Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

UNIT 3: THE STRUCTURAL OR GRAMMATICAL SYLLABUS

3.1

Aim The aim of this unit is to consider the evolution of the structural syllabus, the theories that underlie it and the practical implications of these for the classroom.

3.2

Objectives The objectives of the unit are as follows: To explore the historical background of the structural syllabus To understand the underlying theories about language and language learning and the implications these have for the role of the teacher, the students and the materials typical in methodologies using structural syllabuses To understand the issues of grammar and vocabulary selection and grading with reference to second language acquisition research To evaluate the structural syllabus

3.3

Readings White, R. (1988) The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management Oxford: Blackwell. Chapters 2 and 4 pp47-59.

1
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

3.4

Introduction

3.4.1 What is grammar?

Reflection/Discussion Task 1 What does grammar mean to you? How many different definitions of

grammar can you think of? What role does it have in your teaching?

Before examining the grammatical syllabus it is worth considering what we mean by grammar since as Cook (2001:19) points out, Grammar is considered by many linguists to be the central area of the language around which other areas such as pronunciation and vocabulary revolve because it links all the other linguistic elements. Due to this, it has been considered a central factor in syllabus design. Cook (2001:20) presents four different ways of describing grammar, these being:

Prescriptive grammar the grammar which prescribes or dictates how people ought to write or speak, as opposed to the grammar which describes how people actually write or speak. Although there are many who reject prescriptive grammar, in much foreign language teaching it is still evident.

Traditional grammar the grammar which analyses sentence structure in terms of classifying the different parts of speech and giving rules which explain how the parts can be connected. This was and still is the basis of much language teaching, where coursebooks depend on learners having a knowledge of grammatical terminology.

Structural grammar the grammar which demonstrates how the smaller parts of a sentence combine to form an overall structure, that is to say,

2
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

words build up into phrases which in turn build up into sentences. This grammar is commonly used in substitution tables in coursebooks. Grammar as knowledge in the mind the implicit knowledge of grammar that the native speaker unconsciously has in his/her mind enabling him/her to produce grammatically correct sentences without being able to explain explicit grammar rules. This is the grammatical knowledge we all have of our first language.

As we shall see, the grammar which has traditionally been used to develop a grammatical syllabus has generally been prescriptive, traditional and structural.

3.4.2 What is a structural or grammatical syllabus? As we saw at the end of Unit 2, the structural or grammatical syllabus is one in which grammatical structures are used completely or predominantly as the organisational basis, with the other linguistic elements of the syllabus being of subsidiary importance, both as organisational criteria and thus as the focus of teaching and learning. Having been the most predominant framework for syllabus design during most of the twentieth century, and despite having been the subject of increasing criticism since the 1970s, it is still the case in much language teaching around the world that, The use of a grammatical syllabus can be regarded as the conventional approach to language teaching since the majority of syllabuses and published courses have as their core an ordered list of grammatical structures (Wilkins, 1976:7). This is true of many published courses despite their claims of using other approaches which have been in vogue in ELT since the 1970s, and it is also true of the many so-called integrated syllabuses which may not be so overtly based around grammar, but nevertheless still use grammar as a core organisational factor. Because of its stalwart popularity around the world and in order to understand subsequent attempts to introduce alternative ways of

3
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

designing a syllabus, it is useful first to understand how the grammatical syllabus originally emerged through concerns about methodology.

Reflection/Discussion Task 2 Look at your syllabus outline (if you follow one) or one of the coursebooks you use. What role does grammar have and to what extent is it the predominant organising factor?

3.5

Historical Background

3.5.1 Origins of the structural syllabus The structural syllabus has its origins in the way in which Latin was taught for centuries in Europe. From the sixteenth century, the replacement of Latin by French, Italian and English as the languages of trade, government, education and religion meant Latin was relegated to being studied at school (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:3). Since there was little need for Latin to be written or spoken, the focus was on rote learning of grammatical rules, declensions, conjugations and lists of vocabulary, with translation of texts and written exercises (Brown, 2001:18) in order to eventually read the works of classical literature (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:3). When, in the eighteenth century, modern languages began to be taught as school subjects, the same techniques were used since the purpose of studying languages continued to be for reading literature rather than for communicative purposes (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:4; Stern, 1983:454).

