English series textbooks were developed to back
up and cover the syllabus that had been developed.
Ogula (n.d.) says that, in line with the recommendation of the Presidential
Working Party on the establishment of the second University, development of the
curriculum for secondary schools started in 1984. Complete course materials were
developed by teams of writers who included secondary school teachers, inspectors of
schools, university lecturers, and curriculum developers. Further Ogula points out that
the writers were brought together for about two to four weeks. Unfortunately,
according to him, syllabuses and other material were not tested before implementation
nationally.
According to the Head of English at KIE, needs assessment was conducted
among the stakeholders before the second phase of integrated English curriculum was
designed and implemented in 2002. She told the researcher:
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
81
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
During national needs assessment survey that was conducted in 1999, learners
complained that most areas of integrated English language and Literature were difficult.
It was discovered that these areas were perceived as difficult primarily due to the
approach adopted in teaching them. Thus, there was need to bring in aspects of
performance and meaningful experiences, that is, contexts in their learning.
It emerged from discussions with the three heads of English at KIE, MoE and
KNEC the panel system was used to design the integrated English curriculum and that
the following panel members were involved in designing and introducing integrated
English curriculum in secondary schools: KIE curriculum developers, KIE research
officers, staff from the MoE - Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards (DQAS),
DQAS staff from all the provinces, a representative of KNEC, representatives of
practicing
teachers
from
all
the
provinces,
representatives
of
universities,
representatives of diploma colleges; and from the British Council.
According to Ogula (n.d.) curriculum development teams, besides those named
above, also include examination secretaries and representatives of the Kenya National
Union of Teachers. Ogula further argues that the few teachers who get selected to
participate in the development of the curriculum and curriculum materials are not
representative of the views of the other secondary school teachers. The former are
selected because they are deemed better than the latter in their subject.
According to the Head of English at KIE, the integrated English panel was
charged with the responsibility of designing the curriculum and also coming up with
the right course objectives and content. The panel, according to the Head of KNEC, was
tasked to do the following: Coming up with the syllabus, writing of integrated English
books, writing of the English handbook and other materials; and training of teachers at
the provinces in conjunction with teachers who had been trained at the national level.
The Head of English at MoE said that KIE developed the integrated English
curriculum and produced teaching materials, whereas the staff from the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards assessed the curriculum and the resource materials.
They also supervised the implementation of the curriculum at the school level. Kenya
National Examinations Council, according to this Head of English, developed sample
evaluation tools.
The KNEC Head of English said that Secondary English Language Project (SELP)
was launched at the national level in March 1988, to train teachers on how to implement
the new integrated English curriculum. He said that SELP had two main objectives: to
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
82
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
establish a sustainable system of in-service training at the district level and to establish
a higher standard of English language teaching in Kenyan secondary schools.
Consequently, according to him, SELP organized in-service training courses for
teachers at the national, provincial and district levels. Some of the teachers, including
the current KNEC Head of English, were sponsored to undergo further training in
Britain. Secondary English Language Project also established teachers resource centres
and trained quality assurance officers and tutors to ensure sustainability of in-service
courses in integrated English.
Ogula (n.d.) confirms that the Ministry of Education conducted various inservice courses for teachers in 1986 and 1987. He, however, says that due to inadequate
funds, it was not possible for the MoE to run those courses regularly. Consequently,
there was a big gap between the intended curriculum and the curriculum as it was
interpreted and taught by teachers. Most of the teachers were not well oriented to
implement the new curriculum and also on how to use the new approaches in their
teaching.
Despite SELP s in-service efforts and programs, only 43 % of the teachers (43
teachers) of integrated English said that they had attended in-service training to learn
on how to teach secondary integrated English curriculum before they started teaching
the subject. Interestingly, one of these teachers pointed out that the facilitators did not
help them much since they just asked them to be innovative in their teaching of
integrated English. This teacher is pointing to the fact that the facilitators did not equip
the concerned teachers with the required knowledge, understanding and skills for them
to help them teach integrated English without many problems. The facilitators
themselves seemed to be struggling with the concept of integration. They were not
quite clear about integration and how it should operate at the classroom level.
According to Ogula (n.d.), the inspectors of schools demonstrated commitment
to curriculum reform but most of them were ineffective in giving teachers the required
guidance. He further points out that the inspectors themselves had not been adequately
trained. Worse still, some of the key decision makers used authoritarian methods to
secure support for the reformed curriculum instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue
with teachers and other educators.
