CHAPTER I1

2.1. - THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE

TEACHING :

American and B r i t i s h proponents view CLT "as a n

approach and not a method t h a t aims t o :

i ) make communicative competence the goal of language

teaching.

ii ) develop procedures f o r t h e teaching . of the f o u r s k i l l s

t h a t acknowledge the interdependence of language and

cornmunicat ion".

(Richards and Rodgers 1986:66)

TMs aim of teaching 'communicative competence' i s a

t o t a l , departure from the aim of t r a d i t i ~ n a l language

teaching approaches where t h e emphasis i s mainly on t h e

teaching of s t r u c t u r a l competence.

Various people have de l inea t ed the overa l l aim of CLT.

Piepho (1981?22) l i s t s under t h e broad ca tegory of

' Indiv idua l and soc ia 1 1 earn ing ' t he fol lowing:

- communicative a b i l i t y ;

- c r i t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of texts;

- primacy of act ive use of language;

- p r i n c i p l e s of the un i ty of conten t ;

- language and s o c i a l s k i l l s .

Richards and Rodgers (1986.731 have s t a t e d P iepho ' s

ob jec t ives i n t he following way:

. 6 5 .

I1Piepho (1981 : 8 ) d i scus se s the following l eve l of

ob j ec t i ve s i n a communicative approach:

1. an i n t e g r a t i v e and content l eve l (language a s a means of

express ion) ;

2 . a l i n g u i s t i c and instrumental l eve l (language a s a

semiot ic system and an ob j ec t of l e a rn ing ) ;

'3. an e f f e c t i v e l e v e l of in te rpersona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and

conduct ( language a s a means of expressing va lues and

judgements about onese l f and o t h e r s ) ;

4. a l eve l of i n d i v i d u a l l ea rn ing (remedial l e a rn ing based

on e r r o r a n a l y s i s ) ;

5. a genera l educa t iona l level of e x t r a 1 . i ngu i s t i c goa l s

(language l e a r n i n g wi th in t he school curr iculum)"

" Candlin (1976:238:1981:25) remarks that "the only

proper goal of language teaching i s t o lead a l e a r n e r t o be

ab le t o communicate i n a fore ign language". He goes on t o

l i s t t h e func t ions which 1 anguage seen as communication

f u l f i l s. They a r e :

1. ~ a n ~ u a i e a s a means of communicating ( seek ing and g iv ing ) i deas .

2 . Language a s a means of s o c i a l coord ina t ion .

3. Language a s a means of s o c i a l con t ro l .

4. Languages a s a means of expressing wants, b e l i e f s and d e s i r e s .

These o b j e c t i v e s apply to a l l teaching s i t u a t i o n s .

Spec i f i c o b j e c t i v e s f o r CLT cannot be s t i p u l a t e d beyond

t h i s l eve l because t h i s approach i s based on the assumption

t h a t language teaching should r e f l e c t t he needs of the

l e a rne r s . These needs may r e l a t e t o t he various domains of

reading, writ ing, l i s t en ing and speaking, each of which can

be approached from a ~ommunicative perspective. Curriculum

or ins t ruct ional objectives f o r a part icul a r course will

speci f ic aspects of communicative competence

according t o the learner Is proficiency level and

communicative needs,

Accepting the need t o teach language as communication

requires corresponding change i n focus from the sentence a s

the basic un i t in language teaching t o the use of sentences

i n combination which necess i t a tes a change i n syllabus and

syllabus design.

Littlewood (1981:6) has ident i f ied four broad

?categories of s k i l l which make up a person's communicative

competence and language teachers should aim t o cu l t iva te

these s k i l l s in the learners .

1. The development of l i ngu i s t i c competence ref lec ted i n

learners ' being a b l e t o manipulate the l i ngu i s t i c system

for spbntaneous and f l e x i b l e use i n expressing messages.

2 . The a b i l i t y t o d i s t ingu ish between the Linguistic forms

and i t s corresponding communicat ive functions . I n other

words, items mastered as pa r t of l i ngu i s t i c system must

also be understood a s p a r t of a communicative system.

3 . The s k i l l t o use language t o communicate meanings as

ef fect ively as possible i n concrete s i tua t ions . The

feedback received should be processed so a s t o judge the

success o r f a i l u r e of t h e communication and t h e c a p a b i l i t y

t o remedy f a i l u r e by us ing d i f f e r e n t language.

4. Awareness of t h e soc i a l meaning of language forms anc~

t he a b i l i t y t o v a r y speech t o s u i t d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l

circumstances, u s ing acceptable forms and avoiding

p o t e n t i a l l y o f f e n s i v e ones.

2.2. - THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Given below a r e some o£ the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of CLT.

1. - Communicative competence and f luency i s the o b j e c t i v e o r

a The primary ob jec t ive of CLT i s communicative

competence. "Communicative competence i s t h e d e s i r e d goa l

( 1 . e . t h e a b i l i t y t o u se t he l i n g u i s t i c system . e f f e c t i v e l y

and app rop r i a t e ly ) " . (Finocchiaro and Brumfi t , 1983:92)

"Fluent and acceptab le language i s t h e primary g o a l :

accuracy i s judged not i n the a b s t r a c t but i n context" .

". . . t he a b i l i t y t o use r e a l , app rop r i a t e Language t o . communicate and i n t e r a c t with o t h e r s i s t he primary goal" .

( Ib id 1 .

Thus CLT o b j e c t i v e s a r e s p e c i f i e d i n behavioural terms

on t h e b a s i s of needs ana lys i s .

2 . Learners a r e aware of t h e aims and o b j e c t i v e s : The CLT

School s t r e s s e s t h e po in t t h a t l e a r n e r s must recognise and

know t h e aims and ob jec t ives of a l l e x e r c i s e s and

a c t i v i t i e s i n which they a r e involved. This enhances

l ea rne r motivat ion and paves t h e way f o r more e f f e c t i v e

learn ing of t h e t a r g e t language.

3 . - Primacy g iven t o t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a ~ e i n classroom

i n s t r u c t i o n and communication: CLT commits i t s e l f t o us ing

the t a r g e t language a s t h e medium of classroom

communication but j ud i c ious use of t h e na t ive language i s

accepted where f e a s i b l e . Trans la t ion may a l s o be spa r ing ly

used where s t u d e n t s need o r benef i t from i t . Banishing the

f i r s t language from t h e classroom i s not i n t h e in te res t of

learning. Candl in comments t h a t "Pa r t i cu l a r ly a t t h e e a r l y

s tages of second language l ea rn ing , optimal use must be

made of those comrnunic'ation s k i l l s t h a t the l e a r n e r h a s

developed through use of t h e na t ive ( o r dominant) language

and t h a t a r e common t o communication s k i l l s required i n t h e

second language. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important t h a t

un iversa l aspec ts of cammunication i n t he second language

( f o r example, c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s of t h e grammatical code such

as vocabulary be presented and p rac t i s ed i n the contex t

of l e s s a r b i t r a r y and more un iversa l ones1'. (1983:19)

4. The use of a u t h e n t i c . r e a l - l i f e language s t r e s s e d : CLT

inputs u sua l ly t r y t o be t r u l y au thent ic a s l e a r n e r s a r e

more l i k e l y t o a c q u i r e t he language i f they a r e exposed t o

au thent ic samples of i t . Besides, i n t he world ou t s ide t h e

classroom the l e a r n e r will , be c a l l e d on t o dea l with a l l

kinds of language s i t u a t i o n s . CLT bel ieves t h a t language

s imp l i f i ed fo r classroom purposes w i l l not be of h e l p t o

l ea rne r s i n r ea l - l i f e con tex t s .

5 . Language p ro f i c i ency equated with communicative - competence: There is a change i n c r i t e r i o n t o be used i n

.69 .

pupil performance, away f ram formal accuracy

towards communicative e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Foreign/second

language prof ic iency i s equated with foreign/second

language communikat i v e competence.

6 . The primacy of language use as aga ins t s t r u c t u r e s : CLT

adheres t o an a n t i - s t r u c t u r a l view. Litt lewood (1981:l)

s t a t e s t h a t "One of t h e most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of CtT

i s t h a t i t pays sys temat ic a t t e n t i o n t o func t iona l as wel l

a s s t r u c t u r a l a spec t s of language", o r as Maley ( 1986:88 1

puts i t- "Concentration on u s e and appropriacy r a t h e r than

simply on language form (i.e. meaning a s well as grammar)".

This enthusiasm f o r language use r a t h e r than language

as s t r u c t u r e has r e s u l t e d i n a consequent p re fe rence f o r

semantics ' (meaning i n r ea l l i f e con tex t s 1 over

'grammar'(ru1es and paradigms i n i s o l a t i o n from au then t i c

language i n u s e ) and t h e formulat ion of t a s k s f o r l e a r n e r s

t o perform. Grammar explana t ions have a minimal p a r t t o

play i n CLT f o r it is be l ieved t o make no d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e

development of p u p i l ' s p r a c t i c a l competence. '

7 . The ' l e a r n i n g by doing ' o r experience based view:

Another frequently c i t e d dimension o f CLT i s its experience

based view of second language teaching. It i s based on t h e

theory t h a t Ifexperience i s t h e bes t of a l l schools . . . t h e

i d e a l curriculum c o n s i s t s of wel l - se lec ted experiences" .

( Applebee, 1974:119)

It r ep re sen t s t h e language teaching ve r s ion u s u a l l y

r e f e r r ed t o a s I f learn ing by doing" o r " the exper ience

approachm. (Hilgard and Bower, 1966

8. The no t ion of d i r e c t r a t h e r than delayed p r a c t i c e of

c~mmunication: The notion of d i r e c t r a t h e r than d e l ayed

p rac t i ce of communication a c t s i s c e n t r a l t o most CLT

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Attempts t o communicate a r e encouraged

from t h e very beginning, t h e main t h r u s t being on t h e

a b i l i t y t o n e g o t i a t e meaning s u c c e s s f u l l y and eff ective1,y.

Reading and w r i t i n g may begin from day one i f so d e s i r e d .

9 , Con tex tua l i sa t ion : Con tex tua l i sa t ion i s a bas ic premise.

Language i s s tud ied 111 t h e broader soc io -cu l tu ra l con tex t s

of i ts use. "Ally Vnf' speech i s f u n c t i o n a l l y organised

. .. f o r n p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r ropic. The language t h a t we a c t u a l l y produce changes when these elements change, because we have learned t o a d j u s t our language use t o be appropr ia te f o r t h e cond i t ions i n ,which we use i t" . (Fin~rchisrn and Brumfit , 1983:13)

Tradi t ional language teachin? *I-*~,I presented new i t c a s i n :!

r e l a t i v e l y i s o l a t e d form, and then p rac t i sed them i n

increas ingly con tex tua l i sed s i t u a t i o n . The communicative

approach reverses t h e procedure a s t h e following diagram

" i l l u s t r i t e s rumf fit, 1980 : 121 1 :

Tradi t ional :

Communicative : *

Communicate as f a r as poss ible with a l l avai l ab le resources. 1.._

\

Present 1 anguage i tems shown t o be necessary t o a c h i e v e - e f f e c t i v e communi- c a t i o n . i

> -

I

Drill i f

Necessary

.71. 7

10. The primacy of f l u e n c y focussed a c t i v i t i e s over a c c u r a c y

focussed a c t i v i t i e s : CLT shows a marked tendency 'I t o f a v o u r

f luency- focussed r a t h e r t h a n simply accuracy f o c u s s e d

(Maley, 1986:38)

IvFluency ( i n which t h e emphasis i s on open-ended

communication a c t i v i t i e s t a k i n g p l ace i n real time) i s more

l i k e l y t o promote l e a r n i n g t h a n accuracy". ( I b i d ) .

11, Classroom t a s k s / i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e chosen on t h e b a s i s o f

t h e i r communicat ional r e l e v a n c e : Communication t a s k s a r e no t

des igned w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r a l o r f u n c t i o n a l c a t e g o r y

i n mind. Ra the r t h e y a r e chosen f o r t h e i r communicat ional

r e l evance i n t h e framework o f t h e whole a c t i v i t y . CLT pays

a t t e n t i o n " t o communication t a s k s t o be ach ieved t h r o u ~ h the '

language r a t h e r t h a n s imply e x e r c i s e s an t h e language1' .

(Maley, 1986:88) .

"Language used i n t h e classroom should be immedia te ly

r e l e v a n t and i n h e r e n t i n t h e t a s k , r a t h e r t h a n l e a r n t f o r

some e v e n t u a l h y p o t h e t i c a l u s e l a t e r ( o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as

' t r a n s f e r ' ) " . (Maley, 1986:93)

The second language l e a r n e r must have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

take p a r t i n meaningful communicative i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h h i g h l y

competent s p e a k e r s of t h e language i .e. . t o respond t o

genuine communication needs and i n t e r e s t s i n r e a l i s t i c second

language s i t u a t i o n s . ( C l e r k , 1972 :132

12. S t u d e n t i n i t i a t i v e and l e a r n e r autonomy: CLT encourages

s t u d e n t i n i t i a t i v e and autonomy. He i s encouraged t o work

wi th minimal h e l p from t h e t eache r . The g r e a t e r t h e

r e s p o n s L b l l i t y g i v e n t o l e a r n e r s , t h e more e f f e c t i v e t h e i r

] , ea rn ing w i l l be.

13 . Cooperative learn ing and s tudent in te rac t ion : CLT uses

procedures where l ea rne r s work i n pa i r s o r groups employing

ava i lab le language resources i n problem solving a c t i v i t i e s .

Students a r e expected t o i n t e r a c t with other people, e i t h e r

i n speech o r wr i t ing . Cooperative learning a c t i v i t i e s

include games, s imulat ions, non-whole c l a s s organisa t iona l

pa t te rns (eg . , group a r p a i r work).