3.5.2 Grammar-translation and the structural syllabus What came to be known as the grammar-translation method in fact continued the same practices which had been going on for centuries. The method perceived

4
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

language learning as an intellectual activity involving rule learning, the memorization of rules and facts related to first language meanings by means of massive translation practice (Stern, 1983:455). The format of the syllabus used was a list of grammatical structures with a list of isolated vocabulary items which, as Cook (2001:204) comments, were widely diverse because they were dictated by the texts which were selected for translation without any guiding principles of selection or grading. The grammar was both traditional and prescriptive and a typical pattern for each lesson emerged which included an explanation of a grammatical rule with example sentences to start the lesson, followed by a vocabulary list and translation exercises, first of short, isolated sentences and then, as the student progressed, of more complex sentences which practiced more than one grammatical item, and finally translation of larger chunks of text both from and into the second language. This system was considered successful because immediately after the rule was introduced by the teacher, the students had to apply it in practice sentences, and it soon became the standard way of teaching languages at school throughout Europe (Stern, 1983:453-455).

3.5.3 Early influences on syllabus design The work of a number of British applied linguists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century not only deeply influenced British ELT methodology, but also provided the basic principles which would be used in language syllabus design.

Sweet (1845-1912) was a member of the Reform Movement which instigated a debate in Europe about the best way in which languages could be taught at a time when there was increasing criticism of grammar-translation and recognition that there was a growing need for proficiency in speaking skills in foreign languages due to the development of international trade and travel (Stern, 1983:457). He advocated the need for teaching methodology to be based on the findings of scientific analysis of language and of psychology, and in his book The Practical Study of Languages (1899), he put forward principles which were to be a basis for 5
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

developing methodology. Richards and Rodgers (2001:10) list some of these as being:

1. 2. 3.

careful selection of what is to be taught; imposing limits on what is to be taught; arranging what is to be taught in terms of the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing;

4.

grading materials from simple to complex.

These principles clearly reflect what were later to become the considerations of the syllabus designer, but they also show how syllabus design initially developed from a concern for methodology.

Applied linguists in the 1920s and 1930s were concerned with developing a more scientific basis for an oral approach to language teaching than had been used until then. Harold Palmer, whose work, together with that of A.S. Hornby and Michael West, became greatly influential in the area of syllabus design, focused on the need for course content to be selected and graded from simple to more complex, from known to unknown, and [for there to be] a rational order of progression (White, 1988:12). These ideas became the basis of later attempts to grade language content: that is, the way in which syllabus content is combined and ordered or sequenced, and were thus influential in syllabus design. Palmer also examined ways of selecting the grammar and vocabulary that should be taught. He analyzed the language to identify and categorize grammatical structures into sentence patterns which it was thought enabled learners to acquire more easily the rules of sentence structure through the use of what later became known as substitution tables. The work done by Palmer and Hornby and others in this area later culminated in Hornbys Guide to Patterns and Usage in English (1954) which contains a syllabus of graded and sequenced language, with 6
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

techniques for presenting each item of language (White, 1988:13, Richards & Rodgers, 2001:38). Palmer believed vocabulary, which was gaining prominence because of the increased importance attached to it in the teaching of reading skill, was an integral part of language learning. His interest in controlled vocabulary, together with Wests, led to the use of frequency counts to identify the most frequent words in written texts. A core of approximately 2000 words were shown to appear frequently and these were eventually published by West as A General Service List of English Words (1953). It was thought that knowledge of these words would help learners improve their reading skills. West also suggested that vocabulary in reading texts should be simplified and the principles of readability and lexical distribution should be used by introducing fewer vocabulary items more frequently (White, 1988:13). We shall return to Wests General Service List in Unit 5, in our discussion of the Lexical Syllabus.

These attempts to apply a systematic approach to the selection of vocabulary and grammar items were to become the basis of subsequent principles of syllabus design and indeed according to Richards (2001:9), The General Service List was for many years a standard reference in making decisions about what words to use in coursebooks, graded readers and other teaching materials, while White (1988:13) comments that Hornbys Guide, has been very influential and there are many structurally based courses in which features of this syllabus may be discerned. We will examine other issues of selection and grading in section 3.7.

