Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Aman Shahni
Ph.D. (ELE) Participant
Regd. No. 07/SH/Ph.D.(ELE)/2014-2017/037
Supervisor
Dr. Arzuman Ara
Assistant Professor
Department of English Language Education
Co-Supervisor
Prof. A.K. Mishra
Director I/c
Chapter I Introduction
Chapter II Review of Related Literature
Chapter III Research Design and Methodology
Chapter IV Data Analysis, Interpretations
and Findings
Chapter V Conclusion
Literature Review
English Language Curriculum
Richards (2013) in ‘Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design’ (RELCJ, 2013)
explains
the implications of methodology in the field of teaching and learning,
the different aspects of language teaching and the aims of the target learning groups.
Richards (2013) states that, any language teaching curriculum would contain the three elements:
content,
process,
output and
that the relationship between them is how one decides to prioritize the three different processes and adapts the processes in
their respective curriculum design.
English Language Syllabus
Janice Yalden (1989) in ‘Syllabus Design in General Education: Options for ELT’ has explained the steps to consider while
developing a syllabus for English language teaching.
According to her syllabus should be created in-order to act as a guide for the teachers as well as the learners.
Syllabus designers should consider the different approaches and methods which would be appropriate for the learners and the
teachers.
Content Analysis
Reinildis Atjna Cyntia Rynanta and Suharmanto Ruslan (2010) in ‘Content Analysis on the English Textbook Entitled English in Mind
Starter (Student’s book)’ have analyzed the English textbook “English in Mind Starter (Student’s Book)”.
The authors of this paper have considered eight factors to analyze the textbook. The factors are:
i. The availability of materials based on Standard of Content 2006;
ii. Methodology;
iii. Language skills;
iv. Topics;
v. Design and layout;
vi. Organization;
vii. Language appropriacy, and
viii. Cultural aspect.
Cont…
Materials/Content Development
Dario Luis Banegas (2012) in ‘Teacher-developed materials for the integration of
content and language: An action research project in Argentina’ has tried to explore
the principles that teachers use or follow while developing their own teaching
materials.
According to the researcher while preparing to construct a language based materials
with constructive inputs from teachers:
“a. there is insufficient analysis of students’ needs to understand what drives them
to learn;
b. there is a conflict between students’ motivation and interests;
c. topic selection is a more important aspect of materials development that source
selection;
d. the discussion about context-responsive materials should be refined; and
e. there is a need for activities which cater for language awareness.”
Communicative Language Teaching Approach
O. S. Nyinondi, A. S. Mhandeni and H. I. Mohamed (2016) in ‘The use of
communicative language teaching approach in the teaching of communication
skills courses in Tanzanian university’ have tried to analyze and investigate how the
Universities in Tanzania have tried to implement the Communicative Language
Teaching(CLT) approach for the purpose of teaching English language teaching
communication course.
The researchers have suggested that for the Communicative course to work in the
Tanzania Universities some major steps should be considered:
i. objectives of the course should be specified;
ii. learners’ diversity and language background should be considered while
framing the course;
iii. the language instructors should be responsible to teach English, and
iv. the English language classroom should be learner centered and
What are the principles behind a language based
curriculum?
Language Curriculum Design has eight components:
considering the environment,
discovering the need,
following the principles,
Setting the goals,
Organizing content and sequencing content of the
syllabus,
Presentation of the material,
Monitoring and assessing, and
Evaluation. (Nation and Macalister, 2010)
Different Types of Syllabus
Grammatical or Structural syllabus
Lexical syllabus
Grammatical-Lexical syllabus
Competence-based syllabus
Notional syllabus
Notional-functional syllabus
Situational syllabus
Topic-based syllabus
Task-based syllabus
Literature based syllabus
An integrated/communicative syllabus
Process syllabus
Product syllabus
Spiral syllabus
Graded syllabus
Emergent syllabus
Selecting content of General English
syllabus for English Language Teaching
Two hundred and twenty Fifty English teachers were Six Syllabus designers were
learners were selected with the selected wit h the process of selected for the purpose of this
process of random sampling random sampling study
The samples for the study are The samples for the study are The samples of the study are
learners of General English teachers who teach English and syllabus designers of the
course of Manipur University. General English course to General English course.
learners of Manipur University.
