22 Syllabus Design II

Dr. Neeru Tandon

Learning outcome:

This module deals with the syllabus design in general and syllabus for English language in particular. It also examines definition and function of syllabus along with various steps of designing a syllabus. Multiple-choice exercises will help students in assessing their knowledge and understanding of the work. Bibliography, list of websites and You Tube videos will help them in their in-depth study and further reading. Critical quotes and quotes from the book will also help them in understanding various aspects of the module.

Definition and function of syllabuses.

A syllabus is an expression of opinion on the nature of language and learning; it acts as a guide for both teacher and learner by providing some goals to be attained. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:80) define syllabus as follows: ‘’At its simplest level a syllabus can be described as a statement of what is to be learnt. It reflects language and linguistic performance. This is a rather traditional interpretation of syllabus focusing on outcomes rather than process. However, a syllabus can also be seen as a summary of the content to which learners will be exposed; (Yalden.1987).’’ It is seen as an approximation of what will be taught and that it cannot accurately predict what will be learnt. A language-teaching syllabus involves the integration of subject matter and linguistic matter.

As Hutchinson and Waters (1991) point out, “A syllabus is a document which says what will (or at least what should) be learnt…it can be seen as a statement of projected routes, so that the teacher and learner not only have an idea of where they are going, but how they might get there”.

We might also add the definition of the perfect syllabus used by Kearsley and Lynch (1996):

A syllabus requires the following prerequisites to fulfill the objectives and goals of a course:

1. Learner’s age, background and capability
2. The grading/evaluation scheme,
3. Materials to be used (textbooks, software),
4. Topics to be covered,
5. An agenda, timetable or schedule
6. A working bibliography.

Each of these components defines the nature of the learning experience. Goals and objectives identify the expected outcomes and scope of the course as determined by the instructor or course designer, restricting the domain of knowledge for the learner.

Having a syllabus is a necessity because as Hutchinson and Waters state: “Language is a complex entity and we have to have some way of breaking down the complex into manageable units”

This “gives moral support to the teacher and learner” (Hutchinson & Waters1991, p.83). The knowledge that is going to be exposed to the students has to be organized and sequenced. Harmer (2001) reminds us “syllabus design concerns the selection of items to be learnt and the grading of those items into an appropriate sequence.”

Major factors affecting the choice of syllabus

Learnability,
Coverage,
Usefulness
Frequency

As Hutchinson and Waters (1991) point out, “a syllabus can only constitute an approximate statement of what will be taught. In particular we need to recognize its ideal nature and, therefore, its limitations as an indicator of learning.”

Why ‘syllabus’?

Generally every examination has its ‘syllabus’, that is a statement of the subject matter, topics, or areas to be covered by the course leading to the particular examination. Students and teachers consult the syllabus in preparation for an examination, and very often the teaching of a course will be strictly guided by the syllabus in question. The terms ‘course of study’, ‘curriculum’, or ‘program’ often cover more or less the same matter. It thus replaces the concept of ‘method’, and the syllabus is now seen as an instrument by which the teacher, with the help of the syllabus designer, can achieve a degree of ‘fit’ between the needs and aims of the learner (as social being and as individual), and the activities which will take place in the classroom. It is thus a necessity in terms of providing educational services to the community to which the teacher is responsible.

The need for a syllabus

The concept of the syllabus for second-language teaching has been widely recognized because of the initiation of more complicated theories of language and language learning, as well as detection of the variety of learners’ needs, wants and aspirations. Accordingly a syllabus is needed in order to produce efficiency of two kinds. The first of these is pragmatic efficiency, or economy of time and money. The pre planned instruction are needed. Not all learners will be given the same treatment, and so syllabuses differ according to the practical constraints present in any given situation. The second kind of efficiency is pedagogical: economy in the management of the learning process. ‘’Instruction provided in an institutional setting is assumed to be a more efficient method of dealing with learning than allowing the learner to proceed in a non-structured environment. This has long been recognized, even though individuals have always also managed to acquire second-language proficiency independently.’’ There is no discussion or debate regarding the classroom instructions, which is both desirable and necessary. The syllabus is needed for that as well because a teacher needs a particular syllabus for a particular class to fulfill the aims and objectives.

