Syllabus+Design

I have come to understand that a syllabus is a more complex and dynamic thing than I had previously considered. This short essay will examine some different perceptions of syllabus before communicating what my new understanding of the term is. Firstly, it is useful to distinguish the term from both curriculum and method. Nunan (1988, p. 158 - 159) distinguishes syllabus from curriculum. A curriculum combines assumptions and procedures for the development, implementation, evaluation, and management of a language teaching program. It includes within it syllabus design which involves a specification of what is to be taught and the order in which it is to be taught. It can be seen as a selection and grading of content. A syllabus may possibly include such components of language as, grammar, functions, topics, tasks. According to Richards (2001, p. 2), a method can be viewed as a framework of teaching practices based upon a theory of language and language learning. According to Nunan (1988, p. 5), there is no clearly defined notion of syllabus. He identifies two views of syllabus which he calls the broad approach and narrow approach to syllabus design. Those who support the narrow approach see a clear separation between syllabus design and methodology. Those taking the broader view believe such a distinction between content and tasks cannot always be made. Apart from prescribing the how of language instruction, methods also promote a particular content of teaching. Early approaches to language syllabus design sought to determine the vocabulary and grammar content of courses and were informed by the particular method in vogue at the time known as the structural method. From this emerged procedures indentified as selection and gradation, i.e. deciding the appropriate units of language to be taught in addition to deciding upon the most effective way to teach them. (Richards, 2001, pp. 2 - 4) The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method became influential in the 1970s and elements of the approach were integrated into syllabus design. Syllabus design moved from a focus on linguistic components which students need to master to thinking about what learners want and need to do with the language. This added to the content of syllabus design of not only vocabulary and grammar but also functional skills. It has been common practice that syllabuses whether oriented linguistically or communicatively, stated content in terms of learner outcomes and as such, can be viewed as product oriented. In recent times, some syllabus designers have suggested a process orientation, where content is stated in terms of learning tasks and activities. The argument is that communication is a process rather than a set of outcomes. This is an example of the broad view of syllabus design. (Nunan, 1988, p. 11) Yalden (1987, pp. 85 - 86) says the notion of second language syllabus has become more significant and complex. This is due to both our ever increasing understanding and theorizing of language and language teaching and a focus on the requirements, desires, and aspirations of language learners. A syllabus is a tool by which teaching, through the guidance of a syllabus, can provide learning activities that will match the needs and aims of learners. Yalden (1987, pp. 86 - 89) outlines three characteristics of language syllabuses. Firstly, they lend efficiency to the process of langage acquisition. Learning language in a structured setting is more efficient than learning in a non structured way. The second characteristic is that they state clearly what will be taught. They can be seen as a summary of the content that will be covered in the course. Achievement should not be narrowly defined but be expected to fall within a suitable range. Lastly, syllabuses are born from a set of principles. These include assumptions about language and second language learning. Sequencing and continuity of content are also an important aspect of organizing principles. In recent years, the question of how to identify components of communicative competency has lead to asking which aspects of language can be taught systematically and non-systematically, what can be taught in a linear fashion and what cyclically. How one answers these questions depends on one’s view of language and language acquisition. Stern (1987, pp. 23 - 26) takes a critical look at some recent perceptions of syllabus. Firstly, Candlin and Breen rejected the idea of a preplanned and imposed syllabus. A good syllabus is born out of a negotiation between teacher and learners from which there is a focus on the learning process and promoting learner autonomy. Widdowson and Brumfit take a different view of syllabus. Widdowson sees value in a preplanned syllabus, but acknowledges the need for a broader non prescriptive syllabus for instruction. To accommodate these two conflicting elements, they separate syllabus from method. The syllabus provides structure and the teacher is free to employ their own methods. Brumfit saw a good syllabus as being grounded in ideas about language, learning, and language use. The content should address linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural concerns. Brumfit regards as crucial the acknowledgement of practical teaching considerations and flexibility so as not to stifle good teaching. Yalden like Brumfit asserts a theoretical basis for content. Content will emerge depending upon one’s view of language and language learning. Those that see language as learned will see content sequenced in accordance with grammar rules. The view that sees language as acquired as in Krashen’s definition will see no limitations on linguistic content. If language use is the foundation of a syllabus, a needs analysis is required which will then determine the choice of syllabus content. While Yalden does accept the need to consider learner needs, unlike Breen and Candlin she is not concerned with the learner’s participation in the development of the syllabus. My view of syllabus is more aligned with the narrow approach. Like Widdowson, I like the idea that a syllabus gives structure to a program because clearly defined aims, outcomes, and processes can help teachers and learners focus their efforts toward effective acquisition. Additionally, having teachers employ their own methods rather than following a prescribed one appeals to me. I subscribe to the eclectic approach to method as a one size fits all approach ignores different teaching and learning styles as well as perhaps cultural differences. Furthermore, I think syllabuses must consider learners’ complex and varied needs and motivations for learning a second language, so a syllabus needs to make use of needs analysis. However, like Yalden I do not believe learners need to be involved in the creation of the syllabus. Additionally, like Brumfit and Yalden I believe that a syllabus needs to be grounded in a particular view of language and its acquisition as this will inform teaching and learning practices that are in line with expert opinion. Finally, as Breen and Candlin stated, I believe that a good syllabus should encourage learner autonomy.