Syrian Arab Republic

Damascus University
English Department
M.A. in Applied Linguistics
Research Methodology

Written by: Wessal Bara

Supervised by: Dr. Ammar Sandouk
7.2.2020

Syllabus Design
 Introduction

Before introducing the concept of syllabus design, it is important to

distinguish between curriculum and syllabus. According to Berardo (2007), the
curriculum is the overall set of objectives and goals. In other words, the
curriculum includes the content, the processes, resources, and methods of
evaluation. The syllabus, on the other hand, is a part of the overall plan. Johnson
(1982) defines the syllabus as an inventory that includes the items that should
be taught. Therefore, syllabuses deal with the content of a single subject.
Because of the changing needs of the learners, the syllabus may be designed
differently each time. The concept of syllabus design “… is the process of
developing a syllabus” (Richards, 2001, p.2). One course book for a specific
subject may not be appropriate to be used in a similar context. Unique syllabus
design is required when dealing with new subjects or the same subjects with
new group of learners having different needs. This paper will, briefly, discuss
the background of Syllabus design, approaches to designing a syllabus, who
should design the syllabus, who should the syllabus be designed for, different
types of syllabuses, and a unit from a series used for Teaching English as a
Foreign language (TEFL) will be put under study.

Background
As mentioned, the syllabus is more concerned with the content of the
course. The concept of curriculum development has started in the 1960s;
nevertheless, issues concerning syllabus design have begun earlier, (Richards,
2001). According to Berardo (2007), the history of syllabus design has shed
light on the changing attitudes towards the nature of language itself, and how it
reflects and responds to the developments in the theory of language teaching.
This idea is further stressed by Richards (2001) who argues that the change in
views regarding teaching a language form one time to another has led to a

1
change in the methods of TEFL and principles underlying it which in turn will
affect the way syllabuses are designed. Nunan (1988) argues that until recently,
syllabus design revolved around drawing up lists of grammar points,
phonological and vocabulary items which were scored based on the level of
difficulty and usefulness. During the 1970s, communicative views about
language have started to get attention when designing a syllabus. As a result,
syllabuses have begun to include in their content, not only grammatical items
that learners should master, but also the functional skills they need to
communicate appropriately as stated by Nunan (1988).
Now that an introduction and background to syllabus design have been
provided, the issue of syllabus designers shall be discussed.

Syllabus designers
The question of who should design a syllabus is an essential one. Berardo
(2007) recognized a divide between theory (theorists) and practice (teachers)
saying that: “Responsibility for syllabus design has two opposing categories: the
state–wide, state/organizational–sponsored consultancy and the individual, often
post hoc document prepared by the teacher under pressure as well as under
resourced” (Berardo, 2007, p.17). According to what he says, the consultant
theoretician is the more linguistically informed in addition to having more
extensive overview. Having mentioned earlier that a syllabus is designed
depending upon the needs of the learners and the course in general, does the
theorist know what exactly are the interests and the needs of both the teacher
and the student? As stated by Berardo (2007), the process of designing a
syllabus should be a cooperative one. The theoretical linguist and the teacher
should work hand in hand to connect theory to practice and use their full
knowledge to come up with the appropriate syllabus.
After identifying the two parties involved in designing a syllabus, the next
paragraph will discuss who receives this syllabus.

2
 Who should the syllabus be designed for?
The learners, of course, are the ones who receive and study the syllabus.
Berardo (2007) says that the interests and the level of sophistication of learners
are the two factors that determine who will use the syllabus. Students, as he
claims, are not generally familiar with the philosophical and theoretical matters
which a syllabus should reflect. Therefore, the teacher spends time explaining
why certain points will be stressed and favored over others which students may
be asking for.
After getting a clear idea about those who design and those who study the
syllabus, we will discuss the approaches to syllabus design.

Approaches to syllabus design

Before designing a syllabus, approaches are taken into consideration.
Murphy (2013), explains various approaches, and they are as follows:

1. Product VS Process
According to murphy (2013), the product syllabus places importance on the
linguistic content to be learnt. Moreover, it is a clear and formal syllabus, and it
includes, for example, a list of grammar points or vocabulary words. However,
the process syllabus includes a set of learning processes. It also focuses on the
skills to be acquired not the content itself. Therefore, it creates open-ended
situations for learning and constructing the skills used in real world. Based on
Nunan’s words (1988), these two types are incompatible.

