See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330761036

Using representational materials in language teaching-theory and practice

Article · December 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 808

1 author:

Jamel Alimi
Middle East College
18 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Academic Practice in HE: Individual Impact Statement (With Supporting Evidences in an Online Portfolio) View project

EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL TEACHING / LEARNING PRACTICES: A PERSONAL STATEMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jamel Alimi on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Using representational materials
in language teaching—theory and practice
Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI
20 December, 2008.

[L]iterature has no legitimate place in a

second-language program whose purpose is to
teach language skills to a cross section of
students who are preparing for studies or work
in a variety of disciplines’
(Topping 1968: 95)

…. classroom development cannot proceed

before key theoretical and practical issues are
identified and debated.

Brumfit, C.J. and R.A. Carter (1984: ix)

INTRODUCTION

The field of English Language Teaching (ELT) has recently witnessed fresh attempts
to re-incorporate literary, representational materials (RMs)1 into the communicative,
reading curriculum (Carter 1988; Long 1986: 42-6; Jones 2003; Long and Carter 1991
among others). The overarching reason, as McRae (1991; 2008) explains, stems from
the belief that RMs—including such exponents as nursery rhymes, fairy tales, comics,
songs, TV series or computer games— can enhance both communicative competence
and personal growth in students at all stages of language learning. Despite the
abundant literature arguing for its merits, the model at issue has, unfortunately, tended
to lack sufficient articulation and analysis insofar as its very theory and application
are concerned; hence, severely challenging the re-habilitation of the said model, in
particular, and of literature, in general, at many an ESL/EFL educational institution
(Brumfit and Carter 1984:1).

Within its purview, the present paper seeks to analytically describe some of the most
pertinent theoretical assumptions and classroom strategies related to the integration of
RMs in ELT reading classes in attempt at filling in the serious gap in research stated
above. To this end, we propose to divide the remainder sections as follows:

 Section One will briefly sketch the theoretical background against which
the recent interest in using representational materials in language teaching
should be seen.

 Section Two will identify some of the most pertinent principles and
practices of the RMs Model as brought about, most representatively, in
McRae (1991)’s monograph— Literature with a Small “l”.

 Section Three will discuss in some details the pedagogical significance of

the RMs model with regard to reading instruction in EFL settings—
including, the Sultanate of Oman, where the author is currently employed.

1
1- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This Section aims to contextualize the recent calls for embedding representational
materials within the reading syllabus. Its first sub-part will outline the basic features
of reading and of reading materials as perceived by some of the major methods and
approaches which have strongly influenced the field of literacy over the last decades;
the second, the reasons behind the recent attitude towards greater inclusion of
L/literature in ESL/EFL classes.

1.1 EARLY VIEWS

The issue of reading and reading materials in both ESL and EFL contexts has been
approached from different, rather conflicting angles.

A Grammar-Translation-Method-oriented reading classroom, for instance, heavily

concentrated on the use of English classics. It exploited text extracts as resources for
exercises in translation, analysis of grammatical rules, presentation of new lexical
items, and memorization of vocabulary of various declensions and conjugations
(Brown 2000: 15).

This perspective on reading and reading materials along with its underpinning
assumptions regarding teacher and learner roles was to come under severe attacks.
The proponents of the Situational Approach, in particular, criticised it for presenting
texts that were ‘highly artificial’ and ‘divorced from purpose, context and actual use’
(Cook 1998: 154). They, therefore, brought reading materials either extracted from
canonical literary sources or based on concocted sentences2 to an abrupt standstill in
the language classroom. Alternatively, they suggested that others in the form of
situational conversations and mini-dialogues should take over (Short and Candlin
1986: 91).

The paradigm shift proposed by the Situational approach was soon questioned by the
emerging Functional-Notional Approach as well as the Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) approach in its early 1970s version (Widdowson 1984: 162, cited in
Zafeiriadou 1991; Wilkins 1976; Carter 2007). They both criticized it for tying up
reading comprehension lessons to the mere purpose of presenting, practising and
producing graded structures and selected lexical items. Their objections were largely
well-argued3. As yet, their joint quest for a threshold level4 in English left rather little
room for the teaching of literature. The sparse excerpts from novels, short stories,
plays, and poetry were included more on the ground of their lexico-grammatical worth
than the framing of the learner’s communicative literary skills (Maley 2001); much
worse perhaps, in terms of content, they were "rather simple and predictable, thus
posing no real intellectual challenge to the learner" (Delanoy 1997).

