1|Page

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

ISLAMABAD

Name: Shaukat Hussain Afridi

Registration No:
Roll No:
Programme: PGD TEFL
Assignment / Subject: EFL in the Classroom-I (5661)

Submitted by: Shaukat Hussain Afridi

Submitted to:
Date: 30TH April,……………...
2|Page

Q.1 Define and explain these terms:

a) Lockstep and Group work

b) Open and Closed Pair

c) Transmission and Interpretation role

d) Teacher centered and Student Centered Teaching Style

e) Terra Syllabus

Ans: Lock Step:

Lockstep is when the teacher is in front of the class and playing the role of controller and all
the students are ‗locked‘ into same activity – this would be similar to the role of the teacher in
the Traditional Grammarian Method.Pair work involves two students working together and
increases the amount of speaking time. It allows students to use language and also encourages
co-operation which itself is important for the atmosphere of the class and for the motivation it
gives to learning with others.

Group Work:

Group work is more exciting and dynamic than pair work as there is greater possibility of
discussion. Students will be teaching and learning in the group showing a degree of self-
reliance that isn‘t possible when the teacher is acting as controller (lockstep).Individual study
is frequently quiet. This should not be underestimated. Sometimes students need a period of
relative silence to reassemble their learning attitudes.

For example, individual study would be suitable for a reading comprehension exercise in
which the aim would be for students to focus on understanding the text to answer questions.
The mind understands by reading silently and not by reading aloud.

Open pairs

An open pair is a pair of learners working together with the rest of the group observing. They
can be compared to closed pairs, where all the learners work in pairs that do not monitor each
other.

Example
The learners are working on developing telephone conversations using prompts. The teacher
asks one pair to continue working while the rest of the group watches.

In the classroom

Open pair work can be a fast and effective way to highlight language learners might need for
an activity, and clarify that people understand what to do. It needs to be managed sensitively,
choosing confident learners to demonstrate, and dealing with errors through a "hotsheet"; a
record of errors in performance, which can be discussed later
3|Page

Closed pairs

Top of Form
Working in closed pairs means that the learners are all working in pairs simultaneously and
therefore privately. Closed pairs are the opposite of open pairs, where one pair works while
the rest of the learners watch.
Example
The learners are practising pronunciation of stressed and unstressed syllables in pairs; the
teacher monitors the group.
In the classroom
Closed pair work is important because it gives learners a chance to explore new language
without pressure; it is also useful for teachers because it gives them a chance to monitor the
work of all learners discretely and give accurate and personalised feedback to individuals if
they wish.

Transmission and Interpretation role

Teaching as Transmission.

From this perspective, teaching is the act of transmitting knowledge from Point A (teacher‘s
head) to Point B (students‘ heads). This is a teacher-centered approach in which the teacher is
the dispenser of knowledge, the arbitrator of truth, and the final evaluator of learning. A
teacher‘s job from this perspective is to supply students with a designated body of knowledge
in a predetermined order. Academic achievement is seen as students‘ ability to demonstrate,
replicate, or retransmit this designated body of knowledge back to the teacher or to some
other measuring agency or entity. From this perspective standardized tests are considered to
be an apt measure of students‘ learning. While there are specific instances when this
approach is useful, I find little research support for this as a general approach to teaching and
learning.

Teacher-Centered Instruction
For this one, focus is on the teacher (duh). Generally, the teacher talks and the students don't
do much conversing or collaborating. Though there are more up-to-date versions of this
model, in its original form the idea was that the teacher held ultimate authority and the
students were "empty vessels" (as this Teach.com article so kindly describes them) whose job
was to absorb teacher-imparted information through passive listening.
In general: teacher is all-knowing figure of ultimate power; children are silent vassals who
must take in whatever they're told and be able to say it back, while still remaining silent, to
show that they've obeyed the will of the Great Instructor. Okay, so that's the extreme.
It's more likely you'll encounter teacher-based instruction in the form of classes with a lecture
structure, or some subjects in which the students need to be given a critical mass of
information before they can do much with it.
4|Page

And there are some real benefits: it can help keep the classroom orderly and the teacher in
control of the schedule and the way topics are discussed. (A nod to Concordia Online Ed for
that list of pros. They list the cons, too, for you naysayers out there).
While we're on that, let's get into those disadvantages. There's little communication, a lot of
chances for zoning out, and the possibility that students won't engage as much with the
subject, since they don't get to express opinions or ask questions.
At least, those are the cons where teacher-centered instruction in its fullest form is employed.
In most cases, you'll probably see something of a mix between the two instruction styles. But
before we get into what that looks like, let's go over the characteristics of student-centered
learning.

