Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
A preview of the PDF is not available
... By contrast, particularly at lower levels, coursebooks both sequence grammar across levels but also within them. For example, the first unit of Headway Beginner Student's Book(Soars and Soars, 2013a) covers am/are, my/your, and This is …, whereas the final unit covers going to and present continuous for future reference. ...
-
![Graham Burton]()
The teaching of grammar plays a key role in English Language Teaching (ELT). Pedagogical grammars such as English Grammar in Use and the Azar-Hagen Grammar Series are mainstays within the profession, their enduring appeal confirmed by the recent publication of fifth editions of both. Furthermore, most ELT coursebooks use structural syllabuses – essentially, lists of grammatical items to be taught – as a 'primary organizing principle' (McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara, 2013, p. 34). Yet how is the grammatical content of such ELT materials decided? And in the case of coursebooks, how is it decided in which order, and at which level, the grammar points should be taught? O'Keeffe and Mark (2017, p. 466) argue that over time a 'canon' of pedagogical grammar has evolved, which is 'perpetuated and sustained through materials and examinations.' However, what exactly is the nature of the system that perpetuates and sustains this canon? How, when and where did the canon develop? And does the canon reflect empirical evidence on the development of grammatical competence of learners of EFL? This thesis addresses these questions in three ways. Firstly, a thematic analysis of interviews with ten key figures in ELT publishing on the question of grammatical content in teaching materials is presented. Secondly, an analysis of the treatment of three areas of grammar – conditionals, relative clauses and future forms – in grammars and coursebooks from the 17th century to the present is carried out. Finally, the current coursebook consensus on how and when to teach different aspects of these three areas of grammar is compared with empirical evidence on the use of grammar by learners, in the form of the English Grammar Profile. The analysis shows that the process of evolution of pedagogical descriptions of these areas of grammar was slow, and largely undocumented. The ELT professionals interviewed frequently referred to the existence of a strong consensus on grammatical content and ordering that must be respected, the need to follow successful competition titles, the importance of market research and user expectations, the influence of school and state institutions, and the need to avoid commercial risk by diverging too much from the consensus and expectations. The comparison between the coursebook consensus and data from the EGP reveals some areas of agreement between the two, but also that learners are often able to produce grammatical structures before they are typically taught in coursebooks, and can often produce a wider range of grammar than is typically covered in coursebooks.
- Bakil Ali Alwalss
-
![Majid Gharawi]()
This study investigated the effectiveness of the English programme for year one students, at Baish Community College (Males, BCCM), Jazan Community Colleges (Males, JCCM and Females, JCCF), College of Engineering (Males), and College of Design and Architecture (Females). Research tools were a programme evaluation form and two short placement tests. This study focused heavily on the students' progress of learning English. Two placement tests were used: one at the beginning of the semester, and the other on the second half of the semester with a two-month gap. The average of all groups on the first placement test was 18.5 out of 50. ANOVA analysis showed no significant differences between groups averages at p < 0.05 (p-value was 0.26). The level at the start is similar to all groups (homogeneous students). The second placement test showed a slight learning progress. The average of all groups was 21 out of 50, but with a high variation in percentages of gain amongst groups. Therefore, the second ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine the significance of the groups' averages at p < 0.05. The analysis yielded a p-value of 0.0079. A third analysis was conducted on both tests to ensure further validity of the results; t-test for paired samples was used. All groups were positive except for Jazan Girls Community College which showed no progress at all.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.
Posted by: larrainelarrainemaicuse0273155.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332591099_new_HEADWAY_beginner_student_book
0 Comments