The Dilemma of IELTS Test Takers at Preparatory Programs in the UAE: A Call for Lexical-Structural Syllabus Design

- Docto reckon of Education nonional Perspectives on Materials and class Design in TESOL(DED609) title The Dilemma of IELTS Test Takers at Preparatory Programmes in the UAE A Call for lexical- morphological political program Design. By Mohammed A. Molhim module tutor Dr. Yasmin yildiz No. of dustup 000 dustup piece of tailvass Outline * Introduction * Conceptual Framework * IELTS home run Rubrics Lexical Resources & grammatic disgorge * Lexical Syllabus * structural Syllabus survival of Lexical and Grammatical Items in Lexical-geomorphologic Syllabus * Structural Syllabus Drawbacks * The Structural Syllabus and Grammar Teaching * Suggested Steps to design a Lexical-Structural Syllabus * Conclusion Introduction Standardized leaven eagerness manikins much(prenominal) as the International slope lecture Testing System (IELTS) in propaedeutic programmes at government and private universities in the unite Arab Emirates (The UAE) prep ar students to picture their e xit draw requirement.Curriculum prep has been driven towards these tribulations. to the highest degree question studies (Read and Hayes, 2003) warned a pee-peest that eccentric person of platform in that it is restricted to those aras that argon to be tried and true with no balance or integrated skills course design. Curriculum designers and so depend heavily on materials ge ard to institutionalize for the need exam. Moreover, Alderson and Hamp-Lyons (1996) surround that these type of curriculum are characterised by statement to the test and even text-book slaves.On the other hand, this try out go away argue that designing and implementing curriculum that is back up by materials that resile and meet the test question types and objectives usher out be beneficial to students preparing for standardised tests in the UAE. This paper get out be outlined as follows After introducing the abstract manikin of the essay, it will highlight the IELTS marking criteria of Lexical Resource and Grammatical micturate in the apply to manifest the literary descent that genius-half of the IELTs marking criteria is found on lexical and grammatic degrees.Then, the type of lexical and morphologic political program that cigarette be proposed to meet students postulate in enhancing the aspect of side talking to accuracy will be pick upd. near practical(a) guidelines will frankincensely be appropriated for designing a lexical-structural programme. Conceptual Framework This essay falls inwardly the conceptual framework of tiny opening and tiny pedagogy.From a social reconstructionism purview, critical theory and critical pedagogy call for critically re- tar with picture fructify quo government issues in program line. Paolo Freire (1972), a critical theorist, debates that in most education dodges at that place exists a hidden curriculum that underlines the status quo actualiseed by the dominant culture and then repressing minority subcultures. Curriculum planning should bear with a constant progressive change ascribable to the progressive nature of the country and educational systems in the UAE.Curriculum change at the level of preceding(prenominal) programmes is an indivisible part of this change since it is ob served that research has permitd plentiful tell apart see published annually (IELTS, 2011) that in the UAE and other Arab countries where the major(ip)ity of students and IELTS test payoffrs struggle to happen upon a level of proficiency matching score dance band 5. 0 that enables them to proceed to their major.This judgment is supported by professional and formal data provided in turn off 1 below which is adapted from the IELTS y proterozoic Review of 2011. These records include a comparison of IELTS results by mother tongue drive outdidates and by country of caudex for the m all countries employ the IELTS tests. Table 1. think about band score for the most customary countries or r egions of starting line Country The UAE Listening teaching committal to written material speechmaking everyplaceall academician faculty 4. 9 4. 8 4. 7 5. 4 5. 0 General Module 4. 3 3. 5 4. 3 4. 9 4. 3It is shocking to retard that the UAE with all of its progressive trends in economy and education, coupled with billions of dollars supporting the educational system where ministries of Higher education and Education receive nigh 22 % of the total budget in the UAE (Ministry of Finance, 2011), is ranked at the bottom of the ranking list in IELTS scores (See Appendix A). This inexplicable incident desperately calls for critical pedagogy in education and in curriculum design in magnitude to problematise the issue and arrive at proper and sustainable solutions.This is wherefore this essay adopts a critical pedagogical cuddle. inside critical pedagogy paradigm, curriculum perspective emphasizes the consumptions schools and examineers tail and should play in addressing s ocial injustices and in ableity. Curriculum phylogeny is non seen as a neutral process. (Ric enceintes, 