As could easily emerge from the above notes, the pre-RMs-Model approaches and
methods tended— despite their obvious differences in perspectives and priorities— to
intersect at two fundamental points where
 there was ‘little or no extended discussion of the role of literature
teaching in a second or foreign language or even of the relationship
between language and literature teaching’ (Carter & Long 1991: 1),
and where

2
  a reading lesson, to be successful, should predominantly consist of a
series of discrete language points, using referential materials as a
means to that end.

This so-called "successful" lesson, as will be pointed out in the sub-section to follow,
was strongly denounced as ‘counterproductive’ and promptly dismissed as ‘actually
not reading at all’ (Alderson and Urquhart 1984: 246-247, emphasis mine).

1.2 CURRENT VIEWS

Since the late years of the 1980s, teaching approaches with humanistic, constructivist,
and reader-response criticism affinities have endeavoured to bring the study reading
instruction of L/literature to the forefront (Carter 2007; Delanoy 1997). Echoing the
recent findings concerning the nature of text and reading processes, they view it as a
necessary and powerful change agent by developing the learner's interlanguage while
at the same time nurturing his/her critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and
intercultural understanding (Ghosn 2002; Moi 2003: 406; Wallace 2001; McRae
2008). Not less importantly, they pressingly advocate that representational language
learning should henceforth move from language awareness to text awareness (McRae
1996: 16-40) and from teaching texts to teaching readers (Haas and Flower 1988: 169
cited in Susser and Robb 1990). They, accordingly, perceive the traditional, long-
cherished objective of coming to terms with the content, stylistic, and cultural features
of a given L/literary text, however crucial that may be, as being self-limiting and
prone to make the teaching of L/literature just ‘an arid business’ (Long 1986 : 4).
Instead, they propose a goal which seeks to trigger reading learners’ instant
responsiveness to the text at hand— be it positive or negative— in order to achieve
utmost sense of comprehensiveness and self-realization (McRae 1991).

The quest via reading for ‘introducing [students] to such a serious view of our world,
of initiating them in the process of defining themselves through contact with others’
experience’ (Brumfit 2001: 92, quoted in Carter 2007) is a serious enterprise, though.
For this reason, there have been strong arguments for the necessity of re-inventing
different pedagogical approaches for both native and non-native speakers of English
(Widdowson 1984; Long and Carter 1991; Scalone 1999; Delanoy 2005). This may be
achieved, as (McRae 2008) proposes, via

a move away from an insistence on any ‘great tradition’ of established

canonical texts, and towards a broadening of the range of texts, voices,
and forms studied under the heading of English

The following Section will consider some of most pertinent assumptions as well as the
subsequent classroom applications relating to the re-incorporation of representational
materials, as brought about in McRae’s 1991 monograph, in particular.

2- THE RMs MODEL: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

2.1 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

At its most basic level, the McRae RMs model is concerned with ‘how’ meaning is
achieved within the language of canonical and representational materials alike, rather
than simply looking at ‘what’ it means. It aims at

 exposing student readers to an unlimited number of texts of all kinds,

3
  allowing them to explore and develop a critical apparatus for reading,
interpreting and evaluating texts—rather than merely ‘appreciating’
them,
 gradually leading them up to a stage whereby they become writers
themselves, producers rather than merely consumers of literature, and,
most prominently,
 helping them to transgress the confinements of the traditional four
skills (of listening, speaking, reading and writing) and step into a
wider sphere where their fifth skill or "thinking in English" can be
explored at full (McRae 1991: 5).

2.2 IN-CLASS APPLICATIONS

The above theoretical assumptions may be translated into tangible practices at class
level via an intelligent, eclectic activation of the following text features:

Lexis words
syntax how the words are put together
cohesion the linking mechanisms within the text
phonology sounds
graphology the look, layout and visual effects
semantics the study of meaning and how meaning is achieved
dialect varieties and variant uses of English
register tone dependent on context
period archaism, intertextuality, genre
function what the text does, aim/intention/'message'

The above checklist, as McRae (ibid) maintains, is of tremendous practical benefits.

