Improving the bulk standard Japanese junior
high school English syllabus: a case study.
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Contents
1 Introduction
1
2 A description of the syllabus under discussion
2
3 Evaluation of the syllabus with practical suggestions for improvement
2
3.1 General goals and specific objectives
3
3.2 Methodology
6
3.3 Materials
7
3.3.1 Joint justifications for the improvements to methodology and materials
8
3.4 The Program of Study document
12
3.5 Student assessment
12
3.6 Syllabus evaluation and accountability
14
3.7 Cultural education
15
4 Conclusion
16
Appendices
16
References
37
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
List of appendices
1 A sample of the textbook's isolated pedagogic grammars and contrived texts
18
2 A Present-Practice-Production (PPP) lesson plan for prepositions
19
3 A C-R / TBL lesson plan to replace the PPP lesson plan for prepositions
21
4 The Program of Study document
28
5 The end-of-term student assessment and associated answer sheet
31
6 Native Americans
34
7 George Stephenson (1781-1848): inventor and engineer
35
8 Halloween
36
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
1
Introduction
Since 1996 the author has taught at various state junior high schools in Okayama city,
Japan as an Assistant English Teacher (AET), team-teaching English as a Foreign Language
(EFL), with Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs). The syllabus that he describes evaluates and
suggests some improvements for here comes from such a setting.
As an AET the author is not responsible for any aspect of syllabus design or
implementation other than making occasional supplementary materials and recording listening
comprehension tests for students' assessments. However, from his experiences, he believes that
for several reasons, many of which are beyond the JTE's control, materials and methods for
instruction, practice and assessment lag behind and are incompatible with updated goals and
objectives statements, a situation also described by McDonough and Shaw (1993: 6).
There is then a very real concern that genuine attempts by the Ministry of Education
(M.o.E. or Monbusho) to improve state EFL education will falter very early on, because of
shortcomings in the syllabus. This paper therefore serves a dual purpose. The first is academic:
to demonstrate the writer's understanding of issues relating to syllabus design and his ability to
evaluate and improve upon a syllabus. The second is practical: to show the JTE and perhaps
others, how those areas over which she possesses some control may be improved to enhance her
students' Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and personal and academic development.
Initially, a brief, general description of the syllabus is given to put what comes after in to
context. Then, to make the paper as comprehensive, yet as readable as possible, it is divided into
sections, each relating to a particular component of syllabus design (goals and objectives,
methodology, materials, the program of study document, student assessment and course
evaluation). Most sections take the same format: a more detailed description followed by an
evaluation, suggested improvements and their justifications. Since improvements in
methodology and materials share common justifications these are given together in section
3.3.1. A final section on cultural education helps the reader to understand how this aspect of
EFL education fits into the syllabus.
The justifications are given with respect to learners and context. This is important
because ultimately change should directly or indirectly benefit the learner and because while an
'improvement' may be appropriate and desirable in one setting, it may not be so in another.
1
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
2
A general description of the syllabus under discussion.
The syllabus under discussion is for 2nd grade junior high school students of EFL, aged
12-13, who have completed one year of formal EFL education. In general terms it is a type A
syllabus (White, 1988) with a linguistic focus on mainly grammatical, lexical and phonological
content (Willis, 2000: 24).
The recently updated goals and objectives set by Monbusho are technically nonnegotiable and relate to language use for meaningful communication with foreigners. To achieve
a degree of standardisation nationwide these aims are to be realised only through the use of
Monbusho-authorised course materials and teacher-produced supplementary materials. The
current authorised materials at this school consist of a coursebook (Morimizu, 1996a), the
associated student workbook (Morimizu, 1996b) and teacher's manual (Morimizu, 1996c), plus
local government approved materials for reviewing the coursebook material (OCJHSESG).
The JTE's preferred methodologies for instruction and practice are the grammartranslation and Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) approaches. This is the norm in Japanese
state schools and strongly reflects the type of training JTEs receive.
The Program of Study document is designed by the JTE, although the model provided
by Monbusho is usually used as a framework. Student assessment, also designed by the JTE,
generally tests for structural knowledge about the target language (TL) via multiple choice
questions, rather than students' proficiency in use. There is however usually a multiple choice
listening comprehension component.
There is no evaluation of the syllabus itself, though each JTE’s performance is assessed
annually by a member of the Board of Education (B.o.E).
Cultural education is done either via issues raised by the course materials or on an ad
hoc basis with the AET. In line with Willis' (2000: 15) experience, there is no systematic
approach taken to cultural education.
3
Evaluating the syllabus and practical suggestions for improvement
In the following subsections the author describes in more detail and evaluates aspects of
the syllabus and makes practical suggestions for improvement. By 'practical', I will accept
2
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Collins Cobuild's definition:
1 ATTRIB ADJ involving real situations, rather than ideas or theories………… 3
ADJ able to be carried out successfully.
(Collins Cobuild's, 1990: 432)
Conceptual definition is important because only improvements which are practical in
this sense and which consider learners and context are productive.
Before beginning, it is perhaps worthwhile acknowledging those things that it is
impractical to change in the short- to mid-term.
a).
Monbusho's general goals for foreign language programs and specific objectives for
EFL education.
b).
Monbusho's authorised materials.
c).
Monbusho's policies regarding teacher training and development.
d).
Timetabling and contact time.
e).
The teacher's workload.
While a), b) and c) are issues of government policy, d) and e) are institutional issues.
They are however all equally unchangeable from the viewpoint of the teacher who designed
parts of this syllabus, either due to lack of power or for historical, cultural or sociological
reasons.
3.1
General goals and specific objectives
The syllabus goals are:
1). To attempt a general understanding and appreciation of language and culture
through the study of foreign languages.
2). To develop positive attitudes in students towards active communication in foreign
languages.
3). To develop the basic ability for practical communication through listening and
speaking.
(Monbusho, 1999a: 6)
3
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
These are transfer objectives (Stern, 1992: 93) because the intended outcomes are skills
or attitudes that are potentially transferable to novel languages or cultural experiences later in
life.