2001 118). Similarly, Freire (1972) and apple (1986) con hunt d have that schools do not present equal opportunities so learners and teachers must be engaged to address substantial social and personal problems and seek learners empowerment.Morris (199510), further to a greater extent than, argues kindly injustices and inequality would be central issues in the curriculum. fit inly, curriculum designers in the UAE should theater at the mise en scene in which learners are taught and start to constantly problematise current issues in order to improve their designs. In use linguistics, Pennycook (2001 5) asserts that apply linguistics from a critical pedagogy perspective is unceasingly concerned how the schoolroom, text, or conversation is tie in to broader social cultural and political relations,.This paper is think to problematise the issue of curriculum design in the UAE action in that it seeks to establish that solid elements of lexical-structural course of instruction can plump to a better success rate in IELTS. IELTS Marking Rubrics Lexical Resources & Grammatical Range While ample IELTS research studies in university environss is uncommitted (see research reports in IELTS. org), there appears to be slight research on the impact of Speaking and physical composition estimation criteria or IELTS band descriptors on computer programme design.IELTS measures both test candidates abilities to produce contrasting conviction social structures, and the grade and appropriateness of mental lexicon. Consequently, lexical resources and well-formed range are regarded as significant constituents of the intercommunicate and constitution assessment, since they determine the level of dictionary and grammar in speech production and writing the test candidates intention. Test candidates are rated using detailed descriptors in IELTS. In the Sp eaking test, these describe talk performance according to four disparate criteria Fluency and Coherence, Lexical resources, Grammatical Range and Accuracy, and Pronunciation.In the report test, the descriptors assess candidates in monetary value of Task feat or response, Coherence and cohesion, Lexical Resources, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy (IELTS handbook, 2004 18-23). It is clear from the oral presentation and writing assessment criteria that lexical resources and grammatic range constitute half of the assessment. They describe test takers level in grammar and wording in the speaking and writing modules in detail. They should because occupy a big part of any curriculum design for IELTs formulation curriculum.Accordingly, this essay argues that a balanced lexical-structural political program can attention in meeting the course objectives and students needs of any IELTS provision course. Lexical Syllabus Empowering students Lexical Resources in IELTS Historically, computer programes were not lexical notwithstanding structural. With the advent of the Communicative Approach, tonic ideas in course of instruction design dedicate been introduced with a focusing on functions. In 1990, when Willis wrote The Lexical Syllabus, a large amount of attention to the Lexical programme surfaced. Willis (1990, P. vi)) identified three major aspects for lexis in lexical computer programme.First, the verbiage to be wise to(p) should be in some manner graded to subscribe it easier for the learners to understand. imprimatur, the dictionary should be selected conservatively without random exposure. Thirdly, the expression platform should be itemised Over the medieval thirty years the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), however, has not emphasized direct schooling of diction or grammar (Laufer 2006). CLT should therefore be regarded as inappropriate for IELTS preparation exam courses and more than lucid instruction of lexis and grammar co uld help students achieve their desired score in IELTS.In fact, according to Zahar, Cobb and Spada (2001), three periods of direct side instruction every week would lead to the ensuant encyclopedism of only 70 crude formulates a year. Therefore, skill of expression by dint of filling must be supplemented by direct instruction, which can be supported by incorporating a lexical syllabus. In addition, the lexical syllabus can make academic incline vocabulary needed in IELTS more learnable to lower-level learners.There is in addition a well set up connection between vocabulary cognition and happy academic accognitionledge (Corson 1997 Nation 2001144-149). Thus, the import of incorporating lexical syllabus is significantly clear for large-scale high-stakes tests much(prenominal) as IELTS that assess the range of vocabulary exhibited in a students writing and speaking (See Appendix A). It should be admitted that producing satis geney IELTS writing and speaking responses is not achieved by just learning several(prenominal) vocabulary and grammatic structures.However, lexical items can lead to further enhancing students boilersuit proficiency in IELTS. Some research ((Laufer, 2005 Nation 2001) has proven that lexical resources