The title refers back to David Wilkins’s (1976) distinction between analytic and synthetic syllabuses. He argued that a\u00a0synthetic language teaching strategy was one in which the different parts of the language were taught separately and step-by-step so that acquisition was a process of gradual accumulation of the parts until the whole structure of the language has been built up. The learner’s\u00a0task was then, therefore, \u00a0to re-synthesize the language that has been broken down into smaller pieces with the aim of making his or her learning easier.<\/p>\n
An example from that period was a typical coursebook such as Kernel Lessons<\/em> (O\u2019Neil, Kingsbury & Yeadon, 1971), which started with the following chapters<\/p>\n An EAP book of the same period\u00a0(Ewer & Latorre , 1969), although using more academic subject matter, \u00a0divided the language up in a similar way:<\/p>\n Wilkins contrasts this synthetic approach with what he called an “analytic” approach, where there is\u00a0no attempt at this careful linguistic control of the learning environment. The example given – in 1976 – of a non-synthetic or analytic approach was a notional or functional syllabus or approach to language. A general English textbook of that period such as Strategies (Abbs, Ayton & Freebairn, 1975) would have chapter headings such as:<\/p>\n An EAP book following this approach was\u00a0Cooper (1979), which organised the language and the learning as follows:<\/p>\n or Jordan\u00a0(1980):<\/p>\n Part 2 FUNCTIONS<\/p>\n This continues to the present day with\u00a0Bailey (2006):<\/p>\n Although this was a great development in the way we see and teach language, it seems to me, though, that this is still a synthetic approach. This approach is still dividing the language into parts – albeit larger parts, called cognitive genres by Bruce (2008) – which the learner has to put back together again.<\/p>\n But most student assignments are NOT definitions, comparisons or classifications by themselves. The assignments may require the students to make use of these cognitive genres as they combine these texts into larger complete texts with a clear purpose and audience, called social genres by Bruce. However, the early textbooks did not provide any help for the students on how to do this. What was needed was the concept of genre, brought to a wider audience by, e.g., Swales (1990).<\/p>\n As EAP teachers we need to concentrate on our students’ purposes in writing, the genres that they need to produce and how these genres are realised. In order to do that, we need to investigate exactly which genres our students need and then do the genre analysis to work out the linguistic realisations of these genres.<\/p>\n For example (Gillett & Hammond, 2009):<\/p>\n My colleagues Mary Martala and Angela Hammond and I tried to put this into practice in our Successful Academic Writing<\/em> textbook (Gillett, Hammond & Martala, 2009) in which we described the composition of the following social genres:<\/p>\n This was, however, based very much on our intuition and experience. A few other well-established textbooks have tried (Dudley-Evans, 1985 ; Weissberg & Buker, 1990; \u00a0Comfort, Revell & Stott, 1985) and the more recent: \u00a0Bitchener(2010), but they are quite scientific in their approach.<\/p>\n However, the BAWE project (Nesi \u00a0& Gardner, 2012) provides a more rigorous research base for this kind of classification.<\/p>\n Nesi & Gardner distinguish five main purposes for student writing:<\/p>\n Furthermore, these can be realised by thirteen genre families:<\/p>\n These academic genres are not natural; they need to be learned. As Bourdieu (1996, p. 8) makes clear:<\/p>\n \u201cAcademic language is a dead language for the great majority of French people, and is no one\u2019s mother tongue, not even that of the children of the cultivated classes\u201d<\/p>\n Attention to teaching genres has finally resulted in the analytic\u00a0approach that Wilkins desired. However, most modern textbooks are still – in Wilkins’s words – synthetic.\u00a0\u00a0We therefore need analytic teaching material to help our students.<\/p>\n The British Council’s LearnEnglish<\/em> website should have some materials – based on the BAWE \u00a0research soon.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Abbs, B., Ayton, A \u00a0& Freebairn, I. (1975). Strategies.<\/em> London: Longman.<\/p>\n Bailey, S. (2006). Academic writing: A handbook for international students<\/i> (2nd<\/sup> ed.). London: Routledge.<\/p>\n Bitchener, J. (2010). \u00a0Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research<\/em>. London: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1994). Introduction: Language and the relationship to language in the teaching situation. In P. Bourdieu, J.-C. Passeron & M. de Saint Martin, Academic discourse <\/i>(pp. 1-34). Cambridge: Polity Press.<\/p>\n Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic approach. <\/i>London: Continuum.<\/p>\n Comfort, J., Revell, R. & Stott, C. (1985). Business reports in English<\/em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n Cooper, J. (1979). Think and link<\/i>. London: Arnold.<\/p>\n Dudley-Evans, T. (1985). Writing laboratory reports.<\/em> Melbourne: Nelson Wadsworth.<\/p>\n Ewer, J. & Latorre, G. (1969). Basic English for science<\/i>. London: Longman.<\/p>\n Gillett, A. J. & Hammond, A. C. (2009). Mapping the maze of assessment: An investigation into practice. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, <\/i>120-137.<\/p>\n Gillett, A. J., Hammond, A. C. & Martala, M. (2009). Successful academic writing<\/i>. London: Pearson Longman.<\/p>\n Jordan, R. R. (1999). Academic writing course<\/i> (3rd<\/sup> ed.). London: Longman..<\/p>\n Nesi, H, & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neil, R., Kingsbury, R. & Yeadon, T. (1971). Kernel lessons: Intermediate<\/i>. London: Longman.<\/p>\n Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings<\/em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English.<\/em> Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.<\/p>\n Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses<\/i>. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The title refers back to David Wilkins’s (1976) distinction between analytic and synthetic syllabuses. He argued that a\u00a0synthetic language teaching strategy was one in which the different parts of the language were taught separately and step-by-step so that acquisition was … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n