EL.

505 – Week 1 & 2

Rumana Rafique
Assistant Professor
Department of English, University of Dhaka
EL.505 Syllabus
• Definition and scope of syllabus and curriculum
• Types of syllabus: Structural, Situational, Notional-functional, Task-
based, Skill-based and Content-based syllabuses
• Factors and steps involved in syllabus and curriculum design
• Syllabus evaluation and design
• Designing syllabuses for students of different levels
Take a look at any existing syllabus & curriculum –
• What features/ components do you see in them?
• To what extent are they similar?
• How do they differ in terms of the component they present?
• Who are the target audience?
• What are their roles in designing the syllabus?
Syllabus & Curriculum
• The terms curriculum and syllabus are often used interchangeably,
but it is useful to distinguish between them. The curriculum is
concerned with beliefs, values and theory (all of which may be
captured in some kind of “mission statement”). The syllabus
represents the way these beliefs, values and theories are realised in
terms of a step-by-step instructional programme. The curriculum is,
therefore, both larger than the syllabus, and more general.
• However, this distinction between the general and the specific, and
between principles and practice, is not one that all writers on the
subject adhere to.
• Nunan -> the curriculum is the totality of what actually happens in an
educational setting:
Traditionally “curriculum” is taken to refer to a statement or statements
of intent – the “what should be” of a course of study. In this work a
rather different perspective is taken. The curriculum is seen in terms of
what teachers actually do; that is, in terms of “what is”, rather than
“what should be.” (1988, p. 1)
• According to this view, the curriculum is instantiated in classroom
practice, whether or not this practice actually reflects the (often lofty)
intentions of program designers and materials writers.
• Douglas Barnes (1976) makes a similar point, with reference to
mainstream education:

When people talk about ‘the school curriculum’ they often mean ‘what
teachers plan in advance for their pupils to learn’. But a curriculum
made only of teachers’ intentions would be an insubstantial thing from
which nobody would learn much. To become meaningful a curriculum
has to be enacted by pupils as well as teachers … A curriculum as soon
as it becomes more than intentions is embodied in the communicative
life of an institution .. In this sense curriculum is a form of
communication. (p. 14).
• Applebee (1996) extends this line of thought to argue that we need
to re-construe the concept of curriculum, not as disembodied
‘knowledge-out-of-context’, but as ‘knowledge-in-action’:
“A curriculum provides domains for conversation, and the
conversations that take place within those domains are the primary
means of teaching and learning” (p. 37).
“If curriculum is approached in terms of the significant conversations
into which students enter… the emphasis form the beginning will be
on knowledge-in-action”. (p. 118).
This echoes Neil Mercer’s (1995) notion of teaching and learning as
being a ‘long conversation’, as well as being a key tenet of Dogme
philosophy, i.e. that language teaching should be ‘conversation-driven’.
• Nevertheless, the notion persists that a curriculum articulates an
institution’s principles and goals, made operational through syllabuses,
lesson plans, etc.
• What is the curriculum of your own school/ college/ university?
• Where is it written down?
• Is there a ‘mission statement’?
• Who wrote it?
• Who has access to it?
• And, if there isn’t one, shouldn’t there be?
• Curriculum is often implicit. In the case of public-sector schools, the
curriculum of the school may simply be that of the education ministry itself,
and it will be embodied in such things as acts of parliament, policy
statements, and official bulletins. These in turn will determine the nature of
public examinations and the way materials, such as coursebooks, are
specified and prescribed.
• In fact, examinations and officially approved coursebooks offer
insights as to the real values that the curriculum designers espouse,
irrespective of how these are actually articulated. This ‘hidden
curriculum’ can often be inferred by “reading between the lines”. Thus
the blurb on a coursebook – or the publicity for a language school –
might profess a communicative methodology, but at the same time
the small print will extol its ‘step-by-step grammatical syllabus’.

