Type B Syllabus

The author himself prefers the Type B syllabus as it more effectively improves
his students abilities to communicate fluently by means of sustaining his
students interlanguage development, however, as we shall see, it provides him
with limited accountability regarding his institutional context.
This Progressivist syllabus type is best described as an analytic syllabus born
out of the Communicative approach. It is more concerned with the learning
process than the content, since it is the actual process that facilitates
interlanguage development. In other words, it is the way students learn that
best determines the amount of input they convert into intake.
According to interlanguage theorists like Selinker (1972) and Coder (1967),
among others, input does not necessarily mean intake, (See Carter and Nunan,
2001:1). Consequently, the synthetic sequencing of language items can be
viewed as being pointless since what students are exposed to may not always
transform to what they retain. At the same time, recycling language items in
context, as is often done in a Type B syllabus, would help the learners readily
remember useful knowledge (See Willis, EKT: p1). That is to say, learners could
develop an internal system of language reinforced through constant recycling
of holistic authentic language.
According to the principles of the Type B approach, it is believed that fluency
leads to accuracy and not the other way around (Willis, 2000:37). This type of a
syllabus would prove useful for the author in developing learners
communicative skills, however, it might be particularly challenging to justify
with the institution and the Korean educational bodies since it provides limited
transparency into the structural framework of the lessons.
This is because language items are not sequenced in advance in the form of a
concrete pre-designed course, thus offering only limited amounts of key
information for the internet based syllabus (See Appendix; Figure 1 & 2). The
two main syllabi that fall under the umbrella of a Type-B syllabus are process
and the procedural syllabi, both being differing products of progressivism
(White, 1988:25).
The Process Syllabus
As this syllabus type makes no attempt at pre-designing the language course,
due to its student led nature, it would certainly provide little accountability for
the author as a teacher, given the lack of transparency into the course
structure. Furthermore, as we shall see, most Korean learners are reluctant to
adapt a learning style necessary to accommodate such a syllabus.
Candin and Breens procedural syllabus is yet another taskbased approach,
with a focus on the learning process, built on a non authoritarian classroom
power structure, wherein the teacher and the students choose the tasks
through constant negotiation. Moreover, it is internal rather than external to
the learner (See Long and Crookes, p.3).

The direction of the course is determined by the students as the course

progresses, rather than being established by the presentation of an inventory
of sequentially selected items learners would eventually have to practice and
produce as in the Present-Practice-Produce approach well embedded in any
synthetic syllabus.
Widdowson asserts that in fluent discourse language is submissively regulated
by grammar rules rather than being generated by them (See Willis, EKT: p.11).
Therefore, there should be no direct focus on language form unless the learners
decide that they need grammatical clarification on a particular form they have
already experienced.
Johns sees the learner as a researcher while the teacher as a coordinator of the
classroom processes (see Willis, EKT: p.3). Emphasis here is laid on the process
rather than on the subject. Johns approach threatens most Korean learners of
EFL since it challenges their expectations of the teachers roles as an authority
figure (See Section 5).
No doubt, the power structure of the institution in which the language learning
is to take place should be structured to permit teachers to assume different
roles, and should exist in a cultural context (See Section 4) wherein it is
acceptable for students to take on a more directive role in their learning
experience. This type of student role is exceptionally rare in a Korean
classroom context, thus the learner led process syllabus should prove to be
particularly challenging to implement, however, if such a syllabus could be
employed successfully, it would be highly beneficial for learners in the authors
communication classes. It would certainly need the support of a series of
lessons on the L2 culture, although, the author has no time for them as there
are only around 17teaching hours available in each semester.
The following quote is one criticism of the process syllabus:
published criticism of the process syllabus ( see, e.g., Kouraogo, 1987: R. V.
White, 1988) claim that [it] assumes an unrealistically high level of
competence in both teachers and learners, and implies a redefinition of role
relationships and a redistribution of power on authority in the classroom that
would be too radical and/or culturally unacceptable in some societies (Long &
Crookes, p.11).
Learners and teachers are both expected to follow certain cultural norms within
the classroom environment, and it is impractical to expect these roles and the
allocation of powers to radically change between them.
Moreover, learners cant be expected to know whats best for them, and
teachers may be incapable of recognizing when it is most appropriate to
allocate control to the learners.
The Procedural Syllabus
The Procedural Syllabus, however, could work well in a Korean teaching context
as it makes no requirement on the part of the students to assume any leading

role as it is the teachers duty to sequence all tasks according to difficulty. If

learners in all their other classes, at the authors university, are to play the part
of the receiver of pre-selected information, then why should they be expected
to assume alternate roles in their English classes? Willis asserts:
One cannot expect that learners will very readily adopt a pattern of behaviour
in the English class which is at variance with the roles they are required to play
in their other lessons. (Willis, 2000:9)
Because this syllabus type would allow for the usual Korean teacher-student
roles, it may well be a good solution, however, since there is limited attempt
made at getting the students to take part in oral conversation, as the tasks are
predominantly completed in relative silence, the author feels this syllabus
would prove to be counterproductive in his communication classes where the
aim is effective oral communication.
It was Prabhu and the Bangalore research project team that developed the
task-based procedural syllabus, with a cognitive focus, for a group of grade
school students in Southern India. The students were given problem-solving
tasks that presented them both with an opportunity and the necessity to use
the language. Prabhu employed 3 task-types in the Bangalore project;
information gap, reasoning gap and problem-solving tasks (See Carter and
Nunan, 2001:5). Prabhus tasks were composed in English, focusing the
learners attention on the texts. Most Korean learners are self motivated, so
there is little reason to believe this method would fail overall. Furthermore,
since the procedural syllabus predetermines the tasks sequenced by difficulty,
it would provide a level of accountability for the author as a teacher.
Criticism of this syllabus has been lodged by Long and Crookon the basis that
it has no procedures designed for the selection of tasks based on learner needs
(see Carter and Nunan, 2001:4). Additionally, Greenwood (1985) suggests that
the procedural syllabus enjoys no backing of evaluative evidence (see White,
1988:109).