The table below shows attendance of in-service training by teachers to learn how
to teach secondary integrated English curriculum.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
83
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Table 1: Attendance of In-Service Training by Teachers to Learn How to Teach Secondary
Integrated English Curriculum
Response
Frequency
Percent
Yes
43
42.6
No
58
57.4
101
100.0
Total
The table shows that 42.6 % of the teachers attended in–service training to learn how to
teach integrated English curriculum while 57.4 % of the teachers did not. The results
clearly show that most of the teachers did not undergo any type of in-service training
before they started the actual teaching of integrated English curriculum.
This research has shown that a bulk of the teachers started teaching the
curriculum without proper understanding as regards the implementation of integrated
English curriculum. This finding is in agreement with Ogula s n.d.) assertion that most
of the teachers were not well oriented to implement the new curriculum and also on
how to use the new approaches in their teaching. All the same, it is important to note
that successful implementation of a curriculum innovation is only possible when all
teachers are thoroughly well prepared, trained and supported (Carless, 2003 and 1999).
The results further reveal that 67% of the teachers (38 teachers) who never
attended any form of in-service training before they started teaching integrated English
curriculum said that they were not offered any chance(s) to undergo such training at
whichever level. One of them said:
There was a specific number of teachers that was required to attend the training and I
was not among them. However, other teachers from English department attended. Had I
been given the opportunity or sponsorship, I would have attended the training.
Another teacher said that schools did not have enough resources to sponsor them to
attend in-service courses at the inception of integrated English curriculum. It is clear
from the excerpt that a number of teachers who had the desire and willingness to attend
in-service training in integrated English did not get a chance to do so since only a few of
the teachers were given the sponsorship by their respective schools to attend the
training. Lack of attendance of in-service training has a huge negative implication on
the teachers teaching of integrated English.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
84
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Lack of proper information was also cited as a reason for not attending
integrated English courses by 53 % of the teachers (30 teachers). They pointed out that
there was a breakdown in communication between the MoE and the schools, resulting
in the teachers not getting information on in-service training on time. As a result, they
could not attend the courses. According to Altrichter (2005), it is important that
communication forums for information exchange and collaboration are intensified
between the external experts and the concerned teachers.
According to 48 % of the teachers (27 teachers), the MoE never at all organized
any in-service training on how to teach secondary integrated English curriculum when
the program was first introduced. For them, that was the reason as to why they did not
hear of any such training. Thirty two percent of the teachers (18 teachers) were either in
universities/colleges or out of the teaching profession at the time of introduction of
integrated English curriculum and hence they could not attend the said in-service
courses.
Limited time was also reported as a reason as to why they did not attend inservice training. Thirty percent of the teachers (17 teachers) said that due to limited time
in their hands, they chose not to attend in-service training so as to concentrate on
teaching the new subject. It is interesting to note that these teachers chose to continue
teaching a subject they did not understand well instead of going for in-service training
to acquire necessary knowledge, skills and teaching methods.
When teachers were asked whether they were encouraged by their head teachers
to attend seminars, workshops and conferences so as to understand goal(s) of
integrated English curriculum, 78% of them (79 teachers) answered in the affirmative
whereas 22% of the teachers (22 teachers) said that they were not given such
encouragement.
Carless (2003 and 1999) says that however good the rationale for the introduction
of a curriculum innovation may be, implementation of the innovation can only be
successful if adequate teacher training and support is put in place by the concerned
parties. Further research reveals that however simple and straightforward the process
of implementing a new curriculum might seem, in actual practice, teachers must be
supported (Hord and Huling-Austin, 1986).
Summary of the Findings
Rationale for Integrating English Language and Literature
1. The study found that the idea of integrated English curriculum for secondary
schools was meant to enable teachers use the content in Literature to teach
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
85
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
English language and vice versa. Therefore, integration was/is seen as an
approach for teaching across the two disciplines – English language and
Literature – and between and among their constituent parts.
2. It came out from the study that integration was necessary since English language
is best learnt in a given context. This means that literary materials provide a
natural context for the teaching and use of English language.
3. The study established that meaning in English language is found and /or is
situated well in literary works which are normally varied and graded according
to the level of the learners.
