In the game of football, the 4-4-2 is probably the most preferred and effective formation, if not the oldest. Likewise, in the teaching of the English language, I think behaviourism should be the theory and approach worth considering (or rather, reconsidering). Only through the teaching of the syntax and grammar items of the language, and through drilling, that the standards of English in this country would improve significantly.
The current syllabus employs the thematic and topical approach to the language. Grammar is embedded and taught in context, based on the themes and topics stipulated in the syllabus. I, on the contrary, believe the reverse process is more effective. The syntax and grammar should be taught first, after which should come the context. With regards to assessment, I am of the opinion that the grammar items taught and learnt should also be tested and assessed directly. The current assessment system tests the grammar part indirectly through rational cloze questions (only ONE section in SPM English 1119). As an English teacher myself - during my training years - I was taught English through this approach and it worked (if not, I wouldn't have become one). I think all other English teachers are in agreement with me.
Thus, I strongly think that the extra credit hours suggested for English language in the school timetable should be filled in with the teaching of English syntax and grammar and that the assessment system should also be revamped accordingly. The suggestion to introduce the big L (Literature) in order to improve the standards of English in this country should therefore be literally binned. Although literature is quite an essential component of a language, I personally think that it is only essential in terms of establishing the cultural and aesthetical values of that particular language. Let us look at the current Literature Component in the syllabus. From experience, most of my students find it detestable. And they only study the component for the purposes of examinations. I would also dare to state here that many of them do not really read the actual texts. They simply buy workbooks that provide them with all the synopses, paraphrases, model questions and suggested answers. Thus, I think it defeats the purpose of introducing Literature Component in the first place.
One other thing, and since our curriculum is already exam-oriented, I think it is a wise step to test the grammar items directly for it would make the learning process more meaningful (a huge number of students have also questioned the need to learn all the grammar items as they are not assessed in public exams). Students can therefore see the need and obviously would take grammar more seriously if they know that they will be tested in the exams.
Well, I think that would be all for my first post. I would be happy to receive comments and suggestions regarding the topic presented.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteAbout the Literature, i was taught to teach the small L (we were asked to teach the language using the examples taken from the literature texts) Meaning to say, in order for the students to understand the text, they have to go through the language, either grammar, vocab or syntax. So, it's not merely focusing on the content but the language as well. But, seeing our literature syllabus, it seems hard to do that since literature is taught for the exam purposes.