The learners belong to first, Majority of the teachers have The Committee of the General
second, third and fifth been teaching the General English syllabus consist of six
semesters of the General course since the time it was members and all of them are
English course. implemented in the year 2010. professors of Manipur
University.
Their age group ranged from 18 All the six syllabus designers are
years to 24 years. English teachers and have been
working in their respective
fields for over thirty years.
learners belong to urban and The teachers have all done their All the six syllabus designers are
rural areas and more than 60% Masters degree and have Ph.D. holders and have had
English Medium Schools rest cleared National Eligibility twenty years of experience in
40% Regional medium schools Test/State Level Eligibility Test teaching and framing English
(NET/SLET) and some of them syllabus.
have M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees
Design of the Research
i. The first step is Content Analysis- here the content of the General English
syllabus of Manipur University was analyzed along with the UGC’s CDC
(Curriculum Development Committee) report 2001 to verify if the
guidelines prescribed by the CDC report is followed by Manipur University.
The English language needs of the learners was one of the major reasons for
content analysis of the syllabus.
ii. The second step was framing a questionnaire for the teachers, learners and
the syllabus designers and administering it. The rationale behind framing
the questionnaire is to gather information from the teachers, learners and
the syllabus designers about the current General English syllabus. The
learners’ questionnaire also included questions about their English language
needs, hence conducting a needs analysis for the learners.
iii. The third step is framing the classroom observation checklist for the
General English classroom of Manipur University to check the pedagogical
process that occurs in the class.
iv. The fourth step is developing skills based supplementary
materials for the General English classroom by adopting the
content and including English language skills and activities to help
the learners not only concentrate on the content of the syllabus,
but also the usage of the language items to improve their
communication skills.
v. The fifth step is the implementation of the supplementary
materials in the General English classroom and involving the
learners to practice English language skills and improve their
vocabulary and grammar.
vi. The sixth and the final step is to evaluate the outcome of the
implementation of the supplementary materials and to check if the
supplementary materials helped the General English learners to
improve their communication skills, vocabulary and grammar.
The checklist consists of 196 questions about the syllabus
and the content of the syllabus
The checklist is categorized into sections:
Layout and design
Visuals
Appropriateness
Teaching Aids
Teaching Methods
Learning- Teaching Content
Exercises
Social and Cultural Contexts
Language Skills
Motivation and Learners
Pedagogical Analysis
Supplementary Materials
production and
Implementation
The underlining principle which was adopted to construct
and develop the supplementary material was
Communicative Language Teaching Approach (CLT)
100 learners were selected with the help of the process of
random sampling for the implementation of the
supplementary material.
The supplementary materials used a variety of grammar,
and language skill based activities to improve and enhance
the English language and communicative skills of the
learners.
The activities were carefully chosen considering the age
group, language competency of the learners and their
interests.
The researcher adapted the central theme of each reading
item and constructed activities related to the theme as well
as included grammar, vocabulary and LSRW skills activities
to help improve the learners’ English language skills.
The supplementary material was created considering the English
language needs of the learners and activities they needed to improve
their language skills.
There were three sections in the supplementary material; each section
had the central theme of the story, poem or the play.
Each section consisted of four activities; each activity included LSRW
activities, vocabulary, and grammar.
The researcher has made sure that all the activities that are included
are from the Unit I: Grammar and Unit II: Unseen part.
The supplementary material was implemented among the 3rd and the
5th semester learners who have already studies the General English
syllabus/course.