Introduction of Integrated English Curriculum
1. The idea of integration arose from the recommendations of the Mackay Report of
1981 which addressed the issue of relevance of our education, that is, selfreliance. The Report recommended integrated English curriculum as a measure
to avoid early specialization by some students who either dropped Literature or
English language at Form Three.
2. Needs assessment for the introduction of the first phase of integrated English
curriculum in secondary schools in Kenya was carried out before the curriculum
was designed and first implemented in 1986. Based on the needs assessment
survey that was conducted, integrated English series textbooks were developed
to back up and cover the syllabus that had been developed.
3. Another needs assessment survey was conducted in 1999 among the
stakeholders before the second phase of integrated English curriculum was
designed and implemented in 2002. During this survey, it was discovered that
most areas of integrated English language and Literature were difficult for the
learners. Further, it was realized that these areas were perceived as difficult
primarily due to the approach adopted in teaching them. Consequently, it was
felt that there was need to bring in aspects of performance and meaningful
experiences, that is, contexts in their learning.
4. It emerged from discussions with the three heads of English – one each from the
three Government agencies (KIE, MoE and KNEC) that the panel system was
used to design the integrated English curriculum. It was pointed out that the
following panel members were involved in designing and introducing integrated
English curriculum in secondary schools: KIE curriculum developers, KIE
research officers, staff from the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards
(DQAS) headquarters, DQAS staff from all the provinces, a representative of
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
86
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
KNEC, representatives of practicing
teachers from all the
provinces,
representatives of diploma colleges; and representatives of universities.
5. The study revealed that majority of the teachers did not undergo any type of inservice training before they started the actual teaching of integrated English
curriculum. Therefore, a bulk of the teachers started teaching the curriculum
without proper understanding as regards the implementation of integrated
English curriculum.
Recommendations of the Study
The following are the recommendations of the study:
1. The teachers and other stakeholders should be helped to acquire and develop
necessary content, knowledge and pedagogical skills as regards the concept of
integration and in particular the teaching of integrated English curriculum.
2. Pre-service training of teachers in universities and colleges should be reformed
and integrated English approach adopted. This way, teachers to-be will be
familiarized with the integrated approach and their competence in handling
integration developed.
3. Practicing teachers and head teachers should undergo proper in-service training
as regards the purpose and objectives, and the teaching and evaluation and/or
supervision of integrated English curriculum.
4. Stakeholders should facilitate implementation of integrated English curriculum
by being in contact with and sending to schools guiding policies on how to
effectively teach integrated English curriculum.
References
1. Abagi, O., Owino, W., Sifuna, D. N., Waga, M., Ngome, C., Aduda, D. & Karugu,
A. (2000). Implementing the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Education
System of Kenya (The Koech Report): Realities, Challenges and Prospects. IPAR Special
Report Series SR 03/2000.
2. Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation – limiting and facilitating factors.
Retrieved January, 2011, from http://www.kreativinnovativ09
3. Brumfit, C. J. (1985). Language and Literature Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
4. Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary
schools. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
87
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
5. Carless, D. R. (1999). A Case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong.
Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.
6. Carter, A. (1986). Linguistic Models, Language Literariness. In Carter, R. and
Brumfit, G. J. (ed.), Literature and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 110-132.
7. Carter, R. A. and Long, M. (1991). Teaching Literature. Essex: Longman.
8. Collie, J. and Slatter, S. (1987). Literature in the Classroom: A Resource Book of Ideas
and Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Davies, A. (1973). Literature for Children. Walton Hall, Milton Keyres: The Open
University press.
10. Evans, T. (1984). Drama in English Teaching. Groom Helm, London.
11. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind, figurative thought and language and
understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Indangasi, H. (1988). Literature and the Teaching of English-The Place of Grammar in
the Teaching of English. Nairobi: British Council.
13. John, J. (1986).Language versus literature in university English departments. English
Teaching Forum, 24(4), pp. 18-22.
14. Kenya Institute of Education (2002). Secondary Education Teacher Preparation Guide
for English. Nairobi: KIE.
15. Kenya Institute of Education (1999). Executive Summary on the Needs Assessment
for the Secondary School Curriculum. KIE Report Series No. 64. Nairobi: KIE.
16. Kenya Institute of Education (1987). A handbook for Teachers of English in Secondary
Schools in Kenya. Nairobi: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
17. Kenya Institute of Education (1984). Kenya Primary Mathematics Project
Description. Nairobi: KIE.
