Syllabus Design

Syllabus:
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 (198!8"# define syllabus as follo$s!
At its simplest level a syllabus can be described as a statement of what is to
be learnt. It reflects language and linguistic performance.
%his is a rather traditional interpretation of syllabus focusing on outcomes rather than
process. Ho$ever& a syllabus can also be seen as a "summary of the content to which
learners will be exposed" (alden.!"#$%. 't is seen as an approximation of $hat $ill be
taught and that it cannot accurately predict $hat $ill be learnt
A language teaching syllabus involves the integration of sub(ect matter and
linguistic matter.
Difference between Syllabus and &urriculum
)urriculum is $ider term as compared $ith syllabus. )urriculum covers all the
activities and arrangements made by the institution through out the academic year to
facilitate the learners and the instructors. Where as *yllabus is limited to particular
sub(ect of a particular class.
Syllabus Design
'o design a syllabus is to decide what gets taught and in what order. +or this
reason& the theory of language underlying the language teaching method $ill play a ma(or
role in determining $hat syllabus should be adopted. %heory of learning also plays an
important part in determining the ,ind of syllabus used. +or example& a syllabus based on
the theory of learning evolved by cognitive code teaching $ould emphasi-e language
forms and $hatever explicit descriptive ,no$ledge about those forms. A syllabus based
on an ac.uisition theory of learning& ho$ever& $ould emphasi-e unanaly-ed and carefully
selected experiences of the ne$ language.
%he choice of a syllabus is a ma(or decision in language teaching& and it should be
made as consciously and $ith as much information as possible. 'here 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. *everal distinct types of language teaching syllabi exist& and these different
types may be implemented in various teaching situations.
'()S *+ S,,A-I
Although six different types of language teaching syllabi are treated here as
though each occurred /purely&/ but in practice& these types rarely occur independently.
Almost all actual language teaching syllabi are combinations of two or more of the
types defined here. +or a given course& one type of syllabus usually dominates& $hile
other types of content may be combined $ith it. +urthermore& the six types of syllabi are
not entirely distinct from each other. +or example& the distinction bet$een s,ill0based and
tas,0based syllabi may be minimal. 'n such cases& the distinguishing factor is often the
$ay in $hich the instructional content is used in the actual teaching procedure. %he
characteristics& differences& strengths& and $ea,nesses of individual syllabi are defined as
follo$s!
!:. (roduct.*riented Syllabus
%his ,ind of syllabuses emphasi-es the product of language learning and is prone
to approval from an authority. %here are three types of syllabus described in the
follo$ing!
(i% 'he Structural Syllabus
Historically& the most prevalent of syllabus type is perhaps the structural or
grammatical syllabus in $hich the selection and grading of the content is based on the
complexity and simplicity of grammatical items. %he learner is expected to master each
structural step and add it to her grammar collection. As such the focus is on the outcomes
or the product.
1ne problem facing the syllabus designer pursuing a grammatical order to
se.uencing input is that the ties connecting the structural items may be rather $ea,. A
more fundamental criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on only one aspect
of language& namely grammar& $hereas in truth there exist many more aspects of
language. +inally& recent research suggests there is a disagreement bet$een the grammar
of the spo,en and of the $ritten language; raising complications for the grading of
content in grammar based syllabuses.
(ii% 'he Situational Syllabus
%he limitations found in structural approach led to an alternative approach $here
situational needs are emphasi-ed rather than grammatical units. Here& the principal
organi-ing characteristic is a list of situations $hich reflects the $ay language is used in
everyday life i.e. outside the classroom. %hus& by lin,ing structural theory to situations
the learner is able to grasp the meaning in relevant context.
1ne advantage of the situational *yllabus is that motivation $ill be heightened
since it is "learner. rather than sub/ect.centered" (0il1ins.!"$2%. Ho$ever& a
situational syllabus $ill be limited for students $hose needs $ere not encompassed by
the situations in the syllabus. %his dissatisfaction led Wil,ins to describe notional and
communicative categories $hich had a significant impact on syllabus design.
(iii% 'he 3otional4+unctional Syllabus
Wil,ins2 criticism of structural and situational approaches lies in the fact that they
ans$er only the 2ho$2 or 2$hen2 and 2$here2 of language use (3rumfit and 4ohnson.
199!85#. 'nstead& he en.uires /$hat it is they communicate through language/ %hus& the
starting point for a syllabus is the communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of
language i.e. notions and functions& as opposed to only the grammatical items and
situational elements.
'n order to establish ob(ectives of such a syllabus& the needs of the learners $ill
have to be analy-ed on the base of communication need. )onse.uently& needs analysis
has an association $ith notional6functional syllabuses. White (1988!# claims that
/language functions do not usually occur in isolation/ and there are also difficulties of
selecting and grading function and form.
'he above approaches belong to the product.oriented category of syllabuses. An
alternative path to Syllabus Design would be to adopt process oriented principles5
which assume that language can be learnt experientially as opposed to the step.by.
step procedure of the synthetic approach.
6:. (rocess.*riented Syllabuses
7rocess01riented *yllabuses are developed as a result of a sense of failure in
product0oriented courses to enhance communicative language s,ills. Syllabus is a
process rather than a product. %hat is& focus is not on $hat the student $ill have
accomplished on completion of the program& but on the specification of learning tas,s
and activities that s6he $ill underta,e during the course.
(i%(rocedural4'as1.-ased Syllabus
7rabhu2s (199# 23angalore 7ro(ect2 is a classic example of a procedural syllabus.
Here& the .uestion concerning 2$hat2 becomes subordinate to the .uestion concerning
2ho$2. %he focus shifts from the linguistic element to the educational& $ith an emphasis
on learning or learner. Within such a frame$or, the selection& ordering and grading of
content is no longer $holly significant for the syllabus designer. Arranging the
Syllabus around tas1s such as information. and opinion.gap activities5 it was hoped
that the learner would perceive the language subconsciously whilst consciously
concentrating on solving the meaning behind the tas1s. %here appears to be an
indistinct boundary bet$een this approach and that of language teaching methodology.
A tas,0based syllabus assumes that spea,ing a language is a s,ill best perfected
through practice and interaction& and uses tas,s and activities to encourage learners to use
the language communicatively in order to achieve a purpose. %as,s must be relevant to
the real $orld language needs of the student. %hat is& the underlying learning theory of
tas, based and communicative language teaching seems to suggest that activities in
$hich language is employed to complete meaningful tas,s& enhances learning.
(ii%,earner.,ed Syllabus
%he notion of basing a syllabus on ho$ learners learn language $as proposed by
3reen and )andlin (1985#. Here the emphasis lies on the learner& $ho it is hoped $ill be
involved in the implementation of the syllabus design. 3y being fully a$are of the course
they are studying& it is believed that their interest and motivation $ill increase& coupled
$ith the positive effect of nurturing the s,ills re.uired to learn.
Ho$ever& as suggested earlier& a predetermined syllabus provides support and
guidance for the teacher and should not be so easily dismissed. )ritics have suggested
that a learner0led syllabus seems radical and utopian in that it $ill be difficult to follo$ as
the direction of the syllabus $ill be largely the responsibility of the learners.
'his leads to the final syllabus design to be examined 7 the proportional
syllabus as suggested by alden (!"#$%.
(iii%'he (roportional Syllabus
%he proportional syllabus basically attempts to develop an "overall
competence8. 't consists of a number of elements $ithin the main theme playing a
lin,ing role through the units. %his theme is designated by the learners. 't is expected
initially that form $ill be of central value& but later& the focus $ill turn to$ards
interactional components. %he syllabus is designed to be dynamic& not static& $ith
sufficient opportunity for feedbac, and flexibility.
%he shift from form to interaction can occur at any time and is not limited to a
particular stratum of learners. As 8alden observes& it is important for a syllabus to
indicate explicitly $hat $ill be taught& /not $hat $ill be learned/. %his practical approach
$ith its focus on flexibility and spiral method of language se.uencing leading to the
recycling of language& seems relevant for learners $ho lac, exposure to the target
language beyond the classroom.
(ractical 9uidelines to Syllabus &hoice and Design
't is clear that no single type of content is appropriate for all teaching settings& and
the needs and conditions of each setting are so particular that specific recommendations
for combination are not possible. Ho$ever& a set of guidelines for the process is provided
belo$.
