Towards More Communication: Hong Kong Secondary School English Syllabus Revisited Cecilia Y. C. C. Lai

Introduction Until the 1970's, most ESL/EFL programmes all over the world focused on the forms of the target language. It was assumed among ELT practitioners that helping the learner to master the forms and the rules governing the creation of correct sentences would make it possible for the learner to use the target language for communicative purposes in real life situations. However, after many years of this approach to language instruction, ELT practitioners found that the above assumption fell short of expectation. Widespread dissatisfaction with structural, gram-mar-based instruction led to the development of the notional/ functional syllabus, in which notions (e.g., time, quantity, duration, location) and functions (e.g., requesting, suggesting, promising, describing) were used to develop teaching units in a language course. However, the notional/functional syllabus, which although proposed as a potentially more viable alternative, was criticized in turn for not being helpful in developing the learner’s interactional and communicative ability (see Richards & Rodgers, 1984, and Yalden, 1983, for discussion).

As a result, communicative languages teaching (CLT) was developed as a main pedagogy which replaces the structural and notional/ functional syllabuses as the dominant approach. The main emphasis of this approach is to develop the learner’s communicative competence through the use of the target language in classroom interaction and communication.

The CLT has been widely accepted in many parts of the world since the late 1970's and Hong Kong is no exception. The Educa-tion Department in Hong Kong revised the Secondary School English Language Syllabus (hereafter referred to as the Hong Kong Sylla-bus) in 1983. This syllabus was implemented in stages from Secondary One to Secondary Five and it was fully implemented in 1989. The new syllabus changes the emphasis from teaching language forms to language use. This new emphasis has aroused the caution as well as the enthusiasm of many local English language teachers (Tongue, 1980, p.9). It is a significant development as it points to a new direction of language teaching in the local scene. Nevertheless, the new emphasis of the Hong Kong Syllabus remains an abstract tenet, as no principled methods have been outlined for its implementation in the language classroom (Cur-riculum Development Committee, 1983).

This paper attempts to suggest ways to realize the emphasis of the Hong Kong Syllabus in the language classroom. Such attempts necessarily involves exploration of many important issues, such as the roles of the teacher and learner, group work, task, etc. This paper focuses on the last two issues. The discussion begins by overviewing some recent theories of language and language learning and their influence on the design of the Hong Kong Syllabus.

98

Recent Views on Language and Language Learning In the past few decades, the focus of language teaching was on language forms, possibly a reflection of American Bloomfieldian and neo-Bloomfieldian structuralism (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, p.2). The structural view of language held sway until the publication in 1957 of Syntactic Structures by Noam Chomsky.

Chornsky had attempted to provide a model for the description of all languages - a generative transformational grammar - which, as he tries to show, models a person’s internalized grammar of a language with a system of rules. Chomsky's model implies a natural speech ability to create and understand sentences, including sentences one has never heard before. This competence also includes a person’s knowledge of what are and what are not sentences of a particular language.

Chomsky’s model had a significant impact on the world of linguistics. The most significant effect of his views on language teaching is that they broadened the view of language to incorporate the relationship between meaning and form. Moreover, Chornsky helped to reestablish the fact that language is rulegoverned.

In the 1970’s, Hymes argued that a person who acquired communicative competence acquired both the linguistic knowledge and the ability of using the language (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p.70). Thus, competence involves far more than just knowledge of grammaticality. The rules of language are, in Hymes’ words, “rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless” (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, p.15).

In the late seventies, Widdowson (1978, p.3) emphasizes the importance of language use by differentiating ‘usage’ of a language from the ‘use’ of it. ‘Usage’, he explains as, being the rules of grammar and ‘use’ the ability to apply those rules to real life communication. He notes that a knowledge of ‘usage’ is significant, but not adequate in achieving communication. To have real communication to take place, learners have to acquire various knowledge systems which include the rules of use, the rules of usage, and the negotiating procedures for communication.

A more recent but related analysis of communicative competence is found in Canale and Swain (1980). They regard the various knowledge systems which interact during everyday communication as a cluster or complex of competencies. Breen (1987a, p.158) interprets such a complex of competencies in the following terms:

A crucial feature of this ‘complex’' of knowledge is that it not only reflects a person’s knowledge of the rules and conventions of communication, but that it enables a person to be creative with these rules and conventions and indeed to negotiate them during communication.