14. The Curriculum-wide approach: This approach embraces t h e

e n t i r e curriculum of t he l e a r n e r , caking i n t o considerat ion

h i s language needs i n o the r subjec ts as well.

The primary ,ob jec t ive of a communication-oriented

second. language programme must be t o p r w i d e t he l e a r n e r s

with t h e information, p r a c t i c e and much of t he experience 1

needed t o meet t h e i r communication needs i n the second

language. In addi t ion , t he l ea rne r s should be taught about

l a n g u a ~ e , drawing as much as possible from the f i r s t language

programfle, and about t h e second language cu l ture : drawing as

much as pos s ib l e from o ther subjec t areas. I t i s thought 1

that such a curriculum-wide approach may f a c i l i t a t e a nat ,ural

i n t e g r a t i o n of knowledge of the second language, knowledge of

the second language cu l tu re and knowledge of language i n

general .

(Canale, 1983:19)

15. Learner-centred approach-sensi t ivi ty t o l ea rne r

d i f f e r ences and needs:

A prominent feature of CLT is i t s learner centredness

Stern (1983:387) remarks t h a t "The awareness of l e a rne r

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and individual d i f fe rences among language

l e a r n e r s can s e n s i t i z e t eachers t o poss ib le v a r i a t i o n s i n

' l e a r n e r r e a c t i o n s t o teaching and t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g

s t r a t e g i e s " . 1ndiviJt ;al l e a r n e r s possess unique i n t e r e s t s ,

s t y l e s , needs o r goa l s . CLT i n s t r u c t i o n mate r ia l s and methods

c a t e r t o t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a p t i t u d e s .

According t o Maley (1986:89) CLT manifes ts "a

s e n s i t i v i t y t o l e a r n e r ' s d i f fe rences r a t h e r than a ' l o c k s t e p '

approach i n which a l l s tudents proceed through t h e same

m a t e r i a l s a t t h e same pace".

"It i s a s e n s i t i v i t y t o individual needs which i s t h e

major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e func t iona l /no t iona l approach t o

language teaching" . (Finocchiaro and Brumf i t , 1983).

I' . .. i t i s student-determined r a t h e r than t eacher -

determined, What needs t o be taught i s def ined by t h e

f a i l u r e s t o communicate a t t h e l i i r s t s t a g e , which t h u s

opera tes as a d i a g n o s i s f o r t h e , t eacher , and as a mot ivator

f o r t h e s t u d e n t s who a r e aware of t h e i r needs". (Maley,l986:

89 1

A communicative approach must be based on and respond

t o l e a r n e r ' s (of t e n changing) communication needs and

i n t e r e s t s . (Canale , 1983:18).

16. Awareness of l a n ~ u a ~ e v a r i a t i o n : Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

of t h e communicative approach i s i t s "awareness of v a r i a t i o n

i n language use r a t h e r than simple a t t e n t i o n t o t h e language.

( i . e . , r ecogni t ion t h a t t h e r e i s not one English but many

Engl i shes )" , (Maley, 1986:89).

Native-speaker l i k e pronunciation i s never demanded.

comprehensible pronounciat ion i s sought.

"It i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important t o base a communicative

approach a t l e a s t i n p a r t on t h e v a r i e t i e s of t h e second

language t h a t t h e l e a r n e r is most l i k e l y t o be i n c o n t a c t

wi th i n a genuine communicative s i t u a t i o n and on t h e

minimum l e e e l s of competence t h a t var ious groups of n a t i v e

speakers ( such a s age groups, occupational groups ) expect

of t h e l e a r n e r i n such s i t u a t i o n s and t h a t the major i ty of

l e a r n e r s may be expected t o a t t a in" . (Canale , .1983:18) .

17 . Needs a n a l y s i s : Needs a n a l y s i s i s an e s s e n t i a l s t e p i n

des ign ing a communicative c u r r i c u l a or sy l l abus . CLT

envisages i n t e r e s t i n analysing and planning f o r t h e

genuine needB of t h e l e a r n e r .

18. The i n d i v i d u a l i s e d na ture of t he CLT sy l l abus :

a ) A s i g n i f i c a n t po in t i s the ' pe r sona l i s ed ' cha rac t e r of

t h e sy l l abus . The s y l l a b u s i s developed on t h e b a s i s of t h e

p a r t i c u l a r needs manifested by t h e c l a s s o r a p a r t i c u l a r

group of i n d i v i d u a l s .

bl The CLT s y l l a b u s de-emphasises the sys temat ic study of

grammar, i t i s f u n c t i o n a l l y organised and concent ra tes on

' r e l e v a n t 1 behavioural and communicat i v e o b j e c t i v e s . The

s h i f t i s from d e s c r i p t i v e t o i n t e r a c t i v e language.

C ) The s y l l a b u s and curriculum i s f l e x i b l e and adaptable t o

promote e f f e c t i v e , s u i t a b l e communication.

19. The t r i a l and e r r o r process: Put t ing l e a r n e r s i n t o

~ i t u a t i o n s where they have t o grope and paraphrase, and t o

a d j u s t t o o t h e r speakers doing t h e same is:central f e a t u r e

of CLT. CLT advocates propound t h e theory t h a t t h e t a r g e t

l i n g u i s t i c system w i l l be best learned through t h e process

of s t r u g g l i n g t o communicate. Language i s c r ea t ed by t h e

i n d i v i d w l o f t e n through t r i a l and e r r o r .

20. Teacher non- in te rvent ion : CLT r a i s e s t h e issue of non-

i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e teacher . The t r a d i t i o n a l kind of

classroom teacher-domination i s conspicuoui by i t s absence.

Teacher-pup11 re1 a t i o n s a r e c l o s e r and l e s s formal. There

i s g r e a t e r inc idence of informal d i scuss ion and mutual

exchange of persona l information. CLT advocates t h e

democrat1s)ation o f teacher-pupi l r e l a t i onsh ips .

21. I n t e g r a t e d development of a l l language s k i l l s : The

balance of emphasis between t h e ' four s k i l l s ' i s s h i f t e d

away from w r i t i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r and i n favour of speaking.

But t h i s does no t mean t h a t t h e other s k i l l s have been

re lega ted t o t h e background. "The primary goa l of a

communicative approach must be t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e

i n ' t q r a t i o n of the var ious competences f o r t h e l e a r n e r , an

outcome t h a t i s not l i k e l y t o r e s u l t from overemphasis on

one a r e a of competence wer the o t h e r s through out a second

language programme". (Canele , 1983: 18)

22. Act ive c o r r e c t i o n of pupils ' mistakes i s discouraged

Immediate, a c t i v e c o r r e c t ion of pupils ' mistakes i s

discouraged as it dampens motivation. CLT maintains t h a t

e r r o r i s a normal p a r t of language learning and sus ta ined

exposure t o the t a rge t language is s u f f i c i e n t f o r pupil

competence t o 'come r i g h t ' i n the end. The t eacher ' s

correc t ion s t r a t e g y should be devised so as t o bring home

t o pupi ls t h a t i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y and ' bas ic message

ef fec t iveness1 are what r ea l ly matter ra ther than formal

correctness. According t o CLT t h e o r i s t s correc t ion has no

long term inf luence on the development of ~ore ign / second

language' competence. (Mitchel l , 19881.

23. - The humanistic approach: The communicative approach

views l ea rne r s "not so much as fu l l - t ime l i n g u i s t i c ob jec t s

a t whom language teaching i s aimed, but r a the r as human

individuals whose personal d ign i ty and i n t e g r i t y , and the 1

complexity of whose ideas , thoughts, needs, and sentiments,

should be respected . By s p e c i f i c means, foreign language

teachers must con t r ibu te t o the s e l f ac tual iz ing process of

the ind iv idua l , by s t r i v i n g t o be 'humans among the humans1

(Littlewood, 1 9 8 4 : 9 4 ) genuinely in te res ted people. Involved 9

on both an i n t e l l e c t u a l and an emotional plane, they do not

have t o open up, but are open t o a l l the pa r t i c ipan t s i n - the class-room in te rac t ion" . (Pe te r Medgyas,1985)

A l l t eachers have been forced t o p l a y the r o l e of

psychologists consciously o r unconsciously over t h e

centur ies but i n the communicative approach t h i s

r e spons ib i l i ty of t h e teacher i s g r e a t l y enhanced.

24. communicative t e s t s r e f l e c t i v e of r ea l l i f e t a sks :

The performance t a s k s i n communicative t e s t s are

rep resen ta t ive of the t y p e of t a sks the l ea rne r i s l jke l y

t o f ace i n their own l i f e s i t u a t i o n and attempts t o

corresponsl t o normal language use , i . e . , "demonstrate t h i s

knowledge [ of language use] i n a meaningful communicative P

s i tua t ion" . (Canale e t a l . , 1 9 8 0 : 3 4 )

The p r inc ip le (communicative relevance of tasks i s

important not only with respect t o classroom a c t i v i t i e s but

te . i t ing a s well . I t has been argued tha t paper-and-pencil

t e s t s , tape-recorded l i s t en ing and speaking t e s t s , and t h e

l i k e do not allow the learner t o t r y out h is /her

communication s k i l l s i n a r e a l i s t i c communication s i t u a t i o n 3

and thus cannot have the same psychological and

i n s t r u c t i o n a l impact as do t e s t ing a c t i v i t i e s t h a t d i r e c t l y

involve more authent ic and meaningful communicative

i n t e r a c t i o n . (Clark , 1972:132)

2.3. THE -COMMUNICATIVE SYLLABUS

2.3 .1 . Sy l l abus and Curriculum: The Difference

A.M.Shaw ( 1 9 7 7 ) d is t inguishes between syl labus and

curriculum c l e a r l y when he quotes Robertson (1971 : 5641 as

f ollowsfl. . . the curriculum includes the goals , ob jec t ives ,

content , processes, resources, and means of evaluat ion of

a l l t he learning experiences planned f o r pupils both i n and

out of the school and community through classroom

i n s t r u c t i o n and re1 ated programme".

He t h e n d e f i n e s s y l l a b u s a s "a s ta tement of t h e plan

of any p a r t of t h e cur r icu lum, excluding t h e element of t he

curriculum e v a l u a t i o n i t s e l f " . And he concludes t h a t " the

should be viewed i n t h e context of an ongoing

curriculum development process".

A s y l l a b u s h a s been compared t o a b l u e p r i n t : i t i s a

plan which t h e t eache r conver t s i n t o a r e a l i t y of classroom

i n t e r a c t i o n . But a s y l l a b u s has t h e added advantage of

being more amenable t o a l t e r a t i o n than a b lue -p r in t if it:

tu rns ou t t o be imperfec t i n any way. There i s p l en ty of

scope f o r t h e t eache r t o make s u i t a b l e changes i n keeping

with a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e classroom s i t u a t i o n and respond t o

the framework provided by t h e s y l l a b u s des igne r .

2.3.2. _The P r i n c i p l e s of Sy l l abus Design:

Brumfit (1985:64-65) has b r i e f l y descr ibed . t h e

d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of s y l l a b u s o rgan i sa t i on . Syl labus

o rgan i sa t i on imp l i e s t h e whole process of o rganiz ing and

spec i fy ing what i s t o be t augh t i n a body of m a t e r i a l , o r

i n an educa t iona l i n s t i t u t i o n , i n o rde r t o enable t h e

l ea rn ing of a language t o be a s e f f e c t i v e a s pos s ib l e .

1. F i r s t , a s y l l a b u s must be poa l -d i rec ted . I ts main

j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s t h a t i t enables a l e a r n e r t o achieve

c e r t a i n o b j e c t i v e s .

2 . Second, since a s y l l a b u s Lmplies movement, i t must

Tontain a s t a r t i n g point: a s well a s an end. The st:arting

point must r e l a t e t o l e a r n e r behaviour , f o r whatever t h e

of t h e s y l l a b u s a r e , l ea rn ing can s t a r t on ly ftom

where the l e a r n e r i s a t t h e time of en t ry .

3. ~ h i r d , a s y l l a b u s i s an adminis t ra t ive t o o l : t h a t i s , i t

is a device which has t o opera te i n t he r ea l world of

i n s t i t u t i o n s and commerce. A sy l labus which i s e f f e c t i v e

w i l l need t o be a s secure ly based i n a c t u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s o r

behaviour p a t t e r n s a s a bridge is i n ac tua l s o l i d ground.

4. Fourth, a sy l labus involves t h e making of

gene ra l i za t i ons f o r it i s a d e v i c e f o r teaching with, not

f o r l ea rn ing from, and t each ing i s r a r e l y addressed t o

ind iv idua ls . Sy l labuses a r e aimed a t c l a s s e s i n s choo l s ,

col leges , a t hypo the t i ca l l e a r n e r s i n textbooks o r teach

yourself books, and t h e learner behavlour w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y

be genera l ized i n t h e sy l labus s p e c i f i c a t i o n . A s y l l a b u s

spec i f i e s a way of o f f e r i n g mater ia l t o people t o l e a r n .

But i t cannot s p e c i f y p rec i se ly how they w i l l l e a r n i t

because each person has s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t . needs,

motivation and l e a r n i n g s t y l e s , and because each person

va r i e s i n commitment t o learn ing from lesson t o l e s son ,

2.3.3. Sy l l abus Desfgn apropos t o Methodology and t h e

Language Learning Process.

Language l e a r n i n g i s a process of l i n g u i s t i c and

cu l tu ra l n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning and not a s t a t i c product .

Students have to develop t h e i r i nna t e a b i l i t y t o u se

language f o r t h e i r own purposes i n i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e

purposes of o t h e r language use r s . Any d i scus s ion on

syl labus o r g a n i s a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y s o communicatlve

sy l labuses , should t ake cogni t ion of t h i s need.

