لخّصلي

The principle of organization in a general language syllabus can be structural, functional, experiential, or some combination of the three.It seems that some form of grading, either implicit or explicit, is a universal requirement in language teaching.As Krashen (1982) points out, it is possible that natural, communicative, roughly-tuned input which does not aim directly at the next stage in the learning sequence may have advantages in that it reduces the anxiety level, provides more opportunities for recycling, and focuses attention on meaning rather than form.The principle of grading is inherent in structural and functional syllabuses arranged on a taxonomic basis, but it also extends to experiential, non-analytic language teaching.Those methods which place a high value on naturalistic, real-life input usually contain a hidden curriculum which enables the teacher to maintain control over the material, although in such cases the nature of the control is relatively unobtrusive and indirect.In most circumstances, then, the choice is not between close control, and no control at all, but between 'finely tuned' (explicitly graded) and 'roughly tuned' (implicitly graded) input for the learner.It does, however, require that control over the course material should be exercised in a more subtle and flexible way than can normally be achieved by means of a traditional structural syllabus.It is important to note that this approach does not constitute a case for the abolition of grading.

The principle of organization in a general language syllabus can be structural,
functional, experiential, or some combination of the three. Whatever the
nature of the analysis there will always be some items which are less complex,
more regular, or more familiar than others, and which are therefore easier to
learn. It seems that some form of grading, either implicit or explicit, is a
universal requirement in language teaching. The principle of grading is
inherent in structural and functional syllabuses arranged on a taxonomic
basis, but it also extends to experiential, non-analytic language teaching.
Those methods which place a high value on naturalistic, real-life input usually
contain a hidden curriculum which enables the teacher to maintain control
over the material, although in such cases the nature of the control is relatively
unobtrusive and indirect. In most circumstances, then, the choice is not
between close control, and no control at all, but between 'finely tuned'
(explicitly graded) and 'roughly tuned' (implicitly graded) input for the
learner. As Krashen (1982) points out, it is possible that natural,
communicative, roughly-tuned input which does not aim directly at the next
stage in the learning sequence may have advantages in that it reduces the
anxiety level, provides more opportunities for recycling, and focuses
attention on meaning rather than form. It is important to note that this
approach does not constitute a case for the abolition of grading. It does,
however, require that control over the course material should be exercised in a more subtle and flexible way than can normally be achieved by means of a
traditional structural syllabus.