" Overcoming the Problems of Implementing

a Lexical Syllabus "

Beyhan KESKİNÖZCourse and Syllabus Design Assignment

MSc in Teaching EnglishLanguages Studies Unit, Aston University

September 1994

CONTENTS PAGE1. Introduction 32. Goals and Objectives of the Institution 33. Why Lexical Syllabus 44. Problem 65. Survey 66. Discussion of the Findings 77. Implications 8

A. Methodology 8B. Teacher Training 9C. Learner Training 10D. Evaluation 12

8. 8. Conclusion 13 12AppendicesAppendix A 14Appendix B 14References

1. Introduction

In this paper, I wish to account for our choice of a "lexical syllabus" at Dokuz Eylül University,

İzmir, Turkey, 0and discuss the problems arising from the implementation of the lexical syllabus

and their implications on such areas of the curriculum as methodology, teacher / learner training

and evaluation.

2. Goals and Objectives of the Institution

In the preparatory School of the Foreign Languages Department, every year about 400 students

are trained for English medium faculties. Every year the students are given a needs analysis as well

as the staff of English medium faculties and the staff teaching on the prep program. At the

end of the academic calendar the program is evaluated and

objectives and goals are studied.

In the light of the above mentioned analyses, the following goals have been determined.

By the end of the preparatory year students are expected to:

1. follow a lecture in English and take notes

2. read the course books and get the key points and summarize.

3. follow the journals in their field and relate information to their academic work.

4. take part in the class discussions

5. give lectures / seminars

6. write reports

3. Why Lexical Syllabus

The course books we used before Collins Cobuild English Course relied on a linguistic syllabus

which presented the learner with a series of linguistic items. Almost every year, we kept changing

the course book because of the disappointment due to the failure in the classroom, i.e. the time

spent on teaching resulted in very little learning. We also experienced the contradiction of

applying a structural syllabus and following a communicative methodology, we hoped, at the

production stage of P.P.P. (Presentation, Practice, Production), learners would be involved in

real language use, which was far from being truly communicative. Most language produced by the

learner was grammatical but devoid of meaning as Willis (1990 p. 4-5) points out that form takes

priority over meaning restricting the freedom to use whatever forms best realize the communicative

intent.

A lexical syllabus shows a lot of advantages when compared with other types of traditional

syllabuses such as structural, notional / functional etc.... After a short term a structural syllabus has

nothing to offer for learners except elaborate details of structure, whereas lexical syllabus is very

rich and can be exploited at all levels.

The lexical syllabus starts from a description of real language in that way we will be able to

offer learners a great advantage of learning something that comes out of research, not intuition.

Computational analysis of the research corpus provides us with frequency counts, concordances

which will help to form a data driven syllabus. As Carter (1987 p.182) points out computer corpora

allow access to detailed and quantifiable syntactic, semantic and pragmatic information about the

behavior of lexical items. A data-driven syllabus has solid foundations because it can be derived

from a corpus of authentic materials giving the learner a balanced exposure and rich input of

language. It can also offer a more complete coverage comprising elements which are crucial to

structuring of discourse.

Willis (1990 p.46) states the figures based on a computer analysis of the COBUILD corpus:

The most frequent 700 words constitute 70 % of Eng. text 1500 76 % 2500 80 %

700 most frequent words of English is strikingly low when compared with the total number of

words in English and yet can constitute 70 % of a text, which is a very high proportion.

The type of lexical syllabus which is constructed on the basis of word frequency provides a

powerful basis for alearner centered approach as learners' active involvementwill be required.

Willis (1990 p.VII) states:

In effect what we planned to do was create a learners corpus and encourage learners to examine that corpus and generalize from it.

This is completely different from traditional approaches in that it tries to encourage learners to

analyze for themselves and learn from their own experience of language. Learners will be

responsible from their own learning. Lexical syllabus, in that way, allows students to develop on

awareness of the actual grammar of the language by providing a focus for language analysis.

A lexical description of language offers a powerful basis for syllabus specification. Willis (1990

p.27) argues that word meaning determines which structures are grammatical and which are not and

a lexical description of language offers more powerful generalizations.

