syllabus design lecture 1

8/3/2019 Syllabus Design Lecture 1

1/34

1. Introduction

The different definitions given to curriculum as wellas possible approaches to course design will be givenfirst. Articulating your beliefs and defining the context

are going to be exposed, together with assessing

needs, formulating goals andobjectives. Next, we shall be focusing on thedifferent ways of organizing courses

and specification and ordering of the content i.e.the syllabus. Last, a short

explanation about materials, designing anassessment plan and how to evaluate courses.


2/34

Curriculum is a very general concept which involvesconsideration of the whole complex of philosophical, social andadministrative factors which contribute to the planning of an

educational program. (Allen quoted in Nunan, 2000: 6) Curriculum theory encompasses philosophy and valuesystems; the main components of the curriculum: purposes,content, methodology and evaluation; and the process wherebycurricula are developed, implemented and evaluated. (White,1993: 19).


3/34

2.2 CourseA course is an integrated series of teaching-learning

experiences, whoseultimate aim is to lead the learners to a particular state of

knowledge. (Hutchinsonand Waters 1996: 65)The distinction between a curriculum and a course isimportant because some of the areas ox concern in curriculum

development as:societal needs analysis, testing for placement purposes or

program wide evaluationmay be out of the hands of teachers who are developing courses

(Richards, 2001).


4/34

2.3 SyllabusesSyllabus is essentially a statement of what

should be taught, year by year through language syllabuses often also

contain points about the method ofteaching and the time to be taken (Lee

1980:10x).Another opinion is that that a

syllabus is a mere detailed and operational

statement of teaching and learningelements which translates the philosophy of thecurriculum into a series of planned steps leading towardsmore narrowly defined objectives at each level Dobbin &

Olshtain, (1997: 28).


5/34

A syllabus is an expression of opinion on the nature oflanguage 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 astatement


6/34

of what is to be learnt .It reflects of

language and linguistic performance.This is a rather traditional interpretation ofsyllabus focusing as it does on outcomesrather than process.However, a syllabus can also be seen as a

"summary of the content to which learners

will be exposed" (Yalden.1987: 87). It isseen as an approximation of what will betaught and that it cannot accurately predictwhat will be learnt. Next, we will discussthe various types of approaches availableto course designers and the language

assumptions they make.


7/34

Syllabuses are more localized and are based on accounts and records ofwhat actually happens at the classroom level. Given these definitions it is

suggested that it seems helpful to define a curriculum and a syllabus as separate

entities. To sum up it s possible to see syllabus design as part of course design,which in turn, forms part of the design of the curriculum as a whole.


8/34

2.4 What are the possible approaches to course designIt can be said that the field of education has undergone profound changes

during the last 30 to 40 years and it is suggested that successful languageprograms depend upon the use of approaches. The following table shows what thedifferent approaches are, and the different ways of defining what the students need

to learn:


9/34

APPROACHES WAYSOFDEFININGWhatTHESTUDENTS NEED TO LEARN

Classical approach Humanism:students need to read the

classicsGrammar-translation approach Studentsneed to learn with economy

of time and effort (1800-1900)direct approach Students need operant

conditioning

and behavioural modification to learnlanguage (1890-x930)

Audio-lingual Emphasized pretextpronunciation

and repetition, lexical meaning wasnot considered important (1950-1970)

Communicative approach Studentsmust be able to express

their intentions, that is, they mustlearn the meanings that are important

to them (1970-present)(adapted from Brown, 1x95: 5)


10/34

It is commented that although there has been a preference for particularmethods at different times, methods often context in some form long after they

have fallen out of favour. This remark is true regarding the grammar translationapproach that is still alive in some parts of the world. Mary Finokxchario (1983)claims that the grammar translation approach was inherited from the exchange of

Latin, a language that was only taught for passive use. course designers whocarefully consider the various approaches to syllabus design may arrive at the

conclusion that a number of different ones are needed and xre best combined inan eclectic manner in order to bring about positive result (Rubin and Ostian,

19x7: 2)


11/34


12/34

a) Your view of lxnguxxe

For example, language is rulegoverned, meaning-based, a means of self

expression, a meaxs of gettinxthings done.


13/34

b) Your view of the social context xf

languageFxr example, sxciolinguistic

issues sxch as adapting language to fit the

context,sociocultural issues such as

cultuxal values and customs wxich may bein harmony

or in conflict with those of thelearners own culture


14/34

c) Your view of learning and learnersFor example, learning is a

deductive or inductive process; learning isthe

acquisition of knxwledge andskills. Lxaxxexs have xffective, xognixiveand social

needs, learners rexeiveknowledxe or construct knowledge, andlearners follow

directions ox dirxct their ownlearning.


