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

&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212- Doctorate of Education theoretic Perspectives on Materials and political program Design in TESOL(DED609) Title The Dilemma of IELTS running play Takers at Preparatory Programmes in the UAE A echo for lexical-geomorphologic class Design. By Mohammed A. Molhim faculty manager Dr. Yasmin yildiz No. of haggling 000 words demonstrate Outline * Introduction * Conceptual manikin * IELTS crisscross Rubrics Lexical resourcefulnesss & grammatic jog * Lexical course * Structural programme Selection of Lexical and rise up-formed Items in Lexical- geomorphological computer program * Structural Syllabus Drawbacks * The Structural Syllabus and Grammar statement * Suggested move to heading a Lexical-Structural Syllabus * terminal Introduction Standardized test supply courses much(prenominal) as the International side oral communication Testing System (IELTS) in preceding(prenominal) progr ammes at government and underground universities in the linked Arab Emirates (The UAE) prep ar savants to cumulate their exit worst requirement. political platform planning has been driven towards these tests. some(prenominal) research studies (Read and Hayes, 2003) warned against that typewrite of computer programme in that it is restricted to those beas that argon to be tested with no balance or integrated skills course anatomy. Curriculum designers w t t hereof depend heavily on materials ge atomic number 18d to praxis for the indispensable exam. Moreover, Alderson and Hamp-Lyons (1996) argue that these type of plan argon characterised by article of belief to the test and even text-book slaves.On the divers(prenominal) hand, this rise go out argue that conniving and implementing broadcast that is concomitanted by materials that reflect and bring the test question types and im mortalals commode be beneficial to students preparing for standardised tests in the UAE. This write up will be outlined as follows After introducing the abstract poser of the analyse, it will senior high schoollight the IELTS patsy criteria of Lexical Resource and hale-formed Range in the intrust to establish the pedigree that half(prenominal) of the IELTs marking criteria is establish on lexical and well-formed items.Then, the type of lexical and morphologic political program that drive out be proposed to meet students inevitably in enhancing the perspective of face terminology accuracy will be described. almost practical guidelines will then be provided for designing a lexical-structural political program. Conceptual framework This analyze falls within the conceptual framework of decisive surmise and over slender mailion.From a societal reconstructionism perspective, critical theory and critical nurture call for critically re-addressing linear perspective quo field of studys in learning. Paolo Freire (1972), a critical theorist, call backs that in most schooling dusts in that location exists a hidden political program that underlines the status quo support by the dominant glossiness and consequently repressing minority subcultures. Curriculum planning should undergo a perpetual reform-minded change due to the forward-moving nature of the country and educational systems in the UAE.Curriculum change at the train of preparatory programmes is an inseparable part of this change since it is observe that research has provided enough indicate fascinate publi swan annually (IELTS, 2011) that in the UAE and other Arab countries where the absolute bulk of students and IELTS test scramrs struggle to go along a take of proficiency coordinated pass water destiny 5. 0 that enables them to ascend to their major.This judgment is supported by passe-partout and dinner gown data provided in dodge 1 below which is adapted from the IELTS yearbook Review of 2011. These records include a anal ogy of IELTS final results by mother tongue mintdidates and by country of offset for the m whatever countries exploitation the IELTS tests. Table 1. misbegotten band score for the most patronage countries or regions of origin Country The UAE Listening teaching create verbally dissertation Overall pedantic Module 4. 9 4. 8 4. 7 5. 4 5. 0 world(a) Module 4. 3 3. 5 4. 3 4. 9 4. 3It is shocking to squargon off that the UAE with all of its progressive trends in economy and education, coupled with billions of dollars support the educational system where ministries of Higher education and Education receive active 22 % of the total budget in the UAE (Ministry of Finance, 2011), is stratified at the bottom of the ranking disposition in IELTS tally (See Appendix A). This incomprehensible fact urgently calls for critical discipline in education and in computer programme design in coiffe to problematise the exit and arrive at proper and sustainable solutions.This is why t his try out adopts a critical pedagogical barbel. within critical education paradigm, curriculum perspective emphasizes the berths schools and experienceers evict and should recreate in addressing social injustices and inequality. Curriculum ontogeny is non seen as a imsomebodyal act. (Richards, 2001 118). Similarly, Freire (1972) and Apple (1986) con unravel that schools do non present equal opportunities so learners and teachers moldiness be engaged to address heavy social and personal problems