Student-Centered Instruction
Here, focus is on the students (again: duh). But that doesn't mean that the teacher doesn't lead
the room, or that the students pick a subject and start experimenting without any guidance.
Instead, this approach usually involves a fair amount of interaction between the teacher and
the students, as well as among students through group work and other collaborative activities.
If you're thinking in terms of learning goals, emphasis is usually on involving students to help
develop critical thinking, inquiry skills, ability to connect the classroom topic to real-life
concerns, coming up with good questions to investigate a subject, and learning from mistakes
that get made along the way. Those and other characteristics of student-focused learning (as
listed in the learner-centered column of this handy chart) are built-in benefits of this
approach. Let's recap. The biggies: students gain skills in communication and collaboration,
as well as how to take charge of their own learning by asking good questions and being
responsible for specific tasks. Plus, isn't learning just more likely to stick when you're doing it
with your buddies? (Source) On to the cons. The room gets noisy; the students are more
distracted and may let certain details slide; your introverts will not be happy; and you, Teach,
may face some fluster as you try to rein in multiple groups at once. As for the introverts,
check out this article on how to adapt your teaching strategy to work for students of a range
of social skills and learning preferences.
And as for keeping all those groups from meandering too far off topic, glance into our tips
on discipline and classroom management for a few ideas. But wait. That still doesn't answer
the question of which approach to use.

Terra Syllabus:
Terrell outlines four categories of classroom activities that can facilitate
language acquisition (as opposed to language learning):

1. "Content (culture, subject matter, new information, reading, e.g. teacher tells interesting
anecdote involving contrast between target and native culture.)"
2. "Affective-humanistic (students' own ideas, opinions, experiences, e.g. students are asked
to share personal preferences as to music, places to live, clothes, hair styles, etc.)"
5|Page

3. "Games [focus on using language to participate in the game, e.g. 20 questions: I, the
teacher, am thinking of an object in this room. You, students, have twenty questions to
guess the object. Typical questions: is it clothing? (yes) is it for a man or a woman?
(woman) is it a skirt? (yes) is it brown? (yes) is it Ellen's skirt? (yes)]"
4. "Problem solving (focus on using language to locate information, use information, etc.,
e.g. looking at this listing of films in the newspaper, and considering the different tastes
and schedule needs in the group, which film would be appropriate for all of us to attend,
and when?)"
Q.2: What are the chief characteristics of Krashen’s Natural Approach to
language learning? And how far this approach is helpful for language teachers and
learners?
Ans:
The Natural Approach
The natural approach developed by Tracy Terrell and supported by Stephen Krashen, is a
language teaching approach which claims that language learning is a reproduction of the way
humans naturally acquire their native language. The approach adheres to a communicative
approach to language teaching and rejects earlier methods such as the audio lingual method
and the situational language teaching approach which Krashen and terrell (1983) believe are
not based on ―actual theories of language acquisition but theories of the structure of language.

The Natural Approach vs the Direct Method

Although The Natural approach and the Direct Method (also called the natural method) share
some features, there are important differences . Like the direct method the natural approach is
‖ believed to conform to the naturalistic principles found in second language acquisition.
Unlike the direct method, however, it places less emphasis on teacher monologues, direct
repletion ,and formal questions and answers, and less focus on accurate production of target
language sentences‖ (Richards and Rodgers, 1986:129)

Theory of language
Krashen and Terrell view communication as the primary function of language, and adhere to
a communicative approach to language teaching, focusing on teaching communicative
abilities rather than sterile language structures. What really distinguishes the Natural
approach from other methods and approaches are its premises concerning the use of language
and the importance of vocabulary:
Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meaning and messages.
Vocabulary is of paramount importance as language is essentially its lexicon!
This means that language acquisition cannot take place unless the acquirer understands
messages in the target language and has developed sufficient vocabulary inventory. In fact it
should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just vocabulary items than one
containing just the grammatical structures.

Theory of learning
6|Page

Krashen grounded the Natural approach on a number of theory of learning tenets.

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Krashen makes a distinction between acquisition and

learning.

