Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 10, pp. 1388-1393, October 2011 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
Structure-based vs. Task-based Syllabus: The
Effect of Type of Syllabus on Listening
Comprehension Ability of Iranian University
Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya (UM), 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Email: email@example.com
Seyed Yasin Yazdi Amirkhiz (corresponding author)
Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Iran Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract—The present study attempted to investigate the effect of typology of syllabus (structure-based vs. task-based) on the listening comprehension ability of two homogeneous classes (50 participants) during a whole academic semester. The homogeneity was attained through administration of a pre-test taken from Barron’s TOEFL (Sharpe, 1996). The selected students were assigned to a structure-based and a task-based group. The subjects in the structure-based group were instructed through American Kernel Lesson: Intermediate (O’Neil et al., 1978), and the second group was instructed through Expanding Tactics for Listening: intermediate (Richards, 2005), representing the structure-based and task-based syllabus, respectively. Unlike the structure-based group, the task-based group demonstrated a considerable and statistically significant improvement in the post-test performance. The results of this study could be of pedagogic significance to syllabus designers, material developers as well as teachers. Index Terms—Structure-based Syllabus (SBS), Task-based Syllabus (TBS), listening comprehension
For many years, the role of listening in English teaching programs was undervalued and neglected. According to Richards (2002), until 1970s listening was hardly mentioned in journals at all. However, this neglected status of listening was shifted after Krashen (1985) theorized that comprehensible input was very instrumental in triggering language development. The significance of listening was further accentuated with the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Therefore, as in other areas of language teaching, listening was approached and studied from different perspectives. Rubin (1994) enumerates five of them: 1) text characteristics 2) interlocutor characteristics 3) task characteristics 4) listener characteristics and 5) process characteristics. Despite the sizeable volume and the novel avenues of research opened for listening skill, it seems that the role of syllabus in teaching listening has been taken for granted. This is while the syllabus and the materials used for the purpose of teaching plays an essential role in the success or failure of any English teaching program. Nunan (1988) contends that the choice of a syllabus is a major decision in language teaching, and its part in the development of language teaching practices is indispensible. It is a truism to say that one of the most remarkable shifts in language education has been moving away from a structural syllabus to the one built around communicative tasks. Structural syllabus, as the name speaks for itself, is centered around structure of language. It focuses only on one aspect of language, namely grammar. However, task-based language teaching which is linked to CLT applies activities which involve real communication and the use of language for carrying out meaningful tasks. In fact, the meaningful language and tasks are considered as the important key for the learner‟s success (Richard & Rodgers, 2001, p. 223). Reviewing through the pertinent literature, the researchers discovered a research gap of the role of syllabus and materials in listening-related studies. This study is, in fact, a small attempt in this direction: to look into the degree of efficiency of the two types of syllabi (SBS and TBS) on listening...
References: Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: the case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33,
Brindley, G. (1998). Assessing listening abilities. In W. Grabe et al. (Eds.). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18:
Foundations of second language teaching
Brown, G., Anderson A. H., Shadbolt N., & Lynch T. (1985). Listening comprehension. Project JHH/190/1. Edinburgh:
Scottish Education Department.
Carrier, K. (1999). The social environment of second language listening: does status play a role in comprehension? Modern
Language Journal, 83, 65-79.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain E. (1986). Course design: developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89,
Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: the vocalization of understandings. Applied Linguistics 19, 204-224.
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal 51, 361-365.
Goh, C. (2002). Teaching listening in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Harris, T. (2003). Listening with your eyes: the importance of speech-related gestures in the language classroom. Foreign
Language Annuals, 36, 180-187.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London, Longman
Long, M. H. (2007). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. and Crookes G. (1993). Units of analysis in course design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long, C. J. Doughty (Eds.), the handbook of language teaching.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner centered curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
O‟Neil, R., Kingbury R. & Yeadon, T. (1978). American Kernel Lesson. London: Longman.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: a personal reflection. RELC Journal, 33(2), 1-36.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Tactics for listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Robinson, P. (2001). “Task-complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential
framework.” Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In M. H. Long, C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. WileyBlackwell: A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (2), 199221.
Sharpe, P. J. (1996). How to prepare for the TOEFL test. New York: Barron‟s Educational Series, Inc.
Skehan, P. (1998): Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–86.
Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 432-451.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 59, 425-40.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening.
White, R.V. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 323–33.
Willis, D. & Willis J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, Y. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiplechoice task. Language Testing, 15, 21-44.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document