Difference between Syllabus and Curriculum: We usually hear the words ‘syllabus’ and ‘Curriculum’ for the same purposes. Curriculum is wider term as compared with syllabus. Curriculum covers all the activities and arrangements made by the institution through out the academic year to facilitate the learners and the instructors. Syllabus is limited to particular subject of a particular class.

Should a syllabus be explicit, and if so, to whom?

A syllabus in ELT must be explicit for the teacher, and should be at least partially produced by teachers (using expert help as needed and as available). The relationship of the syllabus designer to the teacher can range along a continuum from directive to descriptive (Yalden). That is, the teacher /classroom manager is dependent on the syllabus when the relationship is directive. If the teacher is free to do as he or she pleases, then the syllabus designer merely describes what has gone on, in order to maintain a record or to be able to examine retrospectively the syllabus created through interaction between teacher and learner. But to have the teacher participate in syllabus production ensures complete understanding of the end product, thus fulfilling the need for economy in general planning, and in particular, in teacher preparation.

A syllabus can be more or less explicit for the learner. The learner must have some idea of content, but the amount of input he/she has into determining either ends or means depends on educational background, age, type of programme and a host of other factors. However, learner input into syllabus design is not to be excluded a priori in general education.

A syllabus must be seen as making explicit what will be taught, not what will be learned. A range of outcomes must be expected; a first-stage syllabus (or specification of content) does not constitute an expression of objectives for a given group of learners, but rather a summary of the content to which learners will be exposed. Any adaptation or realization of such a set of specifications may include objectives, but these should be expressed in terms of a range of values; students’ achievements should also be expected to fall within an acceptable range rather than being narrowly defined.

The Syllabus Designing and its Trends.

To design a syllabus is to decide what gets taught and in what order. For this reason, the theory of language underlying the language teaching method will play a major role in determining what syllabus should be adopted. Theory of learning also plays an important part in determining the kind of syllabus used. For example, a syllabus based on the theory of learning evolved by cognitive code teaching would emphasize language forms and whatever explicit descriptive knowledge about those forms. A syllabus based on an acquisition theory of learning, however, would emphasize unanalyzed and carefully selected experiences of the new language. The choice of a syllabus is a major decision in language teaching, and it should be made as consciously and with as much information as possible. There has been much confusion over the years as to what different types of content are possible in language teaching syllabi and as to whether the differences are in syllabus or method.

In making practical decisions about syllabus design, one must take into consideration all the possible factors that might affect the teachability of a particular syllabus. By starting with an examination of each syllabus type, tailoring the choice and integration of the different types according to local needs, one may find a principled and practical solution to the problem of appropriateness and effectiveness in syllabus design.

Candlin and Breen who belong to the ‘Lancaster School’ represented the first trend of syllabus designing. This school of thought has strongly reacted against the notion of a fixed syllabus, which can be planned, pre-ordained, and imposed on teachers and students. For this group, it is not a choice between structural and functional syllabuses. The principle of any fixed inventory of language items is unacceptable to them. They regard the syllabus as open and negotiable. They envisage that the teacher would negotiate the curriculum with a given group of learners. Breen acknowledges that one has to set out from a plan (‘a predesigned syllabus’). But such a syllabus is inevitably interpreted and reconstructed by the teacher; equally, the learner creates his own curriculum. Consequently, the predesigned syllabus by itself is ‘a paradox’. It only makes sense if it is used for the creation of three other syllabuses: the teacher’s, the individual student’s, and the syllabus of the class. Good syllabus design, therefore, according to Breen, takes these other syllabus realities into account from the outset. Breen’s ideal syllabus focuses on the learning process and assists learners to draw ‘their own route maps’.

Candlin, even more radically, rejects ‘a syllabus which requires learners to bank received knowledge’, and to attain predetermined ‘states of knowledge’. He proposes ‘a syllabus which encourages learners to explore ways of knowing, to interpret knowledge, and to engage in dialogue’. Such a syllabus is ‘interactive’ and ‘problem- solving’. ‘Syllabuses are social constructs, produced interdependent in classrooms by teachers and learners.’ Understood in this way, ideally syllabuses become ‘retrospective records rather than prospective plans’.