Though they may seem fairly conventional by Western standards, they signal a major
shift in educational philosophy for the Japanese M.o.E. Previously, the focus was on structural
knowledge about language rather than how language may be used. The new emphasis on
culture, communication and foreigners (as opposed to native speakers) is long-awaited
recognition at government level of the changing social context here in Japan and the need for
Japan to adapt to those changes. The above goals are entirely appropriate given Monbusho's
wider curriculum goals for compulsory education (Monbusho, 1999b), and are consistent with
them.
The specific objectives for English language study are:
1).
To be used to and to derive enjoyment from listening to English and to be
able to understand the speaker's meaning when using elementary English.
2).
To be used to and to derive enjoyment from speaking English and to be
able to express your ideas verbally through elementary English.
3)
To be used to and to derive enjoyment from reading English and to be
able to understand the writer's meaning when using elementary English.
4).
To be used to and to derive enjoyment from writing English and to be
able to express your ideas in writing through elementary English.
(Monbusho, 1999a: 9)
These objectives are affective-behavioural hybrids. The first clause of each is affective
because they call for ‘a feeling of familiarity and liking for [the foreign language].’ (Stern, 1992:
86-87). The second clause of each is loosely behavioural (Brindley, 1989: 5) since it specifies
performance, e.g. ‘be able to understand the speaker's meaning’ and the expected standard, i.e.
‘elementary’. However, the condition statement appears to be absent.
While Mager (1962, cited in Clark, 1987: 17) favours behavioural objectives because
they facilitate measurement of changes in students' second language (L2) behaviour over time,
4
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Clark (1987: 35) takes the more humanistic view that affective objectives or ‘higher order
outcomes’ (ibid.) should not be rejected simply because they are difficult to state explicitly or,
this author believes because their assessment is more problematic. The above objectives
therefore strike a good balance between these two objective types, while covering all four
language skills.
However, these are not necessarily the goals and objectives towards which teachers
actually work. As Stern predicted:
[The program's aims] were determined more by tradition than by deliberate policy.
(Stern, 1992: 61)
In other words, JTEs disregard the formal objectives in favour of historically accepted
ones that relate to linguistic competence, not communicative competence.
One improvement is possible: that students be informed of the existence, nature,
meaning, purpose and relevance of these goals and objectives. This is currently not the case.
Nunan points out a clear advantage of doing so:
…if [course objectives] are conveyed to the learners, [they can] play an important
part in the process of sensitising learners to what it is to be a language learner.
(Nunan, 1988: 60-61)
Students will of course also have a clearer idea of what it is they are expected to achieve.
Currently they have only an intuitive assumption to go on that the objective is, in some vague
way, to improve their English. If these objectives and their relevance to students as individuals
growing up in a changing society are not explicitly stated and explained, it is difficult to expect
students to be enthusiastic, highly motivated or focused in their EFL studies.
Also, even within the context of the Japanese state education system where job security
is high, the issue of accountability should still be pertinent. Non-disclosure of the EFL course's
intended outcomes clearly has implications for accountability to students, their parents and other
internal and external parties. How can the extent of the course's success be gauged if it is unclear
to all but the teacher what the course was intended to achieve in the first place?
5
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
3.2
Methodology
Though some view methodology as separate from syllabus specification (Sinclair and
Renouf, 1988: 145-6), others disagree (Nunan, 1988: 175; Lewis, 1996: 11; Willis 2000: 22).
The methodology is so central to this syllabus that it could not justifiably be excluded.
The JTE predominantly uses the PPP methodology. The presentation phase is done
through traditional grammar-translation, followed by individual or pair, controlled practice and
freer (though still controlled) group or class production.
Several reasons have been proposed attempting to explain PPP's longevity. It is
singularly trainable (Lewis, 1996: 13, Skehan, 1998: 94-95, reported by Willis, 2000: 14-15),
usable (Stern, 1983: 453; Richards and Rodgers 1986: 4) and offers accountability and a sense
of professionalism (Skehan, ibid.). It conforms to teachers' and learners' expectations of their
respective roles and power relationships (Richards and Lockhart, 1994: 101; Richards and
Rodgers, 1986: 23-4) and may therefore have some positive motivating effect. It facilitates
division of lessons with surgical precision into discrete blocks of time and behaviour (Lewis,
1996: 13). All the above are not disputed here. However, as justifications for the continued use
of a generally discredited method, these are all inadequate.
Hopkins and Nettle's (1994) advocate PPP, but their claims appear superficial. They
claim that PPP makes ‘communicative demands on students’ (ibid: 158). However, using
Brazil's (1992) distinction between 'speaking English' and 'conversation', it follows that PPP is
not communicative but, at best, only interactive. Further, Ellis (1988: 37) would point out that
the production which they claim PPP encourages (ibid: 157) only develops ‘reproductive
competence’. As Willis notes:
The danger with focusing mechanically on form too early in the methodological cycle
is that students see what follows not as an opportunity to use language for
communication, but rather as an opportunity to produce the prescribed form as often
as possible. The focus on form gets in the way of fluency practice and all we have are
a series of activities designed to elicit a particular language form.
(Willis, 1990: 73)
This grammar-translation - PPP combination then only develops reproductive skills, but
this is only to be expected since it is based upon invalid or discredited theory (Richards and
Rodgers, 1986: 4-5; Rutherford, 1987: 3-6; Ellis, 1988: 24; Ellis and Hedge, 1993: 5 Skehan,
6
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
1996: 18-19; Lewis, 1993: 151-2, 1996: 11). It also focuses on teaching, not on learning
processes (Yalden 1987: 52; White, 1988: 44-5) and emphasises linguistic competence, not
ability to use the TL (Stern, 1983: 454; Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 3; White, 1988: 46; Willis,
1990: 72; Lewis, 1993: 151; McDonough and Shaw, 1993: 58; Brown, 1994: 17; Skehan, 1996:
18; Willis, 2000: 9). As Clark notes of grammar-translation in particular:
[it has] little concern for the development of everyday conversational or
correspondence skills.