1. Krashen defines acquisition as developing competence by using language for real

communication. It is the natural way, paralleling first language development in
children and refers to an unconscious process that involves the naturalistic
development of language proficiency through under¬standing language and through
using language for meaningful com¬munication.
2. Learning, however, refers to formal knowledge of a language. It is the process in
which conscious rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge
about the forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge. Formal
teaching is necessary for ―learning‖ to occur, and correction of errors helps with the
development of learned rules.

The Monitor Hypothesis

Conscious learning can function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs the output
of the acquired system. The Monitor Hypothesis states that we may use learned knowledge to
correct ourselves when we communicate, but that conscious learning has only this func¬tion.
Three conditions limit the successful use of the monitor:

1. Time. Sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a learned rule.
2. Focus on form. Focus on correctness or on the form of the output.
3. Knowledge of rules. Knowing the rules is a prerequiste for the use of the monitor.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
The acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order. Certain
grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition
of English, and the Natural Order Hypothesis claims that the same natural order is found in
second language acquisition. It is also believed that errors are signs of naturalistic
developmental processes. Similar developmental errors occur in learners during acquisition
(but not during learning) no mat¬ter what their native language is.

The Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis relates to acquisition not to learning and states that people acquire
language best by understanding input that is slightly beyond their level of competence.
Krashen refers to this by the formula L +1 (where L+1 is the stage immediately following L
along some natural order.) Comprehension is achieved through linguistic and extra linguistic
context clues including knowledge about the world, the context of the situation etc…
Comprehension preceds the emergence of speaking as fluency appears only as a result of the
provision of sufficient comprehensible input. By comprehensible input Krashen means the
utterances that learners understand based on linguistic and extralinguistic context and which
consists of a sort of simplified code . He contends that when there is such comprensible input
7|Page

language acquisition proceeds successfully. Krashen also claims that when there is enough of
such comprehensible input, L+1will usually be provided automatically and Affective Filter
Hypothesis

There are three types of emotional attitudinal factors that may affect acquisition and that may
impede, block or freely passes necessary input for acquisition . These are motivation, self
confidence and anxiety. Acquirers with high affective filter are less likely to develop
comptence.

In a nutshell Teaching according to the Natural Approach involves the following principles:

1. Teaching according to the Natural approach focuses on communicative abilities.

2. One of its objectives is to help beginners become intermediate.
3. Vocabulary is considered prior to synthactic structures.
4. A lot of comprehensible input must be provided.
5. Use of visual aids to help comprehension.
6. Focus is on listening and reading. Speaking emerges later.
7. Reducing the high affective filter by
8. Focusing on meaningful communication rather than on form.
9. Providing interesting comprehensible input

Conclusion
The Natural Approach belongs to a tradition of language acquisition where the naturalistic
features of L1 acquisition are utilized in L2 acquisition. It is an approach that draws a variety
of techniques from other methods and approaches to reach this goal which is one of its
advantages. But the originality of this approach does not lie in these techniques but on the
emphasis on activities based on comprehensible input and meaningful communication rather
than on only grammatical mastery of language.

Q.3: What is meant by the term classroom management? And how one type of
classroom management supports and complements another? Justify it with
suitable examples.

ANS: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

Classroom management refers to the wide variety of skills and techniques that teachers use
to keep students organized, orderly, focused, attentive, on task, and academically productive
during a class. When classroom-management strategies are executed effectively, teachers
minimize the behaviors that impede learning for both individual students and groups of
students, while maximizing the behaviors that facilitate or enhance learning. Generally
speaking, effective teachers tend to display strong classroom-management skills, while the
hallmark of the inexperienced or less effective teacher is a disorderly classroom filled with
students who are not working or paying attention.
8|Page

While a limited or more traditional interpretation of effective classroom management may