3.6

Underlying theories of language, teaching and learning and their

implications in the classroom

Although we have so far only considered the structural syllabus in relation to the methodological concerns from which it emerged, it is important to recognize that these methodological concerns stemmed from similar theories of language and

7
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

learning which were not generally questioned until the 1970s. Richards and Rodgers (2001:20) describe the structural syllabus as viewing language as a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning, with those elements being phonological, grammatical and lexical items, while for Rutherford (1987:149) it is a perception of language as an assemblage of hierarchicallyarranged constructs. Nunan (1988:29) furthers this explanation by suggesting such a view assumes that language consists of a finite set of rules.

Reflection/Discussion Task 3 List the ways in which the decision to use a grammatical syllabus may affect the following: Language teaching Learning objectives Syllabus design Role of the teacher Role of learners Type of materials Type of activities Type of assessments

Such views of language suggest that the goal of language teaching is to help learners crack the code (Nunan, 1988:29) with the teacher conveying his/her expert linguistic knowledge to the learner and the learner mastering that knowledge (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:20; Rutherford, 1987:149). In terms of learning

objectives, these views of language imply that it is sufficient for the learner to be taught each structural item one by one and that together these items combine to form meaning so all the learner is required to do is learn each rule and add it to their

8
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

pre-existing knowledge in order to acquire it and then they are able to use it in communication outside the classroom (Nunan, 1988:29-30). The significance of these views of language for syllabus design is that the syllabus designer will principally focus on selecting, ordering and listing the grammatical content in order to produce a synthetic and product-based syllabus, rather than focusing on the process of how the content will be acquired.

Whether we take the broad or narrow view of syllabus, these views of language, teaching and learning suggest that teaching from such a syllabus will be very much concentrated on a focus on form and accuracy above all else, which in turn puts constraints on the type of materials and activities to be used, as well as having an influence on the role of the teacher and the learners. For example, materials in a coursebook with a grammar-based syllabus are often designed to facilitate the teachers role in presenting the predetermined list of grammatical structures, and to enable learners to learn them, and so there may be little need for authentic or even very realistic texts or models. In fact, there may be little room in the classroom for reading lengthy texts, as the focus is on accuracy of sentence-level structures, and activities needed to achieve this are teacher-led, including drills, written exercises and learning by rote. The following lesson, Never on a Sunday, taken from Streamline Departure (Hartley and Vinney, 1978) illustrates the type of text used to present the language in a grammar-based syllabus, with its focus on clarity rather than authenticity, and the use of written exercises which encourage the learner to reproduce and practise the targeted language form.

9
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

Achievement can be assessed in a straightforward way, as tests for grammatical accuracy can measure the extent to which learners can reproduce the structures taught, without a focus on using them to communicate meaning. As this suggests, although a purely grammatical syllabus is generally associated with grammartranslation as well as situational language teaching and audiolingualism, a more 10
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

diluted form is equally present in PPP, and in what Cook (2001:228) calls the mainstream EFL style.

3.7

Practical considerations selection and grading

The practical questions of selection and grading are crucial elements of syllabus design and in this section we shall look further at the criteria used for selecting and grading vocabulary and grammar.

3.7.1 Vocabulary Reflection/Discussion Task 4 We have already touched on the issue of frequency but can you think of any further criteria you could use to select and grade vocabulary items. As we have seen, the first approaches to vocabulary selection consisted of analyzing the total number of occurrences of an item in a given corpus of language (White, 1988:49), and arranging these items in terms of their frequency. However, although frequency is perhaps one of the most common methods of selecting vocabulary, some difficulties exist in using it as the only method and Richards (2001:8) and White (1988:49-50) suggest other criteria which are commonly used: range words need to be frequent in a wide sample of differing text types rather than being frequent in a limited number of samples. coverage words which include the meanings of other words are more useful than those which have a single meaning. For example, book has a wider coverage than novel, autobiography or dictionary. For language learning this is important as it permits the syllabus designer to select a limited amount of vocabulary with a wide variety of meanings. 11
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

