ones rE —— =a Syllabus design Michael P. Breen Introduction ‘Any syllabus i plan of what isto be achieved through teaching and leasing. It is part of a ‘overall language corrculum or course which is made up of four clemenis: aims, content, ‘ethology and evaluation. The sabi identifies wha wil be worked upon by the tener snd students in terns of content selected 10 be appropriate co overall aims. Methodology refers to how teachers and leamers work upon the content, whilst evaluation is the process of assessing ‘outcomes. from the learning and judging the appvoprateness of other elements of the curseulum, AA sillabus may be formally documented, 36 ia the aims and content of a national oF insttational syllabus for particular groups of earners or Gass explicitly perhaps) in the content ‘material of published testbooks, Every teacher follows syllabus, but it may vat’ fom being & predesignad dacurnent ta da-io-day choice of content which the teacher tegunds as serving ‘uses particular aims, In the later ease, the ylabus unfolds as lessons progeess Any syllabus iealy should provide: clear framework of knowlege and capabilities selected to he appropriat to overall aims: continuity and sense of dizetia in classroom work for teacher and students s record for othor teachers of what has boen covered inthe courses ‘© abusis for evaluating students’ progres ‘© abassfor evaluating the appropriateness ofthe course in relation to overall aims and student row identified both before and during the course ‘© content appropriate to the broader language curriculum, the particular lass of learners, and ‘he educational situation and wider society in which the couse is located, ‘To meet these requirements, syllabus designers ~ including teachers who develop their own syllabuses ~ apply principles tothe orgiaisation ofthe content which they intend the syllabus to ‘over. These principles can be expressed as questions | What knowledge and capabilites should be focused aps? A syllabus may give priority to linguistic or broader communicative knowledge and focus upon one or all four skills (reading. speaking, writing and listening) or, more broadly, problem-solving or negotiation capabilities783 ‘The Camortige Gui to Teaching Englsh o Speakers of Or Langioges What should be selected as appropriate content? Given a linguistic focus, which particule sructures and vocabuliry should be covered or, givin a communicative focus, whic particular uses of language or types of tasks shouldbe sekted? 3. How should the content be subdivided so that it can be dealt with in manageable units? fn other words, that is selected as content may be broken down fo contributory or constituent paris for ease of teaching and leering in ral time 4, How should the content be sequenced along a path of development? A syllabus may adopt a stepsby-sie progression from Tes to move complex knowl and capabilities, or t may be cyclic where earlier knowledge and capabilities are revise and refine at later pois “These four principles of orgunisation define a syllabus. Inthe history oF language teaching the ast, 20 yours in particilar have rvenid significant developnvents in silabus sign that have led to the “application of each ofthese principles in allemative ways. Background Generally speaking. there are four types of sllabus curendy used in language reaching, Syabus designers, textbook writers, and teachers have evolved versions of these, but thet main charetersts usefully reveal the development of syllabus design over the last 20 years or $0. Before desribing the types of syllabus, Ise u brit istry af their emergence to illastrate their ilferences (for further details ofthese developments, sce Brea 1987; Nunan 1988b; White (988: Stern 1992), efore the advent of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the Tate 1970s. it was widely accepted that the syllabus should focus upon linguistic knowledge and the skills reading, speuing and writing, usualy in that order. Inthe 1970, research in the social and conversational use of language, coupled wit growing disatsfaction with latness apparent failure to use the linguistic knowledge outside the classtoom which they had gained ithin i, inated major change in syllabus design. Applied linguists advocated a oeus upon langiage ‘we rather than the formal aspects of language (eg. Couns of Europe 1921; Wilkins 1972b; Brumfi and Johnson 197). The intial phuse of this wansiion was exemplied in. the development of functional syabuses focusing upon partcur purposes of Ianguge and how these woul! be expressed linguistically. At the sume tine in sponse tothe particu needs of certain groups of learners ~ special purpose syllabuses ant teaching materials. were quickly ‘developed focusing upon language knowledge and shill: neated for academic study or specific ‘xcupations, eg. engineering or medicine (Mackay and Mountford 1978: Muruby 1978: Trimble eral. 1979), mn the gary 19808 this funeional movement in sllabus design became challenged rom two Uiections. The teaching ofa repertoire of Tunetions or special purpose language was considered by ing the learner's potential to certain fixed communicative situations