are the basis for comprehending grammar and lexical meanings. It is also the most important predictor of writing production (Read, 2002) and designateing intuition (Beck et. al. 1987147). In the IELTS speaking test, a similar lexical diversity would also be needed as suggested by Read (2005) who found that diverse lexical resources with some sophistication are rated high.Regarding the adequate vocabulary range for academic success in internationalist standardised tests, researchers (Laufer, 1992 Nation, 2001) argued that students, depending on the genre, need rough 3,000 talking to in order for them to be able to read ungraded academic text and that the minimum word family level is the 3,000 word level needed for read ing an unsimplified text. For IELTS reading texts, about 4,000 word families cogency be needed, 2,000 of General Service List (GSL) and about 570 words from the Academic Word List (AWL) (Coxhead, 1998) and about 1,000 adept words, proper nouns and low frequency vocabulary (Nation, 2001147).Accordingly, commercially-produced syllabi much(prenominal) as header do not provide the wide range of lexical resources needed by the students (Horst, 2005 Lee, 2007) in order for them to develop their lexis repertoire and to hence get the score required to pass IELTS. Moreover, there is enough suggestive research evidence (See Beaton, Grunederg and Ellis, 1995 in Nation, 2001) that would indicate that the more vocabulary range manifested in speaking, the higher(prenominal) the score a student would get in writing.This shows that direct scholarship is in fact both effective and efficient and that the AWL can provide a reasonablenessable target vocabulary for IELTS preparation courses and syllabi. In terms of the relation of grammar and vocabulary, David Wilkins (cited in Lewis, 2000 8) famous that Without grammar little can be conveyed, without vocabulary zipper can be conveyed. This statement brings to focus the entailment of incorporating lexical with a well-formed element when designing a syllabus aiming at enhancing students structural quarrel system and accuracy and hence achieving a higher score in IELTS.The following section will shed some light on the significance of developing students accuracy through grammatical structures in structural syllabi. Structural Syllabus Revisiting grammatical syllabus The structural syllabus comprises of a group of grammatical items that are selected and graded according to simplicity and complexity (Nunan, 1988). A structural-lexical syllabus principle objective is to help the learners acquire the grammatical structures and vocabulary of the wording they are learning.The grammatical structures are usually presented in a certain sequence, for pattern, present followed by past, or in contrasting pairs, for representative, simple(a) present versus simple past (Long and Crookes, 1993). Wilkins (1976) describes this type of syllabus design approach as synthetic in which the various parts of speech communication are separately taught and there is a tardy accumulation of the parts until the whole structure of the phraseology has been built up. (p. 2) Wilkins suggests language is structured into small items and units in a structural syllabus and then it is presented discretely.Wilkins argues that this exposes learners to particular samples of language in which one grammatical feature dominates each lesson in the syllabus. This is mainly base on the hypothesis that grammatical and lexical rules are learned in an additive process, by which learners gain complete mastery of each item in the beginning a new one is taught (Nunan, 1988). It is hence the learners chore to re-synthesize the grammatical a nd lexical items that shed been presented in a separate way (Wilkins, 1976). An important question raised here is the set of criteria teachers used to select which lexical and grammatical were to be used in the structural syllabus.This will be reviewed in the following sections. Selection of Lexical and Grammatical Items in Lexical-structural Syllabus Mackey (1965) takes the em localisation that the lexical items in a structural syllabus are to be selected on the basis of criteria of frequency, coverage, availability, and learnability (White 198849-50). In the 1990s, the lexical approach in instruct and learning started to gain formal prominence among many researchers (Willis, 1990 Willis, 1996). As proposed by the lexical approach, a target germ of vocabulary is suggested to be learned at a particularised level (Willis, 1990 Willis, 1996).These target vocabulary are derived from obsolescent corpus analysis of written and spoken slope, but this could be regarded now as unfa shionable with the advancement of computerized corpus. However, one view, suggested by Richards (2001154) is that lexical syllabuses were among the early types of syllabuses to be designed in language article of faith. Regarding grammar structure, Mackey also (1965) proposes four criteria for the selection grammatical structures simplicity, regularity, frequency, and contrastive difficulty.The die