availability this is the idea that certain words, although not in themselves very frequent, may be triggered in relation to a particular topic: for example the topic bedroom may trigger bed, pillow, sheet, and sleep. similarity some words may be selected because they are similar in meaning to words in the students own first language. For example, English and German have many cognates such as water, automobile and problem, and this may be seen as a good reason for including them in teaching material for Germanspeaking learners. learnability if the learner is already familiar with the components of a word, such as bathroom, the word is comparatively easy to learn, just as shorter words are sometimes easier to learn than longer ones. Likewise, words which are similar to words in the learners native language may also be easy to learn, although care must be taken with false friends, words in a foreign language which look similar but in fact have different meanings (compare sympathetic in English and simptico in Spanish, which is in fact best translated as pleasant or kind). teachability concrete vocabulary is often easier to teach than abstract vocabulary as it can usually be taught through demonstration. defining power some words may not be the most frequent but may be selected because they can be used to define other words. An example could be vehicle because it can be used in a definition of car, lorry and van.

12
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

3.7.2 Grammar

Activity 1 Look at the grammatical items taken from a coursebook which follows a grammatical syllabus. Number the grammar points in the order which you would expect them to appear in the syllabus (they are currently out of order). What criteria are you using to sequence these items? Please note that these are only some of the grammatical items in the syllabus. See Commentaries on Activities.

Present perfect with For and Since Reported speech Present perfect and past simple Conditional sentences (first and second) Have been doing/have just done/havent done yet/had better do Passive voice in present perfect and past Past conditional Past continuous and past simple Past tense with Ago and questions with How long ago? Present simple and position of time adverbs Present continuous Some, any, a few, a little Past perfect Simple past tense Regular and irregular verbs Frequent gerund constructions (e.g. would you mind verb + ing) Going to do

13
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

The issue of grammar selection was recognized as early as the 1920s as being closely linked to grading. Palmer ([1922] 1968:68 cited in Richards, 2001:11) stated that:
The grammatical material must be graded. Certain moods and tenses are more useful than others; let us concentrate on the useful ones first. In a language possessing a number of cases, we will select them in accordance with their degree of importance.As for lists of rules and exceptions, if we learn them at all we will learn them in strict order of necessity. if our course is to comprise the conscious study of the mechanism of a given language, then, in accordance with the principle of gradation, let us first learn these essentials and leave the details to a later stage.

However, unlike vocabulary where lists were drawn up according to the careful study of frequency, the selection and grading of structural items had, until the advent of computerised corpora, generally been based on intuitive criteria. The most common criteria used, based on Richards (2001) and White (1988), can be defined as follows:

simplicity and centrality the selection of structures which are simple and more essential to the basic structure of the language than those that are difficult and less essential, and the ordering of simpler items in the syllabus before the more complex ones. combinability simple structures can be combined together to make more complex ones. contrast it is simpler to introduce a structural item by contrasting it with another one. For instance, the present simple is often contrasted with the present continuous, while the present perfect is often contrasted with the simple past. communicative need and immediacy some structures are required at an earlier stage than others, in spite of their complexity, for example past

14
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

simple. It can be helpful to teach some forms early because they can be used in classroom communicationquestions, for example. teachability the ease/difficulty with which the teacher can demonstrate and teach a structural item e.g. present continuous learnability this is connected with progression from simple to more complex structural items but it could also include the fact that structures which are similar to those in the first language are easier to learn than those which are different, so they should be taught first (this is the contrastive analysis approach). frequency although this has generally not been used because of the difficulties in identifying which grammatical units to count and analyse, the recent use of computerised corpora (e.g. McCarthy and Carters (1995) research into spoken grammar) has shown that there are often discrepancies between the grammatical lists identified through the use of intuitive criteria and the features of real language (Richards 2001:11-12). natural order research (e.g. Dulay and Burt (1973), Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974)) into second language acquisition has found that that there tends to be a natural order in which certain grammatical items are acquired by children and adults alike, irrespective of what the learners first language may be. It has been suggested by some researchers (Pienemann 1989) that the natural order should be used to inform syllabus design. However, as both Richards (2001:12) and White (1988:59) point out, there is, as yet, insufficient evidence from research for the design of a grammatical syllabus to be based on the natural order.