Steps in preparing a practical language teaching Syllabus &hoice:
1. 9etermine& to the extent possible& $hat outcomes are desired for the students in the
instructional program i.e. $hat the students should be able to do as a result of the
instruction.
:. ;an, the syllabus types presented here as to their li,elihood of leading to the outcomes
desired. Arrange the six types $ith preference you going to give to each type.
<. =valuate available resources for teaching& needs analysis& materials choice and
production and in training for teachers.
5. ;an, the syllabi relative to available resources. %hat is& determine $hat syllabus types
$ould be the easiest to implement $ithin available resources.
>. )ompare the lists made under ?os. : and 5. @a,ing as fe$ ad(ustments to the earlier
list as possible& produce a ne$ list of ran,ing based on the availability of resources.
A. 9esignate one or t$o syllabus types as dominant and one or t$o as secondary.
. ;evie$ the .uestion of combination or integration of syllabus types and determine
ho$ combinations $ill be achieved and in $hat proportion.
In ma1ing practical decisions about syllabus design5 one must ta1e into
consideration all the possible factors that might affect the teachability of a
particular syllabus. 3y starting $ith 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.
Suggested Steps for (lanning Syllabus:
9evelop a $ell0grounded rationale for your course.
9ecide $hat you $ant students to be able to do as a result of ta,ing your course&
and ho$ their $or, $ill be appropriately assessed.
9efine and delimit course content.
*tructure your studentsB active involvement in learning.
'dentify and develop resources.
)ompose your syllabus $ith a focus on student learning.
Suggested (rinciples for Designing a Syllabus that +osters &ritical 'hin1ing:
)ritical thin,ing is a learnable s,ill; the instructor and class fello$s are resources
in developing critical thin,ing s,ills.
7roblems& .uestions& or issues are the point of entry into the sub(ect and a source
of motivation for nonstop in.uiry.
*uccessful courses balance the challenge to thin, critically $ith supporting
studentsBBdevelopmental needs.
)ourses should be assignment centered rather than text and lecture centered.
Coals& methods and evaluation emphasi-e using content rather than simply
ac.uiring it.
*tudents are re.uired to formulate their ideas in $riting or other appropriate
means.
*tudents should collaborate to learn and to stretch their thin,ing& for example& in
pair problem solving and small group $or,.
)ourses that teach problem0solving s,ills nurture studentsB metacognitive
abilities.
%he developmental needs of students are ac,no$ledged and used as information
in the design of the course. %eachers in these courses ma,e standards explicit and
then help students learn ho$ to achieve them.
Syllabus +unctions:
=stablishes an early point of contact and connection bet$een student and
instructor
9escribes your beliefs about educational purposes
Ac.uaints students $ith the logistics of the syllabus
)ontains collected handouts
9efines student responsibilities for successful course $or,
9escribes active learning
Helps students to assess their readiness for your syllabus
*ets the course in a broader context for learning
7rovides a conceptual frame$or,
9escribes available learning resources
)ommunicates the role of technology in the course
)an improve the effectiveness of student note0ta,ing
)an include material that supports learning outside the classroom
)an serve as a learning contract
&hec1list Syllabus Design:
%itle 7age
%able of )ontents
'nstructor 'nformation
Detter to the *tudent
7urpose of the )ourse
)ourse 9escription
)ourse and Enit 1b(ectives
;esources
;eadings
)ourse )alendar
)ourse ;e.uirements
=valuation
Crading 7rocedures
Ho$ to Ese the *yllabus
Ho$ to *tudy for %his )ourse
)ontent 'nformation
Dearning %ools
&ourse *b/ectives:
What $ill the students ,no$ and be able to do as a result of having ta,en this
courseF