For it arguably

 paves the way for a whole range of tasks and activities that
traditionally devised course materials would not,
 allows students to actively interpret what the words in the text at hand
could mean, and
 helps the reading teacher to focus on any, or all, of the features of a
text and empowers him or her to have students go beyond ordinary
reading skill activities.

On a lesson-wise basis, the checklist-drawn activities will, as advanced,

 "bring in speaking and writing practice in discussion, debate and

extension (written work), as well as encouraging extensive reading’(ibid:
96), and, by the same token,
 ‘involve reinforcement techniques through occasional summary work,
recall of previous reading, and the encouragement of cross reference to an
ever-growing range of texts’ (ibid).

4
The above Section attempted to shed light on the most prominent aspects of the RMs
Model’s theory and practice as expressed in the 1991 McRae model. These features
are discussed at some length in the next Section.

3- DISCUSSION

Glancing back at the previous Section, one would certainly recall all the enthusiastic
arguments for the re-introduction—and, indeed, wider use—of L/literature within
reading classes. Widdowson (1983: 34), for instance, maintains that ‘literature of its
nature can provide a resource for developing in learners an important ability to use a
knowledge of language for the interpretation of discourse’ and insists that ‘it ought to
be one element of the language course’. This view concurs with those of Povey
(1967), Donnerstag (1996) and Gajdusek (1988), Long (1986: 37-42) Collie and
Slater (1987) to name but a few. It is practically translated into the exploitation of a
continuum of texts including poetry (Ramsaran 1983; Moi 2003: 406-21), folk stories
(Baynham 1986), prose (Gower 1986), video (MacWilliam 1986), newspaper reports,
magazines, popular song lyrics, web blogs (Carter 2007), and any other kinds of
examples of "creative and purposeful play with the resources of language" (McCarthy
and Carter 1994, quoted in Chan 1996: 3). In doing so, learners will hopefully
familiarize themselves with different genres of texts, develop knowledge of the
intricacies of language, strengthen their interpretative abilities to come to terms with
how the text has come to mean what it does, and, as language users, actively
‘participate in the dynamic process of articulating and creating meanings themselves’
(Chan ibid). To this end, Carter (1986) insists that language and literature be
henceforth more closely integrated and harmonized and that L/literary materials cease
to be marginalized or, worse, banished from the reading syllabus (see also the rest of
contributions edited in Brumfit and Carter 1986).

The great enthusiasm radiating from the views above and others in the same vein
needs, it is thought, to be curbed when evoking ESL/EFL educational contexts. The
objections raised may be summed up in the following points:

 The high risk that the literary reading passages (initially written for
Western readership in mind) may offend the local learner community
as a result of their exploration of some "taboo" themes such as self-
determination, sex, gender relationships, human rights, and religious
adherence (Alkire and Alkire 2007).
 The heavy cultural load that such texts are too often imbedded with as
well as the high degree of intertextuality they very much operate on
(Dawson 2004).
 A general contention by many course designers, teachers, examiners,
and even learners that literature is basically irrelevant, absurd, and can
even be detrimental to the process of the language learning especially
in EFL settings (Zyngier 1982: 39; Or 1995, cited in Savvidou 2004).

While we would not definitely go as far as embracing the latter point or seeing no
legitimate place of literature in the English language classroom, as Topping (1968:
95) quite bluntly does in the introductory quotation, we do believe that the first two
claims are considerably defendable. We are also inclined to support the view that an
advocacy of an orthodox, unconditional reintegration of representational materials
would be quasi-negative. A balanced view which takes into account the pros of
reinstating L/literature in the curriculum conjunction with the everyday reading-
related classroom realities should be reached in the first place. This stance concerns,
5
most urgently perhaps, EFL institutions around the world where the reading
experience as a whole is more critical (Parera 2006: 69), usually yields disappointing
results (Akyel and Yalçin 1990), and is plagued with miscomprehension,
misinterpretation, and lack of sound responsiveness to l/Literary materials (Richards
1929, quoted in Purves and Beach 1972: 8-9).