18. Kenya National Examinations Council (2006). ȁRadical Changes as K.C.S.E. Exams
Begin in the Daily Nation, Nairobi: Nation Media Group.
19. Kenya National Examinations Council (1986). Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Education Regulation and Syllabuses 1987. Nairobi: Business Forms and Systems
Ltd.
20. Kiminza, O. (2000). The Curriculum Review Process: An Overview of the Curriculum
Rationalization Component under Steps. A paper presented at the staff seminar held
at KIE on 16-19th October 2000.
21. Lazar, G. (1993). The Input hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow.
22. Ministry of Education (2010). Summative Evaluation of the Secondary School
Education Curriculum. Nairobi: Kenya Institute of Education.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
88
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
23. Ministry of Education (2006). Secondary English Teacher’s Handbook. Nairobi:
Kenya Institute of Education.
24. Ministry of Education (1984). 8-4-4 System of Education. Nairobi: Government
Printer.
25. Morganthau, T. (1998). How to Help Your Child Succeed in School. In Auchincloss,
K. Score Newsweek, 1998 Edition.
26. Muchiri, M. N. (1986). Integrating English and Literature - Proceedings: Conference
on English in East Africa. Nairobi: British Council.
27. Muthiani, J. (1988). Grammar through Literature: Using Linguistic QuestionsProceedings: Conference on the Place of Grammar in the Teaching of English.
Nairobi: British Council.
28. Muutu N. E. (1993). An Investigation into the Current State of the Integration of
English Language and Literature Teaching in Secondary Schools in Nairobi Province,
P.G.D.C.D. (unpublished) Project Report, Kenyatta University.
29. Mwanzi, H. O. (1987). Teaching Grammar Through Literature- In In-service
Materials for District Seminars. Nairobi: British Council.
30. Obeidat, M. M. (1997). Language vs. Literature. In English Departments in the
Arab World. Vol. 35 No. 1 P. 30.
31. Ogula, P. A. (n.d.). The Evaluation Experience of Primary and Secondary Education
Projects in Kenya. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.fiuc.org/iaup
32. Okwara, M. O., Shiundu, J. O. and Indoshi, F. C. (2009). Towards a model of
integrated English language curriculum for secondary schools in Kenya. In Educational
Research and Review Vol. 4 (5). Retrieved February 4, 2009, from
http://www.academic-journals.org/ERR
33. Omollo, D.A. (1990). An Investigation into the Techniques and Problems of Integrating
the Teaching of English Language and Literature in Kenya Secondary SchoolsȂ, M.Ed.
(unpublished) Thesis, Kenyatta University.
34. Oxford, R. (1996). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
35. Radhika, O. (1991). Literature in the Language Classroom. In The English Teacher
Vol. XX October 1991.
36. Republic of Kenya (1999). Totally Integrated quality Education and Training
(TIQET): Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya.
Nairobi: Government Printer.
37. Republic of Kenya (1964).
Kenya Education Commission Report. Nairobi:
Government Printer.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
89
Charles M. Magoma JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION AND INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED ENGLISH CURRICULUM IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
38. Salih, M. H. (1986). From language to literature in university English departments.
English Teaching Forum, 27(2), pp. 25-28.
39. Savvidou, C. (2004). An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in the EFL
Classroom. In Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 12 December 2004.
40. Senanu, L. and Drid, O. (1995). Creative Use of Language in Kenya. Nairobi: Jomo
Kenyatta Foundation.
41. Sereti, J. R. (1993). Teaching Methodology for Large Classes: English across the
Curriculum in Difficult Circumstances - Proceedings of the Conference on English
across the Curriculum: The Kenya Context. Nairobi: British Council.
42. Sivasubramaniam, S. (2006). Promoting the prevalence of Literature in the Practice of
Foreign and Second Language Education: Issues and Insights, Asian EFL Journal Vol.
8(4) Article 11.
43. Teyle, J. A. and Okatch, B. (1991). Learning Language and Literature Through Drama
- Proceedings: The Role of Language and Literature in the School Curriculum.
Nairobi: British Council.
44. Waithaka, J. M. (1993). English across the Curriculum - The Ministry of Education's
Position - Proceedings of the Conference on English across the Curriculum: The
Kenya Context. Nairobi: British Council.
45. Welleck, R. & Warren, A. (1949). Theory of Literature. New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace.
46. Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: University
Press.
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2016
90