Language teaching w i l l not be well served i f i t i s

based on t h e assumption t h a t we can spec i fy t he l e a r n e r s '

product e x a c t l y . The drawback of a l l sy l l abuses i s t h a t

they tend t o concent ra te on t h e product o r con ten t .

sy l l abus des igne r s f a c e t h e problem of r e l a t i n g what a r e

p r i m a r i l y d e s c r i p t i v e procedures t o t h e needs of t h e

language classrooms, i.e., convert d e s c r i p t i o n t o process .

A s y l l a b u s should not merely be a l is t of behavioural

s p e c i f i c a t i o n s because what t h e teacher i s teaching i s a

gene ra t i ve system which a l l -human beings have a c a p a c i t y t o

acqui re . I t i s not t h e teaching of a l i m i t e d s e t of

behaviours, but a capac i ty t o produce those behaviours- a

capac i ty which enables i t s u s e r s t o do many o t h e r

behaviours than those s p e c i f i e d by any l i m i t e d s e t . With'

language we c o n s t r u c t and we 'play, adapt and r e f i n e ,

s t r e t c h and t w i s t and break the components of t h e system i n

order t o c r e a t e new messages, for ourse lves o r f o r o t h e r s .

We acqu i r e a f l e x i b l e and dynamic system, and t h e process

of' a c q u i s i t i o n should r e f l e c t t h i s aspec t of f l e x i b l i t y a d w

dynamism.

Any d i s c u s s i o n of sy l l abus des ign must recognise t h e

f e a t u r e s of language which have been ref e r r ed t o above.

2 . 3 . 4 . The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Good Syl labus:

1. A s ta tement of e f f i c i e n t l e a rn ing : A s y l l a b u s i s a

s ta tement of e f f i c i e n t l ea rn ing . When des ign ing a s y l l a b u s

we at tempt t o organize t h e mater ia l i n such a way a s to

reflect m o s t . c l o s e l y t h e processes of l e a rn ing i n t h e human

.81.

mind, i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e the process. In o ther words,

Byllabus design must be responsive t o learning theory.

2. systematic view of language: A syl labus i s necessary and

i t should be based on a systematic view of the nature of

language

3. Segmentation of syl labus: A syl labus must a l s o be

capable of being broken down i n t o d i s c r e t e elements, f o r

education takes p lace i n real time and i s , in p r a c t i c e ,

segmented . 4. S e l e c t i o n , grading and sequencing: The t r a d i t i o n a l

concerns with se l ec t ion , grading and sequencing

(~acKey,1965) a r e s t i l . 1 relevant but the tendency t o be

fu l ly systematic must be avoided. Select ing, grading and

sequencing i s determined by considerat ions of ind iv idua l

needs of l e a r n e r s .

5. General izat ion from loca l considerat ions: A sy l labus

involves gene ra l i za t ion from loca l conditions which impose

t h e i r own c o n s t r a i n t s . Thus any p rac t i ca l sy l labus w i l l

* have t o take i n t o account such f ac to r s as t he mother

tongue(s) of t he s tudents , the nature of the language

teaching t r a d i t i o n , the administrat ive support ava i l ab l e ,

and the i n t e n s i t y and quant i ty of language in s t ruc t ion .

6. Relat ing l a n g u a ~ e need t o l a n ~ u a n e theory: A r e a l i s t i c

syl labus must s t a r t wi th a re la t ionship between what Is

needed and l ea rn ing theory. A sy l labus being a

genera l i sa t ion t o accomodate a number of d i f f e r e n t

s tudents , both the needs and the learning process i m p l i c i t

.ill be gene ra l i s ed , bu t t h e needs s p e c i f i c a t i o n should be

t o i m o r p o r a t e reasonably appropr ia te predict ion. of

the purposes f o r which s tuden t s w i l l need t h e target

language, and of t h e s e t t i n g s i n which they may be expected

t o opera te .

2.3.5. _The Merit i n Structural/Grammatical Syllabuses:

Unt i l t h e l a s t decade o r s o , it was gene ra l l y assumed

that language l e a r n e r s had t o f i r s t master t h e bas i c

vocabulary and grammar of t h e language, and t hen , by

p r a c t i s i n g , l e a r n how t o use them i n va r ious s u i t a b l e

s i t u a t i o n s . Sy l l abuses normally cons is ted of i n v e n t o r i e s

of vocabulary and grammar i tems, ?'he grammatical items

( s t r u c t u r e s o r sen tence p a t t e r n s 1 were s e l e c t e d and graded

t o form a s t r u c t u r a l sy l l abus . Most sy l l abuses a r e s t i l l

of t h i s kind, and arguments a r e s t i l l going on about t h e

drawbacks of such o rgan iza t ion .

According t o Brumfir (1985:66 1 t h e r e i s a pragmatic

reason f o r no t r e j e c t i n g t h e grammatical b a s i s f o r s y l l a b u s

design. Not on ly i s i t ar rogant t o assume t h a t genera t ions

of language t e a c h e r s and l i n g u i s t s were a l l wrong q u i t e s o

fundamentally, bu t more important i s t h e i n e v i t a b l e

neces s i t y of bu i ld ing o u r sy l l abuses on t h e experience of

the pas t . I n p r a c t i c a l terms a s y l l a b u s i s p a r t l y an

a n t i c i p a t f o n of l e a r n e r d i f f i c u l t i e s and i n t h e p a s t t h e s e

have been cons idered pure ly i n grammatical terms. I t i s

poss ib l e t o h e l p l e a r n e r s acqu i r e the syntax of t h e t a r g e t

language without making t h e s i m i l a r mistakes made by our

predece~SorSm I t is a l l 0 necessary t o u t i l i s e p a s t

knowledge by modifying t h e grammatical syl1,abus t o e a t e r t o

the needs of p a r t i c u l a r circumstances.

2 .3 .6 . Objec t ions t o t h e T r a d i t i o n a l S t r u c t u r a l / Gramatical

sy l l abus

The l a s t decade has seen t h e establ ishment of a

consensus about what was wrong with s t ruc tura l /grammat ica l

sy l l abuses . Structural/grammat i c a l sy l l abuses have been

at tacked on s e v e r a l grounds.

Representa t ive w r i t e r s (van Ek, 1975: Wilkins,1976:

Widdowoon, 1978) have put f o r t h t he view t h a t grammatical

sy l l abuses can only o f f e r a t b e s t a p a r t i a l account of

language l e a r n i n g with varying degrees of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .

Grammar i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t he s t r u c t u r e of a

language. Learners need t h e language, not t o d i s p l a y t h e i r

knowledge of its organ iza t ion , but i n , order t o perform

speech a c t s t o convey meanings.

Learners language needs a r e not c a t e r e d t o .

Specifying a s y l l a b u s i n grammatical terms i s l i k e l y t o

lead t o t eache r s ploughing t h e i r way sys t ema t i ca l ly through

an inventory of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s , whether o r no t the

s tudents need them.

I t results i n d i scuss ion i n c l a s s of grammatical

terminology and an emphasis on the d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s

r a the r t han language u s e i t s e l f . The grammatical s y l l a b u s

on t h e organiza t ion of t he language a t t h e

expense of t h e va lue of l i n g u i s t i c i tems i n t he ope ra t i on

of normal d i s c o u r s e .

I t was assumed t h a t f i r s t t h e code should be t augh t

and t h a t c l a s s r ~ m a c t i v i t y would g ive s u f f i c i e n t

experience of u s i n g t h e code t o enable l e a r n e r s t o o p e r a t e

on t h e i r own when necessary. This was ' s k i l l - u s i n g v

following ' s k i l l - g e t t i n g ' i n Wilga Rivers terms ( 1972 ) . The job of t h e s y l l a b u s was t o spec i fy what t h e underlying

knowledge ,of t h e code t o be acquired was before i t could be

put i n t o use . Sy l l abus s p e c i f i c a t i o n s were gene ra l l y aimed

a t t e a c h e r s t ' p r e s e n t a t i o n ' techniques, and provided t h e

content f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n . During t h e l a t e r ' p r a c t i c e and

'product ion ' stages t h e techniques used would enable

learners t o deve lop c a p a c i t i e s t o u se t h e language. This

l a t t e r s t a g e was t h e concern of methodology and not f o r

sy l labus s p e c i f i c a t i o n . This methodological d i s cus s ion f o r

many yea r s i n s i s t e d on t h e need t o ' s i t u a t i o n a l i z e '

language, t o p r a c t i c e i t i n con tex t s and meanings. Th i s

claim i s t h e o f f shoo t of much t h e o r e t i c a l specu la t i ons , and

empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n about t h e ways i n which we behave

i n r e l a t i o n t o each other, with language.

2.3.7. -- The Components of a Communicative Syl labus: --- The p r i n c i p l e s on which communicative s y l l a b u s i s

s t ruc tured a r e d i f f e r e n t from those f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e

l i n g u i s t i c con ten t t o be included i n i t . The former

n e c e s s i t a t e s tak ing i n t o cons idera t ion a number of e x t r a -

l i n g u i s t i c factors such as t h e educa t iona l s e t t i n g i n which

the course i s t o be t augh t , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the

learners , the circumstances i n which the educational

i n s t i t u t i o n Operates and even the socie ty i n which the

language learning and teaching process i s t o be c a r r i e d on.

lf we des i re t o make up the d e f i c i t i n e a r l i e r sy l labus

types, and ensure t h a t our l ea rne r s acquire t h e a b i l i t y t o

communicate i n a more appropriate and e f f i c i e n t way, we

have t o i n s e r t a l a r g e number of components i n t o t h e

syllabus. Yalden ( 1983 :86-87 l i s t s these components as

f olldws :

1. As de ta i l ed a considerat ion as possible of the purposes

fo r which the l e a r n e r s wish t o acquire t h e t a r g e t langyage.

2 . Some idea of the s e t t i n g i n which they w i l l want t o use

the t a rge t language (physical aspects need t o be

considered; as well as s o c i a l ) .

3. The s o c i a l l y defined - r o l e the learner w i l l assume i n t h e

ta rget language, as well as the r o l e s of t h e i r

in t e r locu to r s .

4. The communicative events i n which the learners w i l l

pa r t i c ipa te : every day s i t u a t i o n s , vocational o r

professional s i t u a t i o n s , academic s i t u a t i o n s and so on.

5 . The language funct ions i n ~ l v e d i n t h e s e events , or what

the l ea rne r s w i l l need t o be able t o do with o r through the

language.

6 . The notions involved, o r what the l ea rne r w i l l need t o

be able t o t a l k about.

7 , The s k i l l s involved i n t h e ' k n i t t i n g t o g e t h e r ' of

d i scourse : discourse and r h e t o r i c a l s k i l l s .

8. The v a r i e t y or v a r i e t i e s of t h e t a r g e t language t h a t 7

be needed, and t h e l e v e l s i n t h e spoken and w r i t t e n

language which t h e l e a r n e r s will need t o reach.

9. The Content t h a t w i l l be needed.

10. The l e x i c a l con ten t t h a t w i l l be needed.

2.3.8. _ D e s i ~ n i n g a ---_____I Communicative Sy l labus : _ _

The process of cons t ruc t ing a communicative syl l ,abus

c a n be b e t t e r understood by examining t h e o v e r a l l p rocess

of planning t h e second 1 anguage program. Within t h i s

framework, t h e s y l l a b u s i s only one p a r t , though a very

important: one, of the whole. The diagram which fo l l ows

accompanied by a t a b l e c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h e various

s t ages i n t h e language program development:

L a n ~ u a g e Program Development 7

Se lec - t ion o r deve - l op - rnent

0 f s y l l ab. u s t y p e

Prod- Prod- Deve 1 - uctiorj ! t i on crpment

o f a of a and proto- pedag- imp1 e- s y l l a - o g i c a l menta- bus s y l l a- t ion

bus of c l a s s - room proced- ures

Table: Stapes i n Language Pro~ra! Development ---

Stage Descr ip t ion

I Needs survey

I I Descr ip t ion of purpose t o be prepared i n terms of

a ) s tudent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

b ) s tudent s k i l l s on e n t r y t o and e x i t from the program.

S e l e c t i o n o r development of sy l labus i n terms of I V and t h e physical c o n s t r a i n t s on theprogram.

The Proto-syl labus: de sc r ip t i on of language and language u s e to be covered i n the program.

The Pedagogical sy l labus : development of t each ing , l ea rn ing and t e s t i n g approaches:

a ) development of teaching mater ia l s :

b) development of t e s t i n g sequences and dec i s ions 7

on t e s t i n g instruments.

1. Development of classroom procedures:

a . s e l e c t i o n of exe rc i s e types and teaching techniques;

b. p repara t ion of lesson plans;

c. p repara t ion o f weekly schedules.

2. Teacher t r a i n i n g : b r i e f i n g s o r 'workshops on

a . p r i n c i p l e s ;

b. d e s i r e d outcome;

c . e x p l o i t a t i on l c r ea t ion of teaching mater ia l .

V T I Eva l u a t ion

a 1 of s tudents ;

b ) of program;

C ) of teaching.

vIII Recycling Stage

a ) congruence or ' f i t ' between goals s e t and s tudent performance i s determined;

b) content i s reassessed;

C ) ma te r i a l s and methodological procedures are revised .

( Yalden, 1983:89)

The f i r s t s t a g e In the process involves two s t eps :

- carrying out a survey of the communicative needs of

the l ea rne r s for whom the program is being prepared;

- conducting a survey of the physical resources a t hand.

2.3.8.1. Stage - I : Needs Survey:

Language teaching should be c a r e f u l l y planned so as t o

achieve the s t i p u l a t e d objec t ives . I t i s imperative t h a t

the sy l labus planner or t h e teacher be f u l l y cognizapt of

t h e needs of h i s s tudents and soc ie ty . The success o r

f a i l u r e of a curriculum i s t o be assessed i n the l i g h t of

1 earners ' 1 a n h a g e needs.