oF fixed socal and occupational roles. They argued that a focus upon formal aspets of language at least allowed learners to generalise from one situation or communicative demand to another on the bass of the system of roles and the range of vocabulary that they have learned (Brum 1981; Wilkins et ef 1981), ‘The second challenge echoed cari doubts expressed about Formal syllabuses, Both types of syllabus could be ssen a6 “synthetic” in that learners were expected gradually to accumulate Separated bits of Knowledge, be they forms or functions, largely through de-contextualsed langrage-focused activities betore applying such knowledge as typically sypthesised in rea communication. They were alo seen as patil beeause either formal oF functional knowledge of linguistic structures or otterances were just two elements within broader communicative compe- tence, Such competence entailed orfesnatin language Torts, the eonvestions for the socal Use of langusge, andthe interpretation and expression of meanings as unified etivity (Broon and Sriseus design Canalin 1980; Canale and Swain 1980). Ths view was informed by linguistic and sociolinguistic snalyses of extended spoken or written discourse and by how it was constructed and participated fn by language users (see, e., Widdowson 1975, 1989). DDuring the 1980s, therefore, the wider development of CLT evolvad in evo new ditetions subsequent to funetionalsm. Both reflec a shift in the kind of research on which they were ‘bese As we ves, oe Funeoalsllabuses oa! bew used ot he gus desea Fanguige, and the later were motivated by an extended awareness of the are of language use in social situations, The ¢wo new directions for syllabus design wore oriented towards psycholin- ¢gnisic and educational accounts of how language learning is actualy endertaken by the learner Such an orientation led to task-based and proces slabus types, "Task-based syllabuses had their origins In research on second language acquisition (S busing the 1980s. Building upon discoveries frou frst language (L1) aequisition and Krashen's influential view that fanguage was best aequited through the learner’ Focus wpon meaning in the input provided 1o the learner uminarised in Krasen 1985), researchers begat to Focus upon hos learners interacted in order to negotiate meaning both inside and outside the classroom (Hatch 1978; Long 198; for a review, se Piea 1994). From this perspective, a atner’s use ofthe formal and Social conventions governing language were seen 10 sorve the stugale for meaning dusing interution. The goal ofthe sllabus designer of teacher therefore became the peovsion of suitable ‘asks to eusourage interaction and, through i, nogoiation for meaning. In essonee, a learner's expression and interpretation of meaning during appropriate tasks would enable the acquisition and fefinement of linguistic knowledge and its social use. Some researchers and practitioners therefore proposed chat sask should be the Key unit within the syllabus rahe than aspects of Janguage, be these formally or Funetionally identified (Breen era. 1979; Prabhu 1984; Long I985b;, Canalin and Murphy 198%; Long and Crookes 1992), “Two main ask types ae identified in task-hased syllabus design: syllabus may be constioted ‘of (1) communicative or targor-like tusks of (2) metacommunicative or earning tasks. The Foxmer are those involving learners in sharing meaning in the ape language about everyday tasks. Any task-based syllabus vaties according to the particular eurtieulum within which it is located. A curriculum serving the needs, For esample of school-age Iarners might include a syllabus of age appropriate everyday tasks. such as planning a trip of solving & mathsicicaes problem (see ‘Chapters 18,19 and 2), “The second task type is facilitative of the learner’ involvement in communicative or trget- like tasks, Metacommunieative or Irarning asks (sometines called pedagogic tasks) involve loarmer in shaving meaning about how the language works oF is used in tagge situations andor sharing meaning about studenis’ own Karning processes, Typical metacommunicative tasks are deducing verb-form patterns in spoken or written texts, oF mapping how, eg. naratives of scientife reports are structured, ‘Also focusing upon how language learning is undertaken ~ speuificaly inthe context of the broader curriculum and the classroom ~ a second proposal for syllabus design in the T9BQS was, erived from eductional perspectives on curriculum design and the teaching-Iarning process. A key argument was that wher eames have to learn and how teaching and leening sre done are unavoidably interrelated. Content, teaching methodology and leasing constantly interact and infuence each another during classroom work so thatthe teaching and leaning process i isll highly signficam part of the content of language lessons (Postman and Weingariner 1969; Freire 1970 (1996), 197% Stenhouse 1975; Breen and Candlin 1980). These ides coincided with innovations in teaching methodologies which provided alleratives to. grammar translation ‘audiolingual and other teacher modelling and feedback methodologies that had typified the use of Formal