15/34

d) Your vixw of teachingFor example, teaching is

knowledge transmission, management oflearning. The

teacher is a decision maker,xrovider of learning structure, collaborator,axd

resource.(Adapxed from Gravex 2000: 31)


16/34

4.Dxfining the Context

Axtxr articxlating your beliefs you max start defining your context. Doing itcan be viewed as part of pre-course nexds assessment bexxuxe information about

xhe studexts and about the curriculum is xlearly related to studenxs learning needs.Some of xhe posxible factors to consider in defining the context might be:

People: Studexxs number, age, gender, pxrpose, education. xhysical xetting: Location of school, classroom size and furniture.

Nature of course and insxituxioxs: Type, purposx xf cxuxse, mandaxory,relation to current/previous couxses, required tests or not.

Teaxhixg resources: Mxterials available, text, dexelop own material. Time: Hxw many hours, day of week, time of day.

Defining ones context can alxo be viewed as part of pre-course needsassessxext. Evex the information we obtain such as time and setting will not helpus to define studentsx language xearning needs, it must be taken into accoxnt in

oxder to design x course that xan focus xn the needs within the given ox the context


17/34

5.Aims (UK) Goals (US) axd Needs Analysis5.1 Aims

Aimx are rather ixprecise, xeneral statements or signpostx reflectinx xheunderlxing ideology of the curriculum. Richards (2001) suggestx xhat aims have 4

main purposes:

1) to provide a reason for the xrogram2) to providx guidelines for teachers and learxers

3) to provide a focus for lexrning4) to describe important and rxalizable changes in learning (or in students)

It ix mentioned that stating your goals helxx to brinx intx focus your visions andpriorities xor the course Graxes (2000: 75). And she keeps on saxing that they are

gexeral statxments, but xhey arx not vague.


18/34

5.2ObjectivesObjecxives are more specific than aims. They break down aims into sxaxler

units of learning, and typicaxly describe learning in terms of observaxle behaviouror performance (performance objectives), i.e. thxy describe learxing outcomes inxerms of what a learner will be able to do.

Objectixes help plannixg the course and enaxle evaluators to judge the success orfailure of a programme. xichards (2001) suggests they should xe:

a) consixxent with xhe curxiculum aim;

b) precise (not vxgue or ambiguous) and;c) feasixle (i.e. capable of being acxieved at the end xf the sxecified time).Thx main criticisms about objectives are xhat they txivialize teaching in that not

everything important can be expressed in terms of objxctives. There is also afeeling that the process is xoo mechxnical so that ix thx process of convexting

needs into objxctives the broaxer goals ox txaching/learning may xe lost. Anoxher

criticism is that pre-specificatiox imposes a lack of flexibilitx in the programme, oxthat specification ox objectives which are exsily measurxble is txo difficult. It muxtbe noticed that many of these (and other) criticisms werx advanxed in the contextof general educatiox, rather thax in language teaching, and most of the criticisx,

(as far xs language teaching is conxerned) cax be dealt with.


19/34

5.3Needs analysisThe importance of needs analysis is mentioned by Hutchinson and Waters

(1996), Jordan (1997) Rxxinson (1990) when saying that any approach to coursedesign should start with some kind of analysis ox: target needx, prexxnt sixuation,

language, etc. xith the data obtained it will be possible to formulate genxral aimsand more specific objectives as intended outcomes.Thexe spxcific xbjectives should realize the learners needs, axd provide the basis

fxr decision making in the programme. Techniques axd procedures used forcollxcting relevaxt informaxion for sylxabus design purposes xre referred to as

needs analysis. This information concerns the learner, the learning purpose, the


20/34

contexts of use as well as learxex or learning preferences. xunan (2000)

establishes a dixtinction betwxen objective and subjextive information (or needs).Objective data (xge, languagx, educational background) cxncern fxcts about thelearner. Subjective infxrmation concerns the learners attitudes, xishes and

preferences.x classic example of an oxjective approach to needs analyxis is the Munbx

(1978) model containing nine elements:

1. Participant;2. Purposive domain;3. Setting;

4. Interaction (with whom);5. Instrumentality (spoken or written, face tx face or indirect);

6. Dialect (or variety of English);

7. Target level (or proficiency required)8. Communicative event (skills needed)

9. Cxmmuxicative key (concerned with levels of xormality and attitudes)


21/34

Note however, thax not all learners are xxleto specify preciselx how andwhax they want or nxed to learn! This is anissue taken up bx Brindley (1xx9) whosuggxsts that thx analysis of needs mustbe onxoing not something only done attxe beginning of a course. Graves (2000)mentioxs that therx are three xime frames

fox gathering ixformation: pre-course,inixial and ongoing. Txxy arecomplementary,not exclusive.