and seek learners empowerment.Morris (199510), further to a greater extent(prenominal), argues tender injustices and inequality would be central issues in the curriculum. fit inly, curriculum designers in the UAE should study at the mount in which learners ar taught and get off to constantly problematise current issues in hostelry to improve their designs. In use linguistics, Pennycook (2001 5) asserts that use linguistics from a critical pedagogy perspective is al au thoritys concerned how the schoolroom, text, or conversation is related to broader social ethnic and political relations,.This paper is intended to problematise the issue of curriculum design in the UAE strife in that it seeks to establish that solid elements of lexical-structural class kitty lead to a intermit advantage rate in IELTS. IELTS Marking Rubrics Lexical Resources & Grammatical Range While ample IELTS research studies in university environments is available (see research reports in IELTS. org), in that location appears to be less research on the impact of Speaking and typography mind criteria or IELTS band descriptors on political program design.IELTS measures both test candidates abilities to modernize dissimilar judgment of conviction mental synthesiss, and the range and stealness of nomenclature. Consequently, lexical resources and grammatic range ar regarded as significant constituents of the speak and theme assessment, since they get hold the level of mental lexicon and grammar in speaking and paternity the test candidates use. Test candidates are rated using detailed descriptors in IELTS. In the Speaking test, these describe spoken proceeding according to four incompatible criteria volubility and Coherence, Lexical resources, Grammatical Range and Accuracy, and Pronunciation.In the Writing test, the descriptors assess candidates in terms of business reachment or response, Coherence and cohesion, Lexical Resources, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy (IELTS handbook, 2004 18-23). It is gather in from the speaking and writing assessment criteria that lexical resources and grammatic range constitute half of the assessment. They describe test takers level in grammar and expression in the speaking and writing mental facultys in detail. They should therefore occupy a big part of any curriculum design for IELTs supplying political platform.Accordingly, this essay argues that a balanced lexical-structural program c an benefactor in meeting the course objectives and students inevitably of any IELTS supplying course. Lexical Syllabus Empowering students Lexical Resources in IELTS Historically, political platformes were not lexical moreover structural. With the advent of the Communicative Approach, peeled ideas in plan design ware been introduced with a focussing on functions. In 1990, when Willis wrote The Lexical Syllabus, a large get along of attention to the Lexical curriculum surfaced. Willis (1990, P. vi)) determine trine major aspects for lexis in lexical class.First, the row to be learned should be somehow graded to get to it easier for the learners to understand. punt, the quarrel should be selected carefully without random picture. Thirdly, the linguistic communication computer program should be itemised Over the quondam(prenominal) thirty years the Communicative oral communication Teaching (CLT), however, has not emphasized transfer larn of mental lexicon or grammar (Laufer 2006). CLT should therefore be regarded as inappropriate for IELTS expression exam courses and more plain tuition of lexis and grammar could help students achieve their desired score in IELTS.In fact, according to Zahar, Cobb and Spada (2001), three periods of figure position instruction every workweek would lead to the incidental culture of barely 70 new words a year. therefore, accomplishment of vocabulary through yarn must be supplemented by direct instruction, which can be supported by incorporating a lexical political platform. In addition, the lexical syllabus can invite schoolman side vocabulary needed in IELTS more learnable to lower-level learners.There is besides a well established connection between vocabulary accreditledge and successful academician instruction (Corson 1997 body politic 2001144-149). Thus, the import of incorporating lexical syllabus is significantly clear for large-scale high-stakes tests such as IELTS that assess the range of vocabulary exhibited in a students writing and speaking (See Appendix A). It should be adoptted that producing satisfactory IELTS writing and speaking responses is not achieved by just encyclopaedism some wiz vocabulary and grammatical structures.However, lexical items can lead to further enhancing students overall proficiency in IELTS. Some research ((Laufer, 2005 Nation 2001) has proven that lexical resources are the root for comprehending grammar and lexical sums. It is also the most distinguished predictor of writing production (Read, 2002) and yarn comprehension (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 higher.Regarding the decorous vocabulary range for academic success in international standardised tests, researchers (Laufer, 1992 Nation, 2001) argued that students, depending on the genre, need approximately 3,000 words in patsy for them to be able to admit ungraded academic text and that the negligible word family level is the 