Insofar as the Sultanate of Oman is concerned, the latter remarks would not be less
pertinent during any informal reading class observation. Indeed, the quasi-totality of
1st -12th Graders at basic education schools would tend to be poor readers, at best (Al-
Issa 2005; Nunan et al 1987). From our practical teaching experiences, they would,
almost irrevocably, fail to demonstrate significant signs of appropriating reasonably
solid content and linguistic background so as to understand and interpret what the
writer of a ‘simple’ piece of writing in English is implying. Their involvement by
such text elements “as moral issues, decisions, revisions, anticipation, retrospection,
defenses, expectations, fantasies, transformations, mental images, associations,
reversal, evaluations, and recoveries” (Shu Wei 1999) would prove, more often than
not, very limited. Whether answering questions individually, as a group activity, or
interactively with the teacher, their responses would tend to be invariably too short in
terms of word count, irrelevant to the points raised, ill-expressed, and/or so tardy that
the text at hand deplorably loses much, if not all, of its initial vivacity, appeal, and
reason of selection.

At higher education levels, the condition of reading instruction appears qualitatively

less alarming. Nonetheless, students in their first year at college and university
reportedly lack sufficient grasp of the English language’s discourse structures and,
surprisingly enough, are found to suffer from serious limitations in synthesizing,
evaluating, metacognitive knowledge, and skills monitoring in both English and their
mother tongue (Grabe 1991: 379-383; Laufer 1992a; 1992b, cited in Al-Kalbani 2008:
22-3). As a result, they would still fall short of generating qualitatively skilled, fluent
reading comprehension in the ways Wallace (1992), Carrell and Eisterhold (1983),
Nuttall (1982), or McRae and Vethamani (1999) would most legitimately expect.

Zoomed in on the International Maritime College Oman5, where the author is

currently is employed, the above characteristics appear wholly true with regard to
students in the Foundation year and, to a lesser degree, their fellow counterparts in the
Operation Technology; Port, Shipping and Transportation Managements; Marine
Engineering; and Deck Officers (See Appendix). The situation takes further dramatic
proportions when we realize that the English language in the Diploma/ Degree
Programme here is to be taught exclusively in support of the core subjects in each of
the four fields of specialization. The syllabus is a prescribed one and is geared
towards putting in practice the College's vision—thus, practically, ruling out the use
of literary, representational texts as a viable language teaching resource. Probst’s
argument that “literature is experience, not information, and that the student must be
invited to participate in it, not simply observe it from outside” (1988: Preface, quoted
in Vethamani 2004), though valuable, could not be less out of context in these
circumstances.

Given the current educational state of affairs here at IMCO and elsewhere in the
Sultanate, it seems indeed difficult to imagine that the short- and/or long-term aims of
using representational materials may be realistically achieved. The paramount
objective of ‘bring[ing] imaginative interaction, reaction and response into play” in
decently intelligible, fluent, impromptu English by means of “any kind of material
with imaginative or fictional content that goes beyond the purely referential’ (McRae

6
1991) would appear grandiose to the least skeptical teaching materials designers.
Carter (1997)’s concept of ‘interpretation’ with its two main procedures:

one a conscious activity of constructing meaning from the language of

texts; the second less conscious acts of interpretation, sub-texts as it
were, which inform decisions made in the linguistic analysis of texts
concerning what kinds of meaning are found in texts and how such
meanings are warranted and accounted for (2),

would, equally, sound very impressive but too unrealistic to the most zealous,
McRaean-minded English language practitioners here. The idea rather seems to refer
to a highly idealized, elitist EFL context. It simply could not refer to Oman or any
other nation with similarly high illiteracy problems and where English language
learners, on the whole, have but relatively little “understanding of, and familiarity
with, certain [literary, stylistic] conventions which allow them to take the words on
the page of a play or other literary work and convert them into literary meanings.”
(Lazar 1993: 12 )

To remedy a situation of this kind, one would need more than exhorting the RMs
Model to action. The limitations of it would be more than evident even to those
practitioners who have already given up involvement in the "border dispute over
territory" between linguists and literary critics (Short 1996, quoted in Savvidou 2004)
and embraced an approach for teaching literature that integrates "the Cultural Model",
" the Language Model" and " the Personal Growth Model" (Carter and Long 1991)6.