English and Kaufman (1975: v i ) de f ine needs assessment

as ". . . a process f o r iden t i fy ing and def in ing va l id

curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n a l and management objec t ives" .

Needs ana lys i s guarantees t h a t classroom learning i s

re la ted t o learners' r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . "Needs

assessment i s a tool which formally harves ts t h e gaps

between current r e s u l t s ( o r outcomes, products and

required or d e s i r e d , p laces these gaps (needs) i n p r i o r i t y

order and s e l e c t s those gaps (needs) of the highest

P r io r i ty £or ac t ion usual ly through the implementation of a

new or e x i s t i n g curriculum or management process.

In order f o r a needs assessment t o be v a l i d and usefu l i t

should i nc lude t h e educa t iona l pa r tne r s of l e a r n e r s ,

and community members i n t he process of d e f i n i n g

gaps (needs 1". ( I b i d . 3-41

The t eache r should a t tempt t o discover i n coopera t ion

" i th t h e s t u d e n t , a r ea s whfch i n d i c a t e p o t e n t i a l

requi rements . These could inc lude ba th 9

classroom needs (elassroom language) and those which h e may

require i n f u t u r e voca t iona l ox r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s . The

needs survey c a n a l s o i n c l u d e t h e l e a r n e r ' s awn d e s i r e o r

wants f o r t h e purpose of se l f -express ion r a t h e r rhan f o r

purposeful o r t r a n s a c t i o n a l communicative behaviour . The

object i s t o o b t a i n as much information as p o s s i b l e i n any

given s i t u a t i o n about t h e l e a r n e r s and about t h e i r purposes 1

i n acqui r ing t h e t a r g e t language.

Engl ish and Kauf man (1975: 11 emphat ical ly stress on

the importance of needs assessment i n terms of what i t

means t o t h e l e a r n e r , t o t h e community and t o t h e count ry

as a whole. The d i s a s t r o u s r e s u l t of t h e neg lec t of needs

ana lys i s has been a p t l y summarised by Engl ish and Kauf man

If some procedure l i k e needs assessment i s not adopted, a p rocess t h a t i s empir ica l and pub l i c and open t o in spec t ion , cha l l enge , and v a l i d a t i n g , and b which school and school system, g o a l s and o r, j e c t i v e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d and p r i o r i z e d we w i l l cont inue t o be plagued by problems. Some of t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e : confusion of means and ends, u n c e r t a i n i t i e s over which problems a r e most a c u t e , an i n a b i l i t y t o defend admin i s t r a t i ve d e c i s i o n s regard ing programme p r i o r i t i e s , and a s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o adopt new th ings before we r e a l l y know what t hey a r e designed t o do when a ppl Led.

In ~ n d i a where t h e not ion of needs ana lys i s has ye t t o

take roo t , we f i n d t h a t much of t he English teaching at a l l

levels is unordered, ungraded, unspecif ic and

un in t e re s t ing . Only a need based sy l labus w i l l make t h e

teaching/ learning of English meaningful and equip t h e

students with t h e appropr ia te language.

Data Col l ec t ion : 3

is The f i r s t s t e p i n needs analysis,data c o l l e c t i o n . In

co l lec t ing d a t a two broad areas 'need t o be covered:

- who the l e a r n e r s a r e (what they br ing with them):

- what t h e i r purposes, needs and wishes a r e i n l ea rn ing t h e

language, (where they aye going) .

2.3.8.1.1. C h e c k l i s t s f o r Predic t ing Communicative Needs:

Litt lewood (1981:82-84) d i scusses t h e te levance of van

Ek and Alexander' s 'Threshold Level ' ( 1980) i n p red ic t ing

communicative needs. I n dec id ing what func t ions , t o p i c s

and s o on a r e most l i k e l y t o be re levant t o t he l e a r n e r ' s

needs, t e ache r s must r e l y u l t ima te ly on t h e i r own i n t u i t i o n

and observat ion. However, they can make t h e i r t a i k e a s i e r

by using publ ished c h e c k l i s t s , which could be modified as

they th ink necessary .

In 'Threshold Level ' an attempt has been made t o

specify :

a ) i he most important communicative needs t h a t are l i k e l y

t o a r i s e i n every day s i t u a t i o n s :

b) s u i t a b l e language forms t h a t could be l e a r n t f o r coping

with these needs,

I t assumes a ' g e n e r a l ' l e a rne r who wants t o c r o s s t h e

rrhreshold' i n t o a reasonably normal l i f e i n a fo re ign

country, o r who wants t o i n t e r a c t wi th f c r e t g n v i s i t = r s in

h i s own country. The t eache r i s a s s i s t e d i n answering

ce r t a in ques t i ons about t h e l ea rne r such as :

1. What s i t u a t i o n s might t h e l e a r n e r encounter? 9

The s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i s t s some of the s i t u a t i o n s i n

"hich t h e l e a r n e r may probably need t o use t h e f o r e i g n

language. Two k i n d s of s i t u a t i o n s a r e envisaged:

- s i t u a t i o n s where language i s p r e d i c t a b l e o r

' t r a n s a c t i o n a l ' s i t u a t i o n s , ( e g . i n a bank or

supermarket 1 :

- s i t u a t i o n s where language i s unpred i c t ab l e and t h u s

requi r ing a vast. range of d i f f e r z n t l i n g u i s t i c needs,

(eg. personal conve r sa t i ons with f ri 'ends 1 .

2. What l a n ~ u a ~ e a c t i v i t i e s t h e l e a r n e r most l i k e l y t o take

p a r t i n ?

The s p e c i f i c a t i o n assumes t h a t t h e l e a r n e r w i l l need *

t o p a r t i c i p a t e mostly i n o r a l a c t i v i t i e s and t h e r e f o r e h i s

wri t ing and r ead ing needs w i l l be l i m i t e d . But w r i t i n g and

reading a c t i v i t i e s ere still recognised as u s e f u l a i d s t o

learning.

3 . What f u n c t i o n s of language a r e l i k e l y t o be most u s e f u l ?

The spec i f ica t ion l i s t s s i x t y e i g h t communicative

functions which i t c o n s i d e r s t o be most important. Some of

these a r e f a i r l y s imple and may be expressed by

convent ional ised forms (eg . accept ing o r d e c l i n i n g

i n v i t a t i o n s 1 . Othe r s (eg. d e s c r i b i n g o r n a r r a t i n g ) are

much mote e x t e n s i v e and complex, and t h e ac tua l language

needed being determined almost e n t i rely by t h e t o p i c s and

,orions involved.

4 What topics a r e l i k e l y t o be important?

A l i s t of t o p i c a reas a r e mentioned which might prove

useful t o the l e a r n e r . For each topic the s p e c i f i c a t i o n

suggests what t h e s tudents chould be able t o do with i t

(eg. spor t s ; s t a t e s own preference, e t c . ) , thereby l inking

topics with communicative functions. I t a1 so l i s t s

important ' t o p i c r e l a t e d ' notions (eg. under s p o r t s ; team,

t o p l a y , game,race, t o S w i m , i t c . 1 . Spec i f i c top ics and

related notions w i l l determine what s p e c i f i c items of

1 anguage/vocabul a r y the learners w i l l need.

5 . What genera l not ions are l,ikely t o be importaot?

~ e s i d e s ' t o p i c r e l a t e d notions mentioned above, t h e

specification provides a l ist of general notions such as

locat ions , number, owership, e t c , which the l ea rne r s might

need t o express.

9

Upto t h i s p o i n t , t he speci f ica t ion app l i e s equally t o

learners of any fo re ign language f o r genera l purposes; i t

is a predic t ion of communicative needs, and these needs

would be expressed i n whatever language the s tudents

happened to be learning. A major aim of the document i s t o

specify equivalent communicative objec t ives for l ea rne r s of

d i f f e r e n t fo re ign languages. After this point t h e

d ~ u m e n t refers s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the l ea rne r s of English,

6 , What & n ~ u a g e fprms should t h e student l e a r n , i n o r d e r

to s a t i s f y communicative needs t h a t have been desc r ibed?

The needed l a ~ r g u a g r forms a r e l i s t e d under t l . . r r r c aaL11

headings :

-forms which exp re s s communicative func t ions l most l y

grammatical p a t t e r n s 1 : .)

- forms which express ~ n e r a l no t ions (grammatical p a t t e r n s

and 1 tems of vocabulary 1 :

- forms which ekxpress t op i c - re1 a ted not ions (mos t ly i t ems

of vocabu la ry ) . I t d i s t i n g u i s h e s between forms which

should be mastered f o r p roduct ive use and forms which need

t o be mastered f o r comprehension purposes only. Where

necessary, e s p e c i a l l y f o r product ive use, it r ecogn i se s t h e B

imporgance of s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s i n language l e a r n i n g by

s e l e c t i n g t h e s imp le s t way of expressing a f u n c t i o n o r

notion.

The v a r i o u s l i s t s of t h e 'Threshold Level' provide a

t e n t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e general l e a r n e r s ' 9

communicative needs and of t h e language needed f o r

s a t i s f y i n g them. They a l s o o f f e r a model procedure which

t eache r s can follow themselves i f they wish t o c a r r y o u t

t h e i r own assessment of l e a r n e r s ' needs. I t i s important

t o r e a l i s e t h a t however much w e t r y t o match conten t w i th

COmmunicative needs , t h e l e a r n e r s w i l l only t o be a b l e t o

communicate s u c c e s s f u l 1 y i n everyday s i t u a t i o n s if they

develop a communicative a b i l i t y which i s s u f f i c i e n t l y

f l e x i b l e and c r e a t i v e t o g o beyond t h e needs p red i c t ed by

the s y l l a b u s d e s i g n e r or t eacher . Pierson and F r i e d e r i c h s

(1981:305,) have designed a needs assessment work s h e e t t o

iagonise t h e language needs of Cantonese speaking f i r s t

ear s tuden t s a t t h e Chinese Universi ty of Hong Kong who

took a c o m p u l s ~ r y ESL course. I t has been included under

Appendix 1 A . A worksheet t o a s se s s t h e language needs of

pre-univers i ty s tuden t s has been included under Appendix 1 B

2.3.8.1.2, T r a n s l a t i n g t he S tudents ' -- General Needs i n t o a --- b

basis f o r E f f e c t i v e Teaching:

To t r a n s l a t e t h e s tuden t s ' general needs i n t o a b a s i s

f o r e f f e c t i v e teaching two t h i n g s should be done:

1. Construct a r e a l i s t i c program tak ing i n t o cons ide ra t i on

the physical and admin i s t r a t i ve condi t ions i n which i t w i l l

have 5 0 o p e r a t e .

2 . Adapt t h e program t o be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e most

e f f i c i e n t ways of lea?nlng languages.

In o r d e r t o conduct a r e a l i s t i c program t h e fo l lowing '

fac tors w i l l need to be takrn i n t o cons idera t ion :

1. The t ype of program we a r e concerned with:

- i n t ens ive o r r egu la r ; 1

- short term or long term;

- t h e age of t h e s tuden t s ;

- the language level of t h e s tuden t s .

2. The s t u d e n t s ' need of t he language:

- i n school and our of school ;

- immediate use or unspec i f ied f u t u r e use-

3 - The p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s o r economic

f ac to r s which a f f e c t re1 a t ions between , s tuden t s and

teachers .

example : l o c a l / f o r e i g n teachers; the s i m i l a r i t y or

d i s s imi l a r i t y of t e ache r s and students backgrounds.

4. The resources ava i l ab l e i l l the school and community

could e f f e c t t h e implenentation of t h e curriculum.

5 . The t e a c h e r ' s t r a i n i n g and experience and t h e i r

t o t h e i r work. s

To p r w i d e f o r e f f i c i e n t ways of learn ing t h e program

should be responsive t o t h r ee bas ic requirements:

1. Providing systematic exposure t o the basic systems of

the language, s o t h a t students have enough d a t a ava i l ab l e

t o enable them t o bu i ld up f o r themselves the basic

pat te rns of t h e language.

2 . Providing enough opportuni t ies f o r a l l s t u d e n t s t o

experience use ~f t h e language themselves over an extended

per Fod . 3. Organizing t h e program i n such a way as t o motivate

s tudents t o make t h e maxinun use of the oppor tun i t i e s

provided i n t h e course df the curriculum.

We teach c l a s s e s and not ind iv idua ls and language i s a

means, of ope ra t i ng wi th in a large soc i a l group. Thus the Q

Curriculum must be based , gene ra lha t ions about t h e s o c i a l

process of l e a rn ing and using language.

The needs survey w i l l serve as a spr ing board t o t h e

next s t e p i n t h e process of sy l labus des ign , i . e . ,

de sc r ip t i on of purpose.

2.3.0.1.3. A General Assessment of Langua~e Needs of ? r e - u n i v e r s i t y S tudents .

Given below a r e some of t h e general Engl ish language

needs of t h e average p re -un ive r s i t y s tudent .

1, understanding the Engl i sh on rad io and t h e t e l e v i s i o n .

2 . Understanding t h e Engl i sh Press .

3 . Following I n s t r u c t i o n s . 3

4. understanding s i g n s and no t i ce s .

5. Reading f o r g i s t (skimmifig)

6 . Reading f o r d e t a i l ( s cann ing ) .

7 . Lis t en ing f o r g i s t a t s emina r s / l ec tu re r s .

8. L i s t en ing f o r d e t a i l a t seminars / lec tures .

9. Note t a k i n g a t l e c t u r e s .

10. Note t ak ing from textbooks.

11. speaking fo rma l ly ( a t seminars ,debates 1

1 2 . Telephoning.