focus largely on ―compliance‖—rules and strategies that teachers may use to make sure
students are sitting in their seats, following directions, listening attentively, etc.—a more
encompassing or updated view of classroom management extends to everything that teachers
may do to facilitate or improve student learning, which would include such factors
as behavior (a positive attitude, happy facial expressions, encouraging statements, the
respectful and fair treatment of students, etc.), environment (for example, a welcoming, well-
lit classroom filled with intellectually stimulating learning materials that‘s organized to
support specific learning activities), expectations (the quality of work that teachers expect
students to produce, the ways that teachers expect students to behave toward other students,
the agreements that teachers make with students), materials (the types of texts, equipment,
and other learning resources that teachers use), or activities(the kinds of learning
experiences that teachers design to engage student interests, passions, and intellectual
curiosity). Given that poorly designed lessons, uninteresting learning materials, or unclear
expectations, for example, could contribute to greater student disinterest, increased
behavioral problems, or unruly and disorganized classes, classroom management cannot be
easily separated from all the other decisions that teachers make. In this more encompassing
view of classroom management, good teaching and good classroom management become, to
some degree, indistinguishable.
In practice, classroom-management techniques may appear deceptively simple,
but successfully and seamlessly integrating them into the instruction of students typically
requires a variety of sophisticated techniques and a significant amount of skill and
experience. While the specific techniques used to manage classrooms and facilitate learning
can vary widely in terminology, purpose, and execution, the following representative
examples—taken from Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the
Path to College by Doug Lemov—will provide a brief introduction to a few basic classroom-
management techniques (NOTE: While the general strategies described below are widely
used by teachers, the specific terms in bold are not):
 Entry Routine is a technique in which teachers establish a consistent, daily routine that
begins as soon as students enter the classroom—preparing learning materials, making
seat assignments, passing in homework, or doing a brief physical ―warm-up‖ activity
would all be examples of entry routines. This technique can avoid the disorder and
squandered time that can characterize the beginning of a class period.
 Do Now is a brief written activity that students are given as soon as they arrive in the
classroom. This technique is intended to get students settled, focused, productive, and
prepared for instruction as quickly as possible.
 Tight Transitions is a technique in which teachers establish transition routines that
students learn and can execute quickly and repeatedly without much direction from a
teacher. For example, a teacher might say ―reading time,‖ and students will know that
they are expected to stop what they are working on, put away their materials, get their
books, and begin reading silently on their own. This technique helps to maximize
instructional time by reducing the disarray and delay that might accompany transitions
between activities.
9|Page

 Seat Signals is a technique in which students use nonverbal signals while seated to
indicate that they need something, such as a new pencil, a restroom break, or help with a
problem. This technique establishes expectations for appropriate communication and
helps to minimize disruptions during class.
 Props is the act of publicly recognizing and praising students who have done something
good, such as answering a difficult question or helping a peer. Props is done by the entire
class and is typically a short movement or spoken phrase. The technique is intended to
establish a group culture in which learning accomplishments and positive actions are
socially valued and rewarded.
 Nonverbal Intervention is when teachers establish eye contact or make gestures that let
students know they are off-task, not paying attention, or misbehaving. The technique
helps teachers efficiently and silently manage student behavior without disrupting a
lesson.
 Positive Group Correction is a quick, affirming verbal reminder that lets a group of
students know what they should be doing. Related techniques are Anonymous
Individual Correction, a verbal reminder that is directed at an anonymous
student; Private Individual Correction, a reminder given to an individual student as
discretely as possible; and Lightning-Quick Public Correction, a quick, positive
reminder that tells an individual student what to do instead of what not to do.
 Do It Again is used when students do not perform a basic task correctly, and the teacher
asks them to do it again the correct way. This technique establishes and reinforces
consistent expectations for quality work.
Q.4 a): What is a difference between a Structural Syllabus and Functional Syllabus?

b): What are the various steps in designing and implementing a syllabus?
Ans: Structural Syllabus
INTRODUCTION
A Structural Syllabus (also known as Grammatical Syllabus, Formal Syllabus, Traditional
Syllabus, Synthetic Syllabus) is one in which grammatical structures form the central
organizing feature. The Structural or Grammatical Syllabus is one of the most common type
of syllabus and still today we can see the contents pages of many course books set out
according to grammatical items. The Structural Syllabus derives its content largely from the
structural linguists. It is a product oriented content based syllabus. Here the focus is on the
knowledge and skills which learners should gain as a result of instruction, not on how they
can attain them. The synthetic teaching strategy is essential to produce such a syllabus. The
Structural Syllabus happens to be the best known example of a Synthetic Syllabus. The
synthetic approach to syllabus design, according to Wilkins is: A synthetic language teaching
strategy is one in which the different parts of a language are taught separately and step by
step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of the parts until the whole
structure of the language has been built up.