It is clear that Candlin even more than Breen rejects the idea of a fixed plan which imposes objectives, a content, and a teaching methodology upon the teacher who, in turn, imposes this syllabus upon the student. In rejecting it, does Candlin not really reject the idea of syllabus altogether? Does it still make sense to talk of syllabus, if the

Syllabus is only a retrospective record?

Widdowson and Brumfit, who can be said to represent another direction, which we might call the ‘London School’, find the Lancaster view extreme and unrealistic. They are challenged by it; they react against it; they certainly do not accept it as their own. They put forward what they would consider an alternative and more realistic approach.

Thus, Widdowson appears to argue: a syllabus is necessary; it is economical, and it is useful. If the chips are down, ‘the teacher knows best’, and therefore don’t let us indulge in any nonsense about ‘negotiating’ the curriculum. This does not mean that Widdowson advocates a narrow, specific prescription for teaching. Like Candlin and Breen, he also likes the idea of freedom for the teacher. To achieve it without losing the benefits of a well-designed syllabus, Widdowson makes a conceptual distinction between syllabus and teaching methodology. The syllabus provides the framework with a good deal of latitude for ‘teaching-learning activities’ because Widdowson separates the concept of syllabus which is confined to content specification from teaching methodology which is not part of his syllabus concept. Widdowson suggests that a syllabus should be structural; it is the methodology that can be communicative. ‘There is no such thing as a communicative syllabus.’ a rather surprising statement for someone who has written a seminal book called Teaching Language as Communication which surely is not only a prescription of methodology but also of content. Again, like Brumfit, Yalden identifies the theoretical underpinnings of the syllabus content. If we view language as learned, then the logic of grammar rules imposes a sequence; if we view language as acquired (in Krashen’s sense), there is no linguistic content restriction; if we base a syllabus on language use, then, following the Council of Europe, we require a needs analysis, and the identified needs impose the choice of syllabus content.

The relationship between syllabus and learner Thus, it is clear that a syllabus of any kind is viewed as providing for control of the learning process (see Widdowson, this volume), generally by the institution and/or teacher, but in some instances control can and should be exercised also by the learner. The degree and type of control that the syllabus exercises depends on the institution-as-society; that is, in a highly democratic institution, the syllabus has to be determined by consensus.

Yalden recognizes that the learner may have an input to make into the curriculum. But, unlike Breen and Candlin, she is not preoccupied with the learner’s role in syllabus development. For her, the syllabus is primarily a teacher’s statement about objectives and content, and that this should be so is not a matter of particular concern to her. Like Yalden, Alien who represents Toronto School’, is again not concerned with the question of the learner’s role in syllabus development. He accepts the need for a syllabus as unquestioned. The issue for him is much more a question of constructing a theoretically sound and practically useful curriculum.

The design of syllabuses Syllabuses are concerned with the specification and planning of what is to be learned, frequently set down in some written form as prescriptions for action by teachers and learners.

When one acquires a syllabus, either in the form of an institutional document or as a textbook, it is as well to reflect on what it is that one is buying. Caveat emptor applies as much in the world of education as it does in the marketplace. On the face of it, the transaction should present little problem: one is acquiring access to an ordered collection of items of knowledge, selected and sequenced with the purchaser in mind and designed to carry him, with as much care and expeditions can be managed, from a state of ignorance to a state of knowing

Syllabus Design as a Critical Process

Curriculum/syllabus is concerned with content, objectives, and sequence. Should it include more than that? Candlin, Breen, Alien, and Yalden seem to include also instruction and methodology. Candlin, for example, is anxious to avoid an overly rigid division between these different aspects of teaching. Widdowson deliberately keeps the concept of syllabus restricted so that the area of freedom in methodology for the teacher is seen to be wide. Language teaching has suffered from an overemphasis on single aspects, and a wide comprehensively conceived definition expresses the view that language teaching is multifaceted and that the different facets should be consistent with each other.

In practice, syllabuses can be broadly or narrowly defined. Broadly defined, we may expect them to offer information about particular audiences of learners, their target needs for learning the subject-matter in question, from which are derived their objectives, and their state-of-knowing at the commencement of the syllabus activation. Furthermore, we may look for characterization of the situational context of teaching and learning, some quite detailed analysis of the subject matter content in terms of manageable units and classificatory schemata, and, in particular, statements of mandatory or preferred routes through this content in terms of some ordered sequence of teaching and learning.