13. Understanding spoken Engl i sh .

14. Using an Engl i sh d i c t i o n a r y .

15. Let te r wr i t i ng . . 16. Summarizing

1 7 . Report w r i t i n g

18. P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s o c i a l 'small t a l k '

2.3.8.2'. S t a ~ e 11: The Descr ip t ion of Purpose Here a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between courses which have

a narrow f o c u s , p repared f o r a h igh ly homogeneous group o f

l ea rne r s who w i l l have c l e a r l y de f ined language needs i n an

Occupational s e t t i n g , and courses which might be c l a s s i f i e d

as being f o r educa t iona l purposes . I n t h e l a t t e r ca t ego ry ,

courses may e i t h e r be for study i n a s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e or

be g iven as a school sub j ec t i n which ca se language

would not be t h e only sub jec t mat te r , nor would i ts mastery

be t h e s o l e o b j e c t i v e of t he coutse.

While d e s c r i b i n g the purpose of a given course t h e

language program des igner w i l l have t o work i n terms of

broadly o r narrowly focussed purposes, and the occupat iona l

o r educa t iona l c a t e g o r i e s .

2.3.8.3. Stage 111: The Choice of a Syl labus Type:

The t h f r d s t a g e pe r t a in s t o t h e choice of a s y l l a b u s

type . No s i n g l e model of sy l l abus des ign has been

un ive r sa l l y agreed upon and accepted by CLT a c t i v i s t s .

Models range from a modif icat ion of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r a l

sy l labuses t o a completely learner -cen t red approach which

dispenses with 811 kinds of 'p rospecf . ive ' o r ' i n p u t '

sy l labus and envisages sy l l abus conten t growing ou t of t h e

s i t u a t i o n a s t h e course progressed. D i f f e r en t k inds of

communicative s y l l a b u s e s demand d i f f e r e n t methodologies

ranging from a focus on s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l

ana ly t i ca l e x e r c i s e s , t o func t iona l and s t r u c t u r a l

a c t i v i t i e s , t o s t r i c t l y communicative a c t i v i t i e s based on

au thent ic m a t e r i a l s r a t h e r than s p e c i a l l y w r i t t e n ESL

t e x t s .

2.3.8.3.1 Wilkins ' Syn the t i c and Analy t ic S t r a t e g i e s

In examining sy l l abus types we should begin wi th

W i l kins ' o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of t h e dichotomy between an

' a n a l y t i c ' and a ' s y n t h e t i c ' approach t o s y l l a b u s des ign

(wilkins ,1976 1 . David Wilkins argued t h a t the numerous

s t r a t e g i e s ( met hods 1 i n exis tence could be i n t o two conc~.Ptua l ly d i s t i n c t types of approach,

l abe l led ' syn the t i c ' and ' ana ly t i c ' , and t h a t any ac tua l

course o r sy l l abus could be placed somewhere on a continuum between the two. The Synthe t ic ~ p p r o a c h / ~ t r a t e ~ ~ -

Wilkins de f ines t he f i r s t of these two s t r a t e g i e s a s

f 01 lows :

A syn the t i c language teaching s t ra tegy i s one i n which

the d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of language a r e taught sepera te ly and

step-by-step s o t ha t acqu i s i t i on i s a process of gradual

accumulation of t he p a r t s u n t i l t he whole s t r u c t u r e of the

language has been b u i l t up". (Wilkins 1976:j)

In planning courses ' based on t h i s approach, t he language

items t o be taught a re ordered i n t o a l i s t of grammatical

s t ruc tu re s and probably a l i s t of l e x i c a l items. The learner

i s exposed a t any one time only t o a l imited sample of the

target language, and t h e sample i s carefu l ly coqt ro l led .by

the teaching s i t u a t i o n . The l ea rne r s ' job i s thus t o

re-synthesise language, t h a t h a s been taken apar t and

presented t o him i n small p ieces ; t h i s syn thes i s genera l ly

takes place only i n t h e f i n a l s tages of l ea rn ing , a t t he

so-called advancedt l e v e l s . The synthet ic s t r a t egy produces

the s t r u c t u r a l sy l l abus , and what happens i n the classroom i s

that t h e t eache r , in following the syl labus, may e i t h e r use a

Rrammar t r a n s l a t i o n method or ' e c l e c t i c ' approach. whichever

One he uses , t he cons t r a in t s a r e t h e same: t he content of t he

syllabus has been determined by giving top p r i o r i t y t o

to t each ing t h e 'grammar' o r ' s t r u c t u r e ' of t h e language.

he s y n t h e t i c approach w i l l thus i n e v i t a b l y produce a

s y l l a b u s , whose goal i s t o lead t h e l e a r n e r s v i a

one pedagogical s t r a t e g y o r another t o as good a command a s

poss ib le of t h e l i n g u i s t i c system of t h e t a r g e t language.

The Analy t i c ~ p p r o a c h / ~ t r a t e ~ ~ :

Therg i s ano the r r o u t e which Wilkins d e s c r i b e s a s t h e

a n a l y t i c approach' . Broadly speaking, wi th in such an

.approach a semant ic , meaning based s y l l a b u s i s produced,

which l e a d s ( a g a i n v i a var ious pedagogical s t r a t e g i e s ) t o a

somewhat wider goal ; t h a t of communicative competence.

I n h i s i n i t i a l d i scuss ions of a n a l y t i c s y l l a b u s t y p e s ,

Wilkins commented t h a t g lobal or genera l courses were not t h e

best f i e l d , o f appl i c a t i o n f o r t h e notional approach, s i n c e

genera l c o u r s e s were regarded more a s an investment f o r t h e

fu tu re . I n s p e c i a l i z e d courses, he f e l t t h e n o t i o n a l

sy l l abus t o be h i g h l y appropr ia te . Whatever was l e a r n e d

could be used a t once, i n c o n t r a s t t o the de lay customary i n

a genera l course , ,where t h e learner had t o wait u n t i l he had

absorbed a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of s t r u c t u r e before he could

attempt t o use t h e language f o r e f f e c t i v e communication.

Many s y l l a b u s d e s i g n e r s have come t o t h e conclus ion t h a t

what i s now r e q u i r e d is a more f l e x i b l e approach t o s y l l a b u s

cons t ruc t i cn . One should fee l f r e e t o emphasise t h o s e

elements o r components which any given teaching s i t u a t i o n

demands. S y l l a b u s designed f o r providing a classroom

experience which c l o s e l y approximates an environment of real

l,anguage use i s termed a communicative syl labus. There a r e

many forms o r types of the communicative sy l l ebus depending

the l e a r n e r s 9hjectivcr.

2.3.8.3.2. Zypes of Communicative Syllabuses :

In he r book Yalden (1983:llO-119) d i scus se s s i x

communicative language teaching design al . ternat i v e s , ranging

from a model i n which communicative exerc i ses a r e g r a f t e d

i n to an e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r a l s y l l abus t o a learner-generated

view of sy l l abus design. Prabhu (1983) advocates t he

task-based o r procedural sy l labus and Crombie (1985) a

r e l a t i ona l sy l l abus .

2 . 3 . 8 . 3 . 2 . 1 . - The Structural-Fur.;ctional Syllabus:

This t y p e of sy l l abus demarcates and sepera tes t h e two

componen ts of form and communicative funct ion. Thus t h i s

syl labus i s f a i r l y easy t o implement. A t what po in t the

teaching of communicative funct ion should commence vary.

However, t h i s model assumes t h a t l i n g u i s t i c forms had been

t rea ted q u i t e thoroughly before work on language func t ions

was introduced. This format implies t he adding of a f u r t h e r

component t o an already e x i s t i n g sy l labus , r a t h e r than

in t eg ra t i ng communicative teaching with teaching l i n g u i s t i c

forms and w i l l prove useful i n reor ien t ing an e x i s t i n g

s t r u c t u r a l course. The main f ea tu re s of t h i s sy l l abus a r e :

- focus on grammar and other formal f ea tu re s of language; - cont ro l led grammatical teaching techniques: - medium-oriented p r a c t i c e . (Al len , 1986)

.101.

Here t h e main emphasis i s t o encourage s t u d e n t s t o

e s t a b l i s h f l u e n t speech h a b i t s and t o ensure t h a t t h e y

a knowledge of b a s i c sen tence s t r u c t u r e s and

vocabulary. Some degree of formal s t r u c t u r a l c o n t r o l i s

mainta ined i n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l . I n a t y p i c a l

textbook des igned on a s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l s y l l a b u s t h e

r'&ding passages w i l l be s i m p l i f i e d s t r u c t u r a l l y by o m i t t i n g

more d i f f i c u l t sen tence p a t t e r n s i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s . La te r

these p a t t e r n s a r e in t roduced s tep-by-s tep i n a c a r e f u l l y

graded s e r i e s . Most of t h e e x e r c i s e s w i l l focus on p rov id ing

ample p r a c t i c e i n t h e s t r u c t u r a l , formal a s p e c t s of language

prof ic iency which many people view as a necessa ry i n i t i a l

s t ep i n t h e development of communicative competence.

S t r u c t u r a l p r a c t i c e s e t i n meaningful c o n t e x t i s a form of

communication, though l i m i t e d i n . scope. Though m a t e r i a l s

emphasise t h e sys temat ic a c q u i s i t i o n of language under t h e

guidance o f a good teacher t h e classroom a c t i v i t i e s ' w i l l

revolve around worthwhile t a s k s and o r i e n t e d towards

discourse . The main 'advantage of t h e s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l

sy l l abus i s t h a t i n i t i a l l y s t u d e n t s cannot be expected t o

communicate i n a second language u n t i l they have mastered t h e

underlying p r i n c i p l e s of sentence s t r u c t u r e , and acqu i red a

basic vocabulary. T h i s type of s y l l a b u s p r w i d e s a coheren t

s t r u c t u r a l foundat ion on t h e b a s i s of which a g e n u i n e l y

spontaneous u s e of language c a n be developed. As a r e s u l t a

r e l a t i v e l y h igh degree of s t r u c t u r a l c o n t r o l i s maintained

but a t t h e same time i t i s important t h a t the methodology and

the e x e r c i s e m a t e r i a l be kept f l e x i b l e and meaningful s o as

'O c o r r e l a t e wi th t h e communicative aims of t h e o v e r a l l

~ u r r i c u l u m .

,102.

2 , 3 , 8 . 3 - 2 . 2 . The Func t iona l -S t ruc tu ra l Sy l labus :

~ i t t lewood ( 1981 : 79 ) expounded t h e Funct ional - S t r u c t u r a l

o r g a n i s a t ion. S t r u c t u r a l grading of t h e language i s s t i l l

, , intained bu t t h e course i s organised i n t o u n i t s based on

important communicative funct ions . The l e a r n e r s p r o g r e s s

from . f u n c t i o n t o f u n c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n from s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n

t o s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n - Care i s taken t o s e e t h a t t h e

l i n g u i s t i c s forms f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s a r e a t f i r s t

kept s imple , and t h e sequencing of t h e f u n c t i o n s i s

i a i n t a i n e d s o t h a t t h e l e a r n e r s t i l l works through a graded

s t r u c t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n . The t eacher focuses on p r e s e n t i n g

the l e a r n e r w i t h sequences of communicative func t i o n s r a t h e r

than s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n s . In t h i s type of s y l l a b u s t h e

teacher can r e - c y c l e f u n c t i o n s , each t ime with more complex

language t d s u i t t h e l e a r n e r s ' developing l i n g u i s t i c

competence. Here i t i s assumed t h a t t h e l e a r n e r s o a r e s t i l l

engaged i n a c q u i r i n g t h e bas ic s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n s o f t h e

language. There fore i t is necessary t o keep some form of

s t r u c t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e course . t

2.3.8.3.2.3. S t r u c t u r e s and Funct ions:

The t h i r d communicative syl.1 abus t y p e r e p r e s e n t s a

s t r u c t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n i n a communicative framework, Brumfit

(19851 proposed t h f s s y l l a b u s a s a panacea t o counter t h e

drawbacks of Wilkins ' no t iona l s y l l a b u s . He argues t h a t

Milkins' s y l l a b u s d o e s not address t h e q u e s t i o n of l e a r n i n g

theory and t h e r e f o r e i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see on what grounds

he proposes t h e r e o r i e n t a t i o n of second-language t each ing .

,103.

(8rMfit(1985: 70) comments that "whatever criterion we use

[in syllabus design] . . principles o f organization quet be

amverable t o 8 view of how language f a learnt. I t 1s on the

basrs oi a view oi ianguage learning that ayrruz* i i ra j i i i l y

,,d are seen as important criteria for the

and ordering of items".

lhullfit argues that it i s more sensible and useful to

prwide language users with the tools , i . e . , the l inguid ic

system, whereby they could negotiate cultural and linguistic

meaning rather than teach them what t o do with the tools. He

proposes that we retain form (grammar and pronunciation) as

the organizing principle since we can successfully generalize

about i t , but not about what people should do and mean.

rumf fit describes his model as follows:

"The simplest proposal i s to use the grc~matical system

as the core of the syllabus i n a ladder-like series of stages

and to be prepared t o relate all oth,er essential material to

this series. Thus notional, functional, and situational

specifications can be conceived of as a spiral around a

basically grammatical core". (0rumfit ,1985:66 1

Such a design

(Brumfit,1985:661

has t h e advantage t h func t ions and

notions can be r e l a t e d appropr ia te ly 40 grammatical

exponents. This provides scope f o r t he development of both

accuracy ( t h e grammatical co te 1 and f luency (no t iona l ,

func t iona l and s i t u a t i o n a l language use 1 . Syllabuses have t o

take i n t o considerat ion both accuracy and f luency. In

Brumfi t ts view, i n o ther communicative sy l l abuses if! i s not

poss ib le t o develop both f luency and accuracy i n t h e i n i t i a l

s tages . He advocates t h e development of communicative

methodology t o he lp develop f luency as well as accuracy,

while maintaining s t r u c t u r a l progression as t o the organis ing

Pr inc ip le of h i s sy l l abus type. Bruinfit proposes t h a t a l l

components of meaning be included from t h e s ta r t -none a r e t o

be postponed. Thus Brumfi t t s treatment i s complete and

cons is ten t .