15
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

3.8

Critique of the structural syllabus

Reflection/Discussion Task 5 What advantages and disadvantages can you think of for and against using a structural syllabus for the syllabus designer, educational institutions, the teacher, teacher trainers, learners?

3.8.1

Criticisms of the structural syllabus A number of arguments have been made against the use of a grammatical syllabus in recent decades, and these need to be considered when deciding whether or not to use a structure-based syllabus in a particular teaching context. As you read through them, however, keep in mind the continuing popularity of this kind of syllabus, and ask yourself what it is about the grammatical syllabus that gives it such enduring appeal.

Firstly, it has been argued that a syllabus based on lists of structures which are to be learned in a pre-determined order does not seem to lead to the acquisition of these structures. Skehan (1996:18) points out, Learners do not simply acquire the language to which they are exposed, however that exposure may be orchestrated by the teacher. Research (see Ellis, 1997) has shown that teaching can have very little effect on when learners acquire a particular grammar structure, since this is controlled by internal processes, nor on the way in which their language may develop (see module 2: Second Language Acquisition for this and other points made here regarding learners acquisition). This could explain why, as you have no doubt noticed with your own students, some learners seem to acquire a certain language structure at different times from others, despite having been taught at the same time. Other second language acquisition research (e.g. studies by Dulay and Burt, 1973); Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 1974), as we have already seen, also suggests there are certain grammatical items which are 16
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

acquired in a specific order (i.e. natural order) and that this order cannot be changed by instruction. Furthermore, it has been noted by Rutherford (1987:159) that, personal learning schedules of individual learners vary a great deal and this variation applies not only to the timing of acquisition, but also to the way in which individuals acquire language and, as we have seen, to which language items they acquire. In contrast to these observations, the structural syllabus

appears to assume that each and every learner will be ready to learn the next language item in the syllabus at the same time and that the teaching of these structures leads to their acquisition.

Other criticisms have been made about the type of language which tends to appear in structural syllabuses and how grammar items are illustrated. Links made by the syllabus writer are often tenuous since the grammatical rules presented are said to be over-simplified or incomplete, and do not explain real usage of the particular grammar item to be learnt, so learners may be being misled. The problem is that language is such a vast and complex area, only a small amount of it has been explained through traditional grammar (Krashen and Terrell, 1983:31), and it is difficult for the syllabus designer to isolate one grammatical item around which a lesson can be created since one form may have several functions, and indeed one function may be achieved by a number of forms. Furthermore, the language presented in many published courses to illustrate a particular grammar item does not necessarily provide learners with examples of how language is used in real communication, rather it has tended to disassociate grammar from context and to deal in separate sentences (Widdowson 1988:154). In other words, it does not give a true picture of how grammar works together with lexis and in context to create meaning above the sentence level.

The effectiveness of using a structural syllabus to achieve communication in the target language has also been brought into question. Studies (such as

Montgomery and Eisenstein 1985, Savignon 1972 discussed in Lightbown and 17

Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

Spada 1999:118-122) which examined levels of proficiency in learners who had received different amounts of grammar-based communicative instruction concluded that effective communication by learners receiving only grammarbased instruction is frequently limited, high levels of accuracy are not necessarily achieved, and learners are unwilling to take risks in communicating.

3.8.2 Advantages of the structural syllabus It must be remembered that despite the above arguments, the structural syllabus remains popular and is still widely used in many different teaching situations around the world for a number of reasons. Firstly, syllabus design can be relatively uncomplicated as it is based on individual grammatical structures and the design of tests or exams is linked to those grammatical items in the syllabus. Learner progress can be measured in terms of knowledge of the grammatical items which have been taught and, one assumes, learnt. It follows that schools and administrative bodies may easily assess whether goals have been reached or not.

For teachers, life may be made far simpler as the content of each lesson can be pre-determined by whichever grammar rule is next in the structural syllabus and precise techniques exist with which to teach that rule. By breaking the language up into sets of simplified discrete items, both learning and teaching are rendered more accessible and manageable (Shorthall, 2003:39). Furthermore, teacher

authority in large classes can be relatively easily defined and maintained as the methods which tend to use a structural syllabus are teacher-centred rather than student-centred. In addition, for many teachers language teaching is synonymous with the teaching of grammar.

