6.

Course Planning &

Syllabus Design
J. C. Richards
 Dimensions of Course
Development
 A course rationale
 Description of entry & exit level

 Choice of course content

 Sequencing course content

 Planning course content(syllabus &

instructional blocks)
 Scope & sequence plan
 The Course Rationale
 Rationales provide information for
-Target learners
-Purposes of courses
-Kinds of teaching & learning activities
 Rationales serve the purposes of
-guiding planning of course components
-emphasizing kind of teaching & learning to be
exemplified
-checking consistency b/w course components
& values & goals (See p. 146)
 Describing Entry & Exit Level
 Leveling by proficiency levels
 Use band levels or points on a proficiency
scale for stages (ex-ACTFL Proficiency
guideline, See appendix 1, 2, 3)
 TWE, TSE Rubrics

 In-house evaluation criteria

 Choosing Course Content
Reflect planners’ assumptions about
nature & use of language, language
learning, most essential elements & units
of language, ways to organize as an
efficient basis for SLL
Ex) grammar, functions, topics, skills,
processes, texts, etc.
 Choosing Course Content
 Consider subject-matter knowledge, learners’
proficiency levels, current views on SLL/T,
conventional wisdoms, convenience
 Based on needs analysis, literature on topic,
published materials, review of similar courses
elsewhere, review of tests/exams in the area,
analysis of sts’ problems, consultation with
teachers or specialists knowledgeable on
topic or in area, etc.
 Choosing Course Content
 After initial generation of ideas on content,
the following should be considered:
-necessity of all suggested topics
-omission of important topics
-sufficient time to cover
-sufficient priority for most important areas
-enough emphasis on different aspects of areas
identified
-extent of help for sts to attain learning
outcomes with areas covered
Determining Scope & Sequence
 Distribution of content
 Scope- breadth & depth of coverage of
items, range of content, extent of topics to
be studied
 Sequence or order of the content based on
criteria (e.g., describing experiences-
simple to complex, chronology, need,
prerequisite learning, whole->part or part-
> whole, spiral sequencing
 Planning Course Structure
1) Selecting a syllabus framework: example
of speaking skills
-situational, topical, functional, task-based
 Factors to be considered for syllabus
framework: knowledge & belief about the
subject areas, research & theories,
common practices, trends
 Planning Course Structure
 Communicative syllabus: Threshold Level, ESP,
competency-based, text-based, task-based
syllabuses
 Types of Syllabus
1. Grammatical (structural) syllabus: mapping out
grammar with topics, skills, activities (Appendix 4)
-criticism: partial dimension of language proficiency,
not reflect naturalistic SLA, focus on sentence
rather than longer units of discourse, focus on
form, lack of communicative skills
 1. Grammatical Syllabus
 Reasons for grammar as core component of
courses
-teaching grammar as a familiar approach
-convenient to link to other strands (e.g.,
functions, topics, situations)
-a core component of language proficiency: part
of communicative competence
 Grammatical syllabus as one stream of multi-
skilled/integrated syllabuses rather than sole
basis of a syllabus
 2. Lexical Syllabus
 vocabulary target for general courses
-Elementary: 1,000 words
-Intermediate: additional 2,000 words
-Upper intermediate: additional 2,000
words
-Advanced: additional 2,000+ words
(Hindmarsh, 1980; Nation, 1990)
 2. Lexical Syllabus
 Lexical syllabus: Collins Cobuild English
Course (Willis & Willis, 1988)
 Corpus linguistics

 Concordancing

 Lexis

 One strand of a more comprehensive

syllabus
 3. Functional Syllabus
 Mastery of functions will result in
communicative ability
 Threshold level English-basic functions for
social survival & travelling: 120 functions
(Appendix 5)
 First alternative to grammatical syllabus