What levels of cognitive thin,ing are re.uired from students to engage inF
What learning s,ills $ill the students develop in the courseF

Instructional Approaches:
Civen the ,ind of learning '2d li,e to encourage and foster& $hat ,inds of
instructional interactions need to occurF
%eacher0student& student0student& student0peer tutorF
What ,inds of instructional approaches are most conducive to helping students
accomplish set learning ob(ectivesF
Ho$ $ill classroom interactions be facilitatedF 'n0classF 1ut0of0classF 1nlineF
=lectronic discussionF ?e$sgroupsF )hatroomF
&ourse :e;uirements5 Assignments:
What $ill students be expected to do in the courseF
What ,inds of assignments& tests do most appropriately reflect the course
ob(ectivesF
9o assignments and tests bring forth the ,ind of learning ' $ant to fosterF
Assignments (fre.uency& timing& se.uence#F %estsF Gui--esF =xamsF 7apersF
*pecial pro(ectsF DaboratoriesF +ield tripsF Dearning logsF 4ournalsF 1ral
presentationsF ;esearch on the $ebF Web publishingF =lectronic databasesF
What ,inds of s,ills do the students need to have in order to be successful in the
courseF
)omputer literacyF ;esearch s,illsF Writing s,illsF )ommunication s,illsF
)onflict resolution s,illsF +amiliarity $ith soft$areF
&ourse (olicies:
What is expected of the studentF AttendanceF 7articipationF *tudent
responsibility in their learningF )ontribution to group $or,F @issed assignmentsF
Date $or,F =xtra creditF Academic dishonestyF @a,eup policyF )lassroom
management issuesF Daboratory safetyF
9rading5 )valuation:
Ho$ $ill the students2 $or, be graded and evaluatedF ?umber of testsF 'n0classF
%a,e0homeF 7oint valueF 7roportion of each test to$ard final gradeF Crading
scaleF
Ho$ is the final grade determinedF 9rop lo$est gradeF
Ho$ do students receive timely feedbac, on their performanceF
'nstructorF *elf0assessmentF 7eer revie$F 7eer tutorsF 1pportunities for
improvementF Engraded assignmentsF
'exts4:esources4:eadings4Supplies:
What ,inds of materials $ill be used during the courseF =lectronic databasesF
=lectronic )ourse ;eserveF )ourse WebpageF *oft$areF *imulationsF
Daboratory e.uipmentF
What ,inds of instructional technologies $ill be usedF
&ourse &alendar:
'n $hat se.uence $ill the content be taughtF When are ma(or assignments dueF
+ieldtripsF Cuestspea,erF *chedule for %erm =xaminationF ;esultF HacationsF

Study 'ips4,earning :esources:
Ho$ $ill the student be most successful in the courseF
What resources are availableF 1nline .ui- generatorF *tudy guidesF Decture notes
onlineF Decture notes on reserve in libraryF Cuestspea,er to explain6demonstrate
online resourcesF %AF 7eer tutorsF *tudy groupsF Academic *ervices )enterF
Writing )enterF =valuation of online resourcesF )itation of $eb resourcesF
Student +eedbac1 on Instruction:
Anonymous suggestion box on the $eb and =0mail.
*tudent feedbac, at midterm for instructional improvement purposes.
=nd0of0term student feedbac,. *upplement to departmental student feedbac,
form.
-ibliography
!. 3rumfit& ).4. and 4ohnson& I. (199# The Communicative Approach To Language
Teaching. 1xford Eniversity 7ress.
6. Hutchinson& %. and Waters& A. (198# English For Specific Purposes: A Learning
Centred Approach. )ambridge Eniversity 7ress.
<. Dong& ;.W. and ;ussell& C. (1999# /*tudent Attitudinal )hange over an Academic
8ear/. The Language Teacher. )ambridge Eniversity 7ress.
=. ?unan& 9. (1988# Syllabus esign. 1xford Eniversity 7ress.
>. 7rabhu& ?.*. (198# Second Language Pedagogy. 1xford Eniversity 7ress.
2. ;ichards& 4.). and ;odgers& %.*. (198A# Approaches And !ethods "n Language
Teaching. )ambridge Eniversity 7ress.
$. White& ;.H. (1988# The ELT Curriculum: esign# "nnovation And !anagement.
3lac,$ell 7ublishers Dtd.
#. Widdo$son& H.C. (198# Teaching Language As Communication. 1xford
Eniversity 7ress..
". Wil,ins& 9.A. (19A# $otional Syllabuses. 1xford Eniversity 7ress.
!?. 8alden& 4. (198# Principles of Course esign for Language Teaching. )ambridge
Eniversity 7ress.