An Introduction to Syllabus Design and Evaluation

Roberto Rabbini
rob [at] saitama.email.ne.jp
Bunan Gakuen (Warabi, Japan)

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the currents running through syllabus
design and to highlight the issues relevant to teachers considering creating their
own curriculum with specific reference to those based in Japan. It will hopefully
also help instructors better evaluate their own programs and course books. It is
therefore concerned with linguistic theory and theories of language learning and
how they are applied to the classroom.

In the past, the focus of syllabuses has shifted from structure to situations,
functions and notions to topics and tasks. In fact, as Nunan (1988:52) suggests,
with the development of the latter it is palpable that "the traditional distinction
between syllabus designand methodologyhas become blurred". So, how
should we initially define syllabus?

Syllabus: A Definition
A syllabus is an expression of opinion on the nature of language and learning; it
acts as a guide for both teacher and learner by providing some goals to be
attained. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:80) define syllabus as follows:
At its simplest level a syllabus can be described as a statement of what is to be learntIt reflects of
language and linguistic performance.
This is a rather traditional interpretation of syllabus focusing as it does on
outcomes rather than process. However, a syllabus can also be seen as a
"summary of the content to which learners will be exposed" (Yalden.1987: 87). It
is seen as an approximation of what will be taught and that it cannot accurately
predict what will be learnt. Next, we will discuss the various types of approaches
available to course designers and the language assumptions they make.

Product-Oriented Syllabuses
Also known as the synthetic approach, these kinds of syllabuses emphasize the
product of language learning and are prone to intervention from an authority.

The Structural Approach

Historically, the most prevalent of syllabus type is perhaps the grammatical

syllabus in which the selection and grading of the content is based on the
complexity and simplicity of grammatical items. The learner is expected to master
each structural step and add it to her grammar collection. As such the focus is on
the outcomes or the product.

One problem facing the syllabus designer pursuing a grammatical order to

sequencing input is that the ties connecting the structural items maybe rather
feeble. A more fundamental criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on
only one aspect of language, namely grammar, whereas in truth there exist many
more aspects to language. Finally, recent corpus based research suggests there
is a divergence between the grammar of the spoken and of the written language;
raising implications for the grading of content in grammar based syllabuses.

The Situational Approach

These limitations led to an alternative approach where the point of departure

became situational needs rather than grammatical units. Here, the principal
organizing characteristic is a list of situations which reflects the way language
and behavior are used everyday outside the classroom. Thus, by linking
structural theory to situations the learner is able to induce the meaning from a
relevant context.

One advantage of the situational approach is that motivation will be heightened

since it is "learner- rather than subject-centered" (Wilkins.1976: 16). However, a
situational syllabus will be limited for students whose needs were not
encompassed by the situations in the syllabus. This dissatisfaction led Wilkins to
describe notional and communicative categories which had a significant impact
on syllabus design.

The Notional/Functional Approach

Wilkins' criticism of structural and situational approaches lies in the fact that they
answer only the 'how' or 'when' and 'where' of language (Brumfit and Johnson.
1979:84). Instead, he enquires "what it is they communicate through language"
(Op.Cit.:18). Thus, the starting point for a syllabus is the communicative purpose
and conceptual meaning of language i.e. notions and functions, as opposed to
grammatical items and situational elements which remain but are relegated to a
subsidiary role.

In order to establish objectives, the needs of the learners will have to be analyzed
by the various types of communication in which the learner has to confront.
Consequently, needs analysis has an association with notional-functional
syllabuses. Although needs analysis implies a focus on the learner, critics of this
approach suggest that a new list has replaced the old one. Where once
structural/situational items were used a new list consisting of notions and
functions has become the main focus in a syllabus. White (1988:77) claims that
"language functions do not usually occur in isolation" and there are also
difficulties of selecting and grading function and form. Clearly, the task of deciding
whether a given function (i.e. persuading), is easier or more difficult than another
(i.e. approving), makes the task harder to approach.
The above approaches belong to the product-oriented category of syllabuses. An
alternative path to curriculum design would be to adopt process oriented
principles, which assume that language can be learnt experientially as opposed
to the step-by-step procedure of the synthetic approach.

Process-Oriented Syllabuses
Process-Oriented Syllabuses, or the analytical approach, developed as a result of
a sense of failure in product-oriented courses to enhance communicative
language skills. It is a process rather than a product. That is, focus is not on what
the student will have accomplished on completion of the program, but on the
specification of learning tasks and activities that s/he will undertake during the
course.

Procedural/Task-Based Approaches

Prabhu's (1979) 'Bangalore Project' is a classic example of a procedural syllabus.

Here, the question concerning 'what' becomes subordinate to the question
concerning 'how'. The focus shifts from the linguistic element to the pedagogical,
with an emphasis on learning or learner. Within such a framework the selection,
ordering and grading of content is no longer wholly significant for the syllabus
designer.