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
The major characteristics of the Structural Syllabus are as follows:

Theoretical Bases: The underlying assumptions behind the Structural Syllabus are that:
 10 | P a g e

 Language is a system which consists of a set of grammatical rules; learning language means
learning these rules and then applying them to practical language use.
 The syllabus input is selected and graded according to grammatical notions of simplicity and
complexity. These syllabuses introduce one item at a time and require mastery of that item
before moving on to the next.
 This type of syllabus maintains that it is easier for students to learn a language if they are
exposed to one part of the grammatical system at a time.
Content: The content of the syllabus is determined by giving top priority to teaching the
grammar or structure of the target language. The Structural Syllabus generally consists of two
components:

1. A list of linguistic structures, that is, the grammar to be taught, and

2. A list of words, that is, the lexicon to be taught.
Sequencing and Grading: Very often the items on each list are arranged in order showing
which are to be taught in the first course, which in the second, and so on. The criteria for
sequencing are various. The teacher regards the items from the point of view of levels or
stages. For example, beginning, intermediate, advanced, or grades, 1,2,3, etc.
Objectives: Grammar makes up the core of the syllabus. Whatever rules are followed,
learning a language means learning to master the grammar rules of the target language. In
addition it also expected that the students will learn adequate basic vocabulary.
The teacher in following the syllabus may use either Audio-lingual
Method or Grammar Translation Method, or a combination of the two or an eclectic
approach. Whichever he uses, the content of the syllabus is determined by giving top priority
to teaching the grammar or structure of the language.

Procedure: In the initial stage of teaching, the linguistic components of the type of
performance desired are analyzed. Next the language is broken down into small grammatical
components and presented in a strictly controlled sequence. The sequence is arranged in
accordance with increasing complexity, from simple grammatical structure to more complex
grammatical structure. The learners are exposed at one time to a limited sample of the target
language. The teacher moves progressively through the syllabus until, theoretically, all the
structures of the target language have been taught. The learner‘s job is to re-synthesize
language that has been taken apart, and presented to him in small parts. This synthesis takes
place only in the final stage of leaning, the so called the advanced stage.

ADVANTAGES
Many learning principles implicit in a structural approach are sound. The merits of a
Structural Syllabus are as follows:

 The learner moves from simpler to more complex grammatical structures and may grasp the
grammatical system more easily.
 11 | P a g e

 Teaching and testing are relatively simple, because teachers deal with discrete-point
knowledge and skills. The teachers need not be fluent in the language they teach, since
grammatical explanations and drills do not require a high level of language proficiency.
 It is very much helpful to develop writing skills.
 It enriches student‘s basic vocabulary.
 Sequencing and selection of teaching items is not as difficult as it with other syllabuses.
DISADVANTAGES
Despite its numerous advantages it has few shortcomings too. The drawbacks of a Structural
Syllabus are as follows:

 The potential disadvantage of the Structural Syllabus is that it over-emphasizes language

structure and neglects communicative competence. It does not address the immediate
communication needs of the learner who is learning a language within the context of a
community where the language is spoken. In fact, the sociolinguistic aspects of
communicative competence are not in focus at all in a strictly structural syllabus. It is
therefore more useful in a context where the language learner does not have immediately
communication needs.
 It hampers the student‘s creative sides because it confines him/her within the walls of some
specific rules.
 Here the role of the student is passive, since it is the teacher who is deciding what to teach in
which stage. It is, thus, a teacher dominated syllabus.

A FUNCTIONAL SYLLABUS
Developments in psychology, sociology and anthropology affected language
teaching.The priorities of the Functional Syllabus have been strongly influenced by the theore
tical andanalytical concerns of linguistics. During the period of change in linguistic theory
and
analysis, philosophers who were interested in problems of meaning and the use of language w
ereexploring the notion of Speech Acts. For many linguists, the notion of competence in
language was broadened to entail, not only knowledge of the code and knowledge of the
conventions of social use of the code, but also knowledge of the particular conventions of
meaning which was shared with the other users of the code. The concept of need has been
largely ignored by structurally based syllabuses and the concept of communicative function is
often lost in the concentration on grammatical form. Since the primary goal of functional
syllabus is to build language competence through use the ability to use this knowledge for
effective communication, needs analysis gained importance for a syllabus and ESP emerged.
The concept of planning a language syllabus around the communicative needs of the students
rather than around a fixed body of knowledge has serious implications for the field of
language teaching. Functional syllabus is a turning point with the developments in these
areas. It was a revolutionary idea for that time that focused not only on textual knowledge but
12 | P a g e

also interpersonal that is the unity of time, space and relationship and conceptual knowledge-
ideation that knows the concept behind the word a learner utters. The ―Functional approach‖
refers to an approach to syllabus design, not a method of language teaching. This approach
restructures the presentation of the target language to coincide with the communicative
functions or use to which the language will be put. Functional syllabuses have proved very
popular as a basis for organizing courses and materials for the following reasons:

1. They reflect a more comprehensive view of language than grammar syllabuses and
focus on the use of the language rather than linguistic form.