The concept of negotiation of meaning plays a significant role in current language learning theories. Breen and Candlin (1980) give a thorough description of this concept, which, they state, is a process whereby the learners through discussing with their partners or working individually on texts in the target language are able to interpret and construct meaning for themselves. Through such a process of learning, the learners’ knowledge of the language is refined, the knowledge of the subject they are

99

learning is simultaneously increased, and the communica-tive competence is enhanced. To help learners to acquire communicative competence, they need to be given opportunities to negotiate meaning in the target language.

Krashen (1977) distinguishes the process of second language acquisition from learning. Acquisition, which he believes, can only be achieved by subconsciously acquiring the language through real communication. Widdowson (1978) believes that acquisition of a second language will take place when learners are engaged in genuine and meaningful communication in the target language. Widdowson (1978, p. 19) claims:

The evidence seems to be that learners who have acquired a good deal of knowledge of the usage of a particular language find themselves at a loss when they are confronted with actual instances of use. The teaching of usage does not appear to guarantee a knowledge of use. The teaching of use, however, does seem to guarantee the learning of usage since the latter is represented as a necessavpati of the former. This being so, it would seem to be sensible to design language teaching courses with reference to use.

The ideas of Widdowson and others on language and language use have important impacts on syllabus development in many parts of the world.

Influence of Recent Views on Language and Language Learning on the Hong Kong Syllabus The developments in language and language learning theories described above have found their way into the development of the secondary school English syllabus in Hong Kong. III the early 1980's there was a great deal of debate and discussion in ELT circles about the new type of English syllabus to be adopted, replacing the existing oral-structural syllabus. Attempts were made to introduce and clarify what precisely constitutes a ‘communicative approach’ (Tongue, 1980, p.9). While there were strong proponents of the communicative approach (e.g., Johnson, 1981, p.49), there were others who expressed reservations and advocated an'eclectic approach’ (e.g., Etherton, 1981, p.15). Eventually, the curriculum developers decided to highlight the importance of communication in the classroom, while at the same time maintaining the attention to linguistic forms. The new Secondary School English Syllabus was formally adopted in 1983. In the words of the Hong Kong Syllabus:

. . . . [Cl ommunicative effectiveness, ability to use the language, will receive as much attention as the product of correct English sentences. It is this which represents a crucial change of approach from that of the previous syllabus. (Curriculum Development Committee, 1983, p.15)

The Hong Kong Syllabus reflects the emphasis advocated by Widdowson and others on language use. It stresses the significance of meaningful use of the target language in classroom communication in the following terms:

Meaningfirl use of the language for purposes of communication represents an essential element in successful language learning. Familiarity with the forms of a language, ability to manipulate these forms, to carry out conventional exercises in the language correctly - these are necessary but not sufficient for successful learning of a second language. (Curriculum Development Committee, 1983, p.15).

100

The instructional materials and the teaching techniques used in the classroom should be designed . . . . . to provide him [the learner] with ample opportunities to do things in English. ” (Cuniculum Development Committee, 1983, p.10).

In sum, it is obvious that the features of the Hong Kong Syllabus are in line with the current views on language and language learning.

Realizing the Syllabus in the Language Classroom The Hong Kong Syllabus emphasizes the need to maximize the learner’s opportunities for meaningful communication in the target language in the classroom. It also underlines the importance of exposing learners to and involving them in genuine communication in the target language. However, no principled procedures have been laid down by which the emphasis of the syllabus can be realized in the classroom. To devise ways to make this emphasis operational in the classroom, two crucial issues - group work and task - should be considered. Their significance in second language acquisition has been confirmed in a number of important studies.

Group Work In the teacher-fronted classroom, which is a typical format in most Hong Kong secondary school classrooms, the learner’s opportunities for participating in classroom communication are very limited: teacher talk dominates the lesson, and students rarely participate in classroom communication (Lai, 1988). Even if the students are allowed time for discussion or answering the teacher’s questions, the time is shared among forty or more learners. In fact, such a teacher-led classroom format is not unique to Hong Kong. It is also a very common classroom management device in many ELT classrooms in other parts of the world. (Long, 1989, p.9).

