C R I T I C A L N E W L I T E R A C I E S

Issues in Syllabus
Design
Akram Faravani, Mitra Zeraatpishe,
Maryam Azarnoosh and
Hamid Reza Kargozari (Eds.)
Issues in Syllabus Design
CRITICAL NEW LITERACIES: THE PRAXIS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING AND LEARNING (PELT)

Volume 6

Series Editors:

Marcelle Cacciattolo, Victoria University, Australia

Tarquam McKenna, Victoria University, Australia
Shirley Steinberg, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada
Mark Vicars, Victoria University, Australia

As a praxis-based sequence these texts are speciically designed by the team of

international scholars to engage in local in-country language pedagogy research. This
exciting and innovative series will bring a dynamic contribution to the development
of critical new literacies. With a focus on literacy teaching, research methods and
critical pedagogy, the founding principle of the series is to investigate the practice of
new literacies in English language learning and teaching, as negotiated with relevance
to the localized educational context. It is being and working alongside people in the
world that is at the core of the PELT viewpoint. The Praxis of English Language
Teaching and Learning series will focus on inter-culturality and interdisciplinary
qualitative inquiry and the dissemination of “non-colonised” research.
Issues in Syllabus Design

Edited by
Akram Faravani
Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Iran
Mitra Zeraatpishe
Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Iran
Maryam Azarnoosh
Islamic Azad University, Semnan Branch, Iran
and
Hamid Reza Kargozari
Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6351-186-5 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6351-187-2 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6351-188-9 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2018 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface vii