2. Synthetic VS Analytic
Murphy (2013) distinguishes between the synthetic and analytic syllabuses.
the synthetic syllabus assumes that teaching the small bits of language will, at
the final stage, help create a complete structural framework. Thus, it advocates

3
the view that says language consists of a set of building blocks which can be
built to form a meaningful structure. This syllabus matches the needs of
grammar-based instruction. However, the analytic syllabus attempts to identify
the needs and satisfy them with suitable language usage. Wilkins (1976) points
out that analytical approaches are organized according to the purposes for
learning a language and the types of language performances which are essential
to meet these purposes.

Types of Syllabuses

Since the syllabus is designed to meet the needs of the learners, it is fair to
say that there is more than one type, and they are as listed below with
consideration to each type’s advantages and disadvantages:

1. Grammatical Syllabus
The grammatical syllabus has been followed for a long time for teaching a
language. The roots of this type are found within the grammar-translation
method which is based on translating texts form the target language to the
native language and explaining grammar points (Murphy, 2013). As stated by
Nunan (1988), it presents only one grammatical item at a time, and learners are
required to master it before explaining the next. Moreover, Language consists of
a number of rules that can be put together in many ways to make meaning.
Therefore, the focus is on the product.

1.1. Advantages
Murphy (2013) believes that this type is favorable because it is easy to
assess and follow as well as being transparent which means learners can feel a
sense of achievement by following the steps. According to Dörnyei (2009), the
grammatical syllabus may intrigue teachers because it (a) takes little time to be

4
prepared, (b) requires little competency and fluency on the part of the teacher,
(c) requires no higher-level thinking.
1.2. Criticism
The intense focus on grammar points places importance on one aspect of
language where in reality language is more than the teaching of formal grammar
(Nunan, 1988). Moreover, Murphy (2013) argues that the faults in the
grammatical syllabus are found in the assumptions that (a) second-language
(L2) learners need to learn grammar in an explicit way, (b) grammar teaching
leads to grammatical L2 usage, (c) the grammars of the second language have
logical rules that are teachable and learnable, and (d) all L2 learners can learn
the grammar at the same pace.

2. Notional/Functional Syllabus
This type of syllabuses was developed in Europe as a reaction to the
grammatical approach although it faces the same criticism. Because it is a step
up from the grammatical syllabus, it simply shifts the focus to more meaningful
usage of the language with the importance of grammar teaching remaining there
(Murphy, 2013). In addition, the notional/functional syllabus:

… takes the desired communicative capacity as the starting point. In

drawing up a notional syllabus, instead of asking how speakers of the
language express themselves or when and where they use the language,
we ask what it is they communicate through language. We are then able
to organize language t e a c h i n g in terms of the content rather than the
form of the language. For this reason, the resulting syllabus is called the
notional syllabus. Wilkins (1976, p.18)

Trying to define notions and functions, Nunan (1988) explains notions as “…

conceptual meanings (objects, entities, states of affairs, logical relationships,
and so on) expressed through language” (Nunan, 1988, p. 35). Functions, on the
other hand, are the communicative purposes we use language for. The notional

5
syllabus is, according to Murphy (2013), a step up from the grammatical
syllabus. As a result, it simply shifts the focus to more meaningful usage of the
language with the importance of grammar teaching remaining there.

2.1. Advantages
According to Wilkins (1976), the notional syllabus takes the
communicative aspects of language into consideration form the start without
losing the grammatical and situational factors. Moreover, it boosts the
motivation of the learners. According to Finocchiaro & Brumfit (1983), the
notional/functional syllabus “…provides a means for contextual understanding
and realization before performance because it grasps onto cultural needs” (Cited
in Murphy, 2013, p. 11).

2.2. Criticism
According to Murphy (2013), the notional syllabus is similar to the
grammatical one which makes them share many of the same criticism.
Widdowson (1979) claims that the shift from a list of grammar points to a list of
notions and functions points still produces a list which is not compatible with
authentic learning. Since the notional-functional syllabus is synthetic, Nunan
(1988) argues that breaking language into small bits does not represent the true
nature of communication.

3. The Situational Syllabus

This type of syllabus is developed to take situational needs into account,
moving away from the grammatical syllabus. Language is used within a social
context, and taking words and sentences out of that context makes them
meaningless (Wilkins, 1976).