 Suited to organization of courses in

Spoken English
 3. Functional Syllabus
 Reasons for popularity of functional
syllabus
-reflect a more comprehensive view of
language & focus on language use
-can readily be linked to other types of
syllabus content (e.g., topics, grammar,
vocabulary)
-convenient for design of teaching materials
for listening & speaking
 3. Functional Syllabus
 Criticism against functional syllabus
-no clear criteria for selecting or grading functions
-simplistic view of CC & failure to address processes
of communication
-atomistic approach to language-discrete
components to be taught separately
-a phrase-book approach of teaching expressions &
idioms for different functions
-gaps in grammatical competence or in learning of
important structure due to focus on functions
 4. Situational Syllabus
 focus on setting in which particular
communicative acts typically occur
-focus on mastering expressions frequently
encountered in particular situations
-presenting language in context & for
immediate use
 4. Situational Syllabus:
 Criticisms
-Selection of teaching items is rather
intuitive.
-Language used in one setting may not be
transferrable to other situations.
-Incidental dealing with grammar causing
gaps in sts’ grammatical knowledge
 4. Situational Syllabus
 Reentering of situational syllabus in the
form of CA & ESP
- Central to communicative situations & to
elements of the situation such as
participants, their role relations,
transactions they engage in, skills or
behaviors in each transaction, kinds of oral
& written texts produced, & linguistic
feature of texts
 4. Situational Syllabus
 Competency-based approach-focusing on
transaction in particular situations & their
related skills & behaviors
 Text-based syllabus: focusing on
transactions, the texts occurring in
transactions, & linguistic features of texts
 Integration of notion of situation as an
element of a more comprehensive syllabus
design approach
 5. Topical or content-based
syllabus
-syllabus design based on themes, topics, or
units of content
-content as a sole criterion for organizing
syllabus
“It is the teaching of content or information
in the language being learned with little or
no direct effort to teach the language
separately form the content being taught.”
(Krahnke, 1987, p. 65).
 5. Topical or Content-based
Syllabus
 Content is incidental in other approaches
mentioned above.
 Topical & content based syllabus consider
content as the vehicle for the presentation
of language rather than the other way
around.
 Maximum use of content to provide links
& continuity across skill areas
 5. Topical or Content-based
Syllabus
 Claims on advantages of content-based
syllabus
-facilitate comprehension
-makes linguistic forms more meaningful
-serves as the best basis for teaching skill areas
-address students’ needs
-motivate learners
-allow for integration of the four skills
-allow for use of authentic materials
 5. Topical or Content-based
Syllabus
 Integrated with subject areas such as
science, mathematics, social sciences, &
university courses
 Types of CBI: Immersion model, theme-
based, adjunct model, sheltered model
 See a theme-based German university
program (Brinton et al., 1989)
 5. Topical or Content-based
Syllabus
 Issues in topic-based syllabus
development
-How to decide on themes, topics, & content
-striking a balance b/w content, grammar, &
other strands
-qualification of ESL/EFL teachers for
content-based courses
-basis for assessment: content or language?
 5. Topical or Content-based
Syllabus
 Unresolved issues of selecting grammar,
functions, or skills
 Difficulty of developing a logical or
learnable sequence for other syllabus if
topics are the framework
 Different topics for language of differing
levels of complexity-difficulty of
reconciliation among different strands of
the syllabus (See Appendix 3 in Chapter 8)
6. Competency-based Syllabus
 specification of competencies in specific
situations or for particular activities
-Competencies: description of essential
skills, knowledge, & attitudes required for
effective performance of tasks or activities
-widely used in social survival & work-
oriented language programs (See Chap. 5)
 7. Skills Syllabus
 Organize based on different underlying
abilities in using 4 skills
-mastery of individual or micro-skills for a
complex activity (e.g., listening to a lecture;
See p. 160 for skills specifications)
-attempt to identify micro-skillls underlying the
four macro-skills(L, S, R, W)-Munby(1978),
Yalden (1983)-study skills (p. 160)
-See Appendix 6 for syllabuses for L & S.
 7. Skills Syllabus
 Claims for supporting skills-based syllabus
-focus on behavior or performance
-teach skills transferrable to many other
situations
-identify teachable & learnable units
 Criticisms: no serious basis for determining
skills, focus on discrete aspects of
performance instead of global & integrated
communicative abilities
 8. Task-based Syllabus
 Focusing on activity or a goal using
language
“Tasks are activities which have meaning as
their primary focus. Success in tasks is
evaluated in terms of achievement of an
outcome, & tasks generally bear some
resemblance to real-life language use.”
(Skehan, 1996, p. 20)
 8. Task-based Syllabus
 Tasks: basic units of syllabus design and
facilitate SLL
 Learners receive comprehensible input and
modified input central to SLA.
 Tasks “provide a vehicle for the presentation
of appropriate TL samples to learners-input
which they will inevitably reshape via
application of general cognitive processing
capacities-for delivery of comprehension &
production opportunities of negotiable
difficulty.” (Long & Crookes, 1991, p. 43)
 8. Task-based Syllabus
 Claims for task-based syllabus
-activities driving SLA process
-grammar is not central but by-product of
carrying out tasks.
-motivating learners to engage in
meaningful communication
 Types of tasks-Pedagogical & real-world
tasks
 Pedagogical Tasks
 Triggers SLL processes & strategies
-jigsaw, information-gap, problem-solving,
decision-making, opinion exchange
 Communicative activities as the central
feature of a syllabus rather than playing a
incidental role as in communicative
syllabus
 Real-world Tasks
 Designed to practice or rehearse activities
that are found to be important in a needs
analysis or turn out to be important &
useful in the real world
 Similar to activities used in other
situationally based approaches such as
competency-based language teaching
 8. Task-based Syllabus
 Concerns
-Definitions of tasks are too broad & include
almost anything that learners do.
-Design & selection procedures of tasks
remain unclear
-Excessive use of communicative tasks may
encourage fluency at the expense of
accuracy.
 9. Text-based Syllabus
 Use of texts & samples of extended
discourse
 Similar to situational approach due to the
importance of analyzing the contexts in
which learners will use the language.
 Units of work in relation to the texts
(Burns & Joyce, 1997)
 A type of integrated syllabus (Appendix 7,
See Feez, 1998; p. 163)
 9. Text-based Syllabus
 A five-part cycle of text-based syllabus
1. Building the context for the text