.104.

Johnson (19778 ,b) a l s o argues f o r a communicative r a t h e r

than p r i m a r i l y func t iona l sy l l abus . He bel ieves :

' that f u n c t i o n a l organizat ion impl ies s t r u c t u r a l

d i so rgan iza t ion :

- t h a t a ss ign ing func t ions t o u t t e r a n c e s i s d i f f i c u l t , a s

more than one may occur i n any given u t t e r a n c e , thus making

the p ~ o d u c t i o n Of func t iona l u n i t s of teaching m a t e r i a l s

d i f f i c u l t ;

- and t h a t choosing s u i t a b l e examples and i l l u s t r a t i o n s can

be daunt ing, given t h e l a r g e numbers which a re poss ib le f o r

each func t ion .

Johnson sugges t s t h a t g radua l ly small amounts of

funct ional mate r ia l could be i n t e g r a t e d wi th e x i s t i n g

language programs i n genera l courses . "Under such a scheme 7

coverage of t h e common core might be provided by a s e r i e s o t

teaching u n i t s each con ta in ing theme-specific and language

p r a c t i c e m a t e r i a l s . . . alongside mate r ia l s with a func t iona l

o r i e n t a t i o n . Each u n i t would cover a sepera te theme a r e a ,

and t h e theme speci f ic source t e x t would serve as t h e p o i n t

of depar tu re f o r bo th language p r a c t i c e and f u n c t i o n a l

materialst1. (Johnson, 1977a: 7 7 )

Units can be given f u n c t i o n a l , not ional o r s t r u c t u r a l

d i r e c t i o n , a l l used i n conjunction with a s t r u c t u r a l core .

This approach also enab les t h e teacher t o move i n c r e a s i n g l y

towards a func t iona l emphasis, while re ta in ing a s t r u c t u r a l

Progression, and a t t h e same rime producing a r i c h l y v a r i e d

Series of u n i t s .

2,3,8.3.2.4m The Var iab le Focus Syllabus:

I n t h e f o u r t h type of sy l labus emphasis would s h i f t

t o level i n a progression from elementary t o

advanced, r a t h e r than i n * given u n i t . S t r u c t u r a l

p r q n s d i ~ n as well a s s t r u c t u r a l exe rc i se s and a c t i v i t i e s

dominate a t t h e f i r s t level., and the emphasis would

then change t o communicative funct ion and f i n a l l y t o

s i tuat ion o r subject matter (Allen ( 1980 1 expla ins t h e

concept as fo l lows:

Although t h e s t r u c t u r a l foundat ion model has . a u se fu l r o l e t o p l a y i n ESL curriculum, we

be l ieve t h a t i t should be in t e rp re t ed i n a way which al lows f o r the maximum amount of f l e x i b i l i t y i n mater ia l s design. This can be provided by making use of the concept t h a t 'grading should be the focus ra ther than. exclusion ' (Allen and Widdowson ,1974). Thus a t l e v e l one t h e main emphasis i s on s t r u c t u r a l p r a c t i c e , and func t iona l and instrumental p r a c t i c e will be, relatively speaking lout of focus'. S i m i l a r l y the second l e v e l emphasises func t iona l p r a c t i c e , and the t h i r d l e v e l instrumental p r a c t i c e , but a t both levels the other types of p r a c t i c e remain i n the background ready t o be u t i l i s e d as t h e need a r i s e s . By making use of a va r i ab l e focus technique we give recogni t ion t o the f a c t t h a t t h e r e are three types of p r a c t i c e ( s t r u c t u r a l , f unc t iona l , ins t rumenta l ) which i n t e r r e l a t e , which a r e interdependent and which co-exis t a t a l l l e v e l s of language l ea rn ing . A t t he same time, t h e notion of 'primary focus ' ensures that a t a l l t imes the l e s son content remains under con t ro l and adaptable t o t h e needs of the s tudent a t any given level of prof ic iency .

Levels of Communicative Competence

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Structural - Instrumental

FOCUS on language Focus on language Focus on f he (formal features) (discourse features) use of language

a)gtructural Control a) Discourse Control a) Situational or topical control

b)Materials simpli- b ) Materials sfimpli- b) Authentic fied structurally f ied functionally language

c )Mainly structural c ) Mainly discourse c) Free practice practice ptactice

Three Levels of Communicative Competence in Second Language - Education (Allen, 1980)

2 . 3 . 8 . 3 . 2 . 5 . Functional Organization/Syllabus: In t h i s type of syllabus, objectives are stated

pr,.irnarily in terms of linguistic ibems or in terms of

ideational content, Here the objectives determine the

functions needed, and the functions determine the selection

and sequencing of grammatical materials. Language practice

derives from the objectives. The unit of organization is

functional in this kind of syliabus and as sdch it is quite

easy to develop such units. Many ESP courses and materials

are based on the functional, approach. This kind of syllabus

has been criticised for providing lphrase-book language ' , or for teaching only 'language-like behaviour' rather than

developing communicative competence. But it is very useful in

situations where rapid progress to a highly functional

variety of the target language is essential.

The main features of this syllabus are:

- focus on discourse features of language;

,107.

- con t ro l l ed communicative teaching techniques;

- medium and message o r i e n t e d p r a c t i c e . (Al len,1986)

his type of s y l l a b u s aims a t extending and a c t i v a t i n g

the s tuden t s ' prev ious ly acquired grammatical knowledge, and

serve a s a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r wholly spontaneous language u s e a t

the l a t e r s t a g e . The s y l l a b u s assumes t h a t t h e l e a r n e r has

an ex tens ive (though imperfect ) knowledge of t h e b a s i c s

p r i n c i p a l s of sen tence s t r u c t u r e , and t h e t e a c h e r can

consider going on t o a form of o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t r e f l e c t s

d i r e c t l y t h e p o t e n t i a l communicative uses of t h e f o r e i g n

language. Each of t h e u n i t s of t h e course i s based on

important ~0mInunicat i v e func t ions ( e g . off e r i n g , asking

permission, g i v i n g reasons 1 . Each func t ion is represented by

a range of l i n g u i s t i c forms, chosen on t h e grounds of t h e i r .>

communicative u s e f u l n e s s and s o c i a l appropriacy r a t h a r than

f o r t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l make up. This w i l l r e s u l t i n language

of widely varying grammatical complexity being grouped

together f o r f u n c t i o n a l reasons. Students w i l l be expected

t o acqu i re a? unders tand ing of t h e r u l e s of use which govern

the development of spoken and w r i t t e n d i scourse i n t h e t a r g e t

language, wi th emphasis on t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s of

language p r o f i c i e n c y . Th is s y l l a b u s concerns i t s e l f wi th t h e

ways t h e l e a r n e r s ' formal l i n g u i s t i c knowledge is made use of

i n accomplishing a v a r i e t y of communicative t a s k s :

e s t a b l i s h i n g s o c i a l re1 a t ions , seeking and g i v i n g

information, de te rmin ing t h e most e f f e c t i v e f i t between

language a b i l i t i e s and s u b j e c t matter knowledge and s o on.

The prime focus i s on t h e teaching of communicative f u n c t i o n s

and grading c o n s i s t s of t h e grouping of s i m i l a r message t y p e s

Or r u l e s of d i s c o u r s e .

,108.

2.3.8.3.2.6. The Notional Syllabus:

One of t h e f i r s t communicative syl labus models t o be

was described a s a notional syl labus (Wilkins. 1976)

which spec i f i ed the semantic-grammatical ca tegor ies and the

categories of communicative function t h a t l ea rne r s need t o

express. In 1972 Milkins proposed tha t two ca t egor i e s of

~ ~ e a n i n g ' and ' u se ' might be su i t ab l e f o r the purposes of

syllabus design. The f i r s t category he terms

1 semantico-grammat i c a l ' and t h i s i s composed of items which

corresponds t o what i n everyday speech we c a l l ' concepts ' .

Examples of t hese ca t egor i e s , taken from Wilkins' l is t a re :

frequency , dura t ion , locat ion and quant i ty . They are

'semantic' c a t ego r i e s because they a re items af meaning.

Wil kins ' second category i s the 'communicative func t ion ' , i . e . , the , uses t o which we put language. Wilkins'. l i s t s t h e

following examples : requesting informat ion, expressing

dissapproval , gree t ing and invi t ing . These ca tegor ies of

communicative funct ion have come t o be knovn as ' funct ion ' . Wilkins proposes t h a t h i s semantico-grammatical and

functional ca t egor i e s be used a s a means of l i s t i n g concepts

and uses i n the sy l labus which he rerms 'not ional sy l l abus ' .

He uses t h e word ' n o t i o n a l ' a s an umbrella term t o r e f e r t o

h i s , t w o ca t egor i e s . This terminology has been i l l u s t r a t e d

below. Notional Categories or 'not ions '

~emantico-grammat lca1 Func t ions Categories (Categories of

communicative funct ion 1

(Johnson and Morrow,1981:4)

The counci l of Europe expanded and developed Wilkins I

i n t o a sy l labus t h a t included desc r ip t ions of t h e

,bjectives of fo re ign language courses f o r European a d u l t s ,

the s i t ua t ions i n which they might need t o use a fo re ign

language (eg. t r a v e l ,business , e t c . 1 , the t op ic s they might

need t o t a l k about k g . personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , educat ion,

the functions they need the language fo r (eg.

describing something, requesting information, expressing

agreement o r disagreement), the notions made use of i n

communicati~n k g m time, frequency, dura t ion) and f i n a l l y t he

vocabulary and grammar needed. The r e s u l t was published as

'Threshold Level English' (van Ek and Alexander, 1980) which

attempted t o spec i fy what was required i n order t o be a b l e t o

achieve a reasonable degree of communicative competence i n

the foreign language, including the 1 anguage items, needed t o

r ea l i s e t h i s threshold l e v e l ' . Munby ( 1978) expanded and elaborated the work of Wilkins

and van Ek t o provide a more complete model for genera t ing a

fu l ly not ional sy l labus , s u i t a b l e for l ea rne r s whose

proficiency i n t he second language has t o be spec i f i ed for

very p a r t i c u l a r and e s s e n t i a l l y narrow purposes.

In Wilkins' model three meaning components a r e t o be

considered i n preparing a sy l labus as shown i n the f i g u r e

given below:

P o s s i b l e Components f o r a Sy l l abus

1. The Semant ic Basic c o n c e p t s What t o Communicate

2 . The Func t iona l I n t e r a c t i o n a l a spec t

3. The Formal lGrammatical 'knowledge

NOTIONS

FUNCTIONS

STRUCTURE

How we communicate

The n o t i o n a l s y l l a b u s r e s t s upon t h e b e l i e f t h a t

' c o n t e x t ' o r ' s i t u a t i o n ' de te rmines what we mean when we

sf iak or write o r i n t e r p r e t speech o r wr i t ing . T h i s ' c o n t e x t

s i t u a t i o n ' , a s F i r t h c a l l s i t , i n t u r n i s cond i t ioned by

the s o c i e t y i n which o u r speech a c t t a k e s p lace .

C r i t i q u e s of Wilkins Not ional S y l l a b u s :

Wilkins ' o r i g i n a l n o t i o n a l s y l l a b u s was soon c r i t i s e d by

B r i t i s h Gpplied l i n g u i s t s a s merely rep lac ing one k ind of

l i s t ( eg . a l i s t of grammar i t e m s ) wi th another ( a l i s t of

notions and f u n c t i o n s 1 . I t s p e c i f i e d products , r a t h e r than

cornmunicat i v e p r o c e s s e s . Widdowson (1979 argued t h a t

n o t i o n a l - f u n c t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s p r w i d e "only a ve ry p a r t i a l

and i m p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n of c e r t a i n semantic and pragmatic

r u l e s which a r e used f o r r e f e r e n c e when people , i n t e r a c t .

They t e l l us nothing about t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e rules

when they a r e a c t u a l l y engaged i n communicative a c t i v i t y . If

,, are t o adopt a communicative approach t o teaching which

takes as i t s primary purpose the development of t h e a b i l i t v

to do things with language, then i t i s d i scourse which must

be a t , the c e n t r e of our a t ten t ion" . (Widdowson, 1979:254)

rum fit (1985:69-72) a t tacks W i l k i n s on t h e ground t h a t

he (w i lk in s ) i n n e i t h e r of h i s books 'Notional Syl labuses1

(1976), nor 'Not ional Syl labuses Revis i ted ' (1981)

addresses himself t o l ea rn ing theory, i t i s

d i f f i c u l t t o see on what grounds he r e a l l y

proposes h i s r eo r i en t a t i on . , , Wilkins . . . e l aim

tha t no t ions e s t a b l i s h a fundamental organizing

p r i n c i p l e f o r t h e language system t h a t has t o be

mastered.. . e n t a i l s a view t h a t notions a r e

de f inab le and t h a t t h e r e l a t i ons between them a re

s p e c i f i a b l e . . . . If notions include ' c a t ego r i e s of

communicative func t ion ' . . . we (have) a l ist which

i s i n p r i n c i p l e i n f i n i t e , because there a re as

many ways of doing things wi th language as people

can invent . . . u n t i l we have some way of saying ' X

i s a not ion and Y i s not and we can t e s t them i n

t h e fol lowing ways' , we a r e t a l k i n g about a

vacuous concept. . . . Without being c l e a r e r about

what e x a c t l y a not ion should be, i t i s d i f f i c u l t

t o a s s e s s t h e claim t h a t learning a language i s

learn ing not ions ... we can genera l ize t o some

extent about grammar . . . we cannot genera l i ze help-

f u l l y about what they ( l e a r n e r s ) should do and

mean.. . . Even i f we accept .. . t h a t t h e r e is 3

ltendency of a s t r u c t u r a l approach t o d e f e r

e f f e c t i v e communicative a b i l i t y u n t i l t he l a t e r

s tages of language l e a r n i n g ' , there i s a *

methodological s o l u t i o n a v a i l ab le which does not

requi re a n o t i o n a l o r Functional o rgan iza t ion ,

however these a r e def ined. ( Ib id . : 70-71)

2.3.8.3.2.7. The F u l l y Communicative Syl labus :

This i s a learner-genera ted o r f u l l y communicaeive

view of s y l l a b u s des ign where t h e r e would be only t h e 1

most minimal Input s y l l a b u s or maybe even none a t a l l .

