Archives

by Nihal Cooray

I want in this article to do the following things:

* Discuss two different perspectives on language acquisition and their implications for a language - teaching syllabus.

* Describe an experimental English language teaching project based on one of the two perspectives carried out in Bangalore.

We could interpret a syllabus as having either one or both of two major roles. On one hand, it is an articulation of what is intended to be taught and, on the other, an indication of what is proposed to be done in the classroom. In its first role, the syllabus is an analysis of the objectives or content of teaching and may be said to be product-based. This is of interest essentially to educational administrators, teachers, curriculum developers and perhaps to the parents of school children. In its second role, by contrast, the syllabus is essentially a specification of the means planned for achieving those objectives and may therefore be said to be process-based.

This is in effect a form of guidance to classroom teachers and materials writers. Here it is possible for one to take the view that the first of the two roles stated above, viz., specification of what is to be taught, is the proper function of a syllabus and what is intended to be done in the classroom is a matter of methodology; but that assumes, rather than ensures, compatibility between syllabus and methodology.

I think it is far more sensible and useful to relate the two roles of a syllabus to relevant perspectives on language acquisition and to ask which of these roles is primary for a given perspective and how the other can then be made compatible with it.

Input-assimilation

The common perspective on langauge acquisition that has been dominant during the past five decades or so - is that it is a process of successive input-assimilation and that the sequence in which inputs are assimilated can be determined or manipulated by the teacher.

This is exactly the view that supports a structural or grammatical syllabus - or any syllabus which envisages the teaching of pre-selected language - items in particular lessons. This principle allows us to concentrate on the analysis, selection and organization of content. The other principles that guide that organization may be varied: for a structural syllabus as such, the guiding principles are systematically and increasing complexity. This implies the belief that what is perceived to be systematic is learnt more easily.

In contrast; for a functional or "communicative" syllabus the organizing principles are economy and perceptible need. This implies the belief that what is found to be useful is learnt more efficiently. Leaving aside methodological consequences, both kinds of syllabus have the fundamental similarity that they took on language acquisition as a planned process of input assimilation. They both rely on the validity of the equation: What is taught = what is (or ought to be) learnt.

Let us look at a quite different perspective on language acquisition which could be described as a process of organic development, strengthened by effort by the learner to deploy his communicative resources - that acquisition takes place, not through planned assimilation, but through ad hoc deployment. This view denies some key factors viz;

(a) The sequence in which different parts of language structure acquired can either be determined or manipulated by the teacher.

(b) To look on language acquisition as a matter of assimilating one piece of input at a time.

(c) The belief that there is equation between what is taught and what is learnt.

Alternatively, it supports the view that

(a) What is learnt at any given point is both unpredictable and nearly always imperceptible

(b) There is a system to language structure and that language - acquisition involves the construction of a grammar by the learner

(c) Particular models and descriptions of language structure produced by linguists cannot be usefully employed to guide the learner in his grammar construction.

Apparently this view sounds unacceptably radical and unsupported by past experience or the instincts of the diehards of the profession. But it is the cumulative outcome of a series of major ideas developed during the past twenty years which ultimately emerged as a natural reaction to the structural approach.

If we wish to bring about language acquisition through language deployment, we need to focus not on what language to teach at some point, but on how to cause deployment in the classroom and how to ensure that the deployment that takes place is genuine. A precondition for genuine deployment is mind - engagement and the resultant need to communicate - a genuine preoccupation with understanding, thinking out, arguing to oneself, doing or saying something.

For the course-designer the focus here is entirely on what to do in the classroom and what to do with the new language not on what to teach and the only syllabus that is compatible with such teaching and can be supportive to it is not a specification of language-items but of kinds of classroom activity - that is to say a process-based syllabus. Such syllabuses can better be termed as procedural syllabuses.

The Bangalore Project

An attempt to evolve and try out such a syllabus is seen in the Bangalore/Madras Communicational Teaching project carried out by Dr. N. S. Prabhu of Southern India. The basic assumption underlying this study is that language structure or form is best learnt when students are concentrating on meaning rather than the language form.