Since the 1960’s, there have been many discussions on the value of group work for language learning (Brumfit, 1984, p.76). Recent research and literature have confirmed the advantages of group work. Long et al. (1976) and Pica and Doughty (1985) show that the amount and variety of negotiation is greater in small groups than in teacher-fronted classroom interactions. Long and Porter (1985) claim that learners feel motivated and less inhibited in group work (Long & Porter, 1985). Long (1989) stresses the importance of group work, stating that all other things being equal, group work (including pair work) has at least five pedagogic advantages:

(1) In most teacher-led classes, the learners do not have enough time to practice the new language. Group work increases the opportunities of language practice, especially in developing aural-oral skills.

(2) Group work improves the quality of student talk in several ways. Learners have more opportunities of engaging in. the negotiation of meaning in intimate, unhurried and unpressured settings, through which they can think aloud and take part in “exploratory” talk.

(3) Group work allows learners to work at their own pace. It also caters for individual differences such as aptitudes, interests and language proficiency.

(4) Group work can help improve the affective climate in the classroom. It helps to increase the participation of the timid or linguistically insecure students.

(5) Group work can help motivate learners because of the advan- tages discussed above and because of the pedagogic variety it brings to a lesson.

101

Being aware of the merits of group work, some teachers might worry about learners’ picking up or miscorrecting one another’s errors. However, Porter (1986, p.219) points out that n&corrections and error incorporations are extremely rare in group work. In brief, group work, which has much pedagogic value, nevertheless, is widely neglected in many classrooms (Long, 1989:9). Therefore, teachers might consider organizing more group work when designing tasks.

Task A teacher asking display questions, drilling target language structures, correcting errors, and giving assignments and instructions are commonplace in the Hong Kong language classroom. The learners generally sit in the classroom as passive observers and occasionally are called upon to answer the teacher’s questions. When being called upon to answer the teachers’ question, more often than not, students produce “short and syntactically correct sentences” (Long et al., 1976), trying to guess the teacher’s “expected answers” (Barnes, 1976), which are evaluated by the whole class and the teacher alike. Learning in such a format is an extremely intimidating and stressful experience. We must free the students from the above lockstep by organizing carefully designed tasks through which the students are motivated to think aloud, feel the urge to engage in ‘exploratory talk’ (Barnes, 1976), and participate in the process of negotiation of meaning. The activities suggested in the Hong Kong Syllabus (e.g., the reading, writing, listening, and speaking activities), sensible as they are, fail to incorporate the “process” dimension, which enables the learners to engage in active sharing of ideas, interpretation and negotiation of meaning.

Candlin (1987, p.5) notes: . ..[T]asks. however, are not merely convenient units for the organization of what have been called

process or procedural syllabuses. They serve as compelling and approptiate means for realizing certain characteristic principles of communicative language teaching and learning . . . .

Moreover, as Candlin (1987, p.2) maintains: In effect task embody a curriculum in miniature. They contain the language data, information, and process of a learning activity.... (Candlin, 1987, p.2)

Wright (1987, p.48) equates tasks with instructional questions (not necessarily in the interrogative form), which he states “ask, demand or even invite learners to perform operations on input data. The data itself may be provided by teaching material or teachers or learners.”

Criteria for ‘Good’ Language Leaning Tasks Based on the foregoing discussion, a number of principles can be offered for developing or evaluating language tasks according to goals and needs, affects and interests, differentiation of learning paths, authenticity and meaningfulness of tasks, opportunities of use, co-operation, planning opportunities, closed tasks, and two-way tasks. In what follows, each of these criteria is addressed in turn.

1. Goals and Needs Tasks should be related to learners’ goals and needs. “One of the fundamental principles underlying learner-centred systems of language learning is that teaching/learning programmes should be responsive to learners’ needs” (Brindley, 1989, p.63). To achieve this end, the teacher

102

2. Affects and Interests

needs to find out from individual and/or groups of learners the purposes that the learners think a task or tasks should serve, and involve the learners in their own needs analysis. Such analysis should not be carried out just once and for all at the beginningpf the course, but should be repeated regularly throughout the period of learning. Information gathered in this process will be used for planning and selection of tasks.