For teacher-trainers, there may be advantages in advocating a structural syllabus since it implies using certain methodologies and therefore having a clear set of procedures which can be packaged and taught to trainee-teachers. For the trainees, it can be confidence-building to have an uncomplicated syllabus 18
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

framework to follow which entails models of accepted classroom practice such as PPP, which offers to the novice teacher the reassurance of a detailed set of sequential steps to follow in the classroom. (Richards and Rogers, 2001:246).

For many learners, there is an expectation that grammar will be a central part of their language courses. Indeed, it is argued that a grammar-based syllabus

provides the tools with which new language can be created so that learners are able to generate their own original utterances, and if an integrated approach to syllabus design is used, the structural syllabus can contain grammatical items presented in communicative situations with functions and lexis. In fact, as was pointed out in section 3.6, although a grammatical syllabus tends to be associated with a traditional, teacher-led classroom, there is no reason why it should not be compatible with a range of teaching methodologies and classroom procedures. In other words, although a focus on acquiring grammatical structures may dictate the content of the course, it does not have to determine how these structures are taught, nor the authenticity of the texts used or the roles assumed by teacher and learners. One illustration of this may be the immensely popular Headway series and its traditional grammatical syllabus, released at a time when so-called communicative approaches were being adopted worldwide across private TEFL schools. It could be argued that the grammar syllabus has suffered from a rejection of many of the methodology, learning theories and classroom procedures traditionally associated with it rather than through dissatisfaction with the use of grammar as the organising principle of course content.

Reflection/Discussion Task 6 Having considered the arguments for and against the structural syllabus, in what type of teaching situation do you think a grammatical syllabus could/should be used? Consider the age of the learners, their reasons for learning the language, the level of the learners, the type of teaching institution and the methods of assessing progress etc.

19
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

3.9

Summary This unit has suggested that the structural syllabus evolved from concerns for methodology, and as a result methodology and syllabus are inextricably linked as has already been indicated in the narrow/broad definitions of syllabus and the approach-design-procedure model outlined in Unit 1. We have also seen that the issues of selection and grading evolved from concerns about improving the way in which language was taught. From these early efforts to develop approaches to syllabus design, it can be seen that a number of basic assumptions were made which later approaches (to be covered in the following units) have attempted to move away from. Richards (2001:15) lists these assumptions as being:

The basic units of language are vocabulary and grammar Learners everywhere have the same needs Learners needs are identified exclusively in terms of language needs The process of learning a language is largely determined by the textbook The context of teaching is English as a Foreign Language [i.e. as a school subject, with no use for the language outside the classroom]

However, despite the criticism which the grammatical syllabus has received, its continuing and worldwide popularity contrasts with the sometimes limited takeup of other approaches to syllabus design, and it appears that the syllabus has at least stood the test of time.

20
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

3.10 Commentaries on activities

Commentary on Activity 1 Here is the complete syllabus taken from Kernel Lesson Intermediate (ONeil, Kingsbury and Yeadon 1971). The 14 items listed in activity 1 are highlighted and in the order in which they appear in the book.

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11 Unit 12 Unit 13 Unit 14 Unit 15 Unit 16 Unit 17 Unit 18 Unit 19 Unit 20 Unit 21 Unit 22 Unit 23 Unit 24 Unit 25

Forward Students Introduction Present simple and position of time adverbs Present continuous Simple past tense Regular and irregular verbs Mass and unit Some, any, a few, a little Past tense with Ago and questions with How long ago? Adjectives and adverbs Comparison of adverbs Going to do Requests and offers & Take/get/bring/show someone something Present perfect with For and Since Have been doing/have just done/havent done yet/had better do Past continuous and past simple Simple future used in requests, offers, and of Must and Can Present perfect + Just + preview of contrast with simple past Present perfect and past simple Frequent gerund constructions Future simple with If or When and present simple clause Common patterns with verb + him/her/etc. + infinitive with/without to Future in the past Past perfect Conditional sentences Passive voice in present perfect and past Reported speech Past conditional Irregular verb list 21
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

Taken from Kernel Lessons Intermediate by Robert ONeill, Roy Kingsbury and Tony Yeadon London: Longman 1971 Here is a list of criteria for the selection and sequencing of grammatical structures. The list includes some of the criteria which have already been discussed in section 3.7.2.