The rational behind this was to check if they have retained the
knowledge received in the first and second semester and practically
apply it in preceding semesters.
Evaluation
Here the learners were evaluated on the basic of how well they responded to the activities
and exercises
The learners were evaluated on the basis of pronunciation, coherence, vocabulary,
grammar, interaction, sentence structure, inference of the text, sub-skills of listening,
reading, speaking, fluency and spellings.
Marks were allotted to each section of the supplementary material
The motivation and eagerness to respond showed the interest the learners had for the
activities and tasks
Demonstration of understanding of overall meaning of texts
Identification and/or description of key elements in texts
Establishment of connections between text and own experience
Expression of appreciation of texts
Sharing of understanding of texts with peers and the instructor
Excitement about the listening activities
Singing the songs or poems along with the videos used to teach them listening skills
Answering questions and responding to the instructor
Findings
Findings of Content and Materials
analysis
The content and the materials were analysed with the help of a checklist created by the researcher
The aims and objectives of the lessons or the content are not mentioned in the syllabus
No instructions of the teachers or the learners are provided neither in the syllabus, content or the
textbooks.
There are no special focus given on vocabulary building, grammar or LSRW skills mentioned in the
textbooks or the content of the syllabus
No guidelines or instructions are mentioned for the teachers in the recommended books or the content of
the syllabus
The General syllabus is largely a language based syllabus with two sectioned dedicated to grammar and
language and three sections dedicated to literature with 2:3 ratio
Majority of the text in the syllabus are of western writers with western themes which makes the texts
culturally unfamiliar for the learners
Findings of the Questionnaires
Three types of questionnaires were constructed:
Learner’s questionnaire
(Needs Analysis and opinions about the course and teaching methods)
Teacher’s questionnaire
(Needs of the learners and opinions about the course/syllabus and teaching
methods)
The learners have mentioned that they feel scared and not confident to speak in English because they are afraid
that they would make a mistake.
The language exposure that they get when they are in class is not enough for them to practice speaking or writing
the language and that the syllabus does not help them to do so.
The teachers teach in a teacher centric environment where they mostly use lecture method and hardly introduce
any group activity.
Most of the learners are of the opinion that the teachers either talk too fast for them to understand or too softly to
them to hear.
The learners have indicated that they would learn better if LSRW activities would be introduced in the class and
that they would like to make some changes to the syllabus and would what more practical use of English language
rather than just reading stories and poems which does not help them improve the language.
Most of the learners have clearly indicated that their needs and expectations are not fulfilled by the present
General English syllabus hence, changes need to be made in order to make the syllabus more accessible and
learner centered and learner friendly.
Final findings of the Teachers’
Questionnaire
Final Findings of the Syllabus
Designer’s Questionnaire
Design of the Classroom
Observation Checklist
A classroom observation checklist was adapted and restructured to suit the
purpose of this study
Weimer, M., Parrett, J., &Kerns,M. (2002) How Am I Teaching?: Forms &
Activities for Acquiring
The General English classroom was observed for ten days for the duration of
forty-five minutes each.
The questions for the observation were twenty two in number;
The observation was conducted in first and second semesters and five classes
for each semester.
Four hundred and fifty hours of classroom observation was dedicates.
The observation was conducted in Dhanamunjuri college of Arts and
Commerce, Imphal College and Oriental College.
During the classroom observation, the observer or the researcher sat among
the learners and observed the teaching of the General English teachers and the
responses of learners.
Both the teachers and the learners were informed about the observation of the
classroom and were asked to continue the teaching and learning in a usual
manner as they generally do.