2. They can readily be linked to other types of syllabus content (e.g. topics, grammar,
and vocabulary).

3. They provide a convenient framework for the design of teaching materials,

particularly in the domains of listening and speaking. Functional syllabuses have also
been criticized for the following reasons:

4. There are no clear criteria for selecting or grading functions.

5. They represent a simplistic view of communicative competence and fail to address

the processes of communication

b): What are the various steps in designing and implementing a

syllabus?

Ans: Introduction to Syllabus Design and Evaluation

The purpose of this paper is to examine the currents running through syllabus design and to
highlight the issues relevant to teachers considering creating their own curriculum with
specific reference to those based in Japan. It will hopefully also help instructors better
evaluate their own programs and course books. It is therefore concerned with linguistic
theory and theories of language learning and how they are applied to the classroom.

In the past, the focus of syllabuses has shifted from structure to situations, functions and
notions to topics and tasks. In fact, as Nunan (1988:52) suggests, with the development of the
latter it is palpable that "the traditional distinction between syllabus design and
methodologies has become blurred". So, how should we initially define syllabus?

Syllabus: A Definition

A syllabus is an expression of opinion on the nature of language and learning; it acts as a

guide for both teacher and learner by providing some goals to be attained. Hutchinson and
Waters (1987:80) define syllabus as follows: At its simplest level a syllabus can be described
as a statement of what is to be learnt. It reflects of language and linguistic performance. This
is a rather traditional interpretation of syllabus focusing as it does on outcomes rather than
13 | P a g e

process. However, a syllabus can also be seen as a "summary of the content to which learners
will be exposed" (Yalden.1987: 87). It is seen as an approximation of what will be taught and
that it cannot accurately predict what will be learnt. Next, we will discuss the various types of
approaches available to course designers and the language assumptions they make.

Product-Oriented Syllabuses

Also known as the synthetic approach, these kinds of syllabuses emphasize the product of
language learning and are prone to intervention from an authority.

The Structural Approach

Historically, the most prevalent of syllabus type is perhaps the grammatical syllabus in which
the selection and grading of the content is based on the complexity and simplicity of
grammatical items. The learner is expected to master each structural step and add it to her
grammar collection. As such the focus is on the outcomes or the product.

One problem facing the syllabus designer pursuing a grammatical order to sequencing input
is that the ties connecting the structural items maybe rather feeble. A more fundamental
criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on only one aspect of language, namely
grammar, whereas in truth there exist many more aspects to language. Finally, recent corpus
based research suggests there is a divergence between the grammar of the spoken and of the
written language; raising implications for the grading of content in grammar based
syllabuses.

The Situational Approach

These limitations led to an alternative approach where the point of departure became
situational needs rather than grammatical units. Here, the principal organizing characteristic
is a list of situations which reflects the way language and behavior are used everyday outside
the classroom. Thus, by linking structural theory to situations the learner is able to induce the
meaning from a relevant context.

One advantage of the situational approach is that motivation will be heightened since it is
"learner- rather than subject-centered" (Wilkins.1976: 16). However, a situational syllabus
will be limited for students whose needs were not encompassed by the situations in the
syllabus. This dissatisfaction led Wilkins to describe notional and communicative categories
which had a significant impact on syllabus design.

The Notional/Functional Approach

Wilkins' criticism of structural and situational approaches lies in the fact that they answer
only the 'how' or 'when' and 'where' of language (Brumfit and Johnson. 1979:84). Instead, he
enquires "what it is they communicate through language" (Op.Cit.:18). Thus, the starting
point for a syllabus is the communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of language i.e.
14 | P a g e

notions and functions, as opposed to grammatical items and situational elements which
remain but are relegated to a subsidiary role.

