With this, Widdowson (1983) strongly suggests that communicative competence be taught alongside with grammatical competence. To make the decision of teaching both linguistic and communicative competence clear, Widdowson distinguishes two aspects of performance: “usage” and “use”. He explains that “usage” makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules, whereas “use” makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his ability to use his knowledge of linguistic rules for effective communication. He also distinguishes two aspects of meaning: “significance” and “value”. Significance is the meaning that sentences have in isolation from the particular situation in which the sentence is produced.
A key element which is necessary and crucial in successful language learning is memory (Skehan 1998). Matlin (2005) further defined memory as the process of maintaining information over time. In general, it can be said that memory is the store of things learned and retained from our activity or experience which is evidenced by modification of structure or behavior, or by recall and recognition (Matlin 2005). There are different models of memory. One of the well-known memory models is Atkinson-Shiffrin model that was proposed in 1968.According to this model, memory can be divided into three parts, Sensory memory (SM), Short-term memory (STM), and Long-Term memory (LTM).
2.6. Segments Basic Speaking Effectiveness Hymes (1971) trusts that L2 learners are required to know both the linguistic information and the culturally suitable approaches to connect with others in differing circumstances. Based on Hymes, communicative competence is made out of syntactic, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, and language components. Communicative competence went under some different changes by Canale and Swain (1980) who set that communicative competence infolds grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence which fundamentally show the utilization of linguistic framework and the efficient parts of communication. 2.6.1.
3. The scope of needs analysis With seminal work of Munby’s Communicative Syllabus Design (1978), needs analysis moved towards placing the learner’s purposes in the central position within the framework of needs analysis. According to Jordan (1996) under the umbrella of need analysis, other approaches such as target situation analysis, present situation analysis, deficiency analysis, strategy analysis, and means analysis emerged. 3.1 Target Situation Analysis (TSA) Needs analysis was established in the mid-1970s (West, 1994). In the earlier periods needs analysis was mainly concerned with linguistic and register analysis, and as Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) suggest, needs were seen as discrete language items of grammar and vocabulary.
Nunan (1991) found that effective language learners displayed a high degree of autonomy, and were able to reflect on and articulate the processes underlying their own learning. Similar findings are documented in Benson (2001) and Benson and Nunan (2005). One key finding in the latter study was that effective learners not only developed a high degree of autonomy but that the development of autonomy appeared to be associated with a view of language as a tool for communication rather than as a subject to be studied in the same way as other school
The concept of Constuctivism is very prominent with characteristics of both Jean Piaget’s and Lev Vygotsky’s theories. Both believed that classrooms should be constructivist in nature as students are more likely to retain knowledge that they learn through actions, higher order thinking and problem solving. Both argue that active learning methodologies produce a greater depth of understanding and the ability to transfer knowledge. Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development is reflected in the principal that states ‘learning is developmental in nature’. Piaget postulated that students must be aware of basic facts before they can advance to more complex lessons.
Such teaching help students preserve their own societal identities and take part more perfectly in the target language interacting with more power over both intended force and result of their participations (Giles, Coupland, and Coup land, 1991). For that reason, researchers in the study area of interlanguage pragmatics have placed emphasis on the necessity to assimilate pragmatics in both second and foreign language teaching (Rose and Kasper, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Martinez-Flor et al., 2003; Alc ◌َ n and Martinez-Flor, 2005; Tatsuki, 2005). Despite the fact that a lot of linguistic experts disagree with thought that competence can be taught; others
CoBI is related to Krashen’s “Monitor Model”. Krashen (1982) emphasized ways of decreasing learner anxiety, such as providing interesting texts as well as meaningful activities, which were comprehensible to learners, and CoBI had the following essential features: “learning a language through academic content, engaging in activities, developing proficiency in academic discourse and fostering the development of effective learning strategies” (Crandall, 1999). Content-Based Instruction is based on three main theories of language and four teaching models. Three main theories of language are: “language is text and discourse-based,” “language use draws on integrated skills,” and “language is purposeful” (Crandall, 1999). Four teaching models are
There are two types of syllabus synthetic syllabi and analytic syllabi. As, Synthetic syllabi contains linguistic units: grammar structures, vocabulary items, functions while the analytic syllabi are organised in terms of the purposes for which people are learning language and the kinds of language performance that are basically important to meet those purposes (Wilkins 1976: 13). According to the above definition, task-based syllabus fails in to the category of an analytic syllabus. This type of syllabus is meaningful and communicative in nature also, have a clear outcome so that the teacher and students recognise whether the communication has been successful or not. As Candline and Murphy note: “The central purpose we are concerned with is
In the English learning literature, the development of a positive attitude towards learning could be attributed to Integrativeness, or the genuine desire to learn a new language so that one can communicate with the members of the community who use the language as their medium of communication (Dörnyei, 1998). However, as the world has become more borderless as exemplified by the EU and the ASEAN, other attitudinal factors were conceptually included. The additions were attributed to the changing of concept from ‘English is a second language to learn’ to ‘English as an international language’(Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). This resulted to the addition of other attitudinal factors that include Direct contact with English speakers (attitude towards actually meeting English speakers and travelling to their countries) ; Cultural interest (appreciation of cultural products from English speaking countries conveyed by the media); Miliu (the general perception of the importance of English in the learners’ friends and family) (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). From the aforementioned attitudinal factors, the following hypotheses were