Human communication is an activity which is “permeated by personal and socio-cultural attitudes, values and emotions” (Breen & Candlin, 1980, p.91). Learning to communicate is also an interpersonal and social activity which is not affectively neutral. Therefore, learners’ affects should be taken into account in designing tasks, which will motivate and enhance their participation in the tasks. Another factor attributed to a good task is the learner’s interests in the task. Learners have different aptitudes and personality traits. Teachers should find out learners’ interests and avoid superimposing their own interests on the students. ’

3. Differentiation of Learning Paths Learners should be invited to select their own procedures for performing tasks. Very often the teaching plans set by the teacher are irrelevant to the learners’ needs and interests. Nunan (1988) and Breen (1987b) claim that learners will at any rate have their own learning agenda and superimpose it on the teacher’s plans. Therefore, they should be allowed to group together and select their content areas for learning and the ways to go about tackling learning tasks.

. 4. Authenticity of Tasks Authentic tasks engender real and purposeful communication, and motivate and involve learners

in classroom participation. Authentic tasks naturally come into being when learners and teachers involve themselves in the process of needs analysis, in the discussion of preferred routes of learning, in the negotiation of procedures, in the performance of and in the evaluation of tasks. The classroom has the actual potential to exploit, share, and develop all aspects of language and language learning without being artificial.

5. Meaningfulness of Tasks There are two factors which contribute to the meaningfulness of the tasks used. Firstly, the linguistic requirement of the tasks should be within the capability of the learners; specifically, the language input should be comprehensible to the learners. Secondly, the content of the tasks should be related to the learner’s previous cognitive, social, and cultural experiences. Barnes (1976, p.30) points out that when the boundary between old and new knowledge is “low and easy to cross”, we can expect learners to take an active part in the negotiation of meaning. Through this process, knowledge of the subject is formed and the linguistic competence of learners is increased.

6. Opportunities of Use Tasks should be designed in such a way that they provide learners the opportunities to work and communicate purposefully in the target language. The prime time of the lesson should not be spent on the ‘subject’ of English such as the properties and the grammar of the language. As

I03

research has shown that second language acquisition is not easily achieved through grammatical patterns (Hartwell, 1987, p.349), it is prudent to design tasks focusing on communicative needs and language use; grammar should only be considered as a supplement and would be best addressed through the discovery approach (D'Eloia, 1987, p.384).

7. Cooperation Jacobs (1988) introduces the “co-operative goal structure” in task design. “Goal structure” is defined as “specifying the type of interdependence among students as they strive to achieve educational objectives”. Jacobs (1988, p.98) states:

with a co-operative goal structure individual participants can only achieve their own goals ifthepeople they are working with ako achieve theirs.

Such tasks enhance the co-operation, involvement and participation of the group. One instance of co-operative structure would be in a writing class where the group works together on a report, with one member working on the introduction, one on the body, and one on the conclusion. The group will receive the same grade when the task is completed. Successful completion of the task depends on the co-operation of the whole group.

8. Planning Opportunities Long (1989, p.13) reports a number of studies which have shown that the learners’ linguistic performance is better when given planning time than when doing the same task with no or less planning time. Crookes’ study, as reported by Long, investigated the relationship between the degree of planning and its effects on oral work in a second language. The findings suggest that a learner’s speech is syntactically more complex after planning time is allowed. Crookes, in the same study, has also noted trends towards more target-like use of particular linguistic forms and use of a greater variety of words. From the above findings, we might suggest that teachers consider systematically building planning opportunities into their lessons for some of the tasks performed.

9. Closed Tasks According to Long (1989, p.18), open tasks are tasks which have no predetermined correct solutions, i.e., a wide range of solutions are acceptable for the tasks. Examples of such task- types are free conversations, debates, and ranking leisure activities. In such tasks, participants are not obliged to explain, for example, how something works in a certain manner. Closed tasks are tasks that require the participants to arrive at either a single solution or one of a set of correct solutions predetermined by the task designer. It is believed that quantity and quality of negotiation for meaning will be higher on closed tasks, when participants know that task completion depends on their finding the answers, not settling on any answer they have got.

