Marco Regulatorio Mexicano para el Hidrógeno

Accordingly, Breen (1987b: 86) considers the grading principle of the learning content as the principle that follows the selection of the learning content principle. Similarly, Breen defines the grading of the learning content as an exercise of dividing the preselected learning content. Before I discuss the grading principle in-depth, it is of relevance to point out the view that studies with regard to the grading principle for structural syllabuses are limited to access compared to the studies on other syllabus design principles. Studies on the grading of the content, also known as, the subdivision of the learning content is limited possibly due to the fact that some scholars (see, for example, Yalden 1983: 23; Krahnke 1987: 18; Nunan 1993: 57; Long 2000: 180; Finney 2002: 71; Steenkamp & Visser 2011: 12; Richards 2013: 10; Ellis & Shintani 2014: 140) view the grading and sequencing principles as less similar to each other. The tendency of treating the two principles as though similar is primarily because according to Nunan (1991: 5-6) and Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards & Schmidt 2010: 29), divergent but focused perspectives and contextual backgrounds on SLA and pedagogy of such scholars. In this regard, the above scholars use both principles interchangeably based on their perspectives and contexts. Henceforth, in a similar way, the present study employs the perspective that considers the two principles to be used interchangeably. However, in case it necessitates their separation, the study will treat the two principles individually. Basing on the above, below are examples of the scholars’ views regarding the notion (principle) of grading.

In relation to the above, Nunan (2004: 113) relates grading and sequencing principles to the decisions regarding what learning content is to be taught, for instance, first, second, third or last and so on. According to Nunan, such decisions depend entirely on syllabus designers’ beliefs about sequencing and grading of the learning content. Nevertheless, in defining grading as a syllabus design principle, Richards, Platt and Weber (1986: 125) with reference to Nunan (2004: 113) state that grading is the exercise of organising learning content for a language course or a language textbook. Richards et al. (1986: 125) argue that the aim of grading the learning content is primary to present the learning content to the L2 learners in a helpful and facilitative way with in relation to the effective learning of the arranged content. According to Richards et al. (1986: 125), the grading

exercise is based on either degree of complexity of the content itself or the frequency of the content in both written and spoken discourses. Furthermore, Richards et al. (1986: 125) maintain that the grading may also be based on the importance of the learning content to the L2 learners in the L2 classrooms.

Similarly, Robinson (2009b: 295) expresses concern with regard to the importance of the grading principle in syllabus design. Robinson is of the view that the grading exercise in syllabus design processes is less similar to the pedagogical practices/activities that take place in the L2 classrooms. According to Robinson, grading is less similar to pedagogical practices, in a sense that underestimating an aspect of grading procedures and decisions of the learning content during the syllabus design processes, the underestimated aspect in one way or another affects directly the classroom practices in L2 classrooms. Subsequently, Robinson is of the view that based on the above situation, the graded content is likely to facilitate SLA with limited success. Therefore, in order to maintain effective pedagogical practices, Robinson suggests that the grading as an aspect should be treated with extreme care among other factors.

In addition, Breen (1987b: 86) noted above that grading is an exercise of dividing the content. According to Breen, the content is divided into smaller units from their superordinate units. In support of this view, Krahnke (1987: 16) states that smaller units of the learning units are derived from the components of the language systems. According to Krahnke, such components include, for example, the morphology (superordinate) of a specific language(s). Krahnke elaborates that from the morphological system, smaller units, such as suffixes or prefixes among others, are derived. Similarly, according to Breen (2001: 152), the main reason for subdividing the learning content into smaller constituents/units is to provide the easiness in teaching and learning of such constituents in the L2 classrooms across contexts. In this essence, the learners are provided with smaller and simple units, such as tense markers, nouns, verbs et cetera., for learners to comprehend and later produce as for example, a complete structure or grammatically correct sentence.

In light of the above, Nunan (1991: 28) provides a general criterion that is considered crucial in the grading of the learning content with regard to structural syllabuses. Nunan maintains that the commonest criterion for grading and subdividing of the learning content is one that is based on the grammatical notions of simplicity and complexity of the preselected learning content as discusses below (cf. Mbunda 2003: 4; Besha 2003: 69-70). According to Yalden (1983: 23-25), the former (simplicity) is related to the grading of learning units that a syllabus designer assumes are simple and precise for the L2 learners to synthesize in the L2 classrooms (see, for example, Robinson 2009: 296; Willis & Willis 2007: 177, in support of such a view). In other words, Yalden reveals

that the teaching units, such as, for example, the verb ‘to be’ is graded in the syllabus before other verbs, such as ‘to do’ or ‘to have’ verbs. In this context, according to Yalden, the verb ‘to be’ is assumed to be the simplest when compared to the other two verbs. Similarly, the verb ‘to do’ is also assumed to be simpler than the verb ‘to have’.

On the other hand, according to Yalden (1983: 23), the later i.e. the notion of complexity/difficulty is related to the grading of teaching and learning units depending on their degree of difficulty in learning them. In this case, according to Yalden, the least difficult teaching units are graded before grading the more or most difficult units to L2 learners. In addition, Yalden (1983: 24) provides other examples in relation to the grading of structural syllabuses. According to Yalden, the least difficult teaching unit, for example, in pronouns, is the ‘personal pronoun’, the more difficult is ‘demonstrative pronouns’ and ‘possessive pronouns’ are assumed to be the most difficult for L2 learners to synthesize in the classrooms. In this case, Yalden is of the view that the grading of the learning content in relation to pronouns with regard to the structural syllabus is organised/presented to the L2 learners starting with personal, then, demonstrative and later possessive pronouns.

Nevertheless, Willis and Willis (2001: 173) are of the view that such modes (simplicity and complexity) of grading the learning content remains somehow unsuccessful in bridging the facilitating gap of SLA and pedagogy in the L2 classrooms. In this regard, Pica et al.(2009: 172) agree with Willis and Willis (2007:1) on the suggestions that the grading of learning content that facilitates SLA and pedagogies is that of presenting the learning content to the L2 learners in its holistic (chunk) form rather than in linguistics and isolated units of the language systems as discussed above.

In support of the above views, Nunan (1991: 28) also contests the modes of simplicity and complexity above as grading criterion on grounds that the complexity of the grammatical units is not the same as the difficulty in learning such a grammatical unit, similarly, Nunan is of the view that the simplicity of a grammatical form does not necessarily imply simplicity in learning it. Similarly, Ellis (2003a: 76) maintains that most times, it is cognitively challenging for L2 learners to process the linguistic forms of the target language that their teachers present for acquisition.

In that matter, therefore, Nunan (1991: 30) recommends the following factors regarding the grading of the learning content for structural syllabuses. According to Nunan, first, there is a need to abandon the established procedures of structural grading as noted above. Secondly, Nunan is of the view that syllabus designers should make use of the list of graded structures/units that L2 learners

are bound to focus upon while in the classrooms. Lastly, Nunan suggests that attempts should be made to grade items that focus on what learners are expected to do with the target language.