In our judgment, there is every reason to believe in the truthfulness of the RMs Model
in its attempts at drawing our teaching theories and practices radically away from
those purported, especially, by the Grammar-Translation Method and other
Structuralist approaches and towards a more principled understanding of reading
processes, techniques, and choices (Sections 1 and 2). It must be added, however, that
what is lacking most is the element of triangulating these endeavours with transcripts
which show how the reading lessons did actually go on. It is unfortunate to notice that
more than twenty years since the publication such reference books as Literature and
Language Teaching (Brumfit and Carter 1986) and Literature with a Small “l”
(McRae 1991), not a single class-based monograph-length has—to our best
knowledge—been published to prove precisely how literary study as a communicative
act is "engaged in" by both student and teacher (Scalone 1999: 3). A lacuna of this
magnitude has to be immediately eradicated so that we could move to a real
assessment of the model under study.

4- CONCLUSION

The present paper has attempted to analytically describe representational materials in

terms of its theoretical underpinnings and in-class pedagogical practices.

The discussion of both aspects yielded the following overlaying positions:

 The theoretical validity of arguments in favour of re-integrating
ideational, imaginative materials within the English language syllabus,
on the one hand, and
 The urgency to strike a balance between the general aims of the
representational materials model and the day-to-day particularities of
learners in EFL contexts, on the other.

7
The paper does not pretend to offer a comprehensive or synoptic account of the RMs
Model. Rather, it is subject to several limitations, including, most notably, limited
generalizability, and absence of class-driven data for triangulation. Despite the
limitations, we hope it will contribute to an understanding of what actually motivates
the proponents of the RMs Model to plea for an end of the exclusivity of referential
materials in our reading lessons— a rationale that is not yet fully grasped by a large
proportion of EFL/ESL practitioners.

McRae (1991: vii)’s prophecy that

‘[i]n future years, the absence of imaginative content in language

teaching will be considered to have marked a primitive stage of the
discipline’

has undoubtedly disturbed superficially calm waters in many parts around the world;
it has, nonetheless, got more years to wait before its good news start being heard in
such semi-arid places as Oman. Or has it?

5- END NOTES

1- The RMs Model to reading instruction, as detailed in McRae (1991), refers

to that kind of material—or text— ‘with imaginative or fictional content
that goes beyond the purely referential, and brings imaginative interaction,
reaction and response into play’ (ibid: vii). Such a text may be taken from
various L/literary sources like advertising materials, poetry, news headlines,
nursery rhymes, fairy tales, comics, songs, TV series or even computer
games. In contrast, a text of a referential type —such as a recipe, a bus
timetable, or a doctor’s prescription—is defined as one which
communicates on ‘only one level usually in terms of information being
sought or given, or of a social situation being handled’ (ibid). The language
it uses is normally decoded in the same way by all receivers as its words
literally mean what they say— no more and no less.
2- Titone (1968: 28, quoted in Richards and Rodgers 1986: 2) mention the
following sentences:

 The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.

 My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.
 The cat of my aunt is more treacherous than the dog of your uncle.

3- See Swan (1985) for a dissenting view.

4- In the Council of Europe's unit/credit system, the threshold level or T-
Level is the 'lowest level of foreign-language ability to be recognised' '(van
Ek 1975: 8, quoted in Johnson and Johnson 1998: 352)
5- see Savvidou ((2004) for concise definitions
6- www.imcoman.net

8
 6- REFERENCES

Akyel, A. and E. Yalçin (1990), “Literature in the EFL class: a study of goal-
achievement incongruence”, English Language Teaching Journal 44, 3: 174-80.

Alderson, J. and A. Urquahart (1984) (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language,

London: Longman.

Al-Issa, A.S.M. (2005), “An Ideological Discussion of the Impact of the NNESTs'
English Language Knowledge on ESL Policy Implementation: A Special Reference to
the Omani Context”, Asian EFJ Journal 7, 3, [12 May, 2008] < http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/September_05_asmai.php>

Al Kalbani, N.S. (2008), “The Use of a Vocabulary Test as a Placement Indicator”,

Sultan Qaboos University: The Language Centre: LC Forum: A Special Edition for
the 8th Oman International ELT Conference 2008, 20-32.

Alkire, S. and A. Alkire (2007), “Teaching Literature in the Muslim World: A

Bicultural Approach”, [12 May, 2008] < http://tesl-ej.org/ej40/a3.html>

Arnaud, P. and H. Bejoint (1992) (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics,

Houndmills: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd.

Baynham, M. (1986), “Bilingual folk stories in the ESL classroom”, English

Language Teaching Journal 40, 2: 113-120.
Bredella,L. and W. Delanoy (1996) (Eds.), Challenges of Literary Texts in the
Foreign Language Classroom, Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.

Brown, H. D. (2000), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th Edn.,

White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.

Brumfit, C.J. (2001), Individual freedom in language teaching, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Brumfit, C.J. and R.A. Carter (1984), “Introduction”. In C.J. Brumfit and R. A. Carter
(1986) (Eds.), Literature and Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1.

Canale, M. (1983), “From Communicative Competence to Communicative language

Pedagogy”. In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
Communication, Harlow: Longman, 2-27.

Chan, P. K. W. (1999), “Literature, language awareness and EFL”, Language

Awareness 8, 1: 38-50, [20 April, 2008] <http://www.multilingual-
matters.net/la/008/0038/la0080038.pdf>

Carrell, P.L. and J.C. Eisterhold (1983), “Schema Theory and ESL Reading
Pedagogy”, TESOL Quarterly 17: 553-573.

Carter, R. (1986), “Linguistic Models, Language and Literariness”. In R. Carter and

C.J. Brumfit (Eds.), Literature and Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 110-132.

9
Carter, R. (1997), Investigating English Discourse, London: Routledge.

Carter, R. (2007), “Literature and language teaching 1986-2006: A review”,

International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17, 1: 3-13.

Carter, R. and C.J. Brumfit (1986) (Eds.), Literature and Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, R. and D. Nunan (2001) (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, R.A. and J. McRae (1996) (Eds.), Language, Literature and the Learner:
Creative Classroom Practice, London: Longman.

Carter, R. and M. Long (1991), Teaching Literature, Harlow: Longman.

Collie, J. and S. Slater (1987), Literature in the Language Classroom, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Cook, G. (1998), “ Grammar-Translation”. In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds.),

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, London : Blackwell, 153-4.

Dawson, E. (2004), “Problems of Cultural Overload?: Towards a Multicultural

Apparatus for Creative Reading at Key Stage 3 in the subject area of English? ”.
Unpublished MA AL - ELT Dissertation, Nottingham: The University of Nottingham.

Delanoy, W. (1997), “Teacher Mediation and Literature Learning in the Language

Classroom”, [4 January, 2008] <www.wilstapley.com/LCS/articles/wd.htm>

Delanoy, W. (2005), “A Dialogic Model for Literature Teaching”, ABAC Journal 25,
1: 53-66, [10 June, 2008]
<http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2005/jan05/53dialogic.pdf>

Donnerstag, J. (1996), “Improving the Expressive Competence of Foreign-Language

Learners through Literary Reading”. In L. Bredella and W. Delanoy (Eds), Challenges
of Literary Texts in the Foreign Language Classroom, Tiibingen: Gunter Narr, 144-
161.

Gajdusek, L. (1988), “Toward Wider Use of Literature in ESL: Why and How”,
TESOL Quarterly 22, 2: 227-257.

Ghosn, I. K. (2002), “Four Good Reasons to Use Literature in Primary School ELT ”,
English Language Teaching Journal 56, 2: 172-179.

Gower, R. (1986), “Can Stylistic Analysis Help the EFL Learner to Read Literature?”,
English Language Teaching Journal 40, 2:125-130

Grabe, W. (1991), “Current developments in second language reading research”,

TESOL Quarterly 25, 3: 375-406.

Haas, C. and L. Flower (1988), “Rhetorical Reading Strategies and the Construction
of Meaning”, College Composition and Communication 39: 167-83.

10
Johnson, K. (1998), “Threshold level”. In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds),
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, London : Blackwell, 352-3

Johnson, K. and H. Johnson (1998) (Eds.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied

Linguistics, London : Blackwell.

Jones, C. (2003), “Using Representational Reading Texts in the EFL Classroom”, The
Language Teacher Online: Issue 27, 9, [25 January, 2008] < http://www.jalt-
publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/09/jones>

Laufer, B. (1992a), “How Much Lexis is Necessary for Reading Comprehension?”. In

P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, Houndmills:
Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd, 126-32.

Laufer, B. (1992b), “Reading in a Foreign Language: How does L2 Lexical

Knowledge Interact with the Reader's General Academic Ability?”, Journal of
Research in Reading 15, 2: 95-103.

Lazar, G. (1993), Literature and Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Long, M.N. (1986), “A Feeling for Language: The Multiples Values for Teaching
Literature”. In C.J. Brumfit and R. A. Carter (Eds.), Literature and Language
Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37-42.

MacWilliam, I. (1986), “Video and language comprehension”, English Language

Teaching Journal 40, 2:131-135

Maley, A. (2001), “Literature in the Language Classroom”. In R. Carter and D.

Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 180-5.

McCarthy, M. and R.A. Carter (1994), Language as Discourse, Harlow, Essex:

Longman.

McRae, J. (1991), Literature with a small “l”, London: Macmillan.

McRae, J. (1996), “Representational Language Learning: From Language Awareness

to Text Awareness”. In R.A. Carter and J. McRae (Eds.), Language, Literature and
the Learner: Creative Classroom Practice, London: Longman, 16-40.

McRae, J. (2008), “Introduction to Literature and Culture”, [26 February, 2007]

<http://www.britishcouncil.org/arts-literature-activities-literaturelanguageculture-
intro.htm>

McRae, J. and E.M. Vethamani (1999), Now Read On, London: Routledge.

Moi, C.F. (2003), “Materials for Language through Literature. Rocking the classroom:
Rock Poetry Materials in the EFL Classroom”. In B. Tomlinson (Ed), Developing
Materials for Language Teaching, London: Continuum International Publishing
Group Ltd, 406-21.

Nuttall, C. (1982), Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language, London:

Heinemann Educational Books.

11
Nunan, D., D. Watton and M. Tyacke (1987), Philosophy and Guidelines for the
Omani English Language School Curriculum, Muscat: Sultanate of Oman's Ministry
of Education.

Or, W. W. (1995), “Reinstating Literature in the EFL Syllabus”. In K. P. Y. Wong

and C.F. Green (Eds.), Thinking Language: Issues in the Study of Language and
Language Curriculum Renewal, Hong Kong: Language Centre: Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, [20 January, 2008]
<http://repository.ust.hk/retrieve/1190/thinklang12.pdf>

Parera, M T. (2006), “Reading Strategies and Strategy Awareness in Three EFL

Educated Readers of English Literary Texts”, Atlantis 28, 2: 69-87.

Povey, J. F. (1967), “Literature in TESL Programs: The language and the Culture”,
TESOL Quarterly 1: 40-46.

Probst, R. E. 1998. Response and Analysis: Teaching Literature in Junior and Senior
High School, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Purves, A.C. and R. Beach, (1972), Literature and the Reader: Research in Response
to Literature, Reading Interests, and the Teaching of Literature, Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Ramsaran, S. (1983), “Poetry in the Language Classroom”, English Language

Teaching Journal 37, 1:36-43.

Richards, I.A. (1929), Practical Criticism, New York: Harcourt Brace.

Richards, J.C. and R.W. Schmidt (1983) (Eds.), Language and Communication,
Harlow: Longman.

Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers (1986), Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching: A Description and Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Savvidou, C. (2004), “An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in the EFL

Classroom”, The Internet TESL Journal 10, 12, [25 January, 2008]
<http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html>

Scalone, J. (1999), Distant Thunder: An Integrated Skills Approach to Learning

Language through Literature, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Short, M. (1996), Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose, London:
Longman.

Short, M. H. and C. N. Candlin (1986), “Teaching Study Skills for English

Literature”. In C. J. Brumfit and R.A. Carter (Eds.), Literature and Language
Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 89–109.

Susser B. and T.N. Robb (1990), “EFL Extensive Reading Instruction:

Research and Procedure”, JALT Journal 12, 2, [22 February, 2008],
<http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~trobb/sussrobb.html>

Swan, M. (1985), “A critical look at the Communicative Approach”, English

Language Teaching Journal 39, 1 and 39, 2.

12
Titone, R. (1968), Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch, Washington,
D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2003) (Ed), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, London:

Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

Topping, D.M. (1968), “Linguistics or Literature: An Approach to Language”, TESOL

Quarterly 2, 2: 95-100.

Van Ek, J.A. (1975), The Threshold Level, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Vethamani, M.E (2003), “Learner before Text and Teaching”, [23 January, 2008]
<http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2003/2003-72.pdf>

Wallace, C. (1992), Reading, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, C. (2001), “Reading”. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge

Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 20-7.

Wei, S. (1999), “Literature Teaching”, English Teaching Forum Online, [12 January,
2008] < http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p25_old.htm>

Widdowson, H. G. (1983), “Talking shop: On literature and ELT ”, English

Language Teaching Journal 37, 1: 30-35.

Widdowson, H.G. (1984), “The Incentive Value of Theory in Teacher Education”,

English Language Teaching Journal 38, 2: 86-90.

Wilkins, D. (1976). “Chapter One: Approaches to Language Syllabus Design”,

Notional Syllabuses, Oxford: Oxford University Press, [23 January, 2008]
<http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/TESOLOnline/texts/wilkins>

Wong, K. P. Y. and C.F. Green (1995) (Eds.), Thinking Language: Issues in the
Study of Language and Language Curriculum Renewal, Hong Kong: Language
Centre: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Zafeiriadou, N. (1991), “On Literature in the EFL Classroom”, [12 January, 2008]
<http://www.tesolgreece.com/nl/71/7104.html>

Zyngier, S. (1982), “The Absurd in Teaching Literature to EFL Students”, English

Teaching Forum, October Issue: 39-40.

7- APPENDIX: OUR PROGRAMMES

IMCO offers the following programmes:

- Foundation;
- Deck Officer (Nautical Studies);
- Marine Engineering Officer;
- Port, Shipping and Transport Management;
- Process Operation Technology (oil, gas and petrochemical process industries).

13
This means that you can either choose for a career at sea (Deck Officer or Marine
Engineering Officer) or a career ashore (Port, Shipping and Transport Management or
Operation Technology).

Before you can start one of the diploma programmes, a strong foundation in English,
Mathematics and IT is a must. In order to reach the right level, IMCO offers the
Foundation programme.

All potential IMCO students will have to sit for a placement test. Based on the
outcome of this test, the relevant Head of Department will decide whether you can
skip the foundation year and start with the diploma programme directly or should you
spend time better developing your English proficiency.

Excellent job preparation

The programmes are set up in such a way that the education and training is finetuned
to the job market and the demand of the relevant industries. All programmes are
practical-oriented. This means you will leave IMCO with a firm basis (diploma
programme) and a dedicated specialisation (degree programme). You will also be
equipped with enough knowledge and skills that will enable you to find employment
in Oman or abroad.

Programme Structure

For each diploma and degree programme 120 credit points can be earned per
Academic Year. Each year is divided into 2 semesters (fall and spring semester)
consisting of 15 weeks plus an examination period. This means that each semester has
60 credit points. The programmes consist of classroom instruction, practical training
in workshops, laboratories and on simulators, assignments, seminars and field visits.
Summer courses can be added to each programme.

As the Foundation programme is only a preparatory programme, no credit points can

be earned.

Foundation programme

This programme consists of two semesters. Intermediate tests are held during the
semesters. Each semester will be concluded by exams.

To be admitted to any of the diploma programmes, students should have an

accumulated average of at least 60% in the Foundation English programme to be
eligible for any diploma and degree programme.

Diploma programme

Once you have passed the foundation programme or passed the placement test, you
can enter the diploma programme.

The duration of the Deck Officer and Marine Engineering Officer programmes at
diploma level is three years, equal to six semesters including one (1) year
apprenticeship.

Having finished the diploma programme Deck Officers and Marine Engineering

14
 Officers can apply for an endorsement at operational level.

The duration of the Port, Shipping and Transport Management and Operation
Technology diploma programme is two years, equal to four semesters.

Several intermediate tests are held during the semesters. Each semester will be
concluded by exams.

Degree programme (BSc)

Having achieved the diploma level you can enter the degree programme.

The duration of the Deck Officers and Marine Engineers programmes at degree level
is one year, equal to two semesters. This programme prepares you to reach the highest
rank on board a ship, Captain or Chief Engineer.

The duration of the Port, Shipping and Transport Management and Operation
Technology degree programmes is two years, equal to four semesters.

Several intermediate tests are held during the semesters. Each semester will be
concluded by exams.
Language

IMCO prepares students for international jobs on ocean-going vessels, in major ports
and multinational (petro)chemical process companies. Therefore all teaching and
training is done in the English language only.

http://www.imcoman.net/E/What_Progs_Do_We_Offer.htm

15

View publication stats