Kumaravadivelu INPUT
Input may be operationally defined as oral and/or written corpus of the target
language (TL) to which L2 learners are exposed through various sources, and
recognized by them as language input. This definition posits two conditions:
availability and accessibility. The first condition is rather obvious: either input
has to be made available to learners or they have to seek it themselves. One
can easily identify three types of input attributable to three different, but not
mutually exclusive, sources from which learners are likely to get/seek input:
Interlanguage input: the still-developing language of the learners and of
their peers with all its linguistically well-formed as well as deviant utterances;
simplified input: the grammatically and lexically simplified language that
teachers, textbook writers, and other competent speakers use in and outside
the classroom while addressing language learners; and

nonsimplified input: the language of competent speakers without any

characteristic features of simplification, that is, the language generally used in
the media (TV, radio, and newspapers), and also the language used by
competent speakers to speak and write to one another. Each of these three
sources of input can manifest itself in various forms: spoken and written, formal
and informal, and so on. Learners are exposed to input from these sources at
different points in their learning experience and in varying degrees.
The second conditionaccessibilityis less obvious than the first but is
equally important: input has to be recognized by learners as language input,
and accepted by them as something with which they can cope. In other words,
input should be linguistically and cognitively accessible to them. The language
input that is available, but not accessible, is no more than noise. Some
segments of the language input available to learners has the potential to
become accessible, in part, through the process of what Gass (1997) called
apperception. Apperception 26 CHAPTER 2 is an internal cognitive act in which
a linguistic form is related to some bit of existing knowledge (or gap in
knowledge). We can think of apperception as a priming device that prepares
the input for further analysis. Thus, apperceived input is that bit of language
that is noticed in some way by the learner because of some particular
recognizable features. (p. 4) What actually makes the learners notice and
accept a subset of language exposed to them as potential input is not clear.
Schmidt (1990, 1993) suggested factors such as frequency of occurrence,
perceptual salience, linguistic complexity, skill level, and task demands. One
might also add other factors, such as learners needs and wants, as well as
their interests and motivation.
INTAKE
Unlike input, the concept of intake is not easy to pin down. The literature on
second language acquisition (SLA) presents several conflicting definitions and
explanations for the term intake. Amid all the conceptual and terminological
ambiguity, two strands of thought emerge: one that treats intake primarily as
product, and the other that treats it primarily as process. Taking a product view,
Kimball and Palmer (1978) defined intake as input which requires students to
listen for and interpret implicit meanings in ways similar to the ways they do so
in informal communication (pp. 1718). This has been echoed by Krashen
(1981) for whom intake is simply where language acquisition comes from, that
subset of linguistic input that helps the acquirer acquire language (pp. 101
102). A common thread running through these definitions is that all of them
treat intake primarily as a product, a subset of linguistic input exposed to the
learner. Perhaps the first one to emphasize the role of language acquisition
mechanism in converting input into intake is Corder who defined intake as
what goes in and not what is available to go in (1967, p. 165, emphasis in
original). Similarly, Faerch and Kasper (1980) defined intake as the subset of
the input which is assimilated by the IL (interlanguage) system and which the
IL system accommodates to (p. 64). Hatch (1983) is in agreement when she
defines intake as a subset of input that the learner actually successfully and

completely processed (p. 81). Likewise, Chaudron (1985) referred to intake as

the mediating process between the target language available to the learners
as input and the learners internalized set of L2 rules and strategies for second
language development (p. 1). Liceras (1985) also opted for a process-oriented
definition when she talks of cognitive capacities that intervene at the level of
intake. A more recent definition by Gass (1997) also conceptualized intake as
apperceived input that has been further processed
Individual factors: age and anxiety;
Negotiation factors: interaction and interpretation;
Tactical factors: learning strategies and communication strategies;
Affective factors: attitudes and motivation;
Knowledge factors: language knowledge and metalanguage knowledge;
Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based
Instruction
Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 12) describe principles of procedures
underlying the Direct Method in the following way:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in carefully graded progression
organized around question-answer exchanges between teachers and students
in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstrating, objects, and
pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach,
is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the
means and the ultimate goal of study.
Classroom activities used in communicative language teaching include the
following:
Role-play. Interviews .information gap .Games .Language exchanges .Surveys
.Pair-work
Learning by teaching.
However, not all courses that utilize the Communicative Language approach
will restrict their activities solely to these. Some courses will have the students
take occasional grammar quizzes, or prepare at home using noncommunicative drills, for instance. William Glasser's "control theory"
exemplifies his attempts to empower students and give them voice by focusing
on their basic, human needs: Unless students are given power, they may exert
what little power they have to thwart learning and achievement through
inappropriate behavior and mediocrity.