(Clark, 1987: 11)
This helps to explain Ellis' and Brazil's observations that even students who are
proficient in reading and writing often cannot speak the TL or understand it when they hear it
(1984, cited by White, 1988: 46 and 1992: 2 respectively). This is a problem the Japanese in
particular are renowned for.
The author suggests that the JTE shifts from the grammar-translation plus PPP
combination to consciousness-raising (C-R) plus Task Based Learning (TBL). At first glance
this appears to be an overly ambitious suggestion. However, it is not only pedagogically
justifiable (see section 3.3.1) but also practical in that neither C-R nor TBL are entirely alien to
the JTE's present methods. Grammar-translation ‘embodied’ C-R (Willis and Willis, 1996: 63)
and PPP and TBL share many features, though the sequencing and rationale are very different
(Willis, 1996: 62). The author accepts that while the change may be justifiable and practical, it
would require a major re-evaluation by the JTE of how she views L2 learning and teaching, but
he believes this is healthy, desirable and necessary for her continued professional development.
3.3
Materials
The coursebook (Morimizu, 1996a) is based on a type A grammatical syllabus and
presents itemised pedagogic grammars and lexis within contrived texts to 'exemplify' their use
(appendix 1). It has frequent speaking, listening and writing exercises, while the texts also serve
as reading practice. The associated materials provide additional practice for individual study,
either in class or at home. These are supplemented ad hoc with JTE- or AET-produced PPP type
practice materials (appendix 2).
There is only sufficient scope here to evaluate the materials with respect to their effect
on SLA and learner development. Since the materials' design is largely based upon the same
7
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
erroneous assumptions regarding SLA processes as the methodology, they are susceptible to the
same criticisms. Their ease of application and compatibility with, and reinforcement of the
methodology are insufficient justifications for their use, either for instruction or practice of the
TL, given that they are based upon discredited theory and dubious pedagogic rationale.
As with the methodology, these materials reinforce the culturally accepted roles of
learner as passive and submissive and teacher as dominating and all-knowing, even though these
roles run counter to Monbusho's wider curriculum goals:
To encourage the development of young people with an increased awareness of
themselves as members of an international community...to enhance children's ability
to think and learn for themselves...to develop a comfortable educational environment
which successfully equips students with essential knowledge and skills as well as
develops students' individual personalities.
(Monbusho, 1999b)
The implication for learner development of the continued use of methods and materials
which are both pedagogically dubious and at odds with the M.o.E's formal goals and objectives,
is that Japanese students will in the future, as they are now, be ill-equipped to use English for
communicative purposes in the changing social and international contexts in which Japan
increasingly finds itself.
In this syllabus then, methodology and materials are closely linked, as has been
recognised is often the case (Nunan, 1988: 175, 1995: 213; McDonough and Shaw, 1993: 5;
Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 25; Lewis, 1996 cited in Willis, 2000; Sinclair and Renouf, 1988:
145-6). Therefore the change suggested to improve the methodology requires parallel change in
the materials used. Appendices 2 and 3 illustrate how the same linguistic forms may be
presented and practiced using the PPP and C-R / TBL approaches respectively.
3.3.1
Joint justifications for the improvements to methodology and materials
Direct support for the shift from grammar-translation and PPP methodologies and
materials to those of C-R and TBL comes from Ellis and Hedge (1993: 5); Skehan (1996);
Willis, (1990: 73, 1996); Lewis (1996) and Willis and Willis (Forthcoming: 8) who have
advocated identical or very similar proposals. The justifications here relate to SLA, learners'
development and teaching context and are presented in table 1 as contrasts between the present
and suggested methodological combinations.
8
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
The author concedes that it is not possible to dispense with the mandatory materials'
syntactical or lexical items. However, Skehan (1996: 28-29) points out that though neither PPP
or C-R / TBL approaches guarantee SLA, the latter may provide the conditions by which
acquisition of particular language items will probably occur, whilst simultaneously satisfying
the need for both focus on TL form and complexity.
Yalden (1987: 97) rightly advises caution when changing a course design. Replacing
one methodology with another, more pedagogically desirable one is still unjustifiable if it fails
to recognise and allow for the reality of the teaching context as it currently stands. However, the
justifications given here strongly suggest that the changeovers in methodology and materials are
not only entirely practical, even within the present setting, but that they are strongly desirable
and clearly necessary if Monbusho's educational goals and objectives are to be met in the
foreseeable future.
9
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
10
Second Language
The combined grammar-translation/PPP approach
The combined C-R/TBL approach
Acquisition
Individual differences in
Allows for individual differences in L2 learning by
Views learners as a homogenous group that have no
cognitive or learning styles
attempting to "harness natural [language acquisition]
individual differences relevant to SLA.
or developmental sequence.
processes" (Willis and Willis, forthcoming: 8).
Is inductive or student-centred (Johns, 1991: 4-5,
Deductivism versus.
Is deductive or teacher-centred.
1994: 297), which Brown (1994b: 92) points out assists
inductivism.
SLA.
Exposure of learners to
Severely restricted (Clark 1987: 11; Willis & Willis, Extensively used (Johns, 1991: 4-5, 1994: 294; Nunan,
authentic material or data. 1996: 63).
1991: 150).
Focus on form, which does little to enhance SLA
Focus on form-function relationships (Willis 2000: 20)
(Skehan, 1996: 20; Clark 1987: 10-11).
Allows for negotiated meaning (Skehan, 1996: 20-21;
Focus and orientation.
Ellis, 1988: 26).
Is oriented towards linguistic competence (Yalden,
Is oriented towards both linguistic and communicative
1987: 30-31; White, 1988: 46; Stern, 1992: 81).
competence (Yalden, 1987: 31).
Demands immediate and accurate production of
Accepts that students need time to internalise newly
Learner production.
newly presented TL items, which is unrealistic (Willis presented TL items (White, 1988: 59; Lewis, 1993: 152;
and Willis, 1996: 76).
Ellis and Hedge, 1993: 6; Skehan, 1996: 29).
Actively promotes and encourages learners to
Learners are provided with a 'complete' pedagogic
generate, test, evaluate and (if necessary) modify their
grammar, which is unrealistic (Rutherford, 1987: 17; hypotheses and generalisations about how the TL
Johns, 1991: 3) and expected to learn its rules. The
operates (Johns, 1991: 2; Rutherford, 1987: 18; Willis J.
TL hypothesis and
lockstep nature of this methodology rarely promotes
1993: 90).
generalisation formation.
generation, testing, evaluation or modification of
The TBL framework also specifically allocates
hypotheses or generalisations about the TL.
planning time that may give students opportunities to
restructure their IL systems (White, 1988: 103-4;
Foster, 1996: 135).
Context is usually provided through artificial or
By its very nature TBL puts language items in context
Placing TL in context.
contrived textual, situational or verbal examples.
(Willis, J. 1996: 52).
Table 1 - Contrasts between the present and suggested methodological combinations
11
Trains students for the highly structural internal
exams and senior high school and university entrance
examinations.
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
JTE development
Flexibility in use.
Time efficiency.
Preparation for
structural exams.
Views proficiency in the TL as a worthwhile end in
itself (Stern, 1992: 71).
The combined C-R/TBL approach
This combined approach works towards these goals by
encouraging students to develop autonomous learning
strategies and strategies to convey meaning (Johns,
1994: 295; Willis, D, 1997: 104).
It offers transferability of knowledge and skills from
one situation to another.
Provides sufficient focus on form to enable students to
do well in internal and senior high school entrance
examinations, while also enabling students to use
language for communicative purposes.
Has been criticised for being very time-inefficient
May be a more effective use of what limited contact
(Ellis, 1988: 38; Stern, 1992: 296).
time is available.
TBL offers flexibility in the same ways that the
current methods do. It can also:
a. employ "two or three mini-task cycles",
The various techniques that can be used for practice
b. omit certain stages in the TBL framework if they are
within PPP offer flexibility in size of groups, from
unnecessary or if time is short,
individual to whole class.
c. be weighted "depending on the needs and
backgrounds of the students". (Willis J, 1996: 58-59)
Chaudron (1988:29) agrees that TBL is very flexible.
Updates the JTE's teaching practices in light of SLA
Does not develop the JTE's teaching practices in light
research. Willis, J. (1996: 61-62) shows that even those
of current SLA research, but is merely a continuation
teachers used to using PPP can be retrained to use TBL,
of practices which have consistently disregarded the
though Skehan (1996: 30) suggests that it makes many
findings of SLA research.
demands upon the teacher's competence.
The combined grammar-translation/PPP approach
This combined approach generally fails to achieve
any of these goals as it reinforces dependence upon the
teacher for information (Johns, 1994: 295; Willis, D.
1997: 104), the traditionally accepted teacher and
learner roles and offers few opportunities for free or
creative thought or expression.
It is "grammar teaching as a means to achieving the
The proficiency objective. proficiency objective [rather than] as a desirable end in
its own right" (Stern, 1992: 81).
The teaching context
Learner development
Achieving Monbusho's
(1999b) curriculum goals
and Monbusho's (1999a)
foreign language learning
goals for students' personal
and academic development.
3.4
The Program of Study document
The JTE-designed Program of Study (P.o.S) document (appendix 4) takes its framework
from the B.o.E.-issued model and is based on the textbook's table of contents. It specifies month,
time allocation, unit titles and general descriptions of each unit's activities and generally
conforms to Brumfit's (1984) "administrative document" (reported by Willis, 2000: 1-2): it is a
teaching schedule.
There are several weaknesses here. Modelling a syllabus on that of others does not
promote critical thought or judgement regarding its pedagogical validity (Willis, 2000: 31). It
also reinforces the JTE's view that the position-oriented syllabus is the most suitable, retarding
development of a perhaps more appropriate design or approach. It also contains the defects
noted by Sinclair and Renouf (1988: 145-6), regarding the design rationale and its reliance on
the methodology inherent within the coursebook.
The authorised materials are predetermined and compulsory, the JTE has no training or
experience in creating alternative designs and, counter to Nunan's (1987a: 17) proposal, no
support systems exist to help her do so. However, rather than using the P.o.S. document merely
as a scheduled table of contents, she might consider how it can be used to incorporate the C-R
and TBL materials and methodologies suggested above.
It is the P.o.S. document, not the formal goals or objectives which is explained to
students at the beginning of the course. Ideally both would be provided, but outlining the P.o.S.
document with respect to the principles underlying materials and methodologies selection would
give early clarification to students of the course's rationale, how it will proceed, learners' and the
teacher's expected roles in it and how the EFL learning context might differ from that of other
curriculum subjects.
3.5
Student assessment
The most recent end-of-term test (appendix 5) consisted of pronunciation, punctuation,
transformation, word order, gap-fill, written question-answer and listening comprehension
exercises, marked by a discrete point scoring system. There was no oral component.
There should be a clear connection between the goals or objectives and assessment
(Widdowson, 1983: 6-7, cited by White, 1988: 26; Brindley, 1989: 4; Stern, 1992: 98).
12
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
However, the above assessment, largely fails to make this link, a situation that is not uncommon
(Willis, 2000: 9-10), particularly in Japanese schools. The official objectives emphasise use of
the TL for meaningful communication and so should be assessed using tests of proficiency
(Nunan, 1988: 135). Instead, students are assessed using questions that test knowledge about the
TL and which relate to the topics used in the coursebook and are therefore achievement tests
(Brown, 1994: 259).
The distinction is important because it illustrates the general tendency of JTEs to
overlook the formal goals and objectives in favour of unofficial, unspoken ones which they
perceive as more useful and relevant to learners in the short-term: ones which will help learners
pass up-coming, highly structural senior high school (and later university) entrance
examinations. Therefore, assessment design here isn't just influenced by the course content: it is
also determined by the perceived need to train students for upcoming entrance examinations.
Also, as Clark points out:
The norm-referenced form of assessment associated with classical humanism
normally provides little information to teachers, pupils or parents as to what students
can or cannot do. It indicates how a student has performed in relation to others in the
group...[It is] designed to respond to society's requirement for a quick and easy way to
judge a pupil's competence vis-à-vis others in the group...[and is] often out of touch
with the realities of what is required in the classroom.
(Clark, 1987: 12-13)
Once again, the implication for Monbusho's revised EFL goals and objectives and
learning outcomes is that their long-term success may already be in serious jeopardy unless
steps are taken to retrain JTEs in the design, implementation and grading of appropriate tests
which actually assess the intended outcomes with respect to proficiency, not achievement.
Two suggestions can be made here. Firstly, that the JTE should attempt to incorporate
some type of oral component into her tests. Monbusho's educational reforms specifically require
students to be able to communicate orally, albeit at an elementary level, but this skill is not
tested. Until relatively recently, communication with foreigners was largely written, not oral, but
in the changing social context the oral faculty is becoming increasingly more relevant.
Secondly, she needs to replace achievement tests with proficiency tests. Though the
novelty may confuse both learners and teacher and possibly add to the latter's workload initially,
13
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
the confusion may be overcome if the JTE explains the changes to students both in nontechnical, pedagogical terms (Willis, 1996: 60) and in terms of Monbusho's new intended
learning outcomes (section 3.1). This should help all concerned to understand not only what
they are expected to achieve but also that both focus on form and meaning are important. It is
essential that the former is not overlooked because while striving for updated, more
communicative outcomes, context demands that teachers also prepare their students for the
highly structural senior high school entrance examinations.
3.6
Syllabus evaluation and accountability.
The syllabus is not evaluated as a coherent program. Only the JTE's teaching practices
are evaluated, by a former teacher from the B.o.E., through annual observation of a JTE-led
demonstration lesson. That evaluation focuses on the methodology and materials used and
feedback is provided in a post-lesson meeting. Other JTE-designed components, i.e. the
Program of Study document and student assessments are not evaluated. Though the former is
submitted to the B.o.E. for archiving, the JTE receives no feedback on it.
There are no serious, negative consequences associated with failing to adhere to
Monbusho goals, objectives, guidelines for materials, consistently poor teaching practices (even
those noted by the B.o.E. evaluation), designing assessments incompatible with the goals or
objectives or consistently poor student grades. The author's experience suggests that this is the
norm for state education. It is also highly undesirable.
Whether evaluation serves to enforce accountability or enhance program development
and whether accountability is contractual or professional, evaluation serves two purposes: to
improve the syllabus and assess its efficacy (Weir and Roberts, 1994: 4). What little evaluation
exists here fails to achieve the former because no penalties are imposed for not improving
teaching practices and fails to achieve the latter because it is partial and piecemeal. If teachers
are not, in actuality, accountable to anyone, the evaluation fails to provide JTEs with sufficient
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to make their teaching practices more compatible with the new
goals and objectives. Chaudron asks:
how do we know that what is actually happening in the program matches it's official
description?
(Chaudron, 1988: 29)
14
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
and the answer here must be that it is not possible to know.
Currently, teachers are permitted to continue practices which, though perhaps
appropriate 50 years ago, are now outdated and at odds with the new goals and objectives. Why
this is the case in a system that claims to be democratic, transparent and which has the authority
to enforce M.o.E. policy is unclear, though warrants further investigation.
The only practical improvement to suggest here is that the JTE occasionally reflects on
those parts of the syllabus over which she has some control, i.e. supplementary materials,
methodology, the Program of Study document and student assessment, with a view to bringing
them more in line with those necessary to achieve the intended outcomes. She is perhaps the
best placed to do this because of her experience and knowledge of the learners, context and what
can realistically be achieved within the prevailing constraints of both.
3.7
Cultural education
The coursebook covers Japanese and foreign cultural topics, which are JTE-fronted
during non-team-teaching lessons, using supplementary materials from Morimizu (1996c)
(exemplified in appendix 6). Additionally, AET-fronted presentations introduce aspects of
British culture (C2), (e.g. housing) through a comparative approach, along with British historical
figures (e.g. George Stephenson, appendix 7), national symbols (e.g. cricket) and festivals (e.g.
Halloween, appendix 8) as advocated by Stern (1992: 216-7). These illustrate British life and
values and occasional links are made as to how C2 influences native speech.
The important role of C2 knowledge in L2 learning is generally recognised (Clark, 1987:
219; Brown, 1994: 183-7; Byram, 1994, 5-14 and Carter, 1998). Stern agrees:
It is not possible to achieve any of the proficiency goals without including certain
aspects of sociocultural information.
(Stern, 1992: 83)
However, Monbusho's goals do not require this C2-L2 connection to be stated explicitly
and as a non-native speaker the JTE lacks the in-depth knowledge of either C2 or L2 to do so
accurately or consistently. She is required only to introduce the coursebook's cultural topics and
to promote discussion and an exchange of students' ideas through the support materials, which
she does conscientiously. It is unclear however to what degree these activities assist learners'
15
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
understanding of either C2 or its relationship to the TL, or to which they enhance SLA.
The AET's cultural presentations serve not only to dispel the inaccurate cultural
stereotypes of which Willis (2000: 79) writes, but also attempt to promote learners' acceptance
of C2, which Schumann (1978, cited by Byram, 1994: 7 and reviewed and critiqued by LarsenFreeman and Long, 1991: 251-266) says is necessary for continued advances in L2 proficiency.
The occasional demonstration of how C2 influences TL is useful because it serves to inform
both the learners and the JTE.
An AET is transient, present at a school for only a term, with relatively very little
contact time with any one class. Longer-term improvements must therefore focus on the JTE.
Though Stern (1992: 222-3) noted the lack of cultural education resources available to
teachers, the internet now gives access to a wealth of information which the JTE can use to
collect background information for supplementary cultural materials, thus providing year-round
C2 instruction in a very wide range of topics. However, this would probably still not explicitly
demonstrate how C2 and L2 are linked.
To achieve this, she can task each new AET with highlighting ways in which C2 and L2
are related, (the author believes that most AETs would welcome such a specific brief). This joint
use of supplementary materials AET-tasking would be far more mutually complementary than
the present system and give greater year-round continuity to the cultural education that learners
receive, while overcoming many of the logistical and scheduling difficulties inherent within the
AET and team-teaching systems.
4
Conclusion
This paper has described and evaluated a 2nd grade Japanese junior high school EFL
syllabus. It examined various aspects of the syllabus’ design and suggested how these might be
improved to meet the formal goals and objectives, with justifications offered with respect to
learners' SLA and development and context (classroom, teaching, institutional, social, national
or international).
It is clear that Monbusho's reformed goals and objectives are not being implemented at
the most influential level: the classroom. Since JTEs are employed specifically to implement
Monbusho's educational policies, there seems little justification for not putting the above
16
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
suggestions into action, yet social and cultural beliefs, tradition and historically accepted
practices are very powerful forces, especially in Japan.
It must be recognised that the JTE is not entirely responsible for this syllabus'
shortcomings. As Nunan (1987b: 62-63) and Lewis (1996: 16) have pointed out, the system
within which teachers operate often conspires to constrain them and that is certainly so here.
Peer practices, Monbusho's own authorised materials, the lack of appropriate training,
development, support and evaluation procedures and senior high school entrance examinations
give JTEs little room for manoeuvre or opportunities for change. Perhaps Monbusho would do
well to take Clark's advice:
Drawing on the most positive aspects of [classical humanism, reconstructionism and
progressivism]... it seems altogether reasonable to seek through an educational system
to maintain and develop the wisdom and cultural traditions of the past, to attempt to
work together in a deliberate way towards a fairer and better future for all.
(Clark, 1987: 100)
In other words, by taking the best of those three standpoints, it should be possible to preserve
Japan's cultural values whilst simultaneously advancing teaching practices that are more
appropriate to the changing social context, as has happened in many western nations since
World War II (Yalden, 1987: 52-3; White, 1988: 21 and Brown, 1994: 14-15). Tradition and
progress need not be mutually opposed: one may indeed enhance the other.
The conflicts shown here between previous versus current educational philosophies and
'traditional' versus 'modern' methodologies and materials need to be resolved, preferably by
adaptation to what is and will be needed in the future rather than by a reversion to what was
used in the past. These changes will undoubtedly challenge many JTEs, particularly those who
have been using grammar-translation and PPP for many years, but it is a challenge that, sooner
or later, needs to be faced and met if Monbusho's reforms are to be realised. Until that time these
reforms face serious setbacks. Further investigation into the factors that delay or prevent
implementation of these reforms at classroom level is highly recommended.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance generously given by Yumi Onogi and
the English department of Fukuhama Junior High School, Okayama City during the preparation
of this article. Thanks are also due to his wife, Nobuko Moritoshi, for her efforts in translation.
17
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 1
A sample of the textbook's isolated pedagogic
grammars and contrived texts
18
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 2
A Present-Practice-Production (PPP) lesson plan for prepositions
Greetings
• Greet the class. Check today's day, date and weather in English.
Presentation
• Use a doll to introduce the prepositions: on, under, in, next to, near, by, in front of and
behind, in relation to various other things in the classroom (e.g. a box, the teacher's desk, a
student).
•
•
•
Students repeat each word. Check students' pronunciation.
Write an example sentence for each preposition on the blackboard.
Students make notes in their notebooks.
15 minutes
Practice
•
•
Explain practice activity 1 on page 31 of the coursebook.
Students do the practice activity. They write as many sentences in their notebook as
possible.
• Check students' answers while they are writing.
• Show the common mistakes on the blackboard.
• Students repeat model sentences again.
10 minutes
Practice 2
• In pairs, students take 5 things from their schoolbag (e.g. a book, a notebook, a pencil, an
eraser and a ruler).
• Student A uses the new words to tell their partner where one thing is in relation with
another. Student B listens, watches and checks student A's English.
10 minutes
Production
•
•
Explain practice activity 2.
All the students stand up, walk around the class and do the practice activity with various
friends. They write their partner's answer in the memo box.
15 minutes
19
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
(Morimizu, 1996a: 31).
20
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 3
A CR / TBL lesson plan to replace the PPP lesson plan for prepositions
Target Language items: Prepositions / things in a student's room.
Materials:
A bedroom plan with a bed, a desk and a bookshelf on it.
A recording of a native English speaker describing his room.
Pictures and the gap-fill worksheet for the practice activity.
Procedure
1.
Introducing the topic and task.
Brainstorming (prepositions and things in a room).
2.
Students are given a room plan card A or B and draw things on the plan. They can draw things
that they do or don't really have in their own bedroom. The have to draw more than seven things
on the plan.
3.
When they have finished drawing, in pairs, they describe their room plan to their partner.
Planning
The teacher circulates and advises students on language. She corrects and suggests phrases.
Emphasis is on grammatical accuracy.
Report
Students report their plans to the class, showing their room plans on the overhead projector.
Teacher comments and rephrases but does not correct overtly. Teacher and class give applause after each
report to encourage the students.
Input
Students listen to the recording of the native English speaker describing his bedroom:
"This is my room. I have a rug in the centre of the room and it has a robot on it. There's a plant in
the northwest corner and the bed's along the western wall. My comic collection is by the door and there's
a clock next to the PC on the desk. I keep my floppy disks in the desk. The baseball and bat are in a box
by the east window. The chair's under the desk and I keep my guitar in the southeast corner. My cat
usually sleeps under my bed. The banana behind the desk is for when I get hungry at night. On my bed,
the pillow is nearest the northwest corner. Finally, there're many SF books on the left side of the
bookshelf".
Then the teacher gives the above transcript to the students. They underline the prepositions used
and compare their use of prepositions with native speech.
Language Analysis - Review and Practice
Exercise 1
Each student receives a picture (number 1, 2 or 3) which they use to complete the gap-fill
worksheet.
Exercise 2
Each picture is different. Students describe their picture without showing it to their partner and
try to find 8 differences.
21
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
22
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
23
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
24
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
25
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
26
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Exercise 1
Use your picture to write a suitable preposition in these sentences.
Picture 1.
There are shoes (
) the rug.
There is a clock (
) the wall.
A candle is (
) the candle stand (
A dress is (
) the chair.
A witch's hat is (
A bed is (
) the dresser.
) the rug and the chair.
) the window.
Picture 2.
There is a mouse (
) the table.
There is a banana (
) front (
An orange flower is (
) the cup and the bowl.
) the glass (
) the table.
There are dishes, plates and cups (
The bowl is (
) the cupboard.
) the spoon and the cup.
The peanut butter is (
) the Krispy Kreeps.
Picture 3.
There is a lamp (
) the table (
An apple is rolling (
(
) the carpet.
) the small table and (
There are two pictures (
) the room.
) the table.
The witch is looking at two ants (
A couch is (
) the corner (
) the big table.
) the wall.
) the big picture, the house is (
) two trees.
(Courtesy of Yumi Onogi).
27
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 4
The Program of Study document
Units containing cultural components are highlighted in red. Those containing isolated
linguistic items are highlighted in bold.
Month
April
May
June
No. of
hours
Unit and sub-unit title.
*Classroom English.
*Introduce yourself
*Life in Australia.
*To know about different cultures through the
experience of living in foreign countries
*To know about Australian life, society,
aborigines etc.
*Review regular past form (positive and
negative), question form and answer
forms.
*Let's talk 1 - When you ask
the way
*English Diary.
*Where is ~? *Walk along~.
*Go straight~. *Turn~.
*To know about how to write an English diary
and the diary's importance.
*To develop an understanding of poetry.
*Co-operating with the older generation.
*To think about AIDS at school and in the
home.
*Teach irregular past form (positive and
negative), question form and answer
forms.
*Let's write 1.
*To study how to write an English diary.
*Write about yourself in your diary.
*Who 'discovered' America?
*To think about the period of the great
Western voyages.
*To know about Columbus and Vespucci.
*Past forms 'was' and 'were' (positive and
negative), question form.
*Past continuous form (was [were] ~ing).
*Let's listen 1.
*Computers in schools of the
future.
*To listen to Peter's daily schedule.
*To think about the computer age and human
communication.
*will ~ and must~
*Let's talk 2.
*To be able to inquire or answer about the
weather.
10
23
Activities and content.
6
28
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
*Rain forests
*To think about the destruction of the rain
forests and wildlife and conservation.
*There is [are] ~ formative and negative
*Are there ~
*be going to ~
*Let's try 1.
*Let's write 2.
*Learning the names of the body parts.
*To write about your summer vacation plan in
English.
*To express your opinion in English using a
dictionary.
*To make a composition without worrying
about making mistakes.
*Let's read 1.
*To translate a story from L2 to L1 using
natural Japanese.
*Review There is~, Should~, imperatives,
become + noun.
*To know about a part of English of culture.
*To develop students interest in the natural
wonders of the world.
*When (as a conjunction).
*Tag questions.
*Why ~? Because~.
June
(cont.)
July
4
*Squid.
Sept.
12
*Let's talk 3.
*Speech - My dream.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
12
*Will you ~?
*May I ~?
*To think about your future occupation.
*To know about the importance and role of
agriculture.
*To learn how to make a speech.
*Infinitive form.
*Let's write 3.
*Ainu.
*To make speech manuscript.
*To know about the existence and culture of the
Ainu.
*To know about the history of the lost Ainu
race.
*To think about the meaning of maintaining
culture and language.
*S + V + C and S + V + O + O forms
*Let's listen 2.
*The United Kingdom.
*Page 58
*To know about the 4 kingdoms which make up
the UK.
*To be aware of the 4 kingdoms through their
individual national songs.
*Comparative and superlative (~er, ~est).
12
7
29
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Jan.
10
*Let's talk 4.
*Shall we ~?
*Gestures talk.
*To know about the non-verbal communication.
*To know the different meanings gestures have
in different countries.
*Comparative (more, most, as).
*To know about the nature and nomadic life of
Mongolians. Mongolia is a part of East Asia.
*There are no ~.
* have to ~
*Let's read 2.
Yes, let's / I can't.
6
*To ask somebody's schedule.
*Let's talk 5.
Feb.
*Page 76
*Let's listen 3.
*Kenya
*Let's try 2.
*To know about the language situation in
Kenya.
*To think about the roles of native language
and common language in multi-language
areas.
*Passive form.
*To know about colours names.
*Let's listen 4.
*Page 83.
*Let's talk 6.
*What's wrong?
*Let's read 3.
*To think about the importance of a determined
spirit.
*Let's write 4.
*Page 90.
5
March
15
I have ~. / I feel ~.
(Courtesy of the Fukuhama Junior High School English department).
30
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 5
The end-of-term student assessment and associated answer sheet
31
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
32
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
(Courtesy of the Fukuhama Junior High School English department).
33
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 6 - Native Americans
(Monbusho, 1996: 57-58).
34
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 7 - George Stephenson (1781-1848): inventor and engineer
George Stevenson was born in England. He is very famous in the history of
trains because he made the first train in 1825. In 1829 he made another train,
called ‘The Rocket’, but it wasn’t very fast. It went at only 39km/hour.
Here is a picture of ‘The Rocket’ (right).
Modern trains are much faster, but in 1829 29
km/hour was very fast. This design won a
contest and Mr. Stevenson got 500 pounds
(about 86,000 yen). The engine used steam.
Eight ‘Rockets’ were made. The trains went
between Liverpool and Manchester.
After many years, engine design changed. In England, we now use
diesel and electric engines. Here is a diesel train (left). It’s called the
‘Intercity 125’ because it goes between many cities in England,
Scotland and Wales and its top speed is 125 miles/hour (about 200
km/hour).
There are many new electric trains in the UK too. This is
the Eurostar train (right). It goes from London in England,
through a tunnel under the sea, to Paris in France and
Brussels in Belgium.
The Japanese are very good at making trains.
Maybe they are the best in the world. The
picture on the left shows a local train, which is
slow. The picture on the right shows the
‘Bullet train’ (shinkansen) electric train. It’s
very fast. How fast can it go? Do you know?
The Nozomi 500 (left) and Nozomi 700 (right) are the
fastest trains in the world.