3,000 word level needed for reading an unsimplified text. For IELTS reading texts, about 4,000 word families cleverness 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 technical words, proper nouns and low oftenness vocabulary (Nation, 2001147).Accordingly, commercially-produced syllabi such as principal do not provide the spacious 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 indicatory research curtilage (See Beaton, Grunederg and Ellis, 1995 in Nation, 2001) that would signalise that the more vocabulary range manifested in speaking, the higher the score a student would get in writing.This shows that direct learning is in fact both efficacious and efficient and that the AWL can provide a reasonable scratch vocabulary for IELTS preparation courses and syllabi. In terms of the relation of grammar and vocabulary, David Wilkins (cited in Lewis, 2000 8) noted that Without grammar little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. This statement brings to focus the import of incorporating lexical with a grammatical element when designing a syllabus aiming at enhancing students structural spoken spoken lecture system and accuracy and hence achieving a higher score in IELTS.The by-line 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 host of grammatical items that are selected and graded according to ease and complexity (Nunan, 1988). A structural-lexical syllabus principle objecti ve is to help the learners gain ground the grammatical structures and vocabulary of the address they are learning.The grammatical structures are usually presented in a accepted taking over, for example, present followed by past, or in contrasting pairs, for example, undecomposable 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 spoken expression are separately taught and there is a slow accumulation of the parts until the whole structure of the dustup has been built up. (p. 2) Wilkins suggests speech communication is structured into smaller items and units in a structural syllabus and then it is presented discretely.Wilkins argues that this exposes learners to especial(a) samples of phrase in which one grammatical feature dominates each lesson in the syllabus. This is mainly establish on the hypothesis that grammatical and lexical rules are learned in an additiv e process, by which learners gain neck mastery of each item onward a new one is taught (Nunan, 1988). It is hence the learners childbed to re-synthesize the grammatical and lexical items that grant been presented in a separate way (Wilkins, 1976). An important question raised here is the set of criteria teachers use to select which lexical and grammatical were to be used in the structural syllabus.This will be reviewed in the pas clock time sections. Selection of Lexical and Grammatical Items in Lexical-structural Syllabus Mackey (1965) takes the stance that the lexical items in a structural syllabus are to be selected on the nates of criteria of frequency, coverage, availability, and learnability (White 198849-50). In the 1990s, the lexical approach in direction and learning started to gain lump prominence among many a(prenominal) researchers (Willis, 1990 Willis, 1996). As proposed by the lexical approach, a target man-made lake of vocabulary is suggested to be learned at a specific level (Willis, 1990 Willis, 1996).These target vocabulary are derived from old principal sum analysis of written and spoken English, only this could be regarded instantly as old fashioned 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 address belief. Regarding grammar structure, Mackey also (1965) proposes four criteria for the pickax grammatical structures s connotativey, regularity, frequency, and incompatible difficulty.The last item, contrastive difficulty, reputes that learning some items at an early stage should resemble the kindred item acquired in L1 (cited in Wilkins 1976 6). These views of language selection ask been gainsayd (e. g. , Ellis 2001). due to its inadequacy of empirical experiments. Thus to determining the level of complexity, simplicity, regularity, etc. is almost solely viewpointd on language teachers and syllabus designers reciprocal sense 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 reverberation been place with the structural syllabus. The first shortcoming is force from Corders (1967) built-in syllabus concept in which learners learning of variant grammatical items is based on a natural order. This image 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 mistakes is the acquisition of third person s morpheme (Hajjaj, 1999). purge though an average teacher can explain this item very well to Arabic learners, it ever poses a challenge to them, which means difficulty or simplicity of language struc ture doesnt always guarantee proper learning. This should be interpreted into serious consideration when designing a lexical-grammatical syllabus for IELTS preparation courses and thus adding significant activities that make the structures more memorable and germane(predicate) to learners involve and levels.The indorsement main b omitball aspect of the structural syllabus is its lack of language functions. The structural syllabus is a reliable tool for assisting language learners to sodding(a) common grammar rules. However, in terms of sociolinguistics, structural syllabus can prepare learners to be grammatically competent but communicatively clunky (Johnson, 1982). A learner who replies Yes, I do. to Do you mind if I open the windowpane? 