10. ‘ho-way Tasks Information gap tasks consist of one-way and two-way tasks (Long 1989, p.13). Two-way tasks require the exchange of information among all participants, each of whom possesses some piece of information, not known to but needed by, all other participants. The participants are required to fully involve, understand, and follow the procedure of the task. To complete the task, they

104

have to adjust to one another’s level of comprehension, so conversationally modifications such as confirmation and comprehension checks, clarification requests or repetitions will take place.

One-way tasks do not require exchange of information. There are no constraints on the learners to participate in the interaction. The participants decide whether or not to contribute to the solution of the problem. Less linguistically proficient learners may simply tune out of the interaction process when they find that the interaction is not comprehensible to them so as not to cause any embarrassment to themselves.

Doughty and Pica (1986, p.305) confirm the superiority of a two-way to a one-way task. They suggest that the former, requir-ing information exchange, is crucial to the generation of conversational modification in classroom interaction, which, in turn, is significant and instrumental in second language acquisition.

However, two-way task does not automatically lead to modification of interaction of participants. Doughty and Pica (1986) find the combination of two-way task with small group setting necessary to bring out the full potential of the task. Moreover, recent research by Gass and Varonis (1985) reveals that the greatest amount of modification takes place when the participants of the group (a) have different language proficiency levels, (b) are non-native speakers, and (c) have different Ll.

Conclusion This paper has discussed the development of language and language learning theories and its reflection on the Hong Kong Secondary School English Syllabus. Suggestions have also been made on how teachers can realize the emphasis of the Hong Kong Syllabus in the classroom, with the main focus on group work and task. This paper, however, has not dealt with the roles of the teacher and learner, which are also essential factors for the successful implementation of task-based learning.

The ideas put forward in this paper are meant to be suggestions from which teachers can pick and choose to suit their own teaching contexts. It is well known that schools in Hong Kong have different institutional goals and beliefs in teaching and learning, and subsequently, offer different levels of psychological and practical support. All of these are brought into play in the classroom situation and may place constraints on the implementation of the suggestions made in this paper. However, it is hoped that a better understanding of the principles and the methods of the communicative approach will enhance teaching competence in the language classroom.

Acknowledgement I am grateful to Dr. Martha C. Pennington for her helpful and thorough comments on drafts of this paper.

References Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Breen, M. P. (1987a). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 2. Language Teaching, 20(3),

157-174. Breen, M. P. (1987b). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy (Eds.),

Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Int. Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a commmni cative curriculum in language

teaching. Journal of Applied Linguistics, l(2), 89-112. Brindley, G. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R. K. Johnson

(Ed.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and

accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language learning.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M . (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, I, l-47. Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning). In C. N. Candlin, & D. F. Murphy

(Eds.), Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Int. Curriculum Development Committee. (1983). Syllabus for English (Forms J-v. Hong Kong: Hong

Kong Government Publications. D'Eloia, S. (1987). The uses -- and limits -- of grammar. In T. Enos (Ed.), A sourcebook for basic

writing teachers New York: Random House. Doughty, C., & Pica, T.. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language

acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20(2), 305-325. Etherton, A. R. B. (1981). English language syllabus in Hong Kong. English Bulletin, 7(4), 9-18. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Negotiation of meaning in normative speaker/ nonnative speaker

conversation. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hartwell, P. (1987). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. In T. Enos (Ed.), A sourcebook for basic writing teachers. New York: Random House.

Jacobs, G. (1988). Co-operative goal structure: a way to improve group activities. ELT Journal, 42(2), 97-101.

Johnson, R. K. (1981). On “syllabuses” and on being “communicative”. English Bulletin, 7(4), 39-51. Krashen, S. D. (1977). The monitor model or adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H.

Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents Publishing Company.

Lai, C. (1988). An analysis of Hong Kong secondary school English classroom interaction patterns and its relationship with the Hong Kong Secondary School English Syllabus. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Lancaster, England.

Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26.

Long, M. H., Adams L., McLean, M. & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J. Fanselow, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76. Washington, DC: TESOL.

106

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-227.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A

comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.

Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centred discussions. In R. R. Day. (Ed.). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tongue, R. (1980). Towards a more communicative English curriculum in Hong Kong schools. English Bulletin, 7(3), 9-11.

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, T. (1987). Instructional task and discoursal outcome in the L2 classroom. In C.N. Candlin

& D. Murphy (Eds.). Language learning tasks. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Int. Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

107