Unit 1.

Lesson 3. Evaluation of Syllabuses

Synopsis: The lesson focuses on the procedure of evaluation of the syllabus and its purpose for
foreign language teaching process.

Aim and outcomes of the lesson:

The aim of the lesson is to familiarize course participants with the main criteria for evaluation of
syllabuses. The learners will have the opportunity to appraise, evaluate and adapt existing
syllabuses and courses.

Lesson contents
Spark
Activity 1. Reflect upon the following questions:
- Is there any difference between evaluation and assessment?
- How would you define both terms?
- What are the primary criteria for evaluation of syllabuses?

Input
Activity 2. Study the table content given in the site
https://www.cte.cornell.edu/documents/events/2014_AnnCon_Presentations/Syllabus
%20Rubric%201_13%20Sheet1.pdf and comment on each point. Pick three dimensions and
decide why recommended criterion is better than emerging and beginning ones.

Activity 3. Study the given information and comment on the formative and summative
evaluation.
According to http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php there exist the following
types of syllabuses evaluation:
Formative evaluation
Types of evaluation depend on the
intensifies or accomplishes
object and the purpose of the object of evaluation - it
evaluation. The most common helps to form it by
types are formative and summative examining the delivery of
evaluation. the learning programme, its
quality of implementation
and assessment of different
stages of its fulfillment
(content, input etc.).
Summative evaluation verifies the
outcome or result of the object – it
generalizes it by pointing out what
steps should be done to implement
the programme; assessing whether the
object cause the outcome; specifying
the overall casual factor; summing up
relative prerequisites associated with
the object.

Follow-up activities:
Activity 4. Consider the following online discussion on the differences between evaluation and
assessment. Compare the opinions of different scholars and give your own feedback.
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_differences_between_evaluation_and_asse
ssment_in_Language_Teaching. Write comments on the main criteria for evaluating a syllabus.

Activity 5. Read the article “Reviewing Your Syllabus” by Tami Strang (from
http://blog.cengage.com/reviewing-your-syllabus/) and answer the questions:
- How do you go about reviewing your syllabus at the start of a term?
- What essential elements do you include?
- How do you use the syllabus as a teaching tool?

Activity 6. Debugging the design of a syllabus: What could go wrong? Evaluate your draft of
the syllabus you prepared for the previous lesson taking into account the following questions:
- What kinds of situations might arise as you implement this course?
- Will students be motivated to do the suggested material? What if they are not?
- Does the syllabus content encourage student involvement?
- Will students get sufficient feedback on their performance?
- How can you prevent (or at least minimize) psychological and linguistic difficulties?
- What methodology can be successful?

Activity 7. Create your own syllabus’s evaluation criteria in accordance with the given items.
Course objectives Criteria
Course syllabus
Textbooks
Supplemental reading
list
Technologies
Assessment tools

Within these criteria evaluate a syllabus of any Module you study in terms of this programme.

Unit assessment. This is final assessment at the end of the Unit. Your task is to design a 10 hour
course for a group of learners of your choice (e.g. young learners, teenagers, adults, business,
students).
- Present the course in a table format week by week.
- Provide a rationale of approximately 1000 words explaining why you have designed the
course this way; what principles are in the course and how you have chosen the content.

Key Reading
1. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1994. The program evaluation
standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
(http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/field-centres/ross/ctl1014/Joint1994.pdf)
2. Norris, J. M. and Yu.Watanabe Foreign Language Program Evaluation Project. 2007.
University of Hawai.
(https://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/resources/pdf/
RolesandResponsibilitiesbookletFLProgEvalMANOA.pdf)
3. Richard Kiely and Pauline Rea-Dickens Programme Evaluation in Language Education.
2005. Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol. Palgrave Macmillan. – P.307
(http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9780230511224)
4.https://assessmentisforever.wordpress.com
5. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php
6. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/linguafolio/6302

Further reading
1. Harmer, J. 1994. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
https://www.google.com/url?url=https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.ht
ml%3Fid%3D53c8bdf6d4c1185f198b45b9%26assetKey%3DAS
%253A273601113067522%25401442242996719&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0a
hUKEwiSpMjR2bDKAhVBqHIKHT0zCGAQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNFzbtm-
MYLYkTk37B-x-ep3UXjTew
2. Littlejohn, Andrew. 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan
horse. B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. http://www.andrewlittlejohn.net/website/docs/Littlejohn%20Analysis%20of
%20Language%20teaching%20materials.pdf
3. Ramírez Salas, Marlene. 2001. English teachers as material developers.
RevistaElectrónicaActualidadesInvestigativas en Educación 4,2.
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/447/44740214.pdf
The TKT Course Modules 1,2 and 3. Cambridge University Press 2011. (Unit 24 TKT
p. 156-157)