Findings of the Classroom
Observation Checklist
It was found that the teachers of the General English course did not use a lesson plan in the
classroom
It was observed that the teachers did not specify the aims and objectives of the lesson
It was observed that the teachers used English as well as Meitei to speak to the learners
It was observed that the learners hesitated to speak in English because of the fear of making
mistakes
It was observed that the teachers did not encourage the learners to contribute to class
discussions
It was observed that the teachers did not conduct any language activities in the General
English classroom
It was observed that the learners do not volunteer to answer any questions in the classroom
It was observed that the learners lack confidence and are afraid to make mistakes while speaking
in English
Findings of the Supplementary
Material
The learners were able to successfully do the vocabulary activities
The learners were able to successfully change the active voice sentences into passive
voice sentences and vice-versa
The learners were able to successfully understand the comprehension questions and
answer the questions that followed
The learners were able to understand and comprehend the poems and fill in the gaps
while listening to the poem
The learners were able to successfully identify the different parts of speech
The learners were able to successfully understand the audio and answer the questions
that followed
The learners were able to speak when asked to talk about their personal experiences
Observation of the Supplementary
Materials teaching classroom
It was observed that the learners were motivated and excited
to do something new and interactive in the classroom
Littlejohn, A. (1998). “The Analysis of Language Teaching Materials: Inside the Torjan Horse”.
In B. Tomlinson (Ed), Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp.190-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspective on materials design. In R.K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum. (pp. 155-175).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Litz, D. R.A. (2005). Textbook Evaluation and ELT Management: A South Korea Case Study. Asian EFL Journal, no volume and page numbers given. Retrieved from
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Maley, A. (1989). “Down from the Pedestal: Literature” in Literature and Learner: Methodical Approaches. Cambridge: Modern English Publications.
McArthur, T. ed. (1966). The Oxford Companion to the English Langauge (abridged edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McDonough, J & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and Method in ELT: a teacher’s guide. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Bruner – Learning Theory in Education. Available on http://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html. Accessed on 4 January 2015.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design & Learning Theory. Available on http://www.a3net.net/elearning/Instructional_design-comparison-mergel.pdf. Accessed on 10 October
2014.
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
Munby John. (1998). Communicative syllabus design. United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press, Print.
Nation,I.S.P. and Macalister, John. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Orient Longman.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Palmer, H.E. (1968). Language and Language Learning. The Scientific Study and Teaching of Languages. London, Oxford University Press.
Palquist, M. E. (1990). The lexicon of the classroom: language and learning in writing classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Pamungkas, D.A. (2010). The Quality of The English Textbook Used by International Standard Junior High School. Unpublished Thesis.Malang: Faculty of Letters State
University of Malang.
Poplin, M. S. (1988). Holistic/constructivist Principles of the Teaching/Learning Process. Journal of Learning Disabilities,21(7), 401-416. doi:10.1177/002221948802100703
Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (1987). Course design a guide to curriculum development for teachers. London: Longman.
Potosi, A., Loaiza, G., L., & Catalina, A. (2012). Using video materials as a teaching strategy for listening comprehension. Unpublished manuscript. Universidad Tecnica de
Pereira. Pereira, Colombia.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990) There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly, 24.
Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. (2008). Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Harris, R. C. (2004). Teaching children to read: Putting the pieces together. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Merrill Prentice Hall.
Richard, J.C. (1998). Beyond Training: Perspective on Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, Jack C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Richards J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. (1994). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1991). Content knowledge and instructional practice in second language teacher education. Originally published in Georgetown University Round Table on
Language and Linguistics Georgetown University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2000). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridged University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293
Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., and T. S. Rodgers. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. (1985). A Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman, London.
Richards,J.C. (2002). The Origins of Language Curriculum Development. In Richards, J.D. (2002) Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (pp,1-22)
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Williams, R., & Lutes, P. (2007). Using Videos in the EFL classroom. Unpublished manuscript. Takamatsu University.
Kagawa, Japan.
Yost, D., Sentner, S., & Forlenza- Bailey, A. (2000). An Examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications
for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 5(1), 39-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100105
Yulianti, R. 2011. Content Analysis on the English E-book “Developing English Competencies for Senior High School
(SMA/MA) Grade X”. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Letters State University of Malang.