• Likewise, a school’s website might promote its internationalist and

globalised values while elsewhere boasting that it employs only
native-speaker teachers. The very fact that a school uses coursebooks
at all might suggest that it subscribes to a reproductive, ‘delivery
model’ of education, rather than a critical or transformative one.
A useful question might be to ask:
• What is our curriculum?
• That is to say, what is it that we value, and to what extent are our
practices consistent with these values?
References used in this article:
• Applebee, A. 1996. Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and
Learning. University of Chicago Press.
• Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. Penguin.
• Mercer, N. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and
learners. Multilingual Matters.
• Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge University Press.
References:
• Thornbury, S. (20 June 2010). C is for Curriculum. An A-Z of ELT: Scott
Thornbury's blog.
https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/c-is-for-
curriculum/
Candlin (1984)
• Curricula are concerned with • Syllabuses are -
making general statements • more localized
• about language learning, • based on accounts and records of
• learning purpose and experience, what actually happens at the
• evaluation, classroom level as teachers and
learners apply a given curriculum
• the role relationships of teachers to their own situation.
and learners.
• These accounts can be used to make
• banks of learning items and subsequent modifications to the
• suggestions about how these curriculum, so that the
developmental process is ongoing
might be used in class. and cyclical.
 • into the classroom itself.
• Identifying learners’ needs and
purposes • observe the teaching/learning
• Establishing goals and process
objectives; • study the ways in which the
• Selecting and grading content; intentions of the curriculum
• Organizing appropriate planners, which were
learning arrangements and
learner groupings;
Curriculum Study the developed during the
planning phase, are translated
• Selecting, adapting, or planning – curriculum into action
developing appropriate mate-
rials, decision ‘in action’ as
• Learning tasks, and assessment
and evaluation tools. making it were

Assessment Management • looking at the resources

• what students had learned and

and of the teaching available and how these are
utilized,
what they had failed to learn in evaluation institution • how the institution relates to
relation to what had been planned. and responds to the wider
• whether they had learned anything community,
which had not been planned. • how constraints imposed by
• to make judgements about why limited resources and the
some things had succeeded and decisions of administrators
others had failed affect what happens in the
• make recommendations about what classroom
changes might be made to improve
things in the future.
• All of these perspectives taken together represent the field of
curriculum study. As we can see, the field is a large and complex one.
• It is important that, in the planning, implementation, and evaluation
of a given curriculum, all elements be integrated, so that decisions
made at one level are not in conflict with those made at another.
• For instance, in courses based on principles of communicative language
teaching, it is important that these principles are reflected, not only in
curriculum documents and syllabus plans, but also in classroom activities,
patterns of classroom interaction, and in tests of communicative
performance.
General Curriculum Model
Decide on the order in which these planning tasks might be carried out:
• Monitoring & assessing student progress
• Selecting suitable materials
• Stating the objectives of the course
• Evaluating the course
• Listing grammatical & functional components
• Designing learning activities & tasks
• Instructing students
• Identifying topics, themes, situations
Defining ‘syllabus’
• There are several conflicting views on just what it is that distinguishes
syllabus design from curriculum development. There is also some
disagreement about the nature of ‘the syllabus’. In books and papers on
the subject, it is possible to distinguish a broad and a narrow approach to
syllabus design.
• The narrow view draws a clear distinction between syllabus design and
methodology. Syllabus design is seen as being concerned essentially with
the selection and grading of content, while methodology is concerned with
the selection of learning tasks and activities.
• Those who adopt a broader view question this strict separation, arguing
that with the advent of communicative language teaching the distinction
between content and tasks is difficult to sustain.
• There are several conflicting views on just what it is that distinguishes
syllabus design from curriculum development. There is also some
disagreement about the nature of ‘the syllabus’. In books and papers
on the subject, it is possible to distinguish a broad and a narrow
approach to syllabus design.
• The narrow view draws a clear Those who adopt a broader view
distinction between syllabus design question this strict separation, arguing
and methodology. that with the advent of communicative
• Syllabus design is seen as being language teaching the distinction
concerned essentially with the between content and tasks is difficult to
selection and grading of content, sustain.
while methodology is concerned with
the selection of learning tasks and
activities.
• The following quotes have been taken from Brumfit (1984) which
provides an excellent overview of the range and diversity of opinion
on syllabus design. The broad and narrow views are both represented
in the book, as you will see from the quotes.