item, contrastive difficulty, means that learning some items at an early stage should resemble the same item acquired in L1 (cited in Wilkins 1976 6). These views of language selection have been challenged (e. g. , Ellis 2001). due to its lack of empirical experiments. Thus to determine the level of complexity, simplicity, regularity, etc. is almost altogether base on language teachers and syllabus designers common virtuoso judgments. This dilemma, addressed in the following section, is one of the major shortcomings of the structural syllabus.Structural Syllabus Drawbacks A number of limitations have been identified with the structural syllabus. The first shortcoming is worn from Corders (1967) built-in syllabus concept in which learners attainment of divers(prenominal) grammatical items is establish on a natural order. This notion is supported by many researchers (for example, Hyltenstam and Pienemann, 1985). Within the framework of a built-in syllabus, grammatical complexity of a structure is not the reason for the difficulty of learning a structure of a language item.For instance, a common example of Arab Learners frequent misidentifys is the acquisition of third person s morpheme (Hajjaj, 1999). level off though an average teacher can excuse this item very well to Arabic learners, it constantly poses a challenge to them, which means difficulty or simplicity of language structure doesnt always guarantee proper learning. This should be taken into heartbreaking consideration when designing a lexical-grammatical syllabus for IELTS preparation courses and therefrom adding meaningful activities that make the structures more memorable and relevant to learners needs and levels.The foster main contradict aspect of the structural syllabus is its lack of language functions. The structural syllabus is a reliable diaphysis for assisting language learners to perfect common grammar rules. However, in terms of sociolinguistics, structural syllabus can prepare learners to be grammatically competent but communicatoryly incompetent (Johnson, 1982). A learner who replies Yes, I do. to Do you mind if I open the window? is a typical example of a learner whose command of English grammar might be ideal yet they are not capable of producing socially appropriate utterances.In other words, the structural syllabus helps learners produce instances of language usage or else than language use (Widdowson, 1978). Accordingly, syllabus designers who consider implementing lexical-structural syllabus need to promote both usage and use in order to avoid turn ing the language introduced into something meaningless. Socially contextualised and relevant language items introduced appropriately at heart interactive technique can bridge the hurly burly between use and usage and make grammar yielding and learnable. This will be discussed in the following section. The Structural Syllabus and Grammar TeachingBefore advocating a lexical-grammatical syllabus, it is necessary to first establish the significance of explicit grammar tenet and learning. One take in secant language pedagogy has been about the teachability of grammar. Some scholars have argued against teaching grammar since it leads to only stripped achievement in the acquisition of linguistic competence in English (Krashen, 1982 Krashen and Terrel, 1983 Prabhu, 1987). Others have contended that explicitly teaching formal grammar plays a significant role in the maturement of the L2 learners interlanguage system (Rutherford, 1987 Ellis, 1990, 1993).This paper supports the grammar ians arguments in favor of formal grammar instruction that enhances IELTS UAE students and test takers accuracy. The first argument is based on studies on the increment of immersion programs in Canada where many English L1 students strike French and thus have been immersed in meaning- cogitate stimulant drug in French (Swain, 1985 Swain and Lapkin, 1995). The results of research studies revealed that the majority of students have developed native-like receptive skills, but their productive ones are still far from native-like norms.This has therefore suggested that meaning-focused input instruction, which is devoid of any formal grammar teaching, is more potential to result in fossilization. The momentment argument defending formal grammar instruction derives from research (e. g. , Felix, 1985 White, 1987 Schachter, 1989) that suggests that bighearted L2 learners cannot have full access to the same acquisition resources as children with L1 do. This makes positive evidence such as formal instruction and corrective feedback.White (1987105) finds that French learners of English as a second language tend to make decrys like John drank slowly his burnt umber (John buvait lentement son cafe). These types of fates are grammatically incorrect in English, but acceptable in their language. Those learners receiving positive evidence cannot keep an eye on that there are certain rules for adverb position within a sentence in English unless they are taught so by formal grammar instruction, which implies that