Introduction

Syllabus design is an important phenomenon in teaching-learning a language. It

is apropos to decide what should be taught to the learners and which
methodology works effectively. English language teaching is the most
prominent teaching area in which teachers and students from all over the
world participate. The choice of the syllabus to be taught to the language
learners is an important activity that needs a great deal of reflection and
analysis .Different theories and approaches produce different syllabi. So,
designing a language syllabus, though apparently seems a simple
phenomenon, is a complex one. The syllabus designer needs to reflect on the
following points :
 The nature and scope of the course.
 Pedagogic principles and procedures applied for the program.
 Needs of the learners.
 The learning outcome of the course.
Broadly speaking, a language syllabus must work with an objective of
producing such skills in a student, which make him/her such productive, and
efficient language user who can produce own meaningful and convincing
language with verbal and non-verbal communication skills. No language
syllabus can be multipurpose as the needs vary from learner to learner in
general, business, social, professional and technical contexts . A general course
will yield general and ineffective users in special contexts. The linguistic need of
a law student differs from the needs of a student of technical education, a
management student or a student of creative writing. With a very small shared
space, their requirements gradually divert in terms of vocabulary and
expression. Looking at this diversity of industrial requirements there is a need
to frame specific syllabus for specific purposes with an aim to overcome the
linguistic difficulties involved in studying English. Yet, the aim remains the
same- to train an efficient language user.
Defining a language syllabus
Syllabus is the summary of a discourse, a course of study or of examination
requirements .It is an expression of education ideas in practice. It gives
direction both to the teachers and the students regarding the goals and
objectives which are required to be achieved in language learning. Many
theorists have tried to define a language syllabus. Hutchinson and Waters in
their book English For Specific Purposes: A Learning Centred
Approach (1987:80) give traditional interpretation of syllabus when they call it
a statement of what is to be learnt of language and linguistic performance
whereas J.Yalden in Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching defines
it as a summary of the content to which learners will be exposed (Yalden, 1987:
87). Since syllabus is a platform where the students are introduced to the
course i.e. what will be taught to him, the manner of instruction, what to learn
and how to learn, course content, methodology, activities, and organization of
resources so Nilson opines:

“…it is not only the road map for the term’s foray into knowledge but also a
travelogue to pique students’ interest in the expedition and its leader”.
Characteristics of a good syllabus:

The essential characteristics of a good syllabus are as under:

 It sets the tone for the course by providing the course details and
teaching philosophy.
 It should be clear, coherent and comprehensive.
 It should articulate and correspond to the rationale objectives and
learning outcomes of the course.
 Course objectives, course content and sequencing of material should be
related to each other.
 It should acquaint students with the structure of the course.
 It should communicate what, when, and how students will learn.
 It should define expectations in terms of student responsibilities for
success.
 It should duly consider the level of the performance of the learners.
  It should identify the effective assessment models.
 It should be relative to the available resources.
 It should clearly mention the classroom requirements.
 It should necessarily enhance student learning.
Linda B. Nilson talks of fruitful outcome of a good syllabus:

“No doubt, you want your students to learn certain things, to master a body of
material. But you can’t assess how well you’ve met this goal, or your students’
learning, unless you have them do something with that material that
demonstrates their learning.”

Barbara Gross Davis in her book Tools for Teaching talks about importance of
sound preparation and planning a syllabus:

“The act of preparing a syllabus helps you decide what topics will be covered
and at what pace. Further, by distributing a written explanation of course
procedures, you can minimize misunderstandings about the due dates of
assignments, grading criteria, and policies on missed tests. Finally, a well-
prepared course syllabus shows students that you take your teaching
seriously.”
While planning and designing a syllabus for the language course various types
of approaches are available to the course designers . Two major types of
syllabuses are product-oriented syllabus ( focusing on the outcomes) and
process-oriented syllabus. Any good language syllabus will cover more or less
both the types.
Theoretical options to design a language syllabus:
As mentioned earlier, many approaches of designing a language syllabus have
been in practice. Broadly speaking these are: Product-oriented approaches and
Process –oriented approaches. Product-oriented approaches include structural
approach, situational approach and notional/functional approach. Process
oriented approach includes procedural or task-based syllabus, skill-based,
content-based, learner-led syllabus & proportional syllabus.
Product-oriented approaches
Structural syllabus: Traditionally, structural approach has been the most
prevalent approach where the content of the syllabus depends on the
complexity level of the grammatical items . In this grammatical syllabus
approach the learners are exposed to various grammatical structures step by
step and they are supposed to master them by internalizing the rules. It is
considered that the grammatical concepts like nouns , plurals etc can be better
defined than the functional ones, so grammar becomes the most familiar
learning content. The teacher chooses structures appropriate to the level of
the learners and plans exercises to test the learners’ knowledge. Semantically
defined sentence types such as statements, questions, interrogatives and
grammatically defined types such as simple, compound and complex sentences
are seen to be the focus. The entire focus is on the learning outcome. This
approach is based on a theory of language learning that the functional ability
arises from the structural ability. That is, the grammar or structural aspects of
language are the most significant parts in language learning. Noam Chomsky
also gave prominence to grammar in language learning . While elaborating the
concept of ‘generative grammar’ he introduced the concept of linguistic
competence which focuses on a set of finite language rules to produce the
infinite utterances or sentences.
But this approach was seen to be limited because of its low transferability of
structural knowledge to actual language behaviour . The ultimate aim of a
language course should be the learner’s ability to function in language. So this
approach was criticized by functionalists and sociolinguists for its dealing only
with one aspect of language and ignoring the other important aspects.
Situational syllabus: To address the limitations and gaps of structural approach,
situational approach (pragmatics) evolved. In this approach, the organizing
principle of the content is based on everyday situations rather than
grammatical content. Since language is always used in a context so the
transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic
knowledge of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the
utterance, so the learner is given a situation and s/he uses ‘fit for action’
language with reference to this context. Situational syllabus outlines such
situations in which the learner is to perform linguistically. They get concrete
contexts within which they learn notions, functions and structures. Examples
for such contexts are ‘ At a cinema’ ‘ Buying a dress’ ‘ Attending a phone call’ ‘
At a Restaurant’ etc. In this way, the motivational level of the learners is also
enhanced because they learn language to meet their most pressing everyday
needs. This approach is more suitable to teach specific language for specific
situations. For instance, if one has to visit a place where the this language is
spoken , the learner will require situational kind of teaching to cope with the
language challenges of new environment.
Though Wilkins feels that with this approach motivation and involvement of
the learner will be heightened because it is “learner- rather than subject-
centered” (Wilkins,1976: 16) but this approach was also criticized for its
limitations, for its divorce from grammar and that it would not be suitable for
such learners whose needs are not covered by the situations prescribed. The
functions and notions will be learnt in context of one situation only but
whereas the requirements of the world outside are varied and this learning
seems limited and narrow.That is why a new approach took place.
Both the structural and situational approaches were criticized on the ground
that these answer only the ‘how’ ‘when’ ‘where’ of the language but lack in
defining the communicative purpose and the conceptual meaning of
language( notions and functions) .
Notional-Functional syllabus: It is a more inclusive notion based on the
communicative competence theory as proposed by Dell Hymes who felt that
the linguistic forms should be studied along with the ways in which these are
used. Notion is a specific context in which we communicate and function in a
specific purpose in that context. For instance, ‘ shopping’ can be a notion and
various language requirements like asking price, discussing the product and
bargaining etc. are the functions of language. Communicative Competence
includes four areas- linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic . In this
approach the emphasis is on the semantic and communicative aspects without
losing sight of grammatical and situational factors. The syllabus designer makes
a list of communicative functions ( agreement, greeting etc.) for which the
learners will be using the language s/he makes a list of notions based on their
culture and context ( e.g. values) . Then the functions and notions are used
together to perform the learning tasks. To design this syllabus need analysis of
the communication requirements becomes a pre-requisite.
Process-oriented approach :
Opposed to the product-oriented approach evolved another approach that is
called process- oriented approach with a shift from linguistic element of the
product-oriented approach to the educational element with an emphasis on
learning . The syllabus designer does not need to bother with the ordering of
the content, rather it is organized around tasks and activities so that while
consciously solving the tasks language is perceived sub-consciously.
Procedural or task-based syllabus: Task-based language teaching (TBLT) , which
falls within the communicative approach, has become a widely used term in
second/foreign language pedagogy . Here the language learning which takes
place as a process of doing a set of communicative tasks in the classroom
results in language activation outside the classroom. Emphasis is laid both on
the language and language learning process through interaction in the target
language by using authentic materials. The real impetus for the TBLT came
from the Banglore project in which Prabhu and his colleagues designed a
procedural syllabus as a reaction against structural-oral-situational (S-O-S)
approach followed in their country in 1960s and 1970s. Here language
acquisition occurs when learners focus their attention on meaning rather than
on language forms. When learners are engrossed in doing meaning-focused
activities, they are benefitted in natural communication in the classroom. The
learning takes place when the target language is taught through
communication and not simply for communication. Here each lesson is divided
into pre-task, a task, and a quick marking component. The pre-task, however, is
a teacher-guided, whole-class and preparatory activity which orients the
learners to overcome the difficulties they might face while doing the task. It is
viewed as a confidence building activity. The second stage is individually
performing the task which should be reasonably challenging, neither too
difficult nor too easy. It is followed by the marking stage when the teacher
evaluates the accuracy in performance of the task , not the accuracy of the
sentences. Finally incidental error correction is done instead of a systematic
one.
Usually a procedural syllabus is confused with task-based syllabus but both are
different. Sasan Baleghizadeh in his article The Procedural Syllabus and the Task
Syllabus: How Similar, How Different? has compared the essential differences
of both the syllabuses.
Task syllabus: A task syllabus aims at holistic approach to language learning
opposed to the synthetic syllabuses (grammatical, functional, notional, topical
etc.) where the language is broken in parts and then learnt in parts. Advocated
by Long & Crookes, a pedagogic task is the departure point and the focus is on
the meaning in this syllabus which is seen as a facilitating tool in language
teaching. The tasks are identified through a needs analysis process. For
instance, students are made to watch or listen to some disaster management
stories as a pre-task and are then required to create a similar story in a
different but specific context. Long & Crookes give some more examples:
For example, in a course for trainee flight attendants, the serving of breakfast,
lunch, dinner, and snacks and refreshments might be classified as serving food
and beverages. Pedagogic tasks are then derived from the task types and
sequenced to form the task-based syllabus.
Though the procedural and task syllabuses share a lot of similarities yet they
differ from each other in task selection, task gradation, task implementation
and input characteristics. In task syllabus the pedagogic tasks are planned on
the basis of need analysis with reference to the real- world targets whereas in
procedural syllabus this was done on the basis of intrinsic pedagogic merits of
the tasks. Another difference is about the challenge level of the task. Ellis
(2003) provides us the criteria of gradation of tasks (a) input factors, including
medium, code , complexity, cognitive complexity, context dependency, and
familiarity of information; (b) task conditions, including conditions relating to
the negotiation of meaning, task demands, and the discourse mode required
by the task; (c) factors related to the process of performing a task, including the
type of reasoning needed; and (d) factors relating to task outcomes, including
the medium, the scope, the discourse domain, and the complexity of outcome
( as quoted in Baleghizadeh ,109) Another difference is in terms of task
implementation .As per Will’s framework (1996) it has three components: Pre-
task in which the teacher brainstorms the idea with the class and prepares
them to think how to do the task unlike Prabhu’s concept of pre-task ;Task
cycle in which students would do the task in pairs or groups being monitored
by the teacher. They would share their experience of task implementation with
the rest of the class; In
 Syllabus
 Procedural
 Task
language focus phase the students would do some language or form –focused
activities. The final difference is input characteristics. In this syllabus the
negative evidence also contributes to language learning. Focus on form makes
the students conscious of linguistic code features in the context of a
communicative classroom.

Table of differences between Procedural and Task Syllabuses.

Skill-based syllabus: In this syllabus some specific language skills are taught to
the learners and gradually their confidence is enhanced. Linguistic
competencies like pronunciation grammar etc. are grouped together and
learners are required to do general activities like listening, writing etc based on
these components. Students can develop their communicative competencies,
listening, speaking, writing and reading using various resources.
Content-based syllabus: Here the language learning occurs along with content
learning. The focus is on a specific content or information rather than language.
This means that content of any subject in English medium can be the text to
study language drill. For example, a piece of information from rural farming is
taken and in addition to the accumulation of information on various technical
aspects of farming, challenges and remedies of rural farming language drill
regarding vocabulary, tense used and sentence structures can also be carried
on.
Learner-led syllabus : Proposed by Breen and Candlin (1984), this syllabus
focuses on the learners who are hoped to be involved in the implementation of
the syllabus design. By being fully aware of the course they are studying, it is
believed that their interest and motivation will increase, coupled with the
positive effect of nurturing the skills required to learn. Critics label it as radical
and utopian in the sense that it will be difficult to follow as the direction of the
syllabus will be largely the responsibility of the learners.

Proportional syllabus: This kind of syllabus which focuses on overall

competence was proposed by Yalden. It consists of a number of elements
within the main theme playing a linking role through the units. Initially it is
expected that form will be of central value, but later, the focus turns towards
interactional components. Here shift from form to interaction is not limited
rather it can occur at any time. As Yalden (1987) observes, it is important for a
syllabus to indicate explicitly what will be taught, not what will be learnt.It is a
dynamic syllabus with a focus on flexibility and feedback.
Designing a languagesyllabus:
 While designing a syllabus for the course, the teacher must consider all
the points discussed above as criteria of a good syllabus. Although many
types of language teaching syllabi can be developed based on various
approaches but none of them occur independently. Almost each
language teaching syllabus draws from the valuable insights of two or
more approaches defined above. In a course, one type of syllabus usually
dominates, while other types of content may be combined with it. A
language teaching syllabus involves the integration of subject matter and
linguistic matter.
 Need analysis assumes the prime significance in the process of planning
an English language syllabus. A consideration of the target students’
requirements, taking stock of their linguistic strengths and weaknesses
and an investigation of how the syllabus shall address their needs to
produce sufficiently good language become a pre-requisite. In his
book Communicative Syllabus Design in 1978 Munby introduced
‘communication needs processor’ which became launching pad for many
related terms like Target Situation Analysis, Pedagogic Needs Analysis,
Strategy Analysis or Learning Needs Analysis, Discourse analysis,
 Deficiency Analysis, Means Analysis, Present Situation Analysis , Register
analysis and Genre Analysis .
 A good language syllabus establishes a connection between the students
and the teacher and sets the tone for the course. On the very first day of
the class the students are excited to know about the topics to be covered
in their syllabus, assignments, grading system, texts etc. Many education
theorists agree that a detailed syllabus is important learning tool for the
students which lessens their initial anxieties about the course. Students’
queries and questions should be anticipated and addressed while
planning a language syllabus . Davis advises to keep the syllabus flexible
so that the classes that get sidetracked can also cover up. A language
syllabus should also clearly define the pre- requisites of that course.
(Davis, 1993:14-15)
 Logical arrangement of the content is another precaution that a
language syllabus designer must observe. It can be arranged either
chronologically or according to topics or themes , from theoretical
perspectives to the application of the concepts etc. It should move
gradually in terms of complexity. If the content has no backward –
forward linkages or continuity , it may lead to the confusion in teaching –
learning of the language. The logic behind this arrangement must be
clear to the students . It should also delineate not only the tasks of the
teacher but also what the students are going to do during the course.
 Another aspect of designing a language course syllabus is selection of a
textbook and resource material. Textbooks are the staple in a
curriculum . As the ESL teachers spend a great deal of time with
textbooks ,so the text/texts decided to be prescribed in this course
should be the most accurate and authentic one. A language textbook
should be up to date, have relevant content, culturally sensitive visuals
and graphics, should incorporate higher level thinking skills, cater to the
literacy need of the learners, and its material must address the diversity
of learning styles. If the number of texts is more , working on an
anthology or a compiled text can be a good way out. Students might find
it difficult to find and purchase more number of books. Expensive and
heavy texts should be avoided, if possible.
 Evaluation and grading procedures including the weights assigned to
various components must also be made clear in a language syllabus.
Example: While applying ESP approach to design an EAP( English for Academic
Purposes) syllabus , the stages of development shall be as:

1. Assess students’ competence level

2. Need analysis
3. Analysis of skills
4. Syllabus design

Needs analysis : It assumes a prominent role in deciding a syllabus. Gillet

suggests that Munby’s Communicative Needs Processor is best suited for need
analysis in this context. The information in the following parameters is
processed .
 Purpose: It can be academic. Let us take social science for instance.
 Setting : Physical setting: e.g. office, lecture theater or library.
 Human context: alone, meetings or on telephone.
 Linguistic context: in own place or a strange one.
 Interaction: Learner’s interlocutors and relationship between them. E.g.
The role of a student in student-teacher interaction.
 Instrumentality: Medium ( Written, spoken or both), mode( monologue
or dialogue)and channel ( face to face or radio or print) of
communication .
 Dialect: A dialect that a learner will have to understand and produce .
E.g. Standard British dialect.
 Communicative event : An activity that the learner will have to do with
English. E.g. attending , a class, group discussion etc.
 Communicative key: Manner required to do the communicative event
e.g. politely or confidently or any attitude .
Target level : Level of linguistic proficiency at the end of a course. This level
might be different for different skills . E.g. any term-end exam or test .
With this kind of exercise, the syllabus would define specific content as per the
needs of the learners and will clearly define what will the students be doing
after the completion of the course. So the focus is the end product.

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:
1. “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.
2. “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.
3. “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.
4. “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.
5. “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.
6. “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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Evaluate available resources in expertise (for teaching, needs analysis,
materials choice and production, etc.), in materials, and in training for
teachers.
4. Rank the syllabi relative to available resources. That is, determine what
syllabus types would be the easiest to implement given available
resources.
 5. 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.
6. Repeat the process, taking into account the constraints contributed by
teacher and student factors described earlier.
7. Determine a final ranking, taking into account all the information
produced by the earlier steps.
8. Designate one or two syllabus types as dominant and one or two as
secondary.
9. Review the question of combination or integration of syllabus types and
determine how combinations will be achieved and in what proportion.
10.Translate decisions into actual teaching units.

you can view video on Syllabus Design

II

Reference