Proposed directions for the meaningful learning in the Thai EFL context
Keywords:
Classroom practice; Curriculum change; Thai EFL curriculumAbstract
I have revisited this paper and updated some information to provide
recommendations and the rationale for the curriculum changes to the central educational administration in Thailand. There are many stages to discuss in the new curriculum planning. However, at this stage, I emphasize on the overall rationale why we need a new curriculum policy. That is what is urgently needed to bring about the changes. I am trying to point out some issues for those concerned to understand the present situation of teaching English in Thailand. I also explain what needs to be done to improve the students’ performance in learning English. Broadly speaking, this paper analyzes the curriculum of English as a foreign language (EFL) context in Thailand. The reasons why the curriculum in use needs to be changed in order to support meaningful learning are discussed.
References
Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189-202.
Ellis, R.(1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leow, R. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79-89.
______. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-584.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp.15-41), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
______. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revisio, and some (non)-implications for the classroom. In R. Philipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, and M. Swain (eds.) 1991: Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 197-237.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis,R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
Philp, J. (1998). Interaction, noticing, and second language acquisition: An examination of learners’ noticing of recasts in task-basedinteraction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Posner, M., & Peterson, S. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25-42.
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: learning and teaching. London: Longman.Schacter, D. L. (1992). Consciousness and awareness in memory and amnesia: Critical issues. In A. D. Milner & M. D. Rugg (Eds.), Foundations of neuropsychology series(pp. 180-200). New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11, 206-226.
______. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on therole of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning(pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
______. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., &Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language:Acase study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversationin second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Sharwood,S. M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
______. (1991). Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-132.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gash & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition(pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning, Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 651-669.
Wegman, B., & Knezevic, M. K. (1996). Mosaic one: A content-based reading book. New York: McGraw-Hill.