In order to establish objectives, the needs of the learners will have to be analyzed by the
various types of communication in which the learner has to confront. Consequently, needs
analysis has an association with notional-functional syllabuses. Although needs analysis
implies a focus on the learner, critics of this approach suggest that a new list has replaced the
old one. Where once structural/situational items were used a new list consisting of notions
and functions has become the main focus in a syllabus. White (1988:77) claims that
"language functions do not usually occur in isolation" and there are also difficulties of
selecting and grading function and form. Clearly, the task of deciding whether a given
function (i.e. persuading), is easier or more difficult than another (i.e. approving), makes the
task harder to approach. The above approaches belong to the product-oriented category of
syllabuses. An alternative path to curriculum design would be to adopt process oriented
principles, which assume that language can be learnt experientially as opposed to the step-by-
step procedure of the synthetic approach.

Process-Oriented Syllabuses

Process-Oriented Syllabuses, or the analytical approach, developed as a result of a sense of

failure in product-oriented courses to enhance communicative language skills. It is a process
rather than a product. That is, focus is not on what the student will have accomplished on
completion of the program, but on the specification of learning tasks and activities that s/he
will undertake during the course.

Procedural/Task-Based Approaches

Prabhu's (1979) 'Bangalore Project' is a classic example of a procedural syllabus. Here, the
question concerning 'what' becomes subordinate to the question concerning 'how'. The focus
shifts from the linguistic element to the pedagogical, with an emphasis on learning or learner.
Within such a framework the selection, ordering and grading of content is no longer wholly
significant for the syllabus designer.

Arranging the program around tasks such as information- and opinion-gap activities, it was
hoped that the learner would perceive the language subconsciously whilst consciously
concentrating on solving the meaning behind the tasks. There appears to be an indistinct
boundary between this approach and that of language teaching methodology, and evaluating
the merits of the former remain complicated. A task-based approach assumes that speaking a
language is a skill best perfected through practice and interaction, and uses tasks and
activities to encourage learners to use the language communicatively in order to achieve a
purpose. Tasks must be relevant to the real world language needs of the student. That is, the
underlying learning theory of task based and communicative language teaching seems to
suggest that activities in which language is employed to complete meaningful tasks, enhances
learning.
15 | P a g e

Learner-Led Syllabuses

The notion of basing an approach on how learners learn was proposed by Breen and Candlin
(1984). Here the emphasis lays with the learner, who it is hoped will be involved in the
implementation of the syllabus design as far as that is practically possible. By being fully
aware of the course they are studying it is believed that their interest and motivation will
increase, coupled with the positive effect of nurturing the skills required to learn.

However, as suggested earlier, a predetermined syllabus provides support and guidance for
the teacher and should not be so easily dismissed. Critics have suggested that a learner-led
syllabus seems radical and utopian in that it will be difficult to track as the direction of the
syllabus will be largely the responsibility of the learners. Moreover, without the mainstay of a
course book, a lack of aims may come about. This leads to the final syllabus design to be
examined ; the proportional approach as propounded by Yalden (1987).

The Proportional Approach

The proportional syllabus basically attempts to develop an "overall competence"

(Op.Cit.:97). It consists of a number of elements with theme playing a linking role through
the units. This theme is designated by the learners. It is expected initially that form will be of
central value, but later, the focus will veer towards interactional components ; the syllabus is
designed to be dynamic, not static, with ample opportunity for feedback and flexibility
(ibid:100). The shift from form to interaction can occur at any time and is not limited to a
particular stratum of learner ability. As Yalden (ibid:87) observes, it is important for a
syllabus to indicate explicitly what will be taught, "not what will be learned".

This practical approach with its focus on flexibility and spiral method of language sequencing
leading to the recycling of language, seems relevant for learners who lack exposure to the
target language beyond the classroom. But how can an EFL teacher pinpoint the salient
features of the approaches discussed above?

Syllabus Design and Evaluation

Initially, several questions must be posed. Do you want a product or process oriented
syllabus? Will the course be teacher or learner led? What are the goals of the program and the
needs of your students? This leads to an examination of the degree to which the various
elements will be integrated, which is of great significance to White (1988:92) who comments:

A complete syllabus specification will include all five aspects : structure, function, situation,
topic, skills. The difference between syllabuses will lie in the priority given to each of these
aspects. Eclecticism is a common feature of the majority of course books under the
communicative banner currently on offer. Attempting to combine the various aspects of
language has also been addressed by Hutchinson and Waters who state:

Any teaching material must, in reality, operate several syllabuses at the same time. One of
them will probably be used as the principal organizing feature, but the others are still there
16 | P a g e

(op.cit.:89). What should the language teacher based in Japan make of this review? What
points are relevant to them? Traditionally, the grammar-translation method (mid-nineteenth
century to Second World War) has been the staple of the language class in Japanese
secondary education in spite of efforts from programs such as JET. Students are expected to
understand and memorize lists of vocabulary, phrasal verbs / idioms, grammar rules etc for
the purpose of translating selected texts and preparation for university entrance tests. On
graduating from either high school or university, many students remain unable to
communicate at even a basic level.

