Essay upon structural based v. s task based syllabus

ISSN 1799-2591

Theory and Practice in Language Research, Vol. 1, No . 10, pp. 1388-1393, October 2011 В© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.

doi: 10. 4304/tpls. 1 ) 10. 1388-1393

Structure-based or Task-based Syllabus: The

Effect of Type of Syllabus on Tuning in

Comprehension Ability of Iranian University

Pupils

Leila Mahmoudi

Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University or college of Malaya (UM), 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Email: [email protected] com

Seyed Yasin Yazdi Amirkhiz (corresponding author)

Department of English, Faculty of Overseas Languages, School of Tabriz, Iran Email: [email protected] com

Abstract—The present study attemptedto investigate the result of typology of syllabus (structure-based vs . task-based) around the listening knowledge ability of two homogeneous classes (50 participants) during a whole academics semester. The homogeneity was attained through administration of your pre-test taken from Barron's TOEFL (Sharpe, 1996). The selected students were designated to a structure-based and a task-based group. The subjects in the structure-based group were instructed through American Kernel Lessons: Intermediate (O'Neil et 's., 1978), and the second group was instructed through Broadening Tactics for Listening: intermediate (Richards, 2005), symbolizing the structure-based and task-based syllabus, correspondingly. Unlike the structure-based group, the task-based group exhibited a considerable and statistically significant improvement inside the post-test overall performance. The results of this examine could be of pedagogic relevance to syllabus designers, materials developers and teachers. Index Terms—Structure-based Syllabus (SBS), Task-based Syllabus (TBS), listening understanding

I. INTRODUCTION

For many years, the role of listening in English instructing programs was undervalued and neglected. Relating to Richards (2002), until 1970s hearing was hardly mentioned in journals at all. However , this neglected status of listening was shifted after Krashen (1985) made the theory that understandable input was very a key component in triggering language development. The significance of listening was further accentuated with the creation of Communicative Dialect Teaching (CLT). Therefore , as in other areas of language educating, listening was approached and studied via different views. Rubin (1994) enumerates five of them: 1) text characteristics 2) interlocutor characteristics 3) task qualities 4) fan base characteristics and 5) process characteristics. Regardless of the sizeable volume level and the novel avenues of research exposed for listening skill, it seems that the role of syllabus in teaching tuning in has been taken for granted. This is while the syllabus plus the materials employed for the purpose of educating plays a vital role inside the success or failure of any English teaching program. Nunan (1988) contends which the choice of a syllabus can be described as major decision in terminology teaching, as well as part in the development of vocabulary teaching procedures is needed. It is a truism to say the particular one of the most remarkable shifts in language education has been moving away from a strength syllabus towards the one developed around franche tasks. Strength syllabus, since the brand speaks for itself, is centered around structure of language. This focuses just on one part of language, particularly grammar. However , task-based terminology teaching which can be linked to CLT applies actions which involve real connection and the utilization of language for carrying out meaningful tasks. In fact , the meaningful language and tasks are considered as the top key to get the learner‟s success (Richard & Rodgers, 2001, s. 223). Researching through the relevant literature, the researchers discovered a research difference of the role of syllabus and components in listening-related studies. This study can be, in fact , a tiny attempt through this direction: to look into the amount of efficiency in the two types of syllabi (SBS and TBS) on hearing...

References: Anderson, J. 3rd there’s r. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: the situation of systematicity. Language Learning, thirty-three,

1-17

Brindley, G. (1998). Assessing hearing abilities. In W. Grabe et al. (Eds. ). Annual Overview of Applied Linguistics 18:

Footings of second language teaching

Dark brown, G., Anderson A. H., Shadbolt In., & Lynch T. (1985). Listening understanding. Project JHH/190/1. Edinburgh:

Scottish Education Department.

Carrier, E. (1999). The social environment of secondary language listening: will status may play a role in understanding? Modern

Dialect Journal, 83, 65-79.

Dubin, F., & Olshtain At the. (1986). Study course design: producing programs and materials to get language learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA exploration and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford School Press

Eykyn, L. M

Elkhafaifi, L. (2005). Being attentive comprehension and anxiety inside the Arabic vocabulary classroom. Modern day Language Journal, 89,

206-220.

Gardner, R. (1998). Among speaking and listening: the vocalization of understandings. Utilized Linguistics 19, 204-224.

Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive recognition and secondary language listeners. ELT Journal fifty-one, 361-365.

Goh, C. (2002). Teaching tuning in in the dialect classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Local Language Hub.

Harris, Capital t. (2003). Hearing with your eye: the importance of speech-related signals in the terminology classroom. Overseas

Language Annuals, 36, 180-187.

Krashen, S i9000. D. (1985). The insight hypothesis: concerns and effects. London, Longman

Lightbown, G

Long, Meters. H. (2007). Second language requirements analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge School Press.

Very long, M. and Crookes G. (1993). Devices of analysis in course design and style. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norris, T. M. (2009). Task-based instructing and testing. In M. H. Lengthy, C. M. Doughty (Eds. ), the handbook of language instructing.

Nunan, G. (1988). The learner focused curriculum. New York: Cambridge University or college Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing jobs for the communicative class room. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, Deb. (1999). Secondary language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Marketers.

O‟Neil, L., Kingbury 3rd there’s r. & Yeadon, T. (1978). American Nucleus Lesson. London, uk: Longman.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University or college Press.

Richards, J. C. (2002). 3 decades of TEFL/TESL: a personal representation. RELC Diary, 33(2), 1-36.

Richards, M. C. (2005). Tactics for listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Robinson, G. (2001). " Task-complexity, process difficulty, and task creation: exploring relationships in a componential

framework. ” Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.

Robinson, L. (2009). Syllabus design. In M. L. Long, C. J. Doughty (Eds. ), The guide of vocabulary teaching. WileyBlackwell: A Steve Wiley & Sons, Limited., Publication.

Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening knowledge research. The Modern Language Diary, 78 (2), 199221.

Sharpe, P. J. (1996). How to prepare for the TOEFL test out. New York: Barron‟s Educational Series, Inc.

Skehan, P. (1998): Task-based training. Annual Report on Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–86.

Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down finalizing as a discriminator of L2 listening efficiency. Applied

Linguistics, 19, 432-451.

Vandergrift, T. (2003). From prediction through reflection: leading students throughout the process of L2 listening. Canadian

Modern Vocabulary Review, 59, 425-40.

Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships between motivation orientations, metacognitive consciousness and proficiency in L2 listening.

White-colored, R. Versus. (1988). The ELT program. Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, L. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Twelve-monthly Review of Used Linguistics, 18, 323–33.

Willis, D. & Willis L. (2007). Carrying out task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, Sumado a. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiplechoice task. Language Testing, 15, 21-44.

Popular

 GKE1 Activity 2 Dissertation
GKE1 Activity 2 Dissertation

Themes in U. T. and World History – GKE Task 2 Colleen R. Bassoukos, RN European Governors School Task 2-A: There have been…...

 ITI1100 Midterm 13 Solution 2 Article
ITI1100 Midterm 13 Solution 2 Article

Student Term (Please print)______________________________________________ Student Number_______________________________________________ Section: ________ ITI1100 Digital Systems I Mid-term Exam Date: March a couple of, 2013 Time…...

 Essay on Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Broker agents
Essay on Anand Rathi Shares and Stock Broker agents

Summer Training Project Report In " NOTION AND BAHAVIOR OF TRADER ON CAPITAL MARKET” [pic] Submitted in partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Business Administration…...

 Tree Plantation Essay
Tree Plantation Essay

Tree Plantation Tree plantation means growing trees and plants. The purpose of tree plantation is preserve the decreasing in numbers environment and to beautify the life. Forest are…...