• Can you identify which writers are advocating a broad approach &
which a narrow approach?
 . . . I would like to draw attention to a distinction . . . between curriculum or
syllabus, that is its content, structure, parts and organisation, and, . . . what in
curriculum theory is often called curriculum processes, that is curriculum
development, implementation, dissemination and evaluation. The former is
concerned with the WHAT of curriculum: what the curriculum is like or should be
like; the latter is concerned with the WHO and HOW of establishing the
curriculum. (Stern 1984: 10-11)

[The syllabus] 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.
(Yalden 1984: 14)
. . . the syllabus is simply a framework within which activities can be carried
out: a teaching device to facilitate learning. It only becomes a threat to
pedagogy when it is regarded as absolute rules for determining what is to be
learned rather than points of reference from which bearings can be taken.
(Widdowson 1984: 26)

We might. . . ask whether it is possible to separate so easily what we have

been calling content from what we have been calling method or procedure,
or indeed whether we can avoid bringing evaluation into the debate?
(Candlin 19S4: 32)

Any syllabus will express—however indirectly—certain assumptions about

language, about the psychological process of learning, and about the
pedagogic and social processes within a classroom. (Breen 1984: 49)
 . . . curriculum is a very general concept which involves consideration of the
whole complex of philosophical, social and administrative factors which
contribute to the planning of an educational program. Syllabus, on the other
hand, refers to that subpart of curriculum which is concerned with a
specification of what units will be taught (as distinct from how they will be
taught, which is a matter for methodology). (Allen 1984: 61)

