Please enter verification code
The Third-year Vet Med Students’ English Course Content and Learning Outcomes: Causes of Poor Performance
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 7, Issue 5, September 2019, Pages: 230-234
Received: Aug. 17, 2019; Accepted: Sep. 4, 2019; Published: Sep. 20, 2019
Views 569      Downloads 77
Larice Toko Lumanda, Department of English Letters and Civilization, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
Article Tools
Follow on us
The Third-Year Vet Med Students at the University of Kinshasa have been learning English for three years. Unfortunately, they are not able to speak, listen, read and write English. This fact needs and an investigation in order to find out the causes of this phenomenon. The investigation can involve many aspects such as the teaching methods, teaching materials, the course content, the students’ background, learning outcomes, etc., but this article tackles only the course content and learning outcomes. This paper aims at examining the course content and the learning outcomes in order to detect the causes of the Third-Year Vet Med students’ poor performance in English. To reach this aim, both the course content and learning outcomes are examined on the basis of Syllabus Review Method. The course content is examined in order to make sure if it has all important sections such as course title, course description, learning outcomes, course syllabus, learning activities, Assessment types, required and recommended readings, and feedback for evaluation since these sections have a considerable impact on the students’ performance. Moreover, the learning outcomes are examined in order to check whether they are clearly stated and measurable. When learning outcomes are clearly stated and measurable, both lecturer and students work together so as to achieve them at the completion of the course. The article starts by literature review of course content and learning outcomes; thereafter it presents the course content and learning outcomes mentioned in the Third-Year Vet Med Students’ course handout. Next, it discusses the course content and learning outcomes with respect to recommendations proposed by the Course Planning Service and literature review. This discussion has led to the conclusion that the Third-Year Vet Med Students’ poor performance is due to the poor course content and lack of clear and measurable learning outcomes. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct a scientific research about the Vet Med Students’ needs in order to design appropriate course content with clear and measurable learning outcomes on the basis of Communicative Learning Principles.
Vet Med Students, Learning Outcomes, Course Content, Causes, Poor Performance, Communicative Learning Principles
To cite this article
Larice Toko Lumanda, The Third-year Vet Med Students’ English Course Content and Learning Outcomes: Causes of Poor Performance, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 7, No. 5, 2019, pp. 230-234. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190705.17
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Academic Handbook (2013) Course Outlines: Course Outlines (Syllabi) For Undergraduate Courses. Online.
Cedefop. (2017). Defining, writing and applying learning outcomes: a European handbook. Luxembourg: Publications Office.
CELT (2010). Classroom Learning Activities. Online.
Chappuis, S. And Chappuis, J. (2008:14). The Best Value in Formative Assessment. Portland: Oregon.
Course Planning Service. (2014). Course Outline Template. Online.
Desheng, C. And Varghese, A. (2013). Testing and Evaluation of Language Skills in “OSR Journal of Research & Method in Education”. Vol. 1. Issue 2. pp. 31-33 online.
Flaherty, J. et. al. (2017). Words Matter: The Impact of “Catchy” vs Conventional Course Titles on Student Interest in “The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning”, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, Art. 4.
Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference? in “Medical Teacher” Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 151–155. Dundee: Centre for Medical Education, University of Dundee.
Houston, D. And Thompson, J. N. (2017). “Blending Formative and Summative Assessment in a Capstone Subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’” in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. vol. 14 Issue 3/2 pp. 113.
Mumbembe, L. (2018-2019). English III For Third Year Undergraduate Veterinarian Students. Unpublished Course Notes. Kinshasa: UNIKIN.
O’Connor, J. J. (2011). Make student reading interesting: An analysis of student reading in two courses in “Journal of Instructional Pedagogies” Retrieved December 19, 2011, from
Popenici, S. And Millar, V. (2015). Writing Learning Outcomes: A practical Guide for Academics. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Spoor, J. R. And Lehmiller, J. J. (2014). “The Impact of Course Title and Student Perceptions and Interest in Women’s and Gender Studies Course” in “PLOS”. Vol. Issue 9. DOI: 10.1371. Online.
Surgenor, P. (2010). Teaching Toolkit: Learning Outcomes in UCD Teaching and Learning/Ressources. Online.
Surgenor, P. (2010). Teaching Toolkit: Role of Assessment. Online.
Yousefkhani, M. (2008). Impact of Instructional Objectives on e/learning Materials in “Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering”. Vol 1 Issue 2. London online.
Cascio, C. (2019). Factors of Poor Student Performance retrieved May 10, 2019, from
Center for Urban Education (2017). Review Guidefor Equity-Minded Practice For Equity-Minded Practice. California: University of Southern California.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186