2. Modeling & deconstructing the text

3. Joint construction of the text

4. Independent construction of the text

5. Linking related texts

 9. Text-based Syllabus
 Advantages: explicit teaching of structures of
spoken & written texts, link texts to social &
cultural context of their use, design of units of
work to develop skills in relation to whole
texts, guided practices to develop language
skills for meaningful communication through
texts
 Criticisms: more on specific skills than a
more general language proficiency, may be
impractical in many situations
 10. Integrated Syllabus
 Based on different priorities & use of
different syllabus strands-degree of
integration
 Decision b/w macro-level & micro-level
planning units
 Krahnke (1987, p. 75): Level of
specifications in terms of complexity,
abilities, situations, formal knowledge, the
choice of integration differs.
Developing Instructional Blocks
 A self-contained learning sequence with own
goals & objectives
 Can be a single lesson or a unit of work
consisting of several lessons
 Teaching blocks are for
-making the course more teachable & learnable
-providing a progression in level of difficulty
-creating overall coherence & structure for the
course
Developing Instructional Blocks
 Two commonly used instructional blocks
-Modules: a course is divided into separate
modules with more immediate & specific
objectives for separate assessment, give
learners a sense of achievement, beware of
fragmentation & unstructuredness
-Units: longer than a lesson but shorter than a
module, commonest way to organize a group
of lessons to plan a single instructional focus
Developing Instructional Blocks
 A structured sequence of activities leading
toward a learning outcome
 Factors for successful units (scheme of work)

-Length: sufficient but not too much

-Development: sequence
-Coherence
-Pacing
-Outcomes: know or do things taught or related
Developing Instructional Blocks
 An example of topical organization of units &
an integrated syllabus (Richards & Sandy,
1998; See p. 166 & Appendix 8)
 Horizontal coherence: the linked sequence of
activities within each unit
 Vertical coherence: the sequence that runs
through from the top of each page to bottom
with each page culminating in an appropriate
activity to bring the page to closure
 Preparing the Scope &
Sequence Plan
 A listing or the module or units & their
contents & an indication of how much
teaching time each block in a course will
require
 A unit-by-unit description of the course
cross-referenced to syllabus items
included (See Appendix 9)