A Connection between CMD and Assessment

 The Bridge: Linking CMD & Assessment

Curriculum cannot stand alone without assessment, and assessment frameworks shape how curriculum is designed. Here’s how they connect:

1. Richard-s (2001)↔ Bachman/Palmer (1990, 1996)

Richards’ curriculum design (objectives, outcomes) aligns with Bachman’s validity and communicative competence frameworks.

2. Nunan (1988, 2004)↔ Hughes (2003)

Task-based curriculum (Nunan) needs practical classroom assessment methods (Hughes) to measure real communication.

3. Tomlinson (1998, 2011) ↔ Fulcher (2003, 2015)

Materials development (Tomlinson) must ensure tasks lead to authentic language use, which Fulcher emphasizes in performance-based assessment.

4. Ellis (2003) ↔ Alderson (1995)

Ellis’ SLA-informed curriculum links with Alderson’s diagnostic testing to refine learner progress tracking.

5. Yalden (1987)↔ Weir (2005)

Yalden’s communicative syllabus connects with Weir’s validation frameworks for large-scale exams (e.g., IELTS, CEFR-based syllabi).

6. Douglas (2000) ↔ ESP Curriculum

Douglas’ ESP assessment directly complements curriculum design ini vocational/occupational English (a key area in Indonesia’s vocational schools

This connection shows that CMD experts shape teaching content & process, while Assessment experts shape measurement & outcomes. Together, they form a cycle:

Needs Analysis → Curriculum Design → Materials Development → Teaching → Assessment → Feedback → Curriculum Improvement.