The word seems to be a better unit of syllabus design. Because language is a system of

meanings, it is possible to include the most common words which carry most common meanings:

The most common meanings are those expressed by the most common words or phrases. The most common functions and notions are expressed by combinations of the most common words (Willis 1994).

This means we take the short cut by having a lexical syllabus which consists of the most common words.

The commonest patterns in English occur again and again with the commonest words in English (Willis 1990 p.38).

This has a strong implication that learners will have a chance of repetition for learning those

common patterns and words in English.

For the above reasons, we have chosen the Collins Cobuild English Course. We have used this

set at beginners level for two years and in the 1994-1995 Academic Year we will use the same set

at intermediate and advanced levels too.

4. Problem

I found that some of the students and instructors were not happy with the program. Then I decided to survey in order to find out what was wrong with the program.

5. Survey

The survey was conducted at the Preparatory School of English. By the end of the Spring 1994,

there were 10 groups of students (beginners) who studied the Collins Cobuild English Course. Ten

group leaders were chosen, one from each group, and they were asked to discuss the

nterdependence of the course book, teaching and testing with their groups.

Pupil to pupil technique (Hopkins 1985 p.69) was used with students on the grounds that pupils

might be more candid with each other. Later on, the group leaders and the ten instructors who

taught those groups were interviewed individually.

The questions asked aimed at finding out the students' and the instructors' attitudes and feelings

about the materials, Collins Cobuild English Course, teaching and testing. By limiting the

questions, it was hoped that the focus of the evaluation process was narrow enough so that it

would be manageable and practical.

6. Discussion of the Findings

Table 1 (see appendix A) presents the data collected through interviews with the students

reflecting their attitude towards the course book, teaching and testing. When we study Table 1,

there seems to be no problem with the course book, but five students complained that they did too

much grammar in class whereas three students said they did not have enough grammar. Four

students felt unhappy about testing.

Table 2 (see appendix B) presents the data collected through interviews with the instructors

reflecting their understanding of the nature of the syllabus, methodology and the objectives. As the

table shows, five instructors showed a poor understanding of the syllabus and the methodology.

Two instructors showed average, three instructors showed good understanding of the syllabus and

the methodology.

There seems to be a correlation between understanding of the syllabus and the methodology.

For sake of convenience, it might be a better idea to group the data in groups as A, B and C.

Group A Students Instructorstoo much grammarhappy with testing

poor understanding of the syllabus

Group B not enough grammarunhappy with testing

good understanding of the syllabus and the methodology

Group C happy unhappy with testing

good understanding of the syllabus and the methodology

The instructors in Group A admitted that they tried to follow a structural approach in class. If

there was an if clause, they taught all types of if clauses, as they appeared through the course they

kept teaching if clauses, which explains why the students complained that they were fed

up with grammar. The students in group A were happy with testing because tests were structure

oriented, which might be another reason why teachers tended to emphasize grammar. The instructors in Group B understood the nature of the syllabus and followed a task-based

methodology. Contrary to Group A, Group B students complained that they did not have

enough grammar, which shows that they need to be taught and explained the nature of the syllabus

and the methodology.

The instructors of Group C showed a good understanding of the syllabus and the methodology

as the instructors of Group B; but the students in Group C, unlike Group B students, were happy

because they had been explained the nature of the syllabus and the task-based methodology.

Unlike the students in Group A, the students in Group B felt unhappy about the tests, as they were

designed mainly on a structural basis.

7. Implications

In the light of the above findings some ways of improvement and alternatives will be suggested.

A. Methodology

The interviews showed that the methodology followed by some teachers did not fit the syllabus.

Ideally, the methodology followed should fit the lexical syllabus creating essential conditions for

learning in the classroom. Willis (1994) explains these conditions as :

1. Exposure

2. Use

3. Motivation

Exposure to a representative sample of language is essential, both written and spoken, which

will provide learners with samples of target language.

Learners should also be given the opportunities to use the language. It is a commonly agreed

fact that learners learn better if they are involved in using the target language. They have to

experiment with the language in different situations, which will allow them to test and form

rules about how language works (hypothesis-testing). By doing this, they will be concentrating on

meaning and how to get it across, which is the ultimate goal.