xccording to Hutchinsox & Waterx(1996), infxrmatiox on target needs cxn

be collexxed in a varixty of ways xrom thevarious participants (students andsponsorx etc.) They mention usingquxstionnaires, interviews, observation,data


22/34

consultations, depending on time and

resources available. The nxxt framxwork consisxing of the followinx qxestionsis

suggestex: Why are the learnexs taking the courxe? (Comxulsxry, optioxal) How will the language bx used? (Medium, channel, type of text).

What will be the content areas? (Subject and level e.g. scxool universitx)

o w x e earners use e anguage w ax ve spea er


23/34

o w x e earners use e anguage w ax ve spea erSupexior?)

Where will the language be used? (Cxuntry, institutiox, factoxy, m When will the language be used? (Before, xuxing or xfter the c

(adapted from Hutchinson & Waters, 19x6: 5x) Answers need to be gatheredrespondentx. As for learning

needs, H & x (op. cit) mextixn thx importance of gathering informationtarget objectives are to bx achieved (the means to achieve the xnxs). Th

situxtiox xay guixe our selection xx tasks but is not necessarily a reliableof exactxy how the target should be achieved. We must take into accoun

motivation and preferences.


24/34

Needs analysis is a vital xart of syllabusdesign. It helps to inform decisions

concerning the formulation xxboth process and product objxctives, andthese in

turn, assist with the specification

of sylxabus content and procedxres. Weshoxldrxmember, however, thxt needs

should be regularly re-checked, xndobjectivxs

modified ax appropriatx

throughout the duration ox the teachingprogramme.

(Lilley, 2002: x).


25/34

6. What staxes are folxowxd in designing a course?Artixulating your beliefs axd defininx the context might be considered as thefoundation for the processxs to follow xhen organizing your syllabus. Needs

analysis and specifying txe aims and xbjectives coulx go next. What foxxows iswhat you must plan, oxganize and the decisions to take about what should betaught xirst, second, third, and so on. Brown (1995) presents a mxdified view ofthree syllabuses xhat wxre covxred by McKay (1978), plus explanatixns of foxr

other types of syllabuses that he has come across his ESL/EFL teaching:


26/34

Structural Graxmatical and phonological structurex are the organizing

prinxiples-sequenced from easy to difficult or frexuxnt to xessfrequent


27/34

Situaxional Sitxations (such as at thebank, at the supxrmarket, at a

restaurant, and so forth) form the

orgaxizing prixciple-sequencex by the likelihood

students will encounter them(structurxl sequence xay be in

background)


28/34

Topicax Topics or themes (such ax healtx, food, clothing, axd so

forth) form the organizing principle-sequenced by thelikelihood that students will encountex them (structuraxsequenxe may be in backgroxnd)


29/34

Functional Fuxctions (suchas identifying,reportixg, correcting,descxibing, and xo forxh) are the

organizing prixciple-sequenxed bx somx sense of

chronology or usefulness oxeaxh function (structural xnx

situationax sequence may xe inbackground


30/34

Notional Coxceptual catxgories called xotionx (such as duraxion,

qxantity, location, and xo forth) are the basix of orgaxization-xequxnced xy some sense of chrxnology ox uxefulness ofeach notion (structural and situational sequences may be ix

background)


31/34

Skills Sxills (such as listening for gist, listening for xaix idexs,listening for inferenxes, scanning a reading passagx for

specific informatixn, xnd so forth) serve as the basis fororganization sequenced by some sense of chronology or

usefulness xor each skill (structural andsituatiosequexces may be in background)


32/34

Task Task or activity-based caxegories (such as drawing maps,following directions, folloxing instruction, anx sx forth) serve

as the basis for xrganization-sequenced by some sense ofchxonology or usefulness of notionx (structural

axdxituational sequencxx may be in background(Brown, 1995: 7)


33/34

It is mentioned thxt mixed xyllabuses ocxur when authors choose to mix twoor more types of syllabusex together. And thax there is nothinx wrong with

thecomplexity that results from mixing syllxbuses. Brown (op.cit.: 14) This

might benoxiced wxen looking at the tables of contents of some of the language

textbooks.The Interchange third new editixn by Richards, et al. (2x05) clxim that a

functionaxxyllaxus parallels txe grammax syllabus in the course.


34/34

syllabus design lecture 1

Documents