Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Principles of the Methodology 

i) Focus on Content 

ii) Choice of Content 

iii) Content-Based Learning 

3. Evaluation 

4. Conclusion 

5. References 

1. Introduction 

It has often been observed that English language learners in Greece tend to suffer from a lack of motivation at intermediate level. They will typically have been studying the language for about five years, and their intrinsic motivation will have diminished due to the perception that they have reached a 'plateau'; they are no longer learning so much that is essentially new, and consequently their performance is not improving as noticeably as in the past. The extrinsic motivation provided by the prospect of taking the Cambridge First Certificate may not be strong enough to overcome this lack, especially if preparation for the examination is focused on the recycling of material learnt in previous years.

I was faced with an instance of this problem even with a learner who ostensibly has more reason than most to be motivated, firstly 
because he has relations in the USA and is considering going there to live and work, and secondly because of his studies. He has chosen to attend a technical high school, where the main subject of study is computer operating and programming. In this field there is a clear need for English, which is not addressed by the school.

This student had been learning General English in a small group, and by the age of sixteen had attained intermediate level. However, during the past year he developed serious problems keeping up with the rest of the group as he was unwilling to 
spend the necessary amount of time studying. I therefore decided that the best way to encourage him to learn would be through one-to-one lessons focusing on his specific needs. I also surmised that an ESP course in English for Computing would not completely overcome the problem of motivation, and that it would be preferable to develop fluency by using the language rather than by studying it. I began testing this hypothesis using a tutorial program designed to familiarise novices with computer hardware and applications programs. Our use of the tutorial was authentic in that there was a real knowledge gap and that we were focusing mainly, though not exclusively, on content. Encouraged by the evident success of this preliminary phase, we then moved on to the current phase of the programme, in which our work is based on the use of a QuickBasic programmer's manual to learn to create programs in the QuickBasic environment.

2. Principles of the Methodology

i) Focus on Content

While the execution of programming tasks is an interactive process which facilitates a certain amount of skills integration, the main linguistic aim of our methodology is to develop reading fluency. It has commonly been assumed that fluency is achieved only at the expense of accuracy, although the validity of that assumption is questionable as it seems likely that an activity which increases fluency will promote language acquisition, and therefore greater accuracy of subsequent production. Conversely, Brumfit (1984: 50-52) argues that the available evidence does not support the view that accuracy-based activities lead to acquisition.

Furthermore, when we look specifically at reading, fluency and accuracy become increasingly interdependent as a learner 
progresses. Whereas in the use of the productive skills emphasis on fluency may diminish the accuracy of an utterance, the dynamic between top-down and bottom-up processing is based on the interaction between fluency and accuracy. Our examination of this dynamic should always take into account the level of the learner; Nunan (1993: 83) points out that the top-down strategies of fluent readers are not necessarily appropriate to be taught to beginning readers. Berman (in Alderson & Urquhart (1984: 13)) argues that intermediate level reading courses should focus on syntactic structure, whereas advanced students, who are more familiar with syntax, should be encouraged to focus on the rhetorical structure of whole texts.

The implication of this is that the methodology employed here is rather ambitious for a hitherto reluctant intermediate learner 
with an imperfect grasp of syntactic structure, but it is unwise to be dogmatic, particularly as there are so many variables, cognitive, affective, and other, which must be taken into consideration along with the level of competence already attained. Ultimately, our approach must be determined by the theories of learning which we hold, but H. D. Brown (1994:88) makes 
a case for flexibility, pointing out that 'certain "lower"-level aspects of second-language learning may be more adequately 
treated by behaviouristic approaches and methods, while certain "higher"-order types of learning are more effectively taught by 
methods derived from a cognitive approach to learning.'

Although cognitive theory may not yet be able to give a complete account of second language learning (Ellis 1990: 182), it is by 
consensus the most viable theory currently available. We should therefore consider how best to develop automatic information 
processing (McLaughlin 1987: 136), and also how to shift the focus of our lessons away from the formal properties of language 
(fig.1). 

Fig.1. Possible Second Language Performance as a Function of Information-Processing Procedures and Attention to Formal Properties of Language (McLaughlin et al.1983). Cited in Brown, H D 1994: 283.