For this purpose, Prabhu rejects the linguistic syllabus, opting instead for a task based 'procedural' syllabus where students have to solve problems through reasoning and self-reliance. Such a syllabus could be best described as a 'syllabus of tasks' which are graded conceptually and grouped by similarity. This coping - or deployment - is seen to be central to the process of language acquisition - i.e. grammar construction by the learner. Any attempt to guide that process more directly (and whether or not explicitly) is rejected as being unprofitable and probably harmful.

There is therefore no syllabus in terms of vocabulary or structure, no pre-selection of any kind of language items for any given lesson or activity and no stage in the lesson when language items are practised or sentence - production as such is demanded. The basis of each lesson is a problem or a task, and the conduct of the lesson consists of setting the task, demonstrating ways of handling it and in the process giving some pupils a chance to attempt it, then getting all pupils to attempt it and finally giving each pupils a rough indication of the measure of his or her success.

In practice this means using too closely similar tasks in a lesson - the first (which we call a pre-task) for public, collective handling (by a teacher as necessary but by some of the learners as well) and the second for each pupil's individual effort. The functions of the pre-task are to make known the nature of the task, to let the language relevant to it come into play, to allow some pupils to learn from attempts made by others to handle it, to indicate criteria of success and the forms in which solutions are to be stated and, finally, for the teacher to assess difficulty of the task for the class and if necessary to modify it quickly to the extent possible.

The function of the task is to bring about a sustained period of self-reliant effort by the learners (whether successful or not) to achieve a clearly perceived goal viz., success on the task. Tasks may include interpreting a schedule; a map or a set of rules; a bar-chart indicating the attendance of pupils in the class; giving a set of directions; making travel arrangements; drawing pictures from instructions; and working out where it is cheaper to buy certain things. To give an example, tasks based on the map of village may be as follows:

(i) Finding and describing locations of places (Where/How far is it? Is it?)

(ii) Marking new places on the map from a description of their locations;

(iii) Finding and stating the best route for someone to go from one place to another; (iv) Deciding on the best form of transport (bus, train, three-wheeler, walk) for someone (from the point of view of cost or time);

(v) Deciding on the need for new bus-routes or roads;

The choice of tasks for a given class is subject to the condition that it should present a reasonable challenge to learners. A task therefore is unsuitable of its challenge is so low that success does not seem to learners to represent an achievement. A task is also unsuitable if its challenge is so high that learners do not see success as a possibility.

Task-based teaching

A suitable task is one on which success seems to learners to be difficult but attainable - whether or not they succeed in it in the actual event. In practice, the teacher can learn only by trial and error to assess the challenge of a task and its suitability for the class. A rough measure of reasonable challenge for us is that at least half the class should be successful with at least half the tasks.

A part of a challenge of a task is the level of language use which it demands and the teacher takes this into consideration both in choosing the task and in using it in the classroom. A task may be avoided because it involves linguistic formulations which are predictably beyond the learner's ability to process; and even when a task is chosen as being linguistically feasible, the teacher has to simplify his language as necessary when he uses it in the classroom.

This is certainly not planned language control of the kind envisaged under the Structural Approach. The simplification used in conducting a task is similar to that used by any speaker of a language when he has to communicate with someone whose language - competence is lower than his.

Prabhu argues that there are two important consequences of his central hypothesis. The first involves the abolition of any kind of linguistic syllabus. He takes up the position that if we permit classroom language to be truly derived from the exigencies of some communicative task, then that language will not be systematic in any of the ways by which we usually systematise language.

If, in other words, we truly let student and teacher say what they need and want to say in the performance of a communicative task, then their language will not follow a pre-planned syllabus. The hard fact is that if we impose any kind of syllabus on classroom language we are depriving the teachers and students of their freedom to interact in a way natural to the task in hand.

The second consequence of the central hypothesis is to eschew any formal teaching procedures (such as repetitive practice, drilling and frequent error correction), where primary attention would be focused on "form" rather than meaning. Any form of activity based learning should be built upon a sound linguistic and pedagogic stand.

A set of activities merely strung together will not add unity and strength to the learning experience we expect our learners to go through. This is the inevitable result of the absence of a sound theoretical construct. The Bangalore project provides an excellent example of operational research in which theory and practice help to develop each other.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager