1 The scope of syllabus design

1.1 Introduction
We will start by outlining the scope of syllabus design and relating it to the
broader field of curriculum development. Later, in 1.4, we shall also look at
the role of the teacher in syllabus design.
Within the literature, there is some confusion over the terms ‘syllabus’ and
‘curriculum’. It would, therefore, be as well to give some indication at the
outset of what is meant here by syllabus, and also how syllabus design is
related to curriculum development.

► TASK 1
As a preliminary activity, write a short definition of the terms
‘syllabus’ and ‘curriculum’.

In language teaching, there has been a comparative neglect of systematic

curriculum development. In particular, there have been few attempts to
apply, in any systematic fashion, principles of curriculum development to
the planning, implementation, and evaluation of language programmes.
Language curriculum specialists have tended to focus on only part of the
total picture — some specializing in syllabus design, others in methodolo­
gy, and yet others in assessment and evaluation. In recent years this rather
fragmented approach has been criticized, and there have been calls for a
more comprehensive approach to language curriculum design (see, for
example, Breen and Candlin 1980; Richards 1984; Nunan 1985). The
present book is intended to provide teachers with the skills they need to
address, in a systematic fashion, the problems and tasks which confront
them in their programme planning.
Candlin (1984) suggests that curricula are concerned with making general
statements about language learning, learning purpose and experience,
evaluation, and the role relationships of teachers and learners. According
to Candlin, they will also contain banks of learning items and suggestions
about how these might be used in class. Syllabuses, on the other hand, are
more localized and are based on accounts and records of what actually
happens at the classroom level as teachers and learners apply a given
curriculum to their own situation. These accounts can be used to make
subsequent modifications to the curriculum, so that the developmental
process is ongoing and cyclical.
4 Defining syllabus design

1.2 A general curriculum model

► TASK 2
Examine the following planning tasks and decide on the order in
which they might be carried out.
— monitoring and assessing student progress
— selecting suitable materials
— stating the objectives of the course
— evaluating the course
— listing grammatical and functional components
— designing learning activities and tasks
— instructing students
— identifying topics, themes, and situations

It is possible to study ‘the curriculum’ of an educational institution from a

number of different perspectives. In the first instance we can look at
curriculum planning, that is at decision making, in relation to identifying
learners’ needs and purposes; establishing goals and objectives; selecting
and grading content; organizing appropriate learning arrangements and
learner groupings; selecting, adapting, or developing appropriate mate­
rials, learning tasks, and assessment and evaluation tools.
Alternatively, we can study the curriculum ‘in action’ as it were. This
second perspective takes us into the classroom itself. Here we can observe
the teaching/learning process and study the ways in which the intentions of
the curriculum planners, which were developed during the planning phase,
are translated into action.
Yet another perspective relates to assessment and evaluation. From this
perspective, we would try and find out what students had learned and what
they had failed to learn in relation to what had been planned. Additionally,
we might want to find out whether they had learned anything which had
not been planned. We would also want to account for our findings, to make
judgements about why some things had succeeded and others had failed,
and perhaps to make recommendations about what changes might be made
to improve things in the future.
Finally, we might want to study the management of the teaching
institution, looking at the resources available and how these are utilized,
how the institution relates to and responds to the wider community, how
constraints imposed by limited resources and the decisions of administra­
tors affect what happens in the classroom, and so on.
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
 The scope o f syllabus design 5

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.

1.3 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.
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.

► TASK 3
As you read the quotes, see whether you can identify which writers
are advocating a broad approach and which a narrow approach.

1 . . . 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, imple­
mentation, dissemination and evaluation. The former is con­
cerned 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 198 4: 10-11)

2 [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)
6 Defining syllabus design

3 . . . 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)

4 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)

5 Any syllabus will express— however indirectly— certain assump­

tions about language, about the psychological process of learn­
ing, and about the pedagogic and social processes within a
classroom.
(Breen 1984: 49)

6 . . . 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)

7 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)

As you can see, some language specialists believethat syllabus (the selection
and grading of content) and methodology should be kept separate; others
think otherwise. One of the issues you will have to decide on as you work
through this book is whether you think syllabuses should be defined solely
in terms of the selection and grading of content, or whether they should
also attempt to specify and grade learning tasks and activities.
Here, we shall take as our point of departure the rather traditional notion
that a syllabus is a statement of content which is used as the basis for
planning courses of various kinds, and that the task of the syllabus designer
is to select and grade this content. To begin with, then, we shall distinguish
between syllabus design, which is concerned with the ‘what’ of a language
 The scope o f syllabus design 7

programme, and methodology, which is concerned with the ‘how’. (Later,

we shall look at proposals for ‘procedural’ syllabuses in which the
distinction between the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ becomes difficult to sustain.)
One document which gives a detailed account of the various syllabus
components which need to be considered in developing language courses is
Threshold Level English (van Ek 1975). van Ek lists the following as
necessary components of a language syllabus:
1 the situations in which the foreign language will be used, includ­
ing the topics which will be dealt with;
2 the language activities in which the learner will engage;
3 the language functions which the learner will fulfil;
4 what the learner will be able to do with respect to each topic;
5 the general notions which the learner will be able to handle;
6 the specific (topic-related) notions which the learner will be able
to handle;
7 the language forms which the learner will be able to use;
8 the degree of skill with which the learner will be able to perform.
(van Ek 1975: 8-9)

► TASK 4
Do you think that van Ek subscribes to a ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’ view of
syllabus design?
Which, if any, of the above components do you think are beyond the
scope of syllabus design?

1.4 The role of the classroom teacher

In a recent book dealing, among other things, with syllabus design issues,
Bell (1983) claims that teachers are, in the main, consumers of other
people’s syllabuses; in other words, that their role is to implement the plans
of applied linguists, government agencies, and so on. While some teachers
have a relatively free hand in designing the syllabuses on which their
teaching programmes are based, most are likely to be, as Bell suggests,
consumers of other people’s syllabuses.

► TASK 5
Study the following list of planning tasks.
In your experience, for which of these tasks do you see the classroom
teacher as having primary responsibility?
Rate each task on a scale from 0 (no responsibility) to 5 (total
responsibility).
8 Defining syllabus design

— identifying learners’ communicative needs 012345

— selecting and grading syllabus content 012345
— grouping learners into different classes
or learning arrangements 012345
— selecting/creating materials and learning
activities 0 1 2 3 4 5
— monitoring and assessing learner progress 0 1 2 3 4 5
— course evaluation 0 1 2 3 4 5

In a recent study of an educational system where classroom teachers are

expected to design, implement, and evaluate their own curriculum, one
group of teachers, when asked the above question, stated that they saw
themselves as having primary responsibility for all of the above tasks
except for the third one (grouping learners). Some of the teachers in the
system felt quite comfortable with an expanded professional role. Others
felt that syllabus development should be carried out by people with specific
expertise, and believed that they were being asked to undertake tasks for
which they were not adequately trained (Nunan 1987).

► TASK 6
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 administra­
tive?

1.5 Conclusion
In 1 , Ihave tried to provide some idea of the scope of syllabus design. I have
suggested that 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.
While it is realized that few teachers are in the position of being able to
design their own syllabuses, it is hoped that most are in a position to
interpret and modify their syllabuses in the process of translating them into
action. The purpose of this book is therefore to present the central issues
and options available for syllabus design in order to provide teachers with
the necessary knowledge and skills for evaluating, and, where feasible,
modifying and adapting the syllabuses with which they work. At the very
least, this book should help you understand (and therefore more effectively
exploit) the syllabuses and course materials on which your programmes are
based.
 The scope o f syllabus design 9

TASK 7
Look back at the definitions you wrote in Task I and rewrite these in
the light of the information presented in 1.
In what ways, if any, do your revised definitions differ from the ones
you wrote at the beginning?

In 2, we shall look at some of the starring points in syllabus design. The next
central question to be addressed is, ‘Where does syllabus content come
from? ’ In seeking answers to this question, we shall look at techniques for
obtaining information from and about learners for use in syllabus design.
We shall examine the controversy which exists over the very nature of
language itself and how this influences the making of decisions about what
to include in the syllabus. We shall also look at the distinction between
product-oriented and process-oriented approaches to syllabus design.
These two orientations are studied in detail in 3 and 4. The final parr of
Section One draws on the content of the preceding parrs and relates this
content to the issue of objectives. You will be asked to consider whether or
not we need objectives, and if so, how these should be formulated.