Narrowly defined, and, in addition, now perhaps locally at the level of a school or even a particular class rather than any larger institutional frame, such syllabuses are restricted to mere collections of items of content, derived from a special view of the subject-matter in question, broken down and sequenced in order to facilitate, it is claimed, and optimize, it is implied, their learning by learners in classrooms. They act, thus, as a general metaphor for particular subject learning.

SWOP of Six Types Of Syllabi

The six types of syllabi are not entirely distinct from each other, the only difference is usually the way in which the instructional content is used in the actual teaching procedure. The strengths, weaknesses, objectives and perspectives of individual syllabi are defined as follows:

“A structural (formal) syllabus.” The content of language teaching is a collection of the forms and structures, usually grammatical, of the language being taught. Examples include nouns, verbs, adjectives, statements, questions, subordinate clauses, and so on.
“A notional/functional syllabus.” The content of the language teaching is a collection of the functions that are performed when language is used, or of the notions that language is used to express. Examples of functions include: informing, agreeing, apologizing, requesting; examples of notions include size, age, color, comparison, time, and so on.
“A situational syllabus.” The content of language teaching is a collection of real or imaginary situations in which language occurs or is used. A situation usually involves several participants who are engaged in some activity in a specific setting. The language occurring in the situation involves a number of functions, combined into a plausible segment of discourse. The primary purpose of a situational language-teaching syllabus is to teach the language that occurs in the situations. Examples of situations include: seeing the dentist, complaining to the landlord, buying a book at the bookstore, meeting a new student, and so on.
“A skill-based syllabus.” The content of the language teaching is a collection of specific abilities that may play a part in using language. Skills are things that people must be able to do to be competent in a language, relatively independently of the situation or setting in which the language use can occur. While situational syllabi group functions together into specific settings of language use, skill-based syllabi group linguistic competencies (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse) together into generalized types of behavior, such as listening to spoken language for the main idea, writing well- formed paragraphs, giving effective oral presentations, and so on. The primary purpose of skill-based instruction is to learn the specific language skill. A possible secondary purpose is to develop more general competence in the language, learning only incidentally any information that may be available while applying the language skills.
“A task-based syllabus.” The content of the teaching is a series of complex and purposeful tasks that the students want or need to perform with the language they are learning. The tasks are defined as activities with a purpose other than language learning, but, as in a content-based syllabus, the performance of the tasks is approached in a way that is intended to develop second language ability. Language learning is subordinate to task performance, and language teaching occurs only as the need arises during the performance of a given task. Tasks integrate language (and other) skills in specific settings of language use. Task-based teaching differs from situation- based teaching in that while situational teaching has the goal of teaching the specific language content that occurs in the situation (a predefined product), task-based teaching has the goal of teaching students to draw on resources to complete some piece of work (a process). The students draw on a variety of language forms, functions, and skills, often in an individual and unpredictable way, in completing the tasks. Tasks that can be used for language learning are, generally, tasks that the learners actually have to perform in any case. Examples include: applying for a job, talking with a social worker, getting housing information over the telephone, and so on.
“A content-based-syllabus.” The primary purpose of instruction is to teach some content or information using the language that the students are also learning. The students are simultaneously language students and students of whatever content is being taught. The subject matter is primary, and language learning occurs incidentally to the content learning. The content teaching is not organized around the language teaching, but vice-versa. Content-based language teaching is concerned with information, while task-based language teaching is concerned with communicative and cognitive processes. An example of content-based language teaching is a science class taught in the language the students need or want to learn, possibly with linguistic adjustment to make the science more comprehensible.

In general, the six types of syllabi or instructional content are presented beginning with the one based most on structure, and ending with the one based most on language use. Language is a relationship between form and meaning, and most instruction emphasizes one or the other side of this relationship.

CHOOSING AND INTEGRATING SYLLABI

Although the six types of syllabus content are defined here in isolated contexts, it is rare for one type of syllabus or content to be used exclusively in actual teaching settings. Syllabi or content types are usually combined in more or less integrated ways, with one type as the organizing basis around which the others are arranged and related. In discussing syllabus choice and design, it should be kept in mind that the issue is not which type to choose but which types, and how to relate them to each other.