lexical-structural syllabus can play a decisive role in some formal aspects of L2 learning and thus in IELTs preparation courses.The third argument has been proposed by Ellis (1990, 1993) who argues that formal grammar instruction develops explicit certifiedness of grammatical elements which hence helps learners acquire implicit knowledge. Ellis believes that the explicit knowledge of grammar instruction facilitates learning in three methods (199398). First, it encourages them to monitoring device their language before and after production. Terrell (199161) observes that monitoring can apparently interact with acquisition, resulting in learners acquiring their own takings which shows the importance of monitoring in formal language instruction. import, explicit teaching and learning support the factor of noticing certain elements in the input. Therefore, if learners know that plural nouns have an s, they are more likely to notice the s on the ends of nouns they hear or read in input and also more likely to associate the s morpheme with the meaning more than one. (Ellis,199398). This example illustrates how specific features of grammar are best learned explicitly.Third, formal and explicit grammar knowledge assists learners in noticing some wisecracks in their language production. Thus if, for instance, Arab learners learn that verbs take an s in the third person unique form, they are more likely to notice the gap when adding the thi rd person singular s or not, which leads to more accurate production later as they produce similar structures. Furthermore, Celce-Murica (1991 467-468) suggests that formal lexical and grammar teaching can enhance meaning and social function.For instance, drawing attention to the different spatial denotation of the prepositions in and on the learner will find it useable to know quite explicitly that in favors the placement of objects in three-dimensional containers and on favors the placement of objects on two-dimensional flat surfaces if provided with formal instruction. Second, in an example of grammar enhancing social functions, Celee-Murcia discusses that learners need to be aware of the different modal auxiliaries uses in polite requests such as the difference between Can you open the penetration? and Could you open the door? . Celce-Murcia and Hilles (19884) believe that learners need to study grammar because many of them are to take part in international tests such as IELTS and that Typically, a major component of such exams is grammar. Therefore, to give these students an incomplete foundation garment in grammar, regardless of ones conviction about teaching it, is to do them a great disservice. Students have to know and apply the rules of English grammar in order to do well on such tests. A comparatively recent argument proposed by Ellis (2001) argues that it is a mistake to suppose that learning extraneous languages in schools is entirely to promote communication among speakers of different languages. Learning remote languages has a more valuable end, i. e. promoting intellectual growth. (Ellis 2001172) thus views learning a contrasted language as a means to develop cognitive abilities and that grammar contains knowledge that contributes to learners cognitive skills.If one considers all the arguments discussed earlier in this essay claiming that formal teaching of lexical and grammatical items should be an indivisible part of any English classes, structural-lexical syllabus seems indispensible for students preparing for international examination such as IELTS and TOEFL. This is, however, only my conviction within my teaching context and does not entail that curriculum designers and teachers are to backtrack to old traditionalistic language teaching methodologies such as grammar-translation method. I elieve that adopting a merely lexical and/or structural syllabus has not survived in language education because they overemphasized the aspect of grammar teaching through many tedious structural drills. I believe that it is unfair to judge that grammar and lexical instruction should be eliminated simply because of insufficiencies of audio-lingual or grammar-translation methods. A balanced lexical-structural syllabus can be safely employed, in particular in IELTS preparation courses, provided that it is supplemented by motivating and communicative tasksSuggested steps to design a Lexical-Structural Syllabus According to Ste rn (1983339-340), there are major differences between English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL). Accordingly, EFL and ESL students are positioned in different learning hold ins. ESL students learn Target Language (TL) in a more supportive setting in that they are more exposed to TL in its natural environment EFL. Considering needs and motivation, ESL students are more required and move to communicate with foreigners than EFL students.Thus, ESL students learning needs are decidedly not centered on one factor or need. As previously discussed, the majority of Arab students in the UAE are EFL learners who study English in order to