Arranging the program around tasks such as information- and opinion-gap

activities, it was hoped that the learner would perceive the language
subconsciously whilst consciously concentrating on solving the meaning behind
the tasks. There appears to be an indistinct boundary between this approach and
that of language teaching methodology, and evaluating the merits of the former
remain complicated.

A task-based approach assumes that speaking a language is a skill best

perfected through practice and interaction, and uses tasks and activities to
encourage learners to use the language communicatively in order to achieve a
purpose. Tasks must be relevant to the real world language needs of the student.
That is, the underlying learning theory of task based and communicative
language teaching seems to suggest that activities in which language is
employed to complete meaningful tasks, enhances learning.

Learner-Led Syllabuses

The notion of basing an approach on how learners learn was proposed by Breen
and Candlin (1984). Here the emphasis lays with the learner, who it is hoped will
be involved in the implementation of the syllabus design as far as that is
practically possible. By being fully aware of the course they are studying it is
believed that their interest and motivation will increase, coupled with the positive
effect of nurturing the skills required to learn.

However, as suggested earlier, a predetermined syllabus provides support and

guidance for the teacher and should not be so easily dismissed. Critics have
suggested that a learner-led syllabus seems radical and utopian in that it will be
difficult to track as the direction of the syllabus will be largely the responsibility of
the learners. Moreover, without the mainstay of a course book, a lack of aims
may come about. This leads to the final syllabus design to be examined ; the
proportional approach as propounded by Yalden (1987).

The Proportional Approach

The proportional syllabus basically attempts to develop an "overall competence"

(Op.Cit.:97). It consists of a number of elements with theme playing a linking role
through the units. This theme is designated by the learners. It is expected initially
that form will be of central value, but later, the focus will veer towards
interactional components ; the syllabus is designed to be dynamic, not static, with
ample opportunity for feedback and flexibility (ibid:100).

The shift from form to interaction can occur at any time and is not limited to a
particular stratum of learner ability. As Yalden (ibid:87) observes, it is important
for a syllabus to indicate explicitly what will be taught, "not what will be learned".

This practical approach with its focus on flexibility and spiral method of language
sequencing leading to the recycling of language, seems relevant for learners who
lack exposure to the target language beyond the classroom. But how can an EFL
teacher pinpoint the salient features of the approaches discussed above?

Syllabus Design and Evaluation

Initially, several questions must be posed. Do you want a product or process
oriented syllabus? Will the course be teacher or learner led? What are the goals
of the program and the needs of your students? This leads to an examination of
the degree to which the various elements will be integrated, which is of great
significance to White (1988:92) who comments:
A complete syllabus specification will include all five aspects : structure, function, situation, topic, skills. The
difference between syllabuses will lie in the priority given to each of these aspects.
Eclecticism is a common feature of the majority of course books under the
communicative banner currently on offer. Attempting to combine the various
aspects of language has also been addressed by Hutchinson and Waters who
state:
Any teaching material must, in reality, operate several syllabuses at the same time. One of them will
probably be used as the principal organizing feature, but the others are still there (op.cit.:89).
What should the language teacher based in Japan make of this review? What
points are relevant to them?

Traditionally, the grammar-translation method (mid-nineteenth century to Second

World War) has been the staple of the language class in Japanese secondary
education in spite of efforts from programs such as JET. Students are expected to
understand and memorize lists of vocabulary, phrasal verbs / idioms, grammar
rules etc for the purpose of translating selected texts and preparation for
university entrance tests. On graduating from either high school or university,
many students remain unable to communicate at even a basic level.
Widdows and Voller (1991) found that Japanese learners desired oral-aural skills
whilst rejecting a need for structural knowledge or technical writing. As Long and
Russell (1999:27) observe:
It seems reasonable after years of English classes focused on grammar, Japanese students would want
more conversational practice, want to have more confidence and better speaking skills.
This implies that a syllabus focusing on the communicative aspect of language
would satisfy the needs and desires of young Japanese adult learners. Group
psychology, years of passive learning and the grammatical syllabus under attack
here, ensure that most 15 to 25 year olds in Japan remain at the false beginner /
elementary level in communicative terms. Such learners lack confidence in their
productive skills and require communicative activities to activate the language
they have learned whilst building their self-assurance. The importance of
adopting a communicative approach is compounded by the fact that the
university entrance examinations are the "true driving force of EFL education in
Japanese high schools" (Gorsuch 1999:9). Despite requests by the Japanese
Ministry of education for syllabus designers to regard the four skills of reading,
writing, listening and speaking equally, materials writers continue to base their
trade on helping students prepare for exams. In viewing language as a system of
grammatical and vocabulary items, the "communicative ethos of the course of
study" (ibid:9) is neglected.

In light of this background, and given the monolingual nature of Japanese society
and the lack of exposure to the target language outside the classroom, a task
based strategy with a blend of approaches and emphasis on communicative
learning, may well be one of the most suitable types of syllabus design on offer
for language learners in Japan.