It should be noted that the position illustrated by figure 1 does not entail that no attention should be paid to the formal properties of language. Rather, it makes the weaker, and intuitively more plausible, claim that attention to language should be peripheral, while the focus of attention should be on the achievement of the task for which the language is being used.

ii) Choice of Content 

Until a theory of learning can explain the mechanism by which input becomes intake (McLaughlin 1987: 156), rejection or acceptance of Krashen's input hypothesis (1987: 21) would be premature, although there is a weight of opinion against it (Brumfit 1984:49, Ellis 1990:103-107, Widdowson 1990:15-24). Nevertheless, a consensus does exist that there is some connection between acquisition and learning, although the nature of that connection is disputed. Widdowson (1990:15) states that 'effective 
learning would appear to be a function of the relationship between formal instruction and natural use'. It would therefore be ill-advised to abandon formal instruction altogether, and we have found in practice that an explicit focus on linguistic form is sometimes necessary, as completely accurate comprehension is required for the programming tasks to be executed successfully.

Whatever psychological model we favour, we can accept as a sensible minimal claim the point made by J. Willis (in press:10) 
that learners should be 'exposed to the variety of language they will need to understand and use themselves, outside the classroom'. Brumfit (in Brumfit & Johnson 1979: 189) makes the point that '...ideally the language used should have a specifiable cognitive and affective relationship with the learner-users. The old question of what learners use the language for, what subject matter is appropriate, takes on a new urgency.' We should, however bear in mind Widdowson's caveat (1990:15) with regard to medium teaching, that students may acquire more fluency than accuracy, although the conceptual distinction may not always be relevant, and it may be more useful to think in terms of competence and proficiency (cf. Ellis 1990: 174).

In the particular situation being described, there was a clearly defined variety of language which it would be necessary to understand; the language of computing. By this I mean not only the specific technical and subtechnical vocabulary and the syntax characteristic of the genre, but also the discourse structure of computing manuals. By developing awareness of the rhetorical features of the genre, we could facilitate the dynamic interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing. As Dudley-Evans points out (1987: 7), 'lack of awareness of the conventions of this genre can impede students' understanding of the texts'. The aim was thus to develop the student's familiarity with the formal schemata associated with this genre, as well as the content schemata.

Widdowson (1990: 103) claims that the defining of the non-linguistic content should be primary in course design, and that 'the effectiveness of language teaching will depend on what is being taught, other than the language, that will be recognized by the learners as a purposeful and relevant extension of their schematic horizons'. He explains elsewhere (in Alderson & Urquhart 1984:225) that the reader applies a previously developed schema to the text and modifies the schema to accommodate new information. This point is extended by Bransford et al. op. cit.: 38),who claim that 'activating knowledge that clarifies the significance of facts can also be important for acquiring new concepts or schemata'. Rumelhart (1980: 21) assumes that skilled readers are characterised by the possession of more, and more completely developed word schemata. Carell (1983: 86) points out that '...both formal and content schemata may each affect comprehension in the processing of texts.... However, what we don't know is the joint or interactive effect of these two types of schemata.'

While the theoretical disciplines have not yet arrived at a state of knowledge where the process of second language acquisition can be accounted for completely, the conclusion from the foregoing is hat we should assign a central role to the choice of content, to make it interesting and relevant to the learner, and to provide the opportunity to develop the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing through the development of the appropriate formal and content schemata.

iii) Content-based Learning

It has already been mentioned above, with reference to fig.1, that one of our methodological aims should be to shift learners' attention away from linguistic forms. Commenting on McLaughlin's attention-processing model, H. D. Brown (1994: 282-284) states that 'peripheral, automatic attention-processing of the "bits and pieces" of language is thus an ultimate communicative goal for language learners'. Brumfit (1984: 102), commenting on the Bangalore project, points out that 'the basic assumption of the project is that "form is best learnt when the learner's attention is on meaning"(Prabhu,1982: 2)'.

This orthodoxy of the communicative approach should be treated with caution, as it is not necessarily true of all learners at all levels, a point recognised by Brumfit (1984: 119), who shows that beginning learners need accuracy work which will focus on form 
(fig.2).

Fig.2. Schematic representation of class time spent on accuracy and fluency activities as a function of development from year to year. Brumfit 1984:119. 

Furthermore, our experience directly contradicts Krashen's suggestion (1987:30) that after the intermediate level the classroom is not a good place for language acquisiton. We would, however concur with Brinton et al. (1989: 1) in recommending 'the use of authentic texts which are relevant to the learners' second language needs'. Allen & Widdowson (in Brumfit & Johnson 1979: 125) are unusual in choosing to compose passages rather than use authentic ones, but an interesting feature of their article is the emphasis they give to the need for a fresh learning style at post-intermediate level. Not all phases of learning should be approached in the same way, and figure 3 constitutes a useful  refinement of the progression expressed in figure 2. 

Duration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of class time spent on formal component and functional, discourse and rhetorical components as a function of development from year to year.
Yalden in Brumfit 1986: 27.

In contrast to the model in figure 2,t his representation acknowledges that the difference between phases of learning should not necessarily be regarded as a smooth progression. It illustrates that whereas beginning learners have no communicative resources, and thus cannot respond to a communicative methodology, post-intermediate learners will have gone beyond the phase during which a communicative approach provides the maximum benefit, and will find a specialized approach more useful. What Yalden terms the specialized phase seems to be most appropriately embodied in an approach which not only includes specialized content, but which is content-based.

Despite Widdowson's claim (1990:45) that a language learner is incapable of authenticating discourse, we would agree with Davies (in Alderson & Urquhart (1984: 192)) that 'it is not that a text is understood because it is authentic, but that it is authentic 
because it is understood'. Nuttal (1982:3-4) takes a similar view of authenticity, commenting that if students do not read for authentic reasons, but only in order to learn to read, their motivation will be low. This point is also addressed by Widdowson (1978:17), who states that 'The principal difficulty of defining the aims of learning in terms of remote objectives is that they do not provide the pupil with any immediate motivation. If he can be shown, however, that the foreign language can be used to deal with topics which he is concerned with in his other lessons, then he is likely to be aware of its practical relevance as a means of communication.'

The importance of motivation as a factor in learning was crucial for the learner described in this study, and we would agree with 
Hutchinson & Waters' point (1987: 46-48) that, as the emotional reaction to the learning process is the essential foundation for he initiation of the cognitive process, learners 'should get satisfaction from the actual experience of learning, not just the prospect of eventually using what they have learnt'. For this reason, each lesson in our course has a specific goal, which is usually the mastery and use of a programming step. The achievement of the goal depends on input from reading the programmer's manual, and interaction with the programming environment. Thus the learning tasks are not based on any one of the four skills in isolation, but on their integration (cf. Nunan 1989: 2, Brinton et al. 1989: 2).

It should be stressed that the situation in this study is an instance of subject matter teaching in the sense explained by Krashen (1987: 168-170), and which Widdowson first proposed in 1968. That is to say, it is based on the view that 'language learning is most effectively promoted by the contingent use of the language in the study of other subjects on the curriculum'. In concrete terms, that means that we are using a programmer's manual to learn to program through the medium of English, not as an ESP resource.

However, it has not always been possible in this case for the focus to be off the language. Rather, as Nuttal expresses it (1982: 31), 'the focus of interest...is neither language nor content, but the two together. We want our students to learn how language is used for conveying content.' There are methodological doubts about how far we can avoid focus on form (Nunan 1989: 13, Brumfit 1984: 134), and these should be acknowledged by our flexibility as practitioners.

3. Evaluation

If we accept Nunan's (1989: 10) definition of a communicative task as 'a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form', then we can examine how that notion is embodied and developed in our case, and how successful it has proved to be in practice.

Each of our lessons has been based on the use of genuine materials to achieve a programming task, and the knowledge gained through that experience has developed into the ability to create programs, which might be seen as the communicative outcome. The learner's attention is mainly on content, but not exclusively so; our lessons have also contained a small proportion of specific language teaching. Although the program has not yet been completed, there are several results to be noted.

1) The learner is now much more highly motivated.

2) He is able to use the language.

3) He has learnt a large amount of technical vocabulary related to computers and computing in general and to Basic programming in particular. He has also learnt a lot of subtechnical and non-technical vocabulary; significantly more than he would have learnt in a similar period during the previous course.

4) He can read effectively and fluently both because of his increased knowledge of the lexical and syntactic features of the genre and because he has developed more effective strategies such as the use of word-attack and text-attack skills.

5) The learner has acquired not only grammatical competence, but also discourse competence for the particular genre. (cf. Canale  in Richards & Schmidt 1983: 9-10. As our programme focuses on comprehension rather than production (cf. Wang in Brumfit 1986: 99-122), it has not been concerned with developing sociolinguistic or strategic competence.) 