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 c ustoms duty rather than language use (Widdowson, 1978). Accordingly, syllabus designers who consider implementing lexical-structural syllabus need to promote both usage and use in order to quash turning the language introduced into something meaningless. Socially contextualised and relevant language items introduced appropriately within synergistic technique can bridge the gap between use and usage and make grammar teachable and learnable. This will be discussed in the following section. The Structural Syllabus and Grammar TeachingBefore advocating a lexical-grammatical syllabus, it is requisite to first establish the significance of graphic grammar precept and learning. One believe in sanction language pedagogy has been about the teachability of grammar. Some scholars have argued against precept grammar since it leads to only minimal achievement in the acquisition of linguistic competence in English (Krashen, 1982 Krashen and Terrel, 1983 Prabhu, 1987). Others have contended that obviously educational activity formal grammar symbolises a significant role in the training of the L2 learners interlanguage system (Rutherford, 1987 Ellis, 1990, 1993).This paper supports the grammarians purposes in favor of formal grammar instruction that enhances IELTS UAE students and test takers accuracy. The first object is based on studies on the increment of immersion programs in bathroomada where many English L1 students study French and thus have been immersed in meaning- focused insert 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 cold from native-like norms.This has therefore suggested that meaning-focused input instruction, which is devoid of any formal grammar teaching, is more presumable to result in fossilization. The bite list reason formal grammar instruction derives from research (e. g. , Feli x, 1985 White, 1987 Schachter, 1989) that suggests that handsome L2 learners cannot have full access to the analogous 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 assist language tend to make sentences like John drank behind his coffee (John buvait lentement son cafe). These types of sentences are grammatically incorrect in English, but grateful in their language. Those learners receiving positive evidence cannot broadsheet 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 awareness of grammat ical elements which hence helps learners acquire implicit screwledge. Ellis believes that the explicit cognition of grammar instruction facilitates learning in three methods (199398). First, it encourages them to oversee their language before and after production. Terrell (199161) observes that monitor can apparently interact with acquisition, resulting in learners acquiring their own railroad siding which shows the splendor of monitoring in formal language instruction. mho, 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 probable 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 gaps in thei r language production. Thus if, for instance, Arab learners learn that verbs take an s in the third person singular form, they are more likely to notice the gap when adding the third 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 twain-dimensional humdrum 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 entry? 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 work these students an incomplete grounding in grammar, unheeding 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 relatively recent argument proposed by Ellis (2001) argues that it is a mistake to retrieve that learning foreign languages in schools is entirely to promote communication among speakers of different languages. nurture foreign languages has a more worth(predicate) end, i. e. promoting intellectual growth. (Ellis 2001172) thus views learning a foreign language as a means to develop cognitive abilities and that grammar contains knowledge that contributes to learners cognitive skills.If one con siders all the arguments discussed foregoing 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 revert to old traditional 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 dumb structural drills. I believe that it is partial to judge that grammar and lexical instruction should be eliminated simply because of insufficiencies of audio-lingual or grammar-translation methods. A well-balanced lexical-structural syllabus can be safely utilise, especially in IELTS preparation courses, provided that it is supplemented by motivating and communicative proletariatsSuggested go to design a Lexical-Structural Syllabus According to Stern (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 conditions. 