The main f e a t u r e s of t h i s s y l l a b u s a r e :

- focus on t h e n a t u r a l unanalysed use o f language;

- fu l ly communicative, e x p e r i e n t i a l teaching techniques ;

- message o r i e n t e d p r a c t i c e . (Allen,1986) 'a

This s y l l a b u s does not at tempt t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o

any p a r t i c u l a r a spec t of 1 anguage s t r u c t u r e or func t ion .

The aim i s t o ach ieve a f u l l y spontaneous use of

language i n r e a l - l i f e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Classroom

language p r a c t i c e and a c t i v i t i e s a r e designed t o promote

"exper ient ia l a spec t of language prof ic iencyt t , (Allen,1986) where l e a r n e r s a r e expected t o make use of

their language a b i l i t i e s and the resources of the t a r g e t

,113.

language t o achieve t h e i r Own personal , soc i a l o r academic

goals, The emphasis is on the f r e e , u n r e s t r i c t e d use of

language a s an instrument of communication. A t e x t book of

t h i s type sy l labus w i l l contain reading passages and

exercises drawn f ram authent ic language da t a . Classroom and

of c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s w i l l include plenty of p r a c t i c e based

on the personal i n t e r e s t s of ind iv idua ls , the main m o t i v a t i o n

being the l e a r n e r s ' d e s i r e t o communicate. "At t h e

exper ien t ia l l e v e l of au thent ic language use the lesson

content w i l l be se lec ted according t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and

the choice of t o p i c , r a the r than by any language-internal

features of grammar o r discourse". ( I b i d ) However some form

of control may s t i l l opera te i n teaching, s ince communkative

tasks can be analysed and graded on the bas i s of t h e i r

intel1ectua.l abs t r ac t ions o r i n terms of the complexity of

the in te rpersonal r e l a t i onsh ip involved. For example, asking

the way i n the street o r being interviewed f o r a job both

involve the au thent ic use of language, but t h e l a t t e r t a s k

involves a higher degree of e x p e r i e n t i a l language

proficiency, In t h i s kind of sy l labus t h e r e i s c l o s e

proximity between t h e objec t ives of programmes f o r second

language learners and those meant f o r s tudents of the mother

tongue.

2 3 .a. 3.2 .8 . Topic Based ~ r ~ a n i z a t i o n / ~ y l l a b u s :

The di f fe ren t : t o p i c s t he l ea rne r s w i l l have t o speak

about in a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n can provide another kind of

communicative framework f o r a course. The teacher can take an

impor tan t area of meanings such as spo r t s o r p o l i t i c s and

deve],Op teaching programs within t h i s s p e c i f i c a rea , present

useful language and engage the learners i n a va r i e ty of

a c t i v i t i e s . The lesson un i t s a r e organised around

,ui tab le t o p i c s such as teaching, hol idays, houses, food,

speech, jobs, e t c . Each u n i t presents language and includes

various a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t ed t o i t s top ic area. The a c t i v i t i e s

[ include reading, l i s t e n i n g comprehension, discussion and r o l e

play . Though s t r u c t u r a l s e l ec t i on and grading w i l l have a

minimal r o l e t o play i n t h i s type of sy l labus , none t h e less,

i n i t i a l l y t h e teacher will have t o use simpler s t r u c t u r e s

before going on t o more comp1.e~ ones'. So some from of grading

i s s t i l l maintained.

2.3.8.3.2.9.Pra'bhuts Task Based o r Procedural Syl labus:

Prabhu (1982) has chosen task spec i f i ca t i ons and t a sk

organizations- a s t h e appropriate c r i t e r i a f o r sy l labus

design.

The only form of sy l labus which i s compatible

w i t h and can support communicat ional teaching

seems t o be a purely procedural one which l ists

I n more o r l e s s d e t a i l , t h e types of t a s k s t o be

attempted i n t he classroom and suggests an order

of complexity f o r t asks of the same kind ( I b i d : 4 )

The task based approach claims a strong communieational

basis i n that I t f o c ~ e ~ j t t c z t i o n on meaning and not t h e

Structure of the language. (Ibid.82 1 Teaching i s organized

"round a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of communicative tasks . The l ea rne r

l i s i n so lv ing a t a sk u s i n g whatever language

resources a v a i l a b l e t o him. Prabhu r e j e c t s t h e l i n g u i s t i c

because in performing t h e t a s k t h e "language needed

to t h e t a s k w i l l not be sys temat ic i n any way which

we usua l l y s y s t e m a t i s e language i . , i n s t r u c t u r a l ,

func t iona l o r n o t i o n a l terms)" (Johnson, 1982:136).

~t i s assumed t h a t imposing a s t r u c t u r a l o r no t iona l

syl labus on t h e classroom t a k e s away " the t e a c h e r ' s and t h e

~ t u d e n t s ' freedom t o i n t e r a c t i n a way n a t u r a l t o t h e t a s k i n

handtt. (Johnson,1982:136: Rrumfit , 1 9 8 4 ) This t y p e of

syl labus r e j e c t s a l l kinds o f formal teaching a c t i v i t i e s such

as d r i l l i n g , i n s t a n t e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n , e t c . Brumfit who

monitored t h e P r o j e c t i n 1981 says t h a t :

The programme i s cons t ruc ted around a s e r i e s of problems, r e q u i r i n g t h e use of Engl ish , which have t o be solved by t h e l e a r n e r . The problems a r e in t roduced a s s p e c i f i c t a sks i n which s tuden t s have t o i n t e r p r e t language da ta - f o r example, a t i m e t a b l e o r a s e t of r u l e s o r a map with i t s rubric-and u s e t h e d a t a f o r p a r t i c u l a r purposes. Tasks a r e u s u a l l y preceded by p r e - t a s k s , i n which t h e t eacher performs a t a s k s i m i l a r t o t h e one t h a t s t u d e n t s w i l l be asked t o perform themselves , i n i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e c l a s s , us ing whatever language seems appropr ia te f o r the purpose. (Brumf i t , 1984:104)

The t a s k i s presen ted :

a ) i n t h e form of a d ia logue which s t u d e n t s a r e t o read

aloud:

b) the t e a c h e r asks ques t ions on t h e d ia logue wi th a v iew t o

encourage s t u d e n t s t o communicate wi th t h e language a t h i s

d isposal ( p r e - t a s k ) ;

C ) the main t a s k is given i n t h e form of a home-assignment

wherein s t u d e n t s have t o answer t r u e - f a l s e s t a tements ( f i v e

in a l l ) and b r i n g t o t h e next c l a s s . They have t o s t a t e

reasons f o r t h e i r choices. Marks are then given to c o r r e c t

answers "SO t h a t they provide feedback i n terms of t h e task"

(Prabhu, 1982 1

The t a s k s a r e graded Itin order of conceptual d i f f i c u l t y

beginning with very simple tasks l i k e l abe l l i ng and moving t o

more complex ones such as map-making". ( Howatt, 1984: 288 1

Materials a r e not se lec ted on l i n g u i s t i c bas i s but c a p i t a l i z e

on:

- the s tuden t ' s wil l ingness t o solve a t a sk ( i . e , h i s d e s i r e

t o be a b l e t o do i t 1:

- h i s t o t a l engagement with the meaning involved i n doing a

task;

- h i s s t r u g g l e with the language tha t he would need i n

solving t h e t a sk . '

(Prabhu, 1982: Johnson ,1982; Brumflt . 1984)

In the organiza t iona l framework broad communicative

ob jec t ives a r e broken down i n t o more spec i f i c ob j ec t i ve s

determined on the bas i s of a needs ana lys i s . These

objec t ives are organised i n t o learning a reas , f o r each of <

which a number of outcome goals o r products a r e spec i f i ed .

The product may be a piece of comprehensible information, 0

wr i t t en , spoken o r presented i n a non-l inguis t ic form such a s

a l e t t e r , a map, a graph, e t c . The product i s t h e r e s u l t of

the success fu l completion of t h e task but the process whereby

the product. j g r e ~ ? . i s e d p r w i d e s ample scope r ~ t ! ~ q t t ! e * s

i n t e r ac t i on and t h e r e a l i s a t ion of communicative s k i l l s .

.117.

2.3.8.3.2.10. Crombie's R e l a t i o n a l Syl labus:

The ~ e l a t i o n a l s y l l a b u s d e r i v e s from t h e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

t h a t o the r s y l l a b u s e s ( s t r u c t u r a l , not iona l , e t c . 1 genera ted .

The r e l a t i o n a l s y l l a b u s f i n d s t h e o ther a b w e mentioned

syllabuses inadequate i n developing the l e a r n e r s '

communicative competence. This type of s y l l a b u s does n o t

consis t i n o r g a n i s i n 8 t h e teaching program i n d i s c r e t e

i t ems-s t ruc tu ra l o r not ional-but i n "coherent d i s c o u r s e which

gives adequate recogni t ion t o language as dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n

generated by co-operat ive p r i n c i g l e s according t o which

p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a d i scourse g i v e d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s t o t h e same

l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t ( co- tex t 1 , and t h e genera l s i t u a t i o n a l

context i n which they occur". (Crombie, 1985: l ) T h i s s y l l a b u s

proposed by Crombie provides a more ambi t ious and

s o p h i s t i c a t e d approach than o t h e r sy l l abuses . The r e l a t i o n a l

syl labus does n o t eschew t h e l i n g u i s t i c con ten t but i t "aims

t o p resen t a s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c system i n terms o f

r e l a t i o n a l val .ues which t h a t system encodes and s i g n a l s " .

( Ib id :83 ) ' Crombie cla ims t h a t he r s y l l a b u s i s d e c i d e d l y

super ior t o o t h e r communicative s y l l a b u s e s on t h e ground t h a t

i t i s ahead of o t h e r sy l l abuses because i t forms i t s b a s i s on

the a l ready a v a i l a b l e knowledge t h a t t h e l e a r n e r has of h i s

mother tongue ( a s a meaning c r e a t i n g system) and l i n g u i s t i c

un iversa l s ( i . . , r e l a t i o n a l va lues 1. What the l e a r n e r i s

expected t o d o i s t o l ea rn t h e p a r t i c u l a r ways i n which t h e

l i n g u i s t i c system which c o n s t i t u t e s h i s t a W = t language

encodes and signals these values . ( I b i d : 8 3 ) She c l a i m s t h a t

communicat I v e colnpereme should be conceived o f i n terms of

l i n g ~ i s t i e u n i t s i n cantext bur "as a s e r i e s o f frameworks,

leach of which is made UP of a group i n d i c a t i n g t h e v a r i o u s

idiscourSal r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e n u n i t s which a r e g iven i prominence". ( I b i d : f l ) A s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of her h y p o t h e s i s ,

crombie (1985:18) off erq the fnllowing frames - invo lv inP +wn

sets of binary v a l u e s : General Causation and Condlt ion-

Consequence :

~ e l a t i o n a l Frame I

F\ CONDITION CONSEQUENCE

"

EFFECT ( RESUI,T ) 1

Relat ional cues 4

If ......... ( t h e n ) .......... because.....

If ....... ( t h e n 1 ......... The reason (is) (be ing) ....... ........ If. . ....... ( t h e n ) X - will 4 e s u l t i n Y because..

If.........(then) X w i l l , result i n (my) doing Y because..

Relat ional Frame 11

n CONSEQUENCE CONDITION

CAUSE (REASON *I

EFFECT ( RESULT 1 1 '

Rational cues :

Because...,............if....,,

.......I. SO.........if...*....

......... ...... . .so.. . i n t h e event of X . ....... , .SO.. ........ i n t h e event of (h i s )do ing /no t doing X

Relat ional Frame I11

CONDITION CONSEQUENCE

CAUSE ( REASON 1 ~ F T C T ( R E S ~

Rational cues :

Because ......... .if.......(then)......... Because ......... . i f . . ..... (then1 X w i l l r e s u l t i n Y

. Because.. ........ .unless. . ( t h e n ) . .......... Cromble t akes i n t o considerat ion grammatical, semantic,

i n tona t iona l , morphological a id o ther aspects of

l i n g u i s t i c communication i n order t o provide a r a t i o n a l e f o r

her syl labus. She enumerates t h e advantages of t h e r e l a t i o n a l

approach thus :

"The grea t advantage of a r e l a t i ona l approach i s tha; i t

allows f o r t he gradual in t roduct ion of various components of

the l i n g u i s t i c system within a framework i n which the,se

components' a r e immediately1 put t o use i n t h e c r ea t ion and

understanding of coherent discourse".

Crombie's approach i s e s s e n t i a l l y an ' e c l e c t i c ' one t h a t

offers valuable i n s i g h t s i n how l i n g u i s t i c code i s used t o

real i s e communicative funct ions . 2.3.9. The Communicative Curriculum and Content:

Curriculum genera l ly implies t h e substance of the

teaching program of an i n s t i t u t i o n . A sy l labus merely

Prwides a list of contents t o be l e a r n t but does not suggest

methods, a c t i v i t i e s , and measures for evaluat ion. A

curriculum, on t h e o the r hand, means not only t h e sub jec t

o r content of a teaching program but a l s o t h e e n t i r e

i n s t ruc t iona l process mater ials , methods, equipment

evaluation. The curriculum spec i f i e s t he knowledge, s k i l l s

and i n s i g h t s t h e s tudent i s expected t o acquire v ia

successive i n - c l a s s and out-of-school tasks and a c t i v i t i e s

designed t o f o s t e r learning. I t a l s o spec i f i e s t h e degree of

t h e student w i l l be expected t o demonstrate

through d i f f e r e n t types of o r a l and wr i t ten measures.