Since language is highly complex and cannot be taught all at the same
time, successful teaching requires that there should be a selection of
material depending on the prior definition of objectives, proficiency
level, and duration of course. This selection takes place at the syllabus
planning stage. (op. cit.: 65)
• van Ek (1975) lists the following as necessary components of a
language syllabus:
• the situations in which the foreign language will be used, including the topics
which will be dealt with;
• the language activities in which the learner will engage;
• the language functions which the learner will fulfil;
• what the learner will be able to do with respect to each topic;
• the general notions which the learner will be able to handle;
• the specific (topic-related) notions which the learner will be able to handle;
• the language forms which the learner will be able to use;
• the degree of skill with which the learner will be able to perform. (van Ek
1975: 8-9)
• Traditionally, syllabus design has been seen as a subsidiary
component of curriculum design.
• ‘Curriculum’ is concerned with the planning, implementation,
evaluation, management, and administration of education
programmes. ‘Syllabus’, on the other hand, focuses more narrowly on
the selection and grading of content.
Brumfit (1984a)
• A syllabus is a specification of the work of a particular department in
a school or college, organised in subsections defining the work of a
particular group or class
• Often linked to time, & will specify a starting point & ultimate goal
• Will specify some kind of sequence based on
• Sequencing intrinsic to a theory of language learning or o the structure of
specified material relatable to language acquisition
• Sequencing constrained by administrative needs, e.g., materials
• A document of administrative convenience & will only be partly
justified on theoretical grounds & so is negotiable & adjustable
• It can only specify what is taught; it cannot organise what is learnt
• It is a public document & an expression of accountability
In this account, the focus is on selection & organisation of content,
whereas there are other approaches to syllabus
Breen in Carter & Nunan (2001)
• Any syllabus is a plan of what is to be achieved through teaching and
learning. It is part of an overall language curriculum or course which is
made up of four elements: aims, content, methodology and
evaluation.
• The syllabus identifies what will be worked upon by the teacher and
students in terms of content selected to be appropriate to overall
aims. Methodology refers to how teachers and learners work upon
the content, whilst evaluation is the process of assessing outcomes
from the learning and judging the appropriateness of other elements
of the curriculum.
• A syllabus may be formally documented, as in the aims and content of
a national or institutional syllabus for particular groups of learners or
(less explicitly perhaps) in the content material of published
textbooks. Every teacher follows a syllabus, but it may vary from
being a pre-designed document to a day-to-day choice of content
which the teacher regards as serving a course's particular aims. In the
latter case, the syllabus unfolds as lessons progress.
Any syllabus ideally should provide:
• A clear framework of knowledge and capabilities selected to be
appropriate to overall aims;
• Continuity and a sense of direction in classroom work for teacher and
students;
• A record for other teachers of what has been covered in the course;
• A basis for evaluating students' progress;
• A basis for evaluating the appropriateness of the course in relation to
overall aims and student needs identified both before and during the
course;
• Content appropriate to the broader language curriculum, the particular
class of learners, and the educational situation and wider society in which
the course is located.
• To meet these requirements, syllabus designers - including teachers
who develop their own syllabuses - apply principles to the
organisation of the content which they intend the syllabus to cover.
These principles can be expressed as questions:
• What knowledge and capabilities should be focused upon! A syllabus may give
priority to linguistic or broader communicative knowledge and focus upon
one or all four skills (reading, speaking, writing and listening) or, more
broadly, problem-solving or negotiation capabilities.
• What should be selected as appropriate content? Given a linguistic focus,
which particular structures and vocabulary should be covered or, given a
communicative focus, which particular uses of language or types of tasks
should be selected?
• How should the content be subdivided so that it can be dealt with in
manageable units? In other words, what is selected as content may be broken
down to contributory or constituent parts for ease of teaching and learning in
real time.
• How should the content be sequenced along a path of development? A
syllabus may adopt a step-by-step progression from less to more complex
knowledge and capabilities, or it may be cyclic where earlier knowledge and
capabilities are revisited and refined at later points.
• These four principles of organisation define a syllabus. In the history of
language teaching, the last 20 years in particular have revealed significant
developments in syllabus design that have led to the application of each of
these principles in alternative ways.
Murphy (2018)- Purposes of a Syllabus
• Lowest level – simply be a reminder or a list of things to do for the
busy teacher who has little classroom planning time
Hutchinson & Waters (1987)
• To break language down into manageable units & provide a practical
basis for textbooks & instructional blocks
• Provide teachers & learners with moral support
• Reassure students &/or sponsors that a course has been well-
planned: its cosmetic role
• Give both students & teachers an idea of where the course is going
• Act as an implicit statement of the views held by the course designers
• Regarding language & language learning – telling students not only
what they are to learn but why
• To guide the selection of materials, texts, & exercises
• Ensure an element of uniformity across a school or educational
system
• Assess how successful a student has been during a course by
providing a basis for testing
Role of the Classroom Teachers
Teachers are, in the main, consumers of other people’s syllabuses; in
other words, their role is to implement the plans of applied linguists,
government agencies, and so on. (Bell, 1983)
For which of these task do you see the Classroom
teachers as having the primary responsibility?
• Identifying learners’ communicative needs
• Selecting and grading syllabus content
• Grouping learners into different classes or learning arrangements
• Selecting/ creating materials and learning activities
• Monitoring and assessing learner progress
• Course evaluation
For which of these task do you see the Classroom
teachers as having the primary responsibility?
• Identifying learners’ communicative needs
• Selecting and grading syllabus content
• Grouping learners into different classes or learning arrangements
• Selecting/ creating materials and learning activities
• Monitoring and assessing learner progress
• Course evaluation
Some believed that syllabus development should be carried out by
people with specific expertise
• What might be the advantages and/or disadvantages of teachers in
your system designing their own syllabuses?
• Can you think of any reasons why teachers might be discouraged from
designing, or might not want to design their own syllabuses?
• Are these reasons principally pedagogic, political, or administrative?
Any Questions?