Short-term classroom motivation seems to be a necessary ingredient in learning a foreign

language. So, it is the instructor's job to motivate the learner creating a purpose for activities and

tasks. If learners achieve something themselves, they will be confident and motivated to do the

next task.

Another factor which could be added to the list above is focus on language. The methodology

followed should allow learners time to focus on language and to systematize, i.e. getting more

insights into language form and use (consciousness-raising).

All of these call for a task based methodology replicating important features of communication.

Willis (1990 p.128) argues that a task based methodology encourages learners to make the best use

they can of whatever language they have. Seeing language as a system of meanings, learners

will find ways of encoding meanings in order to achieve the desired outcome. However, a

structural approach will fail to meet these requirements as it requires the learner to produce

target forms irrespective of meaning.

B. Teacher Training

Another thing which became evident in the interviews was that the instructors teaching on the

prep program needed training. As a result of this, a series of workshops have been arranged. The

latest of these was a one-day workshop on the lexical syllabus and the task-based methodology, and

Jane Willis, the co-author of the Collins Coubild Course book, was invited to the university. It

often seems to be the case that instructors who are accustomed to a structural approach find it

difficult to adopt a task based methodology.

This is partly because they feel safe and say "I've taught them Present Perfect tense". But it is

questionable whether they actually "learn". Very often we hear of teachers complaining that

learners do not learn in spite of teaching the same thing again and again. Another reason why some

teachers favor a structural approach is that they would like to be the "authority" in the classroom as

the "knower" as Willis (1990) states.

Dubin & Olshtain (1987 p.31) argue that teachers who received traditional training and who

have only worked with rather conservative materials may not be equipped professionally or

emotionally to handle modern teaching materials and they suggest a period of sensitizing for both

teachers and students. Teacher training becomes inevitable if we want them to be successful.

Because teachers teaching on the program are the ones to implement, they need to have a

good understanding of the objectives, the syllabus and the methodology. Here, the teacher can

contribute a lot to the program implementation as a researcher. Kaufman (1990 p.66)

argues that the most credible authorities on what works in the classroom are the classroom-

teachers, not the university specialist. Kaufman stresses that the classroom teacher-

researcher knows his/her class better than any specialist. By encouraging teachers to carry on on-

going classroom- centered research projects (Action Research), we can take advantage of teachers'

knowledge and expertise to do research and to publish and share their findings with their

colleagues.

So, in implementing a lexical syllabus teacher training is inevitable. They need to grasp how a

task cycle works and realize that they need to be patient with learners.

C. Learner Training

Learners also need to be trained. In learner training our aim is to provide learners with the

ability, that is strategies and confidence, to take on more responsibility for their own learning and to

prepare learners for independence.

Learner training tends to provide more opportunities for learner to reflect on their attitudes towards

themselves as learners and their learning preferences, as well as to experiment with different

learning and practice activities in general. Stern (1987 p.412) gives four basic sets of strategies

which good learners are likely to employ:

1. An active planning strategy 2. An academic learning strategy 3. A social learning strategy 4. An affective strategy

In strategies (1) and (2), learners select goals and subgoals and participate actively in the learning

process and consider the language as a system with rules and regular relationships between

language forms and meanings. In strategies (3) and (4) they seek communicative contact with

target language users and they develop techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in

an imperfectly known second language. They cope effectively with the emotional and motivational

problems of language learning. They should be explained the linguistic and psychological theory

behind the book. The interviews revealed that some of the students thought that the teacher was not

doing his best because he/she did not teach them in the way they expected, which is a natural

result of their educational background. In our traditional education system students are given

things to memorize and learn as they are viewed as passive objects in the classroom.

Because of the nature of the program in our school, the students, who are expected to take on active

part in the learning process, are put into situations such as sharing responsibilities, making

decisions etc.... Dubin & Olshtain (1987 p.31) suggest a period of "learning how to learn" in

order to help them become responsible learners as the requirements mentioned above may be new

and unfamiliar. As they are adults they would like to know what they are doing and why they are

doing something. Then, they need to be taught what a "task" is and explained how a task-cycle

works, which is explained in detail in Willis & Willis (1990 p.viii). In that way students will have

a positive attitude towards learning.