2.3.9.1. The Requirements of a communicative Curriculum:

A well designed curriculum w i l l s t a r t with an attempt t o

specify t h e needs of the l e a rne r s because t he communicative

curriculum s t a r t s from the question 'What do l ea rne r s need t o

do with t he language?''

According t o Finocchiaro and Brumfit (J983:491 a

communicative curriculum w i l l have t o f u l f i l t he following

requirements ;

l . ,An ana lys i s of t h e general aims of the program ( i . e . , t h e

terminal behaviours t o be achieved by s tudents a t t h e end' of

the course 1 . Q

2. A p rogress ion of u n i t s which guides t h e teacher by

indicat ing what aspects of the language a r e t o be

concentrated on a t any given s t age .

3 . A l is t of i tems ( func t iona l , not ional , o r grammatical

items, as well as points of pronunciation o r of re levant

cu l tu ra l information ) t o be iso1,ated within each u n i t .

4 . A d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n s , t asks and a c t i v i t i e s - through which language items and s k i l l s w i l l be introduced

and prac t i sed .

5. Suggestions f o r evaluat ion ( t e s t i n g ) of t h e pup i l s '

growth,

6. Sources f o r t e ache r reference and pupil t e x t s -

.121, - 2 . 3 . 9 . 2 . The Cha rac t e r i s t i c s of t he Content of a Communicative

u roach. 1, ~t each un i t and leve l the learner i s made t o understand

the soc ia l r o l e s and ~ s ~ c h o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s of t h e speakers

towards each other perhaps through an introductory paragraph

in h i s nat ive language. This helps s tudents t o choose

language which i s appropr.iate t o a pa r t i cu l a r s i t u a t i o n .

2 . I t i s impossible t o teach the whole of language and

culture i n one u n i t , ' .year o r l eve l . Hence se lec t ion ' and

gradation of language items o r notions within t he

communicative function i s imperative. The communicative

approach advocates f l e x i b i l i t y i n s e l ec t i on and gradat ion.

The se lec t ion w i l l depend on such f a c t o r s a s t h e funct ions

and notions, t he learners1 needs, the l i n g u i s t i c knowledge C

they already have, the compl ex l ty of t he grammatical

s t ructure they a re about t o l e a r n , and the length of the

s t re tch of speech necessary t o express t h e i r communicative

purpose.

3 . A un i t w i l l not deal with just one s t ruc tu re but severa l t

st ructures because the s t ruc tu re s i n t he various u t te rances

of a dialogue may be d i s s imi l a r as they would be i n

real-world communication.

4 - A v a r i e t y of s t ruc tures implies a number of d i f f e r e n t

functions grouped together i n one u n i t . For example, an

b i t a t ion rnsv be extended, accepted g race fu l ly , arrsnqements

made about time, place and t r anspo r t a t i on , and thanks

extended be£ ore conventional par t ing remarks a r e made 1 A

refusal of t h e inv i ta t ion would i nd i ca t e t he use of an

en t i re ly d i f f e r e n t range of func t ions and not ions.

5 , The curriculum emphasises the f a c t t h a t s tudents should

f i r s t be made aware of the funct ion found within the complexr

diversif Fed, soc iocul tura l s i t u a t i o n s of out d a i l y lives, and

then enabling them t o express these functions co r r ec t ly and

appropriately i n t he language they a r e learning.

6. The s tudents ' na t ive language i s u t i l i z e d t o f a c i l i t a t e

the presentat ion of new language items, materials and

concepts i n the t a r g e t language.

7. Selection and gradat ion of grammatical s t ruc tu re s within

the function t o be expressed w i l l depend on the age of t h e

1 earners, t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c c u l t u r a l needs, the complexity of

the grammatical i terns, the l e a r n e r s f knowledge of both t h e

native language a s well as target language s t ruc tu re s and

notions which w i l l c l a r i f y the new s t ruc tu re s . C

8. The communicative approach makes provision f o r t h e

teaching of the not ions and expressions needed in-o ther

d i s c i p l i n e s both i n a second language and i n a fore ign

language s i t u a t i o n . Concepts a'lld language needed i n social

s l tud ies , geography, mathematics, a r t , music and the na t ive

language and l i t e r a t u r e , besides those needed for

professional and vocational use, are interwoven i n t h e c

curriculum a t a l l appropriate l eve l s .

9. Language teaching programs meant f o r adul t s will have

Units which conta in l i n g u i s t i c and c u l t u r a l mater ials t h e

learner w i l l need fntdiste?y f o r soc iocul tura l o r

Socia-wcat iona l purposes.

.123.

10. Communication being the crux of human r e l a t i onsh ips , a humane basis, t o t he content is absolutely e s s e n t i a l . The

un i t s w i l l provide much in t e r ac t i on between s tudents as well

as teacher and s tudents , f o s t e r ing a democratized

re la t ionsh ip .

2,3.9.3. The Communicative Teaching/LearninK Mater ia ls :

CLT uses a v a r i e t y of teaching mater ia ls from a number

of sources. In Maleyl words (1986:89) "The teaching mater ia l s

w i l l need t o r e f l e c t the wide range of uses of t h e language.

Almost i nev i t ab ly t he re w i l l be a preponderance of au thent ic

over s impl i f ied materials".

Prac t ioners of CLT view mater ia ls a s 'a way of

influencing the q u a l i t y of classroom in t e r ac t i on and language

use. Mater ia ls thus have t h e primary r o l e of promoting

communicative language teaching. Recent developments i n

technology have given the teacher access t o a much wider

range of classroom f a c i l i t i e s than were ava i l ab l e a few years

ago. Language teaching today uses a v a r i e t y of audio-visual

materfals-casset te recordings, video. mater ia ls , e t c . Yet i t

i s l i k e l y t h a t t eachers w i l l s t i l l need t o r e l y on t h e most

accessible device, t h e textbook. I t i s impossible t o do away

with t he textbook e n t i r e l y as it i s a source of much

l i n g u i s t i c s ecu r i t y e spec i a l l y t o the non-native teacher .

It i s r n e c e s s a r y requirement of the language learn ing/

teaching process that both t eachers and l e a r n e r s have access

t o a n extensive range of d i f f e r e n t mater ia l s . According t o

Peter Strevens (1977 : 27 ) a l l teaching mater ia l s need to

Possess c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . They need t o be :

1. r e a l i s t i c :

- capable of being used by the t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s ;

- capable of being learned from;

- cheap enough t o be a v a i l a b l e ;

- a c t u a l l y i n hand, not empty e n t r i e s i n an o f f i c i a l l i s t

which never r e a c h t h e l e a r n e r s ;

2 , re levan t :

- t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n the l e a r n e r ' s p rogress :

2 to his a im and age-group;

3. i n t e r e s t i n g :

- var ied ;

- on t o p i c s of i n t e r e s t t o t h e l e a r n e r s ;

- i n t e l l e c t u a l l y s a t i s f y i n g ; r;

4. e n c o u r a w

- having t h e q u a l i t y of making t h e l e a r n e r f e e l he i s

progress ing o r a t least enjoying his l e a r n i n g ;

5. c o m p a t i b i l i t y :

- with t h e approach be ing followed;

- with t h e t e a c h e r ' b a t t i t u d e s .

Richards and Rodgers (1986: 79-80) have discussed t h r e e

k inds of ; a t e r i a l s c u r r e n t l y used in CLT. They have l a b e l l e d

these a s (i) Text based ( i i ) Task based (iii) R e a l i a .

i) Text Based M a t e r i a l s :

Textbooks have been s t reamlined i n keeping w i t h r e c e n t

innovative approaches , ~nnumerabl e textbooks ranging from

those, t h a t have kept. some mooring i n s t r u c t u r a l procedures t o

:hose that a r e pure ly communicativa have been designed to

irect and support CL'I'. Morrow find .Jolrnson's ' C ~ I ~ I I I I U I I ~C; IC 'C ' 1,979) di~pcnses with the 1 tli n l o p , ~ ~ r a , t l r l l l a n ~ r t l

j,,ntence p a t t e r n s end makes ample use 01 v l su r l cues, ~ a p c d

'cues, p i c t u r e s and sen tence fragments t o i n i t i a t e a

Watcyn-Jones' ' P a i r Work' (1981) makes use of

two d i f f e r e n t t e x t s f o r p a i r work, each conta in ing d i f f e r e n t

information needed t o enac t r o l e p lays and c a r r y out o t h e r

p a i r a c t i v i t i e s .

(ii) Task Based Ma te r i a l s :

Task based ma te r i a l s focus on games, r o l e p l ays ,

simulations, and task-based communication a c t i v i r i e s . These

materials comprise of e x e r c i s e handbooks, cue c a r d s , a c t i v i t y

cards, pair-communication ma te r i a l s and s tudcn t - in t e r ac t i on

pract ice materials .

(iii 1 Realia:

Many proponents of CLT a c t i v e l y support t he use of

' au thent ic1 'from l i f e ' ma te r i a l s i n t h e classroom such as

signs, magazines, memos, n o t i f i c a t i o n s , advert isements and

newspapers, or graphic and v i s u a l sources around which

COmmunicative a c t i v i t i e s a r e devised such a s maps, p i c t u r e s ,

symbols, graphs and c h a r t s . Authentic r ad io and T.V.

broadcasts would a l s o be included here .

2 . 3 . 9 . 4 . ~ h e ~ ~ i s t i n ~ u i s h i n ~ ' ~ e a t u r c s of CL'l' 'l'extbooks:

1. F i r s t , textbooks have been made more a t t r a c t i v e and

interest inr : with p l a n t i f u l co lour , i l l u s t r a t i o n s , d iagrams,

photographs, etc :

that are purely communicatFve have been designed t o

dircCt and support CL'I'. Morrow and Johnson' a ' ( : o I I I I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

( , 4 7 9 ) dlrpcnars wi,th the ~ l l l n l ( H ~ ~ ~ R I I F I . d r i l l ?; nl l r l

eer l~erlcc pa t t e rns arid makes amplc usc ol, v l ~ u o l c u e s , taped

~ i c t , u r e s and sentence fragments t o i n i t i a t e a

con~er sa t ion . Watcyn-Jones' ' P a i r Work' (1981 1 makes use of

two different: t e x t s f o r p a i r work, each containing d i f f e r e n t

information needed t o enact r o l e plays and ca r ry out o the r

pair a c t i v i t i e s .

(ii) Task Based Mate r i a l s :

Task based ma te r i a l s focus on games, r o l e p lays ,

simulations, and task-based communication a c t i v i t i e s . These

materials comprise of exe rc i se handbooks, cue cards , a c t i v i t y

cards, pair-carnmunication ma te r i a l s and s tudcn t - in t e rac t ion

practice mater ia l s . I

(iii) Realia:

Many proponents of CLT a c t i v e l y support t h e use of

'authentic ' 'from l i f e ' mater ia l s i n t he classroom such a s

signs, magazines, memos, not i f i c a t i ons , advertisements and

newspapers, or graphic and v i sua l sources around which

communicative a c t i v i t i e s a r e devised such as maps, p i c t u r e s ,

symbols, graphs and c h a r t s . Authentic rad io and T.V.

broadcasts would a l s o be included here.

2 . 3 . 9 . 4 , ~ h e ' ~ i ~ t i ~ ~ ~ i s h i n ~ ' ~ e a t u r c s of CL'l' '1'~xtbooks :

1 F i r s t , textbooks have been made more a t t r a c t i v e and

!$eresting with p l a n t i f u l colour , i l l u r t r a t i o n s , diagrams,

photographs, ctc:

2 , tune with contemporary ideas of communication, many

a re now more dependent on t a s k s ( involv ing such

as f i l l i n g i n c h a r t s , in te rv iewing , in te rpre t inp ,

various forms of popular journal ism e t c . 1 . 'I'hc s t 0 1 i d reading

of the past has been re lega ted t o t h e backgroutid.

3, There is an enormous wca1 t h nr -. o r l ~ i n a l , r1~1~11,yrltic

mater ia l and c r e a t i v e i d e a s ava i l ab l e i n CL'T textbooks.

4 The textbook does not limit i t s e l f t o t he formal

l i n ~ u i s t i c system. They may i nc lude exe rc i se s f o r r e l axa t ion ,

material for mime o r sugges t ions f o r mother rongue reading.

5 . The textbook concen t r a t e s on interaction/communication a t

the expense of subject matter .

6. The textbook teaching mater ial i s not only more

interest ing and imagina t ive but more f l e x i b l e as wel l . It:

enables t eache r s t o pick and choose mater ia l s t o s u i t

immediate learner/classroom needs.

7 . The textbook makes cons iderable dcmands on thc t eache r ,

for their very f l e x i b i l i t y forces t eache r s t o make choices of

principle about t h e i r classroom procedures a l l t he t ime.

8. Learners learn both consciously and with e fEor t and

u n c o n s c i ~ ~ ~ s l y withour e f f o r t . The textbook would need t o

offer scope f o r both kinds of l ea rn ing . (Ilaley 1986:92)

9. Language process ing proceeds from top down, not from

bottom up. Meaning. are f i r s t apprehended a s 'wholes' and

O n l y l a t e r analyeed i n t o p a r t s i f necessary. The t a s k s i n the I

would need t o devel.op h o l i s t i c p r o c e s s i x . Atomist i c

Processing would only r a r e l y be used ( I b i d . 92-93)

10 I 71 ihra ~~a~nltt 101 the, I ~ n g u ~ g ~ b\llll

,!!i 11 t i intlglltdl eollunleltlv~ t ilk! In tho

J\M\I ddnshould tikk tognilmu of thl~ fg,