1.1 Frequency

The total number of occurrences of a particular item in a given corpus of language. This criterion is more often used when selecting and grading lexis but there is no reason why it should not be applied to grammatical items as well. Usually applied to lexis, this criterion refers to the number of things which can be expressed by a given word. This criterion could also be applied to grammatical structures i.e. the number of different situations in which the structure can be used. Structures which allow for a higher level of substitution will probably have a higher coverage.

1.2 Coverage

2.1 Teachability 2.2 Learnability of form

How difficult or easy is it to demonstrate and to teach the item in the classroom setting? For example, the present continuous (for current usage) is usually easier to demonstrate than the present simple. The form of one structural item may be longer and more complex than another. For example, many learners find the form of the 3rd conditional more difficult to master than that of the 1st or 2nd conditionals.

3.1 Contrastive Issues 3.2 Combinability 3.4 Distribution

It is argued that it is often easier to present a particular use of a structural item by contrasting it with another. For example, it is easier to contrast the present perfect (for an indefinite time) with the simple past (referring to a definite time). Simple structures can be combined to form more complex structures. Given the hierarchical nature of grammatical structures, this is an obvious and important criterion for grading. It is often necessary to spread grammatical items out over a period of time. For example, if the major tenses like present simple, present perfect, simple past, present continuous and past continuous are taught in quick succession, the learner can suffer from tense overload. 22
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

4.1 Natural Order

Research into L1 acquisition has shown that young children do seem to acquire the major grammatical items of English in a particular sequence called the natural order. The results of this research have influenced the sequencing of grammatical items in coursebooks. Is there a corresponding structure in the learners L1? If there is, how similar is it in form and usage to the item in the L2?

4.2 L1 Transfer

5. Immediacy

It is often useful and necessary to teach particular forms early on in the syllabus because they can be used to encourage the communicative use of the target language in the classroom. For example, question forms are often taught early because questions are considered to be an important feature of the interaction between the teacher and the learner.

23
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

REFERENCES Axbey, S. (1997) Real Times Elementary. London: Richmond. Bailey, K., C. Madden and S. Krashen (1974) Is there a natural sequence in adult second language learning?. Language Learning 24: 235-243. Brown, H.D. (2001) (2nd ed) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman. Cook, V. (2001) (3rd ed) Second Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Dulay, H. and M. Burt (1973) Natural sequences in child language acquisition Language Learning. 24: 37-53. Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hartley, B. and P. Vinney (1978) Streamline Departures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornby, A.S. (1954) Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. and T.D. Terrell (1983) The Natural Approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter (1995) Spoken grammar: what is it and how do we teach it? ELT Journal. 49/3: 207-218. Montgomery, C. and M. Eisenstein (1985) Reality revisited: an experimental communicative course in ESL TESOL Quarterly 19: 317-34. 24
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ONeill, R. Kingsbury, R. Yeadon, T. (1971) Kernel Lessons Intermediate. London: Longman 1971 Pienemann, M.M. (1989) Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 6: 186214. Palmer, H.E. [1922] (1968) The Principles of Language Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J.C. (2001) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001) (2nd edn) Approaches and Methods In Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, W. (1987) Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Longman. Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds) (1988) Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury House. Savignon, S.J. (1972) Teaching for Communicative Competence: Research Report Audio-Visual Language Journal 3: 153-162. Shorthall, T. (2003) (unpublished) Corpus driven grammar: authentic text and textbook language. SLA module handout no. 8. Skehan, P. (1996) Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction in Willis, D. and Willis, J. (eds) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann, 17-30. Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 25
Syllabus and Materials

Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham

Unit 3

Sweet, H. (1899) The Practical Study of Languages. London: Dent. West, M. (1953) A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman. White, R. (1988) The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford: Blackwell. Widdowson, H.G. (1988) Grammar, and nonsense, and learning in Rutherford, W. and M. Sharwood Smith (eds) Grammar and Second Language Teaching: a Book of Readings. New York: Longman, 146-155. Wilkins, D.A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, D. and Willis, J. (eds) (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

26
Syllabus and Materials