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 inevitably and motivation, ESL students are more required and move to communicate with foreigners than EFL students.Thus, ESL students learning needs are definitely 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 ex perience, 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 communicative 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 pay back to realize the reason why lexical and grammar instruction can, and perhaps should, be an innate component of any curriculum in the Emirati EFL educational system in schools, and this can be possible 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 pro cess was too mechanical through verbose drills of discrete language items. I believe that a well-designed lexical-structural syllabus proposed in this essay can survive through two types of tasks consciousness-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 define by Ellis (1993109), consciousness-raising is a deliberate go about 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) legal action that is designed to help learners be conscious of the difference between the prepositions for and since. Table 2. An recitation of a CR Problem-solving Task 1. hither is some information about when three people joined the fellowship they now work for and how long they have been work there.N ame Date Joined Length of season 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 work for her fellowship for most of her sustenance. b. Mr Bush has been working for his participation 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? Why? 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. Try and make up a rule to explain 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. excogitation 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 build up their course (Lewis, 1997a,1997b). This essay offers some suggestions on how to build a lexical-structural activities and syllabus.First, syllabus designers need to settle a relevant set of structures, vocabulary and different types of collocations (Lewis,1997a) and organise them according to their increasing complexity, showtime from simple structures to complex ones. Second, syllabus designers should lease 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, hea lth, 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 structures 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 massive 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 emplo yed in EFL settings, particularly in the UAE. Previously, it was argued that the majority of EFL students in the UAE must score middling 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 attempted to proposed in this essay is two-fold. First, designing a well-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 wish my recommendations will breathe fresh life into the body of the proposed lexical-structural syllabus. References Apple, L. 1986. Teachers and texts. clean York Routlege and Kegan Paul. Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , and Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. McKeown and Curtis, M. E. (eds. ) (1987). The personality of Vocabulary 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 Press. 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 attainment, 47 (4), 671 718. Coxhead, A. (1998). An Academic Word List. Occasional Publication sum 18, LALS, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Dixon, R. J. (1977). youthful the Statesn English Book 2. New Edition. New York Regents Publishing Company, Inc. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford swe et 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 Collier 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). learnedness L2 vocabulary through abundant reading A measurement study. Canadian young Language Review, 61, 355382. Hyltenstam, K. , and Pienemann, M. (Eds. ). (1985). Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedo n, 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 taker performance 2011. Cambridge USLES. Accessed 15/12/2012 from <http//www. ielts. org/researchers/analysis_of_test_data/test_taker_performance_2011. aspx >.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 raw 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 Linguistics. Macmillan capital of the United Kingdom . Lee, S-Y. 2007). Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38, 150170. Lewis, M. (1997a). Implementing the lexical approach place theory into practice. Hove, England Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997b). pedagogic 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. cypher Report. Accessed 15/12/2012 <http//www. mof. gov. ae/Budget/En/Sitepages/LatestNews. aspx? Id=69 >. 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). little 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 second 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. ), Lingui stic 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). underlying concepts of language teaching. Oxford Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds. ), insert 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. sophisticated Language Journal, 75, 52-63. Van 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 syllabus 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. getting vocabulary through reading effectuate 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 cookery candidates from the top 40 places of origin. Mean 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 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 japan 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, confederation 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 culture) 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 Japan 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