1 Approach, Design, Procedure Introduction I have written this book in the way that I have because I have become increasingly aware that the issues which face anyone concerned with developing and introducing a new language syllabus are not only — or even primarily — questions of content. Although in the 1970s there was much concern with the content of syllabuses as a result of the notional/functional ‘revolution’, most of the problems which actually face anyone attempting to introduce a new syllabus did not change. These problems tend not to have anything to do with either the theoretical basis of the syllabus or curriculum changes themselves, nor the content of the changes. Rather, they are issues which have to do with ideas about education, and with people and organizations. They are, in short, educational and managerial issues. Thus, it seems to me that to talk of syllabus design in isolation from broader educational issues is to deny access to an important body of theory, research and practice, none coming under the umbrella of applied linguistics, which has formed the primary academic reference for language pedagogy. I am not alone in this. Stern (1983) devotes a whole section of his book, Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, to a consideration of educational issues, beginning with a discussion of curriculum theory. Thus, we can say that curriculum studies have very definitely taken their place among the concerns of language teaching. Yet other issues arise when new principles and practices are advocated. ‘These issues have been documented for innovation in other fields of education, but language teaching seems to have remained curiously aloof from this body of knowledge. ‘I'he management and implementation of innovation is, of all things, crucial to the design and take-up of new syllabuses — in language teaching as in any other part of education. And so it seems to me that we may benefit from studying some of the problems and practices of innovation management. This, in short, provides the background to my thinking. Naturally, there are other issues and questions which will be revealed during the course of this book. Among them is the influence of the recent research on second language acquisition (SLA). Although we are a long way from having an established body of empirical data on which to base proposals for language curriculum2 Approach, Design, Procedure design, traditional views on selection and grading, not to mention method- ology, will have to take on board the findings of SLA research. Indeed, I believe that we are now entering an era in language teaching when important new developments are likely to occur as a result of the insights provided by SLA research and innovations in language curriculum are likely to be quite considerable. Let us hope that we shall be prepared to meet them. In the meantime, I should like to begin by considering some of the terminology in the title and which I have already been using. We will start by considering the three terms at the heading of this chapter. Method: Approach, Design, Procedure In their 1982 paper of this title, Jack Richards and Ted Rodgers, adopting a similar three part analysis proposed by Anthony (1963), set up a useful framework for the systematic description and comparison of methods and I propose to adopt their scheme and terminology in what is to follow. They define method in terms of three levels: approach, design and procedure. By approach, they mean a theory of language and of language learning, by design they mean the definition of linguistic content and a specification for the fieinoba Approach Procedure Figure 1.1 Approach, design, procedure (from Richards and Rodgers 1982)Approach, Design, Procedure 3 selection and organization of content and a description of the role of teacher, learner and teaching materials, while by procedure they mean the description of techniques and practices in the instructional system. The relationship between these three elements is indicated in figure 1.1. In this book I shall be primarily concerned with level two: design. However, as will become clear in our historical review, design is influenced by approach, while practice is also subject to theories of language and learning. Thus, any discussion of syllabus design will tend to refer to the other levels in the Richards and Rodgers scheme. Furthermore, as we move into the arena of curriculum studies, we shall see that language teaching is part of a network of elements which go well beyond the scheme suggested by Richards and Rodgers. None the less, their scheme provides a useful starting point. Syllabus In his investigation into the ways teachers planned their courses, Taylor (1970:32) found considerable variation in the size and style of the syllabuses which were sampled: ‘Some were no more than one or two pages in length, others over one hundred pages. Some were well laid out and carefully bound. Others were cramped and barely legible.’ In spite of such diversity in the actual form of the document, there appears to be a consensus as to what a syllabus is, and this has been summarized by Brumfit (1984a). 1 A syllabus is the specification of the work of a particular department in a school or college, organised in subsections defining the work of a particular group or class; 2 It is often linked to time, and will specify a starting point and ultimate goal; 3 It will specify some kind of sequence based on a) sequencing intrinsic to a theory of language learning or to the structure of specified material relatable to language acquisition; b) sequencing constrained by administrative needs, e.g. materials; 4 It is a document of administrative convenience and will only be partly justified on theoretical grounds and so is negotiable and adjustable; 5 It can only specify what is taught; it cannot organize what is learnt; 6 It is a public document and an expression of accountability. Brumfit’s summary raises other points, such as questions of the theoretical basis of a syllabus and issues of negotiability, which will be discussed in more detail