There are certain features of situations and they include:

6
 … the physical context in which the language event occurs, the channel
(spoken or written) of communication, whether the language activity is
productive or receptive, the number and the character of the participants,
the relationships between them and the field of activity within which the
language event is taking place (Wilkins, 1976, p.16).

The content of such a syllabus, as he says, will include many language

situations with a description of the language used in each.

3.1. Advantages
The situation syllabus has several advantages. According to Wilkins
(1976), it is more efficient and more motivating than the grammatical syllabus.
It also takes the needs of the learner into account and make room for more
communication in class. Moreover, the context is given priority.

3.2. Criticism
As noted earlier, this type takes situational needs into consideration, and
it includes the features discussed above. However, Wilkins (1976) claims that it
is not reasonable to consider that the speaker is, linguistically speaking,
controlled by the situation he is in. The speaker, according to him, expresses
what they choose to say and may be in no way related to the specific situation
he is in. Thus, the physical context does not control what we can say. For
example, people might go to a hospital not because they suffer from an illness
but to visit a patient.

4. Skill-based Syllabus
This type involves improving some language skills in the learner. One
approach to skill-based syllabus reduces the theory of language and views the
whole system of it as limited to specific skills. Another approach addresses the
overall language ability through the teaching of specific skills. In this specific
approach, instruction in various skills is provided as well as instruction designed
mainly to improve the language ability. In addition, the skill-based syllabus is
7
widely used in ESL programs for adults because the goal of the designers is to
make students functionally competent in the society in a short time (Krahnke,
1987).
4.1. Advantages
According to Krahnke (1987), this type is useful for learners who want to
master certain types of language uses. It also helps learners focus on some types
that might be relevant to them in their future lives. Moreover, it provides new
immigrants and refugees with “…immediate abilities in the practicalities of
daily life (housing, food, health, social services, law), (Krahnke, 1987, p.53).

4.2. Criticism
Krahnke (1987) claims that the instruction of specific skills may be an
effective way to improve certain language use abilities in the learner; thus, the
general proficiency will not be improved. Moreover, the skill-based syllabus
which is too narrow in scope can make students programmed for specific types
of behavior.

5. Task-based syllabus
The task-based (TB) syllabus, as stated by Murphy (2013), is a type that
focuses on learning processes. Therefore, it is the first type that pays attention to
the cognitive processing and development of students. The principles of the
procedural and task-based syllabuses are similar. Moreover, both syllabuses
focus on the classroom processes which prompt learning. For this reason, they
differ from other types in which the importance is on the linguistic items that
students will learn or the communicative skills that they will display as a result
of instruction consists of the specifications of the tasks and activities that
learners will perform in class (Nunan, 1988).

5.1. Advantages

8
 Because it is a process-based syllabus, it acknowledges the shortcomings
of product syllabuses by taking cognitive development into consideration.
Furthermore, it constructs the autonomy of the learner and relies on it. Since it
is communicative and interactive, group work helps learners feel less stressed
and more motivated (Murphy, 2013).

5.2. Criticism
Since tasks mirrors real-word interactions, teachers, especially non-natives,
who rely on grammar-based syllabuses may find it hard to cope with this type.
Moreover, they would feel hostile towards the TB syllabus and may find
themselves in a situation where they lack both confidence and competence. The
grammar-based syllabuses allow teachers to have control over the language
since fluency is not needed. However, with this type, they lack control over the
language and the linguistic output (Edward & Willis, 2005).

6. Content-based Syllabus
This syllabus is unique in that it concerns itself with a well-defined subject
area. In other words, its content is limited to a single subject whether it is in a
school curriculum such as math or science or a more specialized one such as
medicine or economics. As a result, the syllabus is more logical and coherent
compared to other analytic types (Nunan, 1988). Murphy (2013) says that it also
focuses on using the language in ways that serves the content of the subject.

6.1. Advantages
The major advantages of CBI are (a) motivation that comes with
empowerment and meaningful goals, (b) students are no longer studying abut
the second language, but using it as needed, naturally. Moreover, it is easy to be
implemented (Murphy, 2013). According to Freeman & Anderson, (2016),
Content-based Instruction provides teachers with a means of addressing issues

9
of language and content learning. Furthermore, it helps students make ongoing
progress in both areas.
1.1. Criticism
As stated earlier, this syllabus is about creating a content which suits a
single subject matter. For this reason, finding competent ESL teachers to teach
such a course might be difficult (Bazyar & Dastpak & Tanghinezhad, 2015). In
addition, creating the appropriate content may be difficult depending upon
learners’ needs. The CBI may not be appropriate for all age groups as well
(Murphy, 2013).

After discussing, briefly, the major types that were used to teach English
language, the focus now will be on studying one unit in a syllabus.

Unit Study
The unit to be studied is taken out from the English for Starters series
taught to students of baccalaureate in Syria. It is one that talks about ‘The Law’.
This unit follows the skill-based syllabus as the author of the series claims that
it focuses on the four language skills (see Appendix 1). First of all, the
objectives are stated at the beginning regarding what to be taught, and it
includes grammar, vocabulary, reading, listening, speaking, and writing (see
Appendix 2). For the listening part, students are asked to listen to some tapes
and then answer some questions that would test their understanding (see
Appendix 2 and 3). As far as speaking is concerned, learners need to discuss
two questions in pairs or groups about their opinions concerning issues related
to criminals and the law (see Appendix 3). The next section is about vocabulary.
It includes words with multiple meanings, and pupils should match the word
with its correct meaning. They are also required to derive adjectives from
certain nouns (see Appendix 4). The grammar section is important, and it
focuses on revising the present perfect simple and continuous tenses in an
interactive and inductive way (see Appendix 5). The focus next is on reading,

10
learners need to answer a number of questions after reading a text about crimes.
Moreover, they are asked to re-read the text and answer another two questions
that include matching the beginnings with the endings as well as matching
words with their meanings (see Appendix 6). The last section is about writing.
Students are required to write 100-120-words essay about a certain topic. After
they finish, they need to read it carefully for spelling, grammar, and punctuation
mistakes (see Appendix 7). All in all, the objectives stated at the beginning of
the unit are found within it. One of the advantages of this series, particularly this
unit, is taking the communicative ability of the students into account by
promoting pair and group work. Moreover, the integration of the four skills
provide learners with more confidence while using the language. Nevertheless,
more illustrations should be used. In my opinion, inserting more pictures will
draw students’ attention and elicit their imagination to think about all the things
related to a specific topic. Another negative point worth mentioning is the
abundance of questions. learners, after all, are not machines that work with the
same pace. The speaking skill also is not given much attention. I believe
students should be able to practice it more in order to master it. For further
improvement, I suggest to use sentences in context when teaching vocabulary.
Moreover, the teacher should try to communicate with students using the second
language to get them accustomed to these situations.

Conclusion
The concept of syllabus design, as discussed above, is very important
itself. Designing a syllabus is not an easy process because more than one person
is involved in it. The learner should also be our main focus since their needs is
essential in this process. Moreover, the methods adapted for teaching a language
requires a syllabus that is unique. We discussed the major types of syllabuses
which are the (a) grammatical syllabus, (b) functional/notional syllabus, (c)
situational syllabus, (d) skill-based syllabus, (e) task-based syllabus, and (f)

11
content-based syllabus. each of these types has its own merits and de-merits.
However, I think that eclecticism should be present when designing as well as
choosing the most appropriate type for the course because favoring one type
over the other will make us turn a blind eye on some skills that need to be
improved.

12
 Reference List

Bazyar, Z., Dastpak, M., & Taghinezhad, A. (2015). Syllabus Design and Needs
Analysis of Students in Educational System.  Advances in Language and
Literary Studies,6(4), 162-165.

Berardo, A. S. (2007). Designing a Language Learning Syllabus. Rome: Aracne

Editore.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks: In English

language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology.

Pergamon, Oxford.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language

Learning. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED283385.pdf

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & principles in

language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, R. S. (2013). Critical Review of Five Major L2 Syllabus Designs.

Murphy School of Education.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford university press.

13
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Retrieved June 20, From
https://www.scribd.com/document/264500718/EXPLORATIONS-IN-
APPLIED-LINGUISTICS-H-G-WIDDOWSON-pdf

Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Retrieved June 18, 2020 from https://www.scribd.com/doc/66790485/Notional-
Syllabus-D-a-Wilkins

14
 Appendix 1

15
 Appendix 2

16
 Appendix 3

17
 Appendix 4

18
 Appendix 5

19
 Appendix 6

20
 Appendix 7

21
22
23