Conclusion
Clearly, there is a vast amount of material to disseminate when considering
syllabus design. The numerous approaches touched on here all offer valuable
insights into creating a language program. The synthetic approaches of
structuralism, situational and functional-notional, all have objectives to be
attained, a content to be processed and learnt. The foundations of the product
syllabuses remain fundamentally similar, whereas the underlying assumptions
about language and language learning from the analytic approaches differ
greatly: process type syllabuses assert that learning a language is transient and
cannot be itemized ; pedagogical procedure takes precedence over content.

If our assumptions about the nature of linguistics and language learning is one of
"language as communication" (Richards and Rodgers 1986:69) then a syllabus
based around activities and tasks which promote real and meaningful
communication will seem advantageous. We have shown that the false beginner
in Japan will have learned structural rules to a surprisingly complex degree, yet
may find it difficult to use, or indeed, may never have had an opportunity to use
the language learned. Consequently, the belief that learning is facilitated by
activities that include real communication, may be the most suitable belief to
adopt in the Japanese classroom.
Further points to consider when critically reviewing a syllabus are the objectives
of the course as well as the needs of the learners. Ultimately, and perhaps ideally,
a hybrid syllabus will result purely due to pragmatic reasons. As Hutchinson and
Waters (1987:51) suggest:
It is wise to take an eclectic approach, taking what is useful from each theory and trusting also in the
evidence of your own experience as a teacher.
Thus, to what extent has an integration of the various approaches taken place?
Does the syllabus specification include all aspects? If yes, how is priority
established? These questions must also form part of the criteria when designing
or assessing your own syllabus.

Bibliography

Brumfit, C.J. & Johnson, K. (eds) (1979) The Communicative Approach To

Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987) English For Specific Purposes: A
Learning Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gorsuch, G.J. (1999) "Monbusho Approved Textbooks in Japanese High
School EFL Classes : an aid or a hindrance to educational policy
innovations? ". The Language Teacher 23, (10), 5- 15.
Long, R.W. & Russell, G. (1999) "Student Attitudinal Change over an
Academic Year".The Language Teacher 23, (10), 17- 27.
Mulvey, B. (1999) "A Myth of Influence: Japanese university entrance
exams and their effect on junior and senior high school reading
pedagogy". JALT Journal 21, (1), 125- 142.
Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (1986) Approaches And Methods In
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, R.V. (1988) The ELT Curriculum : Design, Innovation And
Management.Oxford: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language As Communication. Oxford:
OUP.
Widdows, S. & Voller, P. (1991) "PANSI : a survey of the ELT needs of
Japanese University students". Cross Currents 18, (2), 127-141 .
Wilkins, D.A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Yalden, J. (1987) Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
Definition[edit]

The syllabus is a "contract between faculty members and their students, designed to answer
students' questions about a course, as well as inform them about what will happen should they
fail to meet course expectations." [3] It is also a "vehicle for expressing accountability and
commitment" (2005, p. 63).[4] Over time, the notion of a syllabus as a contract has grown more
literal but is not in fact an enforceable contract.[5]

Etymology[edit]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word syllabus derives from modern
Latin syllabus "list", in turn from a misreading of the Greek sittybas "parchment label,
table of contents", which first occurred in a 15th-century print of Cicero's letters to Atticus.[1]
[6]
Earlier Latin dictionaries such as Lewis and Short contain the word syllabus,[7] relating it to the
non-existent Greek word , which appears to be a mistaken reading of syllaba "syllable";
the newer Oxford Latin Dictionary does not contain this word.[8] The apparent change
from sitty- to sylla- is explained as a hypercorrection by analogy to
(syllambano "bring together, gather").[8]

Because the word syllabus is formed in Latin by mistake, the Latinate plural form syllabi might be
considered a hypercorrection.[9] The OED, however, admits both syllabuses and syllabi as the
plural form.[1]

Purpose[edit]

The syllabus ensures a fair and impartial understanding between the instructor and students
such that there is minimal confusion on policies relating to the course, setting clear expectations
of material to be learned, behavior in the classroom, and effort on student's behalf to be put into
the course, providing a roadmap of course organization/direction relaying the instructor's
teaching philosophy to the students, and providing a marketing angle of the course such that
students may choose early in the course whether the subject material is attractive.

Many generalized items of a syllabus can be amplified in a specific curriculum to maximize

efficient learning by clarifying student understanding of specified material such as grading policy,
grading rubric, late work policy, locations and times, other contact information for instructor and
teaching assistant such as phone or email, materials required and/or recommended such as
textbooks, assigned reading books, calculators (or other equipment), lab vouchers, etc., outside
resources for subject material assistance (extracurricular books, tutor locations, resource
centers, etc.), important dates in course such as exams and paper due-dates, tips for succeeding
in mastering course content such as study habits and expected time allotment, suggested
problems if applicable, necessary pre-requisites or co-requisites to current course, safety rules if
appropriate, and objectives of the course.

A syllabus will often contain a reading list of relevant books and articles that are compulsory or
optional for students to read. As an indirect effect of this, scholars can count how many online
syllabi include their works as a way of estimating their educational impact. [10]