D. Evaluation

Rivers (1968 p.286) discusses the principles of testing under the following headings:

1. Know why you are testing 2. Know what you are testing 3. Test what you have taught 4. Test to find out what the student knows

These principles all meet at one point : awareness of the syllabus and the methodology is crucial

to testing as Rivers (1968 p.308) argues:

No test will be efficiently constructed if the teacher designing it does not have a clear picture in his mind of what he expects his students to know.

These four interrelated principles of testing are not reflected in our tests. The students were

taught in one way and tested in another. This is one of the reasons why some of the instructors were

tempted to overemphasize grammar in class. The students who were happy with testing system

were the ones whose instructors overemphasized grammar in such a way that the tests functioned as

the syllabus. Another reason for overemphasizing grammar in class was that those instructors

could not see the link between the syllabus and the methodology.

The progress and achievement tests which have been used need improvement. They should

reflect the above mentioned principles. This issue is discussed widely in the unpublished CSD

assignment by Seven (1994).

8. Conclusion

Dubin & Olshtain (1987 p.31) argue that the teacher population is the most significant factor in

determining the success of a new syllabus or materials. By incorporating teacher training

workshop into the program a positive attitude to new thinking might be established. However, this

does not mean that we pay less importance to learners. They, too, should be trained in order to

create a fruitful teaching/learning environment. Learner training takes the burden off the teacher

and puts some of it onto the learner. If the students feel they are on the right track, they move

faster and enjoy language learning. We have to find ways of bridging the gaps between planning,

teaching and learning. Nunan in Johnson (1989 p.186) recommends consultation and negotiations if

there are mismatches between the expectations of learners and the official curriculum. The

teachers' help is of great importance here through Action research.

The lexical syllabus, in may opinion, provides teachers with enough flexibility and

independence allowing for improvement in language teaching. It also provides students

with rich input which will require them to deal with meanings and patterns and apply them in

genuine communication through tasks.

The problems that have been outlined in this study form a natural part of innovation stemming

from insights into foreign language learning and second language instruction; and will pave way for

a better teaching/learning situation.

APPENDIX A

TABLE 6.1THE RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE STUDENTS

Group Leaders

Course book teaching testing

1. ok too much grammar happy2. ok too much grammar happy3. ok too much grammar happy4. happy not enough grammar unhappy5. happy too much grammar happy6. happy not enough grammar unhappy7. happy happy unhappy8. ok too much grammar ok9. happy not enough grammar unhappy10. happy happy unhappy

APPENDIX B

TABLE 6.2THE RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE INSTRUCTORS

Instructors Understanding the nature of the syllabus

Understanding the methodology

Objective

1. Poor Poor Yes2. Poor Poor Yes3. Poor Poor Yes4. Average Good Yes5. Poor Poor Yes6. Good Good Yes7. Average Good Yes8. Poor Poor Yes9. Good Good Yes10. Good Good Yes

REFERENCES

1. Carter R. 1987 Vocabulary, Applied Linguistic Perspectives, London, Allen & Unwin LTD.

2. Dubin F. & Olshtain E. 1987 Course Design Cambridge : CUP

3. Hapkins D. 1985 A Teachers Guide to Classroom Research, O.U.P.

4. Johnson R.K. 1989 The second Language Curriculum, Cambridge.

5. Kaufman L. 1990 An International Conference, ELT & Teacher Training in the 1990. Volume 2, 26-28 Sept.1990 Hacettepe Univ. & The British Council Ankara, Turkey

6. Nunan D. 1988 Syllabus Design Oxford : CUP

7. Rivers W.M. 1968 Teaching Foreign-Language Skills, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

8. Stern H.H. 1987 Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, O.U.P.

9. White R. 1988 The ELT Curriculum : Design, Innovation and Management Oxford : Blackwell

10. Winddowson H.G. 1990 Aspects of Language Teaching Oxford O.U.P.

11. Willis D. 1990 The lexical Syllabus London : Collins Cobuild ELT

12. Willis J. 1994 A workshop on the Lexical Syllabus & Task Based Methodology, August 1, 1994. Dokuz Eyll University, ˜zmir

13. Willis J. & Willis D. 1989 Collins Cobuild English Course I -II - III, Collins.

14. Willis J. & Willis D. 1990 First Lessons, Collins.