1. The Concept of Syllabus Design and Curriculum Development: A Look

at Five Major Syllabus Designs 1
Robert S. Murphy

2. Philosophical Foundations of Language Curriculum Development 25

Parviz Maftoon and Saeed Safdari

3. Product-Process Distinctions in the ELT Curriculum 39

Rosemary Wette

4. Grammatical Syllabus 53
Akram Faravani and Mitra Zeraatpishe

5. Situational Syllabus 61
Parviz Birjandi and Jila Naeini

6. Issues in Syllabus Design: Skills-Based Syllabi 69

Homa Jafarpour Mamaghani and Mandana Zolghadri

7. Toward Maximising the Impact of the Lexical Syllabus in Second

Language Teaching 81
Dat Bao

8. Genre- Based Syllabuses 89

Goodith White

9. Functional Approaches to Syllabus Design: From the Threshold Level

to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 99
David Little

10. Issues in Syllabus Design: Content-Based Syllabi 111

Shannon Fitzsimmons-Doolan and Fredricka L. Stoller

11. Task-Based Syllabus Design 125

Anne Ma

12. Negotiated Syllabus 135

Maryam Azarnoosh and Hamid Reza Kargozari

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

13. Discourse Syllabus 149

Michael Handford

Author Biographies 161

Index 167

vi
 PREFACE

The diverse assortment of syllabuses and the host of related issues in the field of
second language teaching and course development make it evident that syllabus
design is one of the most controversial areas of second language pedagogy. The
implementation of syllabuses for use in specific language teaching programs inter
alia may include issues related to the structuring of the units, the methodology used
to convey the content, and the format, presentation and assessment of the content.
The differences in content and theoretical grounding of various types of syllabi
do signify a common concern: Teachers should be familiar with different types of
syllabuses and be able to critically analyse them. Thus, this book addresses the major
types of syllabuses in language course development.
The chapters in this book are brought together to provide BA and MA university
students a comprehensive overview of the old and new approaches to syllabus
design. In Chapter 1, Murphy provided an introduction to the concept of syllabus
design and briefly covered five major syllabus types from a historical perspective
and pedagogical significance: the Grammatical Syllabus, the Notional-Functional
Syllabus, the Lexical Syllabus, the Task-Based Syllabus, and the Content-based
Syllabus. In the second chapter, Maftoon and Safdari took a comprehensive look
at the history of educational philosophies which were touched chronologically and
included Idealism, Realism, Perenialism, Essentialism, Existentialism, Pragmatism,
Progressivism, Experimentalism, Reconstructionism, and postmodernism. Through
grasping such a sketch of philosophical ideas, they attempted to answer the question
which idea should be taken as an appropriate foundation of a language teaching
curriculum. They came up with Kumaravadivelu’s idea of principled pragmatism
which holds that postmethod pedagogy is based on three dimensions of particularity,
practicality, and possibility. Therefore, Maftoon and Safdari recommended
practitioners and theorizers a glocalized view instead of a global view. Rather than
focusing on a one-fits-all approach, a localized view promotes tailoring global
approaches and philosophies to fit the specific situation, learners, and teachers.
Wette, in Chapter 3, focused on the famous dichotomy of product/process-based
types of curriculum. After elaborating on the distinctions between these syllabuses,
she continued with the critiques of both. Wette believed that mostly the syllabuses
focus on the final product of any teaching and learning; however, process-based
syllabuses can be mingled to the whole curriculum to help teachers and learners to
focus on enhancing skills through a step by step process.
Faravani and Zeraatipishe, in Chapter 4, provided an introduction to the
grammatical syllabus along with its major critiques. As an alternative to grammatical
syllabus, Birjandi and Naeini introduced situational syllabus in Chapter 5. Having
discussed the philosophical, psychological, and linguistic foundations of this type

vii
PREFACE

of syllabus, they argued the merits of it over grammatical type. Situational syllabus
focuses on teaching the practical command of four basic skills through introducing
grammatical rules in the context of situation.
Jafarpour Mamaghani and Zolghadri in the next chapter discussed skills-based
syllabus which divides language into different modules for listening, speaking,
reading and writing, and sub-skills of these larger skills. They started with the
definition and features of skills-based syllabus and continued with theoretical
underpinnings, merits and demerits, and applications. They finalized the chapter by
illustrating the skills-based syllabus with a number of examples.
Lexical syllabus was the next type focused on by Dat Bao in Chapter 7. He
mentioned that the lexical syllabus sees vocabulary as the most important component
of syllabus design, and argued the necessity for optimal selection of words to be
taught and learned. Such goal can be achieved through focusing on a range of factors
including frequency of use, range of appearance in various text types or genres,
availability, meaning coverage, learnability and teachability.
In the next chapter, Goodith White introduced genre-based syllabus including the
genres which a particular group of students need to produce or understand in their
life outside the classroom. She discussed how might a teacher draw up a genre based
syllabus for his/her class.
David Little debated about functional syllabus in the following chapter. He
elaborated on the historical development of such kind of syllabus which was initiated
by the development of The Threshold Level, by the Council of Europe.
Chapter 10 co-authored by Fitzsimmons-Doolan and Stoller focused on content-
based syllabus. They argued A continuum of CBI models including topical,
thematic, sustained-content, linked, sheltered, partial-immersion, and immersion
models. Then, they came up with tips for teachers who want to incorporate aspects
of content-based instruction into their teaching procedure.
In the following chapter, Anne Ma elaborated on task-based syllabus. She
argued a continuum showing different understanding of tasks and then proposed
a framework for organizing tasks. Azarnoosh and Kargozari, in Chapter 12, dealt
with the negotiated syllabus and its origins, types, frameworks, advantages and
disadvantages. Finally, the last chapter of the book authored by Michael Handford
discussed discourse syllabus in Chapter 13. He debated how discourse approach
benefits learners.

viii
 ROBERT S. MURPHY

1. THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN

AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
A Look at Five Major Syllabus Designs

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will discuss EFL syllabus/curriculum design and development. It will
cover five major designs from a historical perspective and discuss their pedagogical
significance. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 discuss the purposes, functions, and reasons
behind syllabus/curriculum design while section 6 provides a critical review of
these five major Syllabus types: the Grammatical Syllabus, the Notional-Functional
Syllabus, the Lexical Syllabus, the Task-Based Syllabus, and the Content-based
Syllabus.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SYLLABUS

What is the purpose of a syllabus of the L2 classroom? Robinson (2011, p. 294)

describes syllabus design as the compilation of decisions regarding units and their
sequence of performance. At the lowest level, the syllabus may simply be a reminder
or a list of things to do for the busy teacher who has little classroom planning time.
However, a good syllabus does much more than that. A well-written syllabus
could provide a doorway into the pedagogical beliefs of the teacher (or the course
writer).
In some cases, the chosen course book automatically becomes “the syllabus”,
but is that ready-made syllabus the best that you can do? -Certainly not. But what
can ELT course books do to help proper language acquisition? Below is a modified
version of a list from Tomlinson (2008, p. 6).
• Provide rich experience with varying genres and text types
• Provide pleasing experience through beautiful art and design
• Use of multimedia for rich and varied language learning
• Help learners make discoveries for themselves
• Help learners become autonomous language learners
• Providing extra materials for extensive listening and extensive reading
• Help learners personalize and localize their language learning

A. Faravani et al. (Eds.), Issues in Syllabus Design, 1–23.

© 2018 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
R. S. MURPHY

Keep this list of points handy so that you can re-examine them easily, as you read
this chapter.
Let us move on to a discussion on Syllabus vs Curriculum. Is there a difference?
Richards (2001, p. 2) distinguishes a difference is scope in the UK- the curriculum
is the bigger picture. As “the bigger picture”, the curriculum can incorporate three
steps: (1) course planning, (2) materials/methods, and (3) course evaluation (Nunan,
1988, pp. 4–5). Historically, because grammar-centric teaching has been so popular,
syllabus design was simply the order of the grammar points that would be taught
within the framework the curriculum. However, in the United States, Syllabus
and Curriculum often mean the same thing. This chapter will treat Syllabus and
Curriculum separately.
So, what is the purpose of the syllabus? Hutchinson and Waters (1987, pp. 83–84)
say:
• to break language down into manageable units and provide a practical basis for
textbooks and instructional blocks
• to thus provide teachers and learners with moral support
• to reassure students and/or sponsors that a course has been well planned: its
• cosmetic role
• to give both students and teachers an idea of where the course is going
• to act as an implicit statement of the views held by the course designers
• regarding language and language learning—telling students not only what they
• are to learn but why
• to guide the selection of materials, texts and exercises
• to ensure an element of uniformity across a school or educational system
• to assess how successful a student has been during a course by providing a
• basis for testing
Now, what should the syllabus (and/or materials) being used achieve? One point
Tomlinson (2011) brings up is impact. However, “impact” in Brazil may not be
“impact” in Austria. So, how can useful impact be achieved? Tomlinson provides
a useful list that can help benchmark assessment of syllabus and material design
(2011, p. 8).
• Novelty
• Variety
• Attractive presentation
• Appealing content
• Achievable challenge

IS THE COURSEBOOK REALLY A SYLLABUS?

The course book (or its Table of Contents) does not have to be, and in some cases,
should not be, used instead of real syllabus design. Why might this be a problem? As

2
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

a textbook writer, I have come across this inconvenient truth: textbook publishers are
a business – they sometimes care more about book sales than pedagogy. Tomlinson
(2003, 2008) agrees. There are several other obstacles for writers:
Materials writers are faced with a number of competing demands, then. They need
to make their materials suitable for a wide variety of teachers, who have different
amounts of experience, are more or less qualified, and who may have differing
teaching styles and beliefs. As Johnson et al. (2008) study shows, experienced and
inexperienced teachers may be looking for different things from materials (Harwood,
2011, p. 14).
With such compromises in place, should the course book table of contents be
used as the official syllabus of the course? Harwood continues (2011, pp. 14–15):
Textbook writers need to make their materials easy enough to follow for the
inexperienced teacher by, for instance, making activities build upon one another in a
transparent and predictable sequence, or by providing detailed teachers’ notes, while
at the same time ensuring the materials are flexible enough for the more experienced
teacher to adapt in any number of ways. In the words of a textbook editor, then,
authors are trying ‘to please all the people all the time’ (Young, 1990, p. 77; see also
Mares, 2003).
So, why do EFL instructors use the Table of Contents from their course book
as a quick template for their official