syllabuses in particular (Steck 1975, 1980, “his orientation to how language may be learned in ways that could be directly related to how teaching and learaing may be done in the lasso had motivated the adoption of tasks usw key ‘component of the eylsbus, However the ides that negotiation For msaning during tasks eines“Te Cambridge Guide oTescing Englh to Speskers of Omer Lanusges Sisbus cen Fas] language acquisition supported the proposal that lamer negotiation could aso focus upon the cezeation ofthe classroom sllabus isl (Candin 1984). In essnce, collaborative decision-making about diferent aspecs of the teaching-lesraing process in tne classroom could e seen as mere task which invelves loners in authentic opportunitias to use and dovelop theit knowledge and capabilites whist, at the same time, calling upon ther responsible engagement in the karning process wii dhe clasioon wioup. A proce allan ses ieetone propane ss proving Framework for such classroom decision-making (Breen 1984). This type of syllabus ideatiied nogotition about the purposes, contents and ways of workingas a meaningful part ofthe content ‘of lessons or sees of lessons. A proces sllabus therefore represents an arienation to how learning is done which deliseratly locates the selection und organisation ofthe actual sylabys of the classroom group within the collaborative decision-making process undertaken by teacher sid learners na language clas (Breen and Litejohn 2000). ‘The distinctive characteristics of the four main types of syllabus described above can be ‘denilied with reference 10 the principles of syllabus organisation identified in the previous section. Figure 221 summarises these key charuterisies and provides specie information abou them. Note that the four syllabus types are prototypical, ie actual syllabuses used by teachers in different situations will represent vacations on these Key charictersies These four types of syllabus design emerged in Ue late 1970s and the 1980s; mow recent developments within these types ae refered 1 bolow. sea plus negotiate cof oth outcomes and tasks emerges 1 ws tasks Assumes earner refines knowledge Process the class evolves eyelie 0 les Research ‘Very litle rescarch hts been undertaken to evaluate the relative effectiveness of labus (yes Since a sllabus is implemented ina classroom and operates within the wider process of teaching and learning, this would be dificult ro do. Just as it has proved virtually impossible to shaw that fone teaching method is more effective than another (Stern 1983: Allwright 1988), variations in teacher intefprettions ofa syllabus during the course and variations in what students actually learn from the teacher intervene between the syllabus as a pan and the actual outcomes which learners achieve (Allwright 1984 Slimani 1989; Dobinson 1990. “The emergence of task-hsed syllabuses, However, hs coincided witha significant amount of SLA research on the kinds of negotiation that learners undestake during tasks and the kinds of tasks that appear o facilitate Rest negotiation for meaning (Crookes and Gass 199%a, 1993b; Foster 1998; Skehan 1998; Long in press). Although few studies on task work are classfoom, bused, research continues to inform the lection and sequsncing of particular tasks within a syllabus: e. the cusrent reassessment of a focus upon formal knowledge of language i of dinect, relevance for task-based syllabuses, Tie reassessment has Bee lnrgely motivated by the discovery that, even ater yeas of rich and meaningful input in eontea-based oF immersion classrooms, learners continue to reveal aon-targelike features in their Mnguage production Swain (1995) suggests that the relative lack of opportunity for oral participation by farmers in eiss may explain is. The debate among researchers centres upon whether to focus explivilly on fral features in teaching or more implicitly to enable earners to notice the gap between ther own production and ‘correct refarmulaions provided by a teacher oF others as Tesdback (Spa 1997; Doughty and Williams 19980). Ths suggests that follow-up tasks encouraging a focus upon learners gaps in formal knowledge revealed during earlier more communicative tasks may be a feature of future task-based syllabuses (see also Chapter 25). ‘Teachers’ accounts of negotiation wit lamers ubout aspects of th elassroom curriculum are becoming incresinely avaiable, and these sll inform developments im process slabuses (Bailey and Nunan 1996: Richards 1998; Breen and Litljohn 2000). Both kinds of research summarised here ~ paticlary if caved out in eal classrooms ~ can support the efcacy of task-bused ot process syllabuses, but it remains true that it would be hand to isolate the direct effect upon earning oF any syllabus used by a teacher. verb forms or comparing, shs04 problems nei Tashebased How the learning is done Special Purposes: academic or 3 4 i g é requests, descrip eas Analysis for Assumes learner builds terms of social ful the four ain flab ry grammar rape co comple, or elon Forms, systems und rules of most useful 0 Tess syatheises Format Key charters Orientations What is Knowleige Capabilities facts Figuro221 4 2