pass national exams, such as IELTS. This educational structure of teaching applies in the EFL environment in the UAE. Based on my observations and experience, I found that students in Emirati high schools are also required to learn specific discrete items such as vocabulary and grammatical items without any exposure to commu nicative tasks that enable them to use these items meaningfully.Unfortunately, only those who wish to pursue their higher education strive to master the grammatical and vocabulary items of their course books in order for them to achieve the required score of the university entrance exams. When taking these conditions into serious consideration, I have come to realize the reason why lexical and grammar instruction can, and perhaps should, be an inborn component of any curriculum in the Emirati EFL educational system in schools, and this can be contingent through the lexical-structural syllabus proposed in this essay.It is argued that (Richards, 2001) old and traditional language teaching methods did not succeed not because they adhered to a structural or lexical syllabus but because the implementation process was too robotlike through dull drills of discrete language items. I believe that a well-designed lexical-structural syllabus proposed in this essay can survive through two ty pes of tasks wittingness-raising and communicative tasks. Consciousness-raising activities can develop explicit knowledge and communicative tasks improve the implicit knowledge of lexical and grammatical structures (Ellis, 2001).As defined by Ellis (1993109), consciousness-raising is a deliberate strain on the part of the teacher to make the learners aware of specific features of the L2. The following task in Table 2 (Ellis, 2001173) is a straightforward sample of a consciousness-raising (CR) activity that is designed to help learners be conscious of the difference between the prepositions for and since. Table 2. An Example of a CR Problem-solving Task 1. Here is some selective information about when three people joined the confederation they now work for and how long they have been functional there.Name Date Joined Length of Time Ms Regan 1945 45 yrs Mr Bush 1970 20 yrs Ms Thatcher 1989 9 mths Mr Baker 1990 (Feb) 10 days 2. Study these sentences about these people. When is for used and when is since used? a. Ms Regan has been running(a) for her familiarity for most of her life. b. Mr Bush has been work for his follow since 1970. c. Ms Thatcher has been working for her company for 9 months. . Mr Baker has been working for his company since February. 3. Which of the following sentences are ungrammatical? wherefore? a. Ms Regan has been working for her company for 1945. b. Mr Bush has been working for his company for 20 years. c. Ms Thatcher has been working for her company since 1989. d. Mr Baker has been working for his company since 10 days. 4. exploit and make up a rule to condone when for and since are used. 5. Make up one sentence about when you started to learn English and one sentence about how long you have been studying English.Use for and since. It is my argument that if this exercise is supported by a communicative task where learners interact in pairs or with the classroom teacher it would enable them to internalise the target structure and use it in real-life communication. Designing a lexical-structural based syllabus is not a very hard task. There are many resources based on well-established research that can help syllabus designers mannequin up their course (Lewis, 1997a,1997b). This essay offers some hypnotisms on how to build a lexical-structural activities and syllabus.First, syllabus designers need to situate a relevant set of structures, vocabulary and different types of collocations (Lewis,1997a) and organise them according to their increasing complexity, starting from simple structures to complex ones. Second, syllabus designers should choose categories of vocabulary items to be learned and sequence the categories according to situational and functional characteristics such as vocabulary related topics such as environment, health, internet, education and so on since IELTS module is commonly based on globally social topics.Third, syllabus designers should integrate the group of vocabulary and structur es together into learning objectives to base the units of lexical-structural syllabus. Although this essay advocates the implementation of a lexical-structural syllabus in IELTS preparation course at preparatory programmes in the UAE, it is necessary to admit that an eclectic and multi-focus syllabus which includes a wide range of components, specifically vocabulary, structures introduced through functions and, situations can allow for a two-sided approach.This can emphasise the importance of systematically learning specific vocabulary and structures and building up linguistic knowledge, and at the same time it can focus on meeting immediate language communicative needs and sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. Conclusion In my essay, I only propose that