6) In terms of specific microskills, using Munby's (1978: 123-131) taxonomy as a checklist, we can conclude that even in the absence of systematic exploitation of instances of the features of text, these skills can be mastered adequately. Those skills  numbered 35 to 41,such as interpreting discourse markers have not been developed, due to the fragmentary nature of the text we are using. Of skills 19 to 34,those which are concerned with comprehension rather than production have been developed to a high degree. Word-attack skills (item 19) are especially fruitful in this genre-specific approach. Perhaps surprisingly, intrasentential relations, especially various kinds of modification (item 28.2) and complex embedding (28.6) still cause more difficulty at this stage than intersentential relations through lexical and grammatical cohesion devices.


(This evaluation was compiled in part with reference to Maley in Brumfit 1986: 90.)

4. Conclusion

In this particular case, content-based learning seemed to be the ideal methodological solution for several reasons. One crucial factor is that the learner was at a suitable level for us to concentrate on developing fluency through focusing on content rather than form. We could thus take a task-based approach using authentic materials. As the learner had a specific need to develop his knowledge of English for computing, that provided us with a natural choice of content which would stimulate motivation. We thus had a situation predicated on a cognitive model of learning in that the focus on content would aid the development of automatic processing, and where the development of formal and content schemata for the particular genre would promote the interaction of top-down and bottom-up processing.

'A task-driven methodology thus keeps an appropriate focus on rhetorical action and communicative effectiveness, however much 
the means to those communicative ends may involve...the teaching and practice of form.' (Swales 1990: 72)

In a programme of this kind, with no control group, the evaluation is necessarily impressionistic, and there are many variables which would have to be taken into account in order to draw generalised conclusions about the effectiveness of the methodology employed here. Also, our knowledge of the process of second language acquisition is not yet sufficiently advanced for us to proclaim the primacy of one particular method. However, this situation does point to certain criteria for a principled methodology. According to the limitations imposed by the learners' existing competence, we should get them to use language, but without insisting dogmatically that they should not also study language. We should provide input which is relevant to the cognitive and affective needs of the learners. In certain cases this may be achieved most appropriately by way of content-based learning.

5. References 

Alderson, J. C. & Urquhart, A. H. (eds.)(1984). Reading in a Foreign Language. Harlow: Longman. 

Allen, J. P. B. & Widdowson, H. G. "Teaching the Communicative Use of English." In Brumfit & Johnson (1979): 124-142.

Berman, R. A. "Syntactic components of the foreign language reading process." In Alderson & Urquhart (1984) :139-156. 

Bransford, J. D. ,Stein, B. S. and Shelton, T. "Learning from the perspective of the comprehender." In Alderson & Urquhart (1984): 28-44. 

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A. & Wesche, M. B. 1989. Content-Based Second Language Instruction. Newbury House. 

Brown, H. D. 1987, 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Brumfit, C. J. "'Communicative' Language Teaching: an Educational Perspective." In Brumfit & Johnson 1979: 183-191.

Brumfit, C. J. 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) (1986). The Practice of Communicative Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ELT Documents: 124.

Brumfit, C. J. & Johnson, K. (eds.).(1979).The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
Canale, M. "From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy." In Richards, J. C.& Schmidt, R. W. (eds.).(1983) Language and Communication. Harlow: Longman. 2-27.

Carell, P. P.1983. "Some Issues in Studying the Role of Schemata, or Background Knowledge, in Second Language Comprehension." Reading in a Foreign Language Volume 1/2: 81-92.

Davies,  A. "Simple, simplified and simplification: what is authentic?" In Alderson & Urquhart (1984): 181-195.

Dudley-Evans, T.1987. "Introduction from Editor". In Genre Analysis and ESP: ELR Journal Vol. 1: 1-9,University of Birmingham. 

Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. D.1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Maley, A. "'A Rose is a Rose', or is it?: can communicative competence be taught?" In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.). (1986). 87-96.

McLaughlin, B.1987. Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Arnold.

Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann.

Rumelhart, D. E. 1980. "Schemata: the building blocks of cognition." In Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Spiro, R., 
Bruce, B. & Brewer, W. (eds). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swales,J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, D. "Optimal Language Learning Based on the Comprehension-Production Distinction." In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.). (1986). 99-122.

Widdowson, H. G. 1978.Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Widdowson, H. G. "Reading and communication." In Alderson & Urquhart (1984): 213-226.

Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. In press. Teaching English Through Tasks. Harlow: Longman.

Yalden, J. "An Interactive Approach to Syllabus Design: The Frameworks Project." In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.). (1986). 25-38.