How a syllabus should be evaluated. A syllabus is a shareable plan-by definition and therefore opens to inspection and evaluation. Perhaps we would require our syllabus to be accessible and meaningful to anyone who is directly or indirectly concerned with its use. Thus, fellow professionals in our work situation should be able to follow the same plan or take it as an indication of the subject matter, which has been covered in our course. For a plan to be genuinely accessible, it would certainly need to provide continuity and points of reference for our learners also. We would expect a syllabus to provide criteria for evaluation and to order subject matter in ways in which coverage can be checked. That is, there would be steps along the route at which we could evaluate progress and at which we could check the appropriateness of the plan itself.

Creating and Reinterpreting a Syllabus

Although, as teachers, we may follow a predesigned syllabus, every teacher inevitably interprets and reconstructs that syllabus so that it becomes possible to implement it in his or her classroom. Similarly, learners create individual learning syllabuses from their own particular starting points and their own perceptions of the language, learning, and the classroom. We may regard learners either as people who are trying to redraw the predesigned plan (a plan which is mediated through the teacher), or we may see learners as uncovering the route for the first time in a sense, discovering the new language as if it had never been explored before. A learner’s individual version of the route may harmonize with the teacher’s version, which-in turn-may harmonize with the predesigned plan. The classroom is therefore the meeting place or point of interaction between the predesigned syllabus and individual learner syllabuses. This interaction will generate the real syllabus-or the syllabus in action-which is jointly constructed by teacher and learners together. The predesigned syllabus is therefore something of a paradox, for it serves to gradually render itself redundant. It is always replaced in its implementation by that syllabus which is jointly discovered and created in the classroom.

Suggested Steps for Planning Syllabus:

Develop a well-grounded rationale for your course.
Decide what you want students to be able to do as a result of taking your course, and how their work will be appropriately assessed.
Define and delimit course content.
Structure your students’ active involvement in learning.
Identify and develop resources.
Compose your syllabus with a focus on student learning.

Ten steps in preparing a practical language teaching syllabus:

Determine, to the extent possible, what outcomes are desired for the students in the instructional program. That is, as exactly and realistically as possible, define what the students should be able to do as a result of the instruction.
Rank the syllabus types presented here as to their likelihood of leading to the outcomes desired. Several rankings may be necessary if outcomes are complex.
Evaluate available resources in expertise (for teaching, needs analysis, materials choice and production, etc.), in materials, and in training for teachers.
Rank the syllabi relative to available resources. That is, determine what syllabus types would be the easiest to implement given available resources.
Compare the lists made under Nos. 2 and 4. Making as few adjustments to the earlier list as possible, produce a new ranking based on the resources’ constraints.
Repeat the process, taking into account the constraints contributed by teacher and student factors described earlier.
Determine a final ranking, taking into account all the information produced by the earlier steps.
Designate one or two syllabus types as dominant and one or two as secondary.
Review the question of combination or integration of syllabus types and determine how combinations will be achieved and in what proportion.
Translate decisions into actual teaching units.

you can view video on Syllabus Design II

Reference

Brumfit, C.J. and Johnson, K. (1979) The Communicative Approach To Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English For Specific Purposes: A Learning Centred Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Long, R.W. and Russell, G. (1999) quot;Student Attitudinal Change over an Academic Yearquot;. The Language Teacher. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy Oxford University Press.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (1986) Approaches And Methods In Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
White, R.V. (1988) The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation And Management. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language As Communication. Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D.A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press.
Yalden, J. (1987) Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
JUDD, E. L. (1983). ‘TESOL as a Political Act: A Moral Question’ Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto. March, 1983. KELLY, L. G. (1969). 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
KRASHEN, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press
MULLER, K. E. (1980). The Foreign Language Svllabus and Communicative Approaches to Teaching: Proceedings of a European-American Seminar. Special issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5.1.Modern Language Journal, 66:121-32 ULLMANN, R. (1982). ‘A broadened curriculum framework for second languages’. ELT Journal 36:255-62.
WILKINS, D. A. (1981). ‘Notional Syllabuses Revisited’. Applied Linguistics
2:82-9.
YALDEN, J. (1983a). The Communicative Svllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation. New York; Pergamon Press.
YALDEN, J. (forthcoming). ‘The Linguist and the Teacher in Communicative Syllabus Design’. In: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistic.’; 1983. Edited by James Alatis and H. H. Stern. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.