Widdows and Voller (1991) found that Japanese learners desired oral-aural skills whilst
rejecting a need for structural knowledge or technical writing. As Long and Russell (1999:27)
observe: It seems reasonable after years of English classes focused on grammar, Japanese
students would want more conversational practice, want to have more confidence and better
speaking skills. In light of this background, and given the monolingual nature of Japanese
society and the lack of exposure to the target language outside the classroom, a task based
strategy with a blend of approaches and emphasis on communicative learning, may well be
one of the most suitable types of syllabus design on offer for language learners in Japan.

Conclusion

Clearly, there is a vast amount of material to disseminate when considering syllabus design.
The numerous approaches touched on here all offer valuable insights into creating a language
program. The synthetic approaches of structuralism, situational and functional-notional, all
have objectives to be attained, a content to be processed and learnt. The foundations of the
product syllabuses remain fundamentally similar, whereas the underlying assumptions about
language and language learning from the analytic approaches differ greatly: process type
syllabuses assert that learning a language is transient and cannot be itemized ; pedagogical
procedure takes precedence over content.

Q.5: Define and exemplify the Presentation, Practice and

Production stage of TEFL Methodology.

Ans: Presentation-Practice-Production:
Presentation, Practice and Production, commonly referred to as PPP, is a kind of instructional
sequence, i.e. a model of lesson planning.

Presentation stage: The teacher begins the lesson by setting up a situation, either eliciting or
modeling some language that the situation calls for. Presentation may consist of model sentences,
short dialogues illustrating target items, either read from the textbook, heard on the tape or acted out
by the teacher.

Practice stage: Students practise the new language in a controlled way. They drill sentences or
dialogues by repeating after the teacher or the tape, in chorus and individually, until they can say them
correctly. Other practice activities are matching parts of sentences, completing sentences or dialogues
17 | P a g e

and asking and answering questions using the target language.

Production stage: Students are encouraged to use the new language in a freer way either for their
own purposes and meanings or in a similar context introduced by the teacher. It can be a role play, a
simulation activity or a communication task.

PPP critique
Within this model the language is presented by small, discrete items that are gradually combined over
the length of course. The language is tightly controlled and the emphasis is on accuracy. After a
definite time period (at the end of a unit) students are tested on the items presented within the unit.

Though the PPP model looks quite sensible for language teaching and at least it looks ideal for lower
levels, it has been recently criticized-

1) for being too teacher-centred

2) for keeping students passive

3) for its linear sequencing of language items

The theory of learning underlying this sequence is rooted in behaviourist psychology: practice makes
perfect and rote learning and repetition help to ‗automate‘ responses (see the Audio-Lingual Method).

However, the findings of recent SLA research prove that language learning does not happen in an
additive fashion with bits of language being learnt separately. Rather, the process of second language
acquisition is multi-directed and the student‘s mind is working on constructing several knowledge
systems at a time. A human mind is capable of attending to several language points at a time without
paying conscious attention to each of them. When taught to use some specific language point which is
in focus in the PPP lesson the student is deprived of the opportunity to develop her inter language
system from the point where she is at the moment and in the direction she needs to go. A PPP lesson
does not provide enough space for language development (there is no space for Krashen‘s roughly-
tuned input or Vygotsky zone of proximal development). It doesn‘t secure proper language exposure.

Sometimes learners manage to do the task or role play at the production stage without using the target
form at all. This may be because their inter language system is not yet ready to cope with its use, or
because they don‘t need the new pattern to express the meanings they want. The goal of the final ‗P‖
– free production is not achieved. When focused on a specific language item, learners tend to overuse
it, apply it to wrong situations and make very stilted and unnatural conversation, e.g. Maybe I‘m
going to go to the cinema on Sunday. By doing so they want to display control of the new form rather
than express their own meanings.

PPP gives an illusion of mastery because learners are able to produce the required form confidently in
the classroom, but once they are outside the classroom and the drill, learners seem to forget it
completely. Therefore, since learners are required to produce forms which have been specified in
advance, the last stage of a PPP lesson is nowadays referred to as a freer or less controlled practice of
the target structure.