later. Also, in this account of syllabus, the focus is on selection and organization of content whereas, as we shall see, there are other approaches to syllabus which shift attention to methodology.4 Approach, Design, Procedure Curriculum The question of methodology brings us to the next term: curriculum. Some confusion exists over the distinction between syllabus and curriculum, since the terms are used differently on either side of the Atlantic. In a distinction that is commonly drawn in Britain, ‘syllabus’ refers to the content or subject matter of an individual subject, whereas ‘curriculum’ refers to the totality of content to be taught and aims to be realized within one school or educational system. In the USA, ‘curriculum’ tends to be synonymous with ‘syllabus’ in the British sense. The hierarchical distinction usual in Britain places syllabus in a subordinate position to curriculum, and this is a relationship which I will continue to follow. However, curriculum should not simply be seen as a kind of super syllabus, since there is a qualitative difference between the two, though characterizing this difference is not easy since definitions of curriculum vary. On the one hand, curriculum may be viewed as ‘the programme of activities . . . the course to be run by pupils in being educated (Hirst 1969 in Hooper 1971:234).’ On the other, curriculum may be defined as ‘all the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school (Kerr 1968:16).’ Hirst refers to the programme of activities, while Kerr refers to the activities themselves. One school of thought regards the curriculum as @ plan, whereas the other views it as activities. Socket (1976:22) succinctly characterizes this distinction as ‘the difference between a plan of a house or a journey and the house or the journey.’ Taking the house metaphor a stage further, we could see the curriculum as being one or all of three things. Firstly, it could be like a plan of a house yet to be constructed. In this sense, the curriculum is future directed towards an objective yet to be realized and it is, in essence, synonymous with syllabus as discussed in the previous section. Secondly, curriculum could be seen to be like a plan of how to build the house. Again the orientation is to the future, but in this case the concern is with the systems that are needed in order successfully to build the house. The specification for such systems and their effective operation will draw upon resources and personnel not immediately involved in the construction process itself, while the successful operation of the systems will also require the skills of the manager as well as those of the craftsmen. Thirdly, the curriculum could be seen to be like the view of the house after it has been completed and is a dwelling for its inhabitants. The conception of the house possessed by the people living in it will be determined by the use they make of the dwelling: does it match their living requirements; how do they use the spaces and facilities within the structure; what modifications might they want to make to it to make it conform more usefully to their requirements? In the discussion which follows, I shall repeatedly return to these threeApproach, Design, Procedure 5 views of the curriculum-as-house, which, though they emphasize different aspects of curriculum, are by no means mutually exclusive. The first view (curriculum/house = plan) shows a concern with objectives and content, which are two of four elements in the traditional model of the curriculum to be discussed further in chapter 3. Objectives \ Content The second view (curriculum/house = construction system) adds methods to the model. The methods are the means by which the ends — the objectives — are to be achieved and this forms the basis of a process view of the curriculum, to be considered in more detail in chapter 3. Objectives \ Content / Methods The third perspective (curriculum/house = dwelling) adds a fourth and final element: evaluation. In other words, do ov:comes match objectives? This brings us to the situational model of curriculum, also to be reviewed in chapter 3. aad Content Evaluation Adsiliade a Evaluation, as feedback (or monitoring), will also form a component of the construction-systems model, since quality control will be an important element of any production system. It is through monitoring and feedback that planned and actual outcomes can be compared and appropriate remedial action taken to repair failures or deficits. Thus, feedback will have a formative effect on action. The role and types of evaluation will be reviewed in chapter 9. The future orientation of the first two perspectives may be contrasted with the ‘here and now’ viewpoint of the third approach, as I have characterized it. The distinction reflects what I see as a difference in attitudes towards /\6 Approach, Design, Procedure curriculum, although they should be regarded as being complementary rather than being in conflict. Problems can arise, of course, if, by focusing on the future, attributes of the present are ignored or sacrificed. Furthermore, if one may take the house metaphor a step further, it is rarely the case that curriculum developers are able, unlike property developers, to begin with a clean site. Most curriculum development and curriculum proposals occur within existing systems: Thus, the third perspective may represent a more realistic approach, since it takes account of existing systems before initiating proposals for change. The systematic changes and the installation of new elements will, of course, require planning and the effective use of systems in order to realize new objectives, so that each of the first two approaches will make important contributions to an overall process of curriculum development. The characterization of different approaches to curriculum which I have outlined above provides a basis for the more detailed discussion of curriculum models to be given in chapter 3. Also, as will be clear when we come to considering the process of language curriculum design, there is a role for all three curriculum models.