lexical-structural syllabus can safely be employed in EFL settings, particularly in the UAE. Previously, it was argued that the majority of EFL students in the UAE must score reasonably high in their university entrance English exams. This condition requires them to learn many grammatical and lexical structures.It is my suggestion that a lexical-structural syllabus can efficiently serve this purpose. Nevertheless, this argument should not be interpreted as a call for a return to old approaches such as the grammar-translation method. What I have attempt to proposed in this essay is two-fold. First, designing a balanced external syllabus that adequately matches the learners internal syllabus and second, empowering this potential syllabus with innovative learning ideas and tasks discussed earlier, such as consciousness-raising and communicative tasks.I hope my recommendations will roost fresh life into the body of the proposed lexical-structural syllabus. References Apple, L. 1986. Teachers and texts. revolutionary York Routlege and Kegan Paul. Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , and Omanson, R. C. (1987). The set up and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. McKeown and Curtis, M. E. (ed s. ) (1987). The temper of lexicon Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 147 163. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 45a-480. Celce-Murcia, M. , and Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar.Oxford Oxford University force per unit area. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. IRAL, 5, 161-169. Corson, D. 1997. The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning, 47 (4), 671 718. Coxhead, A. (1998). An Academic Word List. Occasional Publication moment 18, LALS, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Dixon, R. J. (1977). Modern American English Book 2. New Edition. New York Regents Publishing Company, Inc. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford Basil Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOT Quarterly, 27, 91113.Ellis, R. (2001). Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness -raising? In J. C. Richards, and W. A. Renandya (Eds. ), Methodology in language teaching An anthology of current practice (pp. I 67-174). Cambridge Cambridge University Press. English Language Services. (1964). English 900. New York pitman Macmillan. Felix, S. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47-72. Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York Herder and Herder. Hajjaj, A. (1999). Arab students writing mistakes Renewing the issue. Dirasat Human and Social Sciences, University of Jordan, 26. 621-633. Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through spacious reading A amount study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355382. Hyltenstam, K. , and Pienemann, M. (Eds. ). (1985). poser and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon Multilingual Matters. IELTS. (2007). IELTS Handbook 2007. Cambridge USLES. Retrieved on 15/12/2012 from http//www. ielts. org/pdf/IELTS_Handbook_2007. pdf. IELTS. (2011). IELTS Test tak er performance 2011. Cambridge USLES. Accessed 15/12/2012 from .Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford. Oxford University Press Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford Pergamon. Krashen, S. , and Ten-el, T. (1983). The natural approach language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford Pergamon. Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (1), 149-166. Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for comprehension? In P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (eds. ) Vocabulary and Applied linguals. Macmillan London. Lee, S-Y. 2007). Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38, 150170. Lewis, M. (1997a). Implementing the lexical approach Putting theory into practice. Hove, England Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997b). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds. ),Second language vocabulary acquisition A rationale for pedagogy(pp. 255-270). Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Long, M. , and Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design The case for task. In G. Crookes, and S. M. Gass (Eds. ), Tasks in a pedagogical context (pp. 9-54).Clevedon, Avon Multilingual Matters. Mackey, W. F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London Longman. Ministry of Finance, 2011. Budget Report. Accessed 15/12/2012 . Morris, P. (1995). The Hong Kong curriculum. Hong Kong Hong Kong University Press Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford Oxford University Press. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Lingistics A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, New Jersey and London Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam, and M. Pienemann (Eds. ), Modelling and assessing secon d language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon Multilingual Matters. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford Oxford University Press. Read, J. (2002). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Read, J. (2005). Applying lexical statistics to the IELTS speaking test. Research Notes, May, 2005. Richards,J. C. (2000). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar Teaching and learning.London Longman. Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass and J. Schachter (Eds. ), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73-88). Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Soars, J. , and Soars, L. (1991). Headway Pre- Intermediate. Oxford Oxford University Press. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output i n its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds. ), Input in Second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA Newbury House.Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-91. Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75, 52-63. train Patten, B. (1992). Second language acquisition research and foreign language teaching, Part I. ADFL Bulletin, 23, 52-55. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95- 110. White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Design, innovation and management.Oxford Basil Blackwell. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford Oxford University Press. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. OxfordOxford University Press. Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syll abus A new approach to language teaching. London Collins. Willis. J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Oxford Longman. Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford Pergamon. Zahar, R. , Cobb, T. and Spada, N. 2001. Acquiring vocabulary through reading Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (4), 541-572.Appendix A (Adapted from www. ielts. org) IELTS Researchers Test taker performance 2011 Band score information Place of Origin These figures show the mean overall and individual band scores achieved by 2011 Academic and General Training candidates from the top 40 places of origin. consider band score for the most frequent countries or regions of origin (Academic) Academic Listening Reading Writing Speaking OVERALL Bangladesh 5. 9 5. 6 5. 6 5. 9 5. 8 Brazil 6. 8 6. 9 6. 2 6. 9 6. 7 mainland China (Peoples Republic) 5. 8 5. 9 5. 2 5. 3 5. 6 Colombia 6. 2 6. 4 5. 7 6. 4 6. 2 Cyprus 6. 4 5. 9 5. 7 6. 6. 1 Egypt 6. 3 6. 1 5. 8 6. 3 6. 2 France 6. 9 6. 9 6. 3 6. 8 6. 8 Germany 7. 0 6. 6 6. 4 7. 2 6. 8 Ghana 4. 8 4. 3 5. 7 6. 5 5. 4 Hong Kong 6. 7 6. 4 5. 9 6. 2 6. 4 India 6. 4 5. 6 5. 8 6. 2 6. 1 Indonesia 6. 6 6. 3 5. 9 6. 3 6. 4 Iran 5. 8 5. 4 5. 8 6. 3 5. 9 Iraq 5. 7 5. 2 5. 4 6. 2 5. 7 Italy 6. 2 6. 1 5. 8 6. 4 6. 2 lacquer 6. 0 5. 6 5. 5 5. 8 5. 8 Jordan 5. 9 5. 5 5. 5 6. 3 5. 9 Kenya 6. 7 6. 1 6. 6 7. 2 6. 7 Korea, South 6. 2 6. 1 5. 4 5. 7 5. 9 Kuwait 5. 3 4. 9 4. 8 5. 6 5. 2 Libya 5. 2 5. 1 5. 1 5. 8 5. 4 Malaysia 7. 7. 0 6. 2 6. 6 6. 9 Mexico 6. 7 6. 8 5. 9 6. 5 6. 6 Nepal 6. 3 5. 8 5. 7 6. 0 6. 0 Nigeria 6. 1 6. 0 6. 2 7. 0 6. 4 Oman 5. 3 5. 1 5. 0 5. 7 5. 4 Pakistan 5. 8 5. 5 5. 6 6. 0 5. 8 Philippines 7. 0 6. 6 6. 2 6. 8 6. 7 Qatar 4. 8 4. 6 4. 5 5. 3 4. 9 Romania 7. 2 7. 0 6. 2 6. 8 6. 9 Russia 6. 6 6. 6 5. 9 6. 6 6. 5 Saudi Arabia 4. 9 4. 8 4. 7 5. 6 5. 1 Spain 6. 7 6. 9 6. 0 6. 5 6. 6 Sri Lanka 6. 6 6. 0 5. 9 6. 5 6. 3 Sudan 5. 9 5. 7 5. 5 6. 2 5. 9 mainland China 5. 9 6. 0 5. 5 5. 9 5. 9 Thailand 5. 9 5. 9 5. 3 5. 7 5. 8 Turkey 6. 0 5. 5. 3 5. 8 5. 8 United Arab Emirates 4. 9 4. 8 4. 7 5. 4 5. 0 Uzbekistan 5. 7 5. 6 5. 0 5. 5 5. 5 Vietnam 5. 9 6. 1 5. 6 5. 7 5. 9 Mean band score for the most frequent countries or regions of origin (General Training) General Training Listening Reading Writing Speaking OVERALL Bangladesh 6. 1 5. 4 5. 8 6. 2 5. 9 Brazil 6. 4 6. 3 6. 1 6. 7 6. 4 China (Peoples Republic) 6. 3 6. 0 5. 7 5. 8 6. 0 Colombia 5. 7 5. 7 5. 6 6. 0 5. 8 Egypt 6. 3 5. 9 5. 9 6. 4 6. 2 France 6. 9 6. 8 6. 3 6. 8 6. 8 Germany 6. 9 6. 6 6. 4 7. 1 6. 8 Hong Kong SAR 6. 7 6. 4 5. 6. 2 6. 4 India 6. 3 5. 7 5. 8 6. 2 6. 1 Indonesia 6. 7 6. 2 5. 9 6. 3 6. 3 Iran 5. 7 5. 4 5. 8 6. 3 5. 9 Iraq 5. 7 5. 3 5. 5 6. 3 5. 8 Italy 6. 2 6. 3 5. 8 6. 4 6. 2 lacquer 6 5. 6 5. 5 5. 9 5. 8 Jordan 6 5. 6 5. 5 6. 3 5. 9 Kenya 6. 8 6. 4 6. 7 7. 3 6. 9 Korea, South 5. 8 5. 4 5. 3 5. 4 5. 5 Lebanon 6. 3 5. 7 5. 9 6. 6 6. 2 Malaysia 7. 3 6. 9 6. 5 7. 0 7. 0 Mauritius 6. 5 5. 9 6. 2 6. 7 6. 4 Mexico 6. 3 6. 3 6. 0 6. 6 6. 3 Nepal 6. 3 5. 6 5. 9 6. 2 6. 1 Nigeria 5. 9 5. 9 6. 6 7. 1 6. 4 Pakistan 6. 2 5. 5 6. 0 6. 4 6. 1Philippines 6. 2 5. 7 5. 9 6. 3 6. 1 Romania 6. 5 6. 3 5. 9 6. 2 6. 3 Russia 6. 4 6. 3 6. 0 6. 4 6. 3 Saudi Arabia 4. 6 3. 8 4. 4 5. 0 4. 5 Singapore 7. 7 7. 3 6. 9 7. 5 7. 4 South Africa 7. 4 7. 0 7. 3 8. 4 7. 6 Sri Lanka 6. 3 5. 7 5. 8 6. 3 6. 1 Taiwan 6. 3 5. 8 5. 8 6. 2 6. 1 Thailand 5. 6 5. 2 5. 3 5. 6 5. 5 Turkey 5. 8 5. 5 5. 5 5. 8 5. 7 Ukraine 5. 8 5. 6 5. 5 6. 0 5. 8 United Arab Emirates 4. 3 3. 5 4. 3 4. 9 4. 3 United States of America 8. 0 7. 6 7. 7 8. 6 8. 0 Venezuela 6. 3 6. 3 6. 1 6. 4 6. 3 Vietnam 5. 8 5. 6 5. 7 5. 7 5. 8