How about the future? What trains will we use in the 21st century? Maybe
trains in the future will look look like this. This is a Magnetic Levitation
(MagLev) train. It doesn’t have wheels. It uses strong magnets and
electricity. It’s very fast, very quiet and doesn’t make so much pollution.
35
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Appendix 8 - Halloween
Halloween is a very old festival. It has other names:
All Hallowtide ; All Soul's Day; All Saint's Day
The history of halloween
The history of halloween is not clear because it is a very old festival. The
Celts ( ケ ル ツ ) lived in Ireland 2000-3000 years ago. The name
'halloween' comes from a very old Celtic ( ケ ル ツ の ) festival called
Samhaim ( サーウイム ). It means 'the festival of the dead'. It is like
Japan's obon. The Celts believed that at this time it was easy to
communicate with the dead.
Halloween celebrations.
Countries have different was to celebrate halloween. It is most popular in America.
Children have scary costumes and go from house to house.
Trick or treat?
Children play this game. They go to a house and knock on the door. When a
person comes to the door, the children say "Trick or treat?" If the person
answers "Trick", the children will do something bad (for example empty a
rubbish bin in his garden or take the air out of his bike tyre). If the person
says "treat", he / she gives the children something nice (money, cakes, cola,
sweets) and the children go to the next house.
A Halloween party
Adults sometimes have a halloween party. Many friends come to
your house in fancy dress and you drink, eat, talk with friends, tell
horror stories or watch a horror movie.
Jack-o-lantern
A Jack-o-lantern is a face made from a pumpkin.
36
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
References
Brazil, D. (1992) 'Speaking English or talking to people'. Adapted from a lecture given at Sophia
University, Tokyo in January, 1992.
Brindley, G. (1989) Assessing achievement in the learner-centred curriculum. National Centre
for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquerie University, Sydney.
Brown, H.D. (1994) Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice Hall.
Byram, M. et al (1994) Teaching and learning language and culture. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Carter, R. (1998) 'Orders of Reality: CANCODE, Community and Culture'. ELT Journal 52/1:
43-56.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second language classrooms. CUP.
Clark, J.L. (1987) Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. OUP.
Collins Cobuild (1990) Student's dictionary. Harper Collins.
Ellis, R. (1988) 'The role of practice in classroom learning'. AILA Review 5: 30-39
Ellis, R. and T. Hedge (1993) 'Second language acquisition research: how does it help? An
interview with Rod Ellis'. ELT Journal 47/1: 3-11.
Foster, P. (1996) 'Doing the task better: how planning time influences students' performances'.
In Willis, J. and D. Willis, (eds.) (1996) Challenge and change in language teaching.
Heinemann
Hopkins, D. and M. Nettle (1994) ‘Second language acquisition research: a response to Rod
Ellis’. ELT Journal 48/2: 157-161.
Johns, T. (1991) 'Should you be persuaded?: two examples of Data Driven Learning' in Johns
and King (eds.) Classroom concordancing. Birmingham ELR.
Johns, T. (1994) 'From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of
Data Driven Learning' in T. Odlin (ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. CUP.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & M.H. Long (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition
research, Longman.
Lewis, M. (1993) The lexical approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Language
Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1996) 'Implications of a lexical view of language'. In Willis, J. and D. Willis, (eds.)
(1996) Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann
McDonough, J. and C. Shaw (1993) Materials and methods in ELT. Blackwell.
Monbusho. (1999a) The course of study for foreign languages at junior high schools. Shoseki.
37
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Monbusho. (1999b) Formal education: elementary and secondary education: #2 Curriculum
(www) http://www.monbu.go.jp/aramashi/1999eng/e04/e04-4.htm (20th August 2000)
Morimizu, M. (ed.) (1996a) New Crown English series (2nd Grade). Sanseido.
Morimizu, M. (ed.) (1996b) New Crown English series (2nd Grade) Workbook. Sanseido.
Morimizu, M. (ed.) (1996c) New Crown English series (2nd Grade) Teacher's manual.
Sanseido.
O.C.J.H.S.E.S.G. (Okayama City Junior High School Education Study Group), (1996) English
drill (2nd grade), Sanyo Books Publishing Co.
Nunan, D. (1987a) The teacher as curriculum developer. Macquarie University, Sydney.
Nunan, D. (1987b) ‘Square pegs in round holes: national curricula and learner-centred
philosophies’. In Burton, J. (ed.) Implementing a learner-centred curriculum. National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Nunan, D. (1988) The learner-centred curriculum. CUP.
Nunan, D. (1995) Language teaching methodology. Prentice Hall.
Richards, J.C. and C. Lockhart (1994) Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. CUP.
Richards, J.C. & T. Rodgers. (1986) Approaches and methods in language teaching. CUP.
Rutherford, W. (1987) Second language grammar: learning and teaching. Longman.
Sinclair, J. and A. Renouf. (1988) 'A lexical syllabus for language learning'. In Carter, R. and M.
McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary and language teaching. Longman.
Skehan, P (1996) 'Second language acquisition and task-based learning'. In Willis, J. and D.
Willis (eds.) Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann.
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental concepts of language teaching. OUP
Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and options in language teaching. OUP.
Weir, C. and J. Roberts (1994) Evaluation in ELT. Blackwell
White, R.V. (1988) The ELT curriculum: design, innovation and management. Blackwell.
Willis, D. (2000) Syllabus and materials. Centre for English Language Studies, Birmingham
University.
Willis, J. (1990) The lexical syllabus. Collins Cobuild.
Willis, J. (1993) 'Grammar and lexis: some pedagogical implications'. In Sinclair, J. et al (eds.)
Techniques of description. Routledge
38
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.
Willis, J. (1996) 'A flexible framework for task-based learning'. In Willis, J. and D. Willis (eds.)
Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann.
Willis, D and J. Willis, (1996) 'Consciousness-raising activities' In Willis, J. and D. Willis,
(eds.) (1996) Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann
Willis, D. and J. Willis (Forthcoming) Task based language learning.
Yalden, J. (1987) Principles of course design for language teaching. CUP.
39
Paul Moritoshi, The University of Birmingham, 2000.