No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Factors in Targeting Proficiency Levels and an Approach to “Real” and “Realistic” Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2008
Extract
During most of the present decade the foreign-language teaching profession in the United States has devoted prodigious efforts to the creation and publication of classroom exercises to develop the learners' ability to communicate. While the resulting diversity of activities bears testimony to the ingenuity of foreign language educators, it also manifests the lack of a coherent system for specifying objectives and creating or selecting appropriate activities for practice. That ubiquitous term “communicative competence” has lacked an operational definition. The concept of functional syllabus design, founded on the identification of the sociolinguistic factors that comprise communication events, suggests some means to fill that void. Once the learners' communication needs have been ascertained, inventories of functions, notions, and keys should be valuable tools for selecting appropriate linguistic exponents and generally determining course content.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980
References
REFERENCES
Alexander, L.G. “Structural Inventory.” In The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools, van Ek, Jan A., ed., pp. 116–39.Google Scholar
van Ek, J.A. 1976. The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ensz, K.Y. 1976. “French Attitudes toward Speech Deviances of American Speakers of French.” Diss., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ervin, G.L. 1977. “A Study of the Use and Acceptability of Target Language Communication Strategies Employed by American Students of Russian.” Diss., Ohio Slate University.Google Scholar
Galloway, V.B. 1978. “Evaluations of the Oral Communicative Competence in Spanish of University of South Carolina Students.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages,Chicago.Google Scholar
George, H.V. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Oorosch, M. 1973. “Assessment Intervariability in Testing Oral Proficiency of Adull Students.” In Errata: Papers in Error Analysis, Svartvik, Jan, ed. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, pp. 145–52.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. 1977. “An Investigation of the Frequency, Comprehensibiliiy, and Evaluations! Effects of Errors in Spanish Made by English-Speaking Learners in El Salvador.” Diss., Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. 1978. “A Study of the Frequency and Communicative Effects of Errors in Spanish.” The Modern Language Journal, 62, 249–53.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. 1979. “Purposeful Communication Practice: Developing Funclional Proficiency 1 in a Foreign Language.” Foreign Language Annals, 12, 219–25.Google Scholar
Jorden, E.H. 1978. “Research on the Effect of Errors on Communication: Implications for Teaching Strategies.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages,Chicago.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.D. 1976. “Formal and Informal Linguistic Environments in Language Acquisition and Language Learning.” TESOL Quarterly, 10, No. 2. 157–68.Google Scholar
Plazza, L.G. 1978. “Communicative Effects of Grammatical Errors Made by Americans Learning French.” Diss., University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Politzer, R.L. 1978. “Errors of English Speakers of German as Perceived and Evaluated by German Natives.” The Modern Language Journal, 62. 253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar