BY

Mr.Kamolpan Jammapat
No.12 Student Id. 49051513014
Muang Surat thani School
Graduate Diploma In English Teaching Program
Graduate School
Surat thani Rajabhat University
1. I do agree with Posner and Rudnitsky ( 1986 ) concluded that
developing a rationale also helps provide focus and direction to some of
the deliberations involved in course planning and serves the purposes of:
- guiding the planning of various components of the course.
- emphasizing the kinds of teaching and learning the course should
exemplify.
- providing a check on the consistency of the various course
component in terms of the course values and goals.

2. I agree with text says that “ the course seeks to enable participants to
recognize their strengths and needs in language learning and to give them
the confidence to use English more effectively to achieve their own
goals”
So the really good course should enable the learner to develop the
learner’s skills in independent learning or try to be a good autonomous
learmer.

3. I disagree with Mrowicki ( 1986 ) that the topics and cross-topics in

the curriculum are sequenced .In order of importance to students’ lives
,ease of contextualization and their relationship to other topics and cross-
topics . I think it shouldn’t be the fixed–order and it could be integrated
in the contextualization and other topics or cross-topics. And it really
depends on the learner’s background knowledge.

4. I do agree with “ Whole to part or part to whole ” because in some

cases students might study how to write paragraphs before going on to
practice putting paragraphs together to make an essay ( Deductive or
Inductive learning)
“ Flexibility is the policy.”

5. I agree with the lexical syllabus or target vocabulary bands . I think

that we ( teacher ) should make it easy for our students to be acquired the
knowledge. They should easily acquire everything not only in the
classroom but the acquisition should be everywhere like love is all
around.

6. I disagree with the textbook in English for travel “Passport” by

Buckingham and Whitney ( 1995 ) contains situational syllabus that the
situation or the text ,vocabularies and grammar could be switched from
this one to the other .It depends on the live atmosphere in the classroom.
It’s shouldn’t fixed as a doornail. Right?
 7. I agree with Britnton , Snow ( 1989) and Wesche (1986) they
concluded that English can be integrated with other subjects such as
science , mathematics and social science and so on as well as of ESL
program for student at the university level.

8. I think that in some text or lesson we don’t need all four macroskills
of reading , writing ,listening, and speaking as a basis for syllabus design
( Munby 1978) in teaching .

9. I agree with Long and Crookes ( 1991) that it will be good for a
task-based syllabus to follow the process that they concluded “ provide a
vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target language samples to
learners-input which they will inevitably reshape via application of
general cognitive processing capacities-and for the delivery of
comprehension and production opportunities of negotiable difficulty”

10. I think it would be great if teachers provide all the knowledge for
their students and it would be very great for the lively classroom
atmospheres if they bend their back down and have a check on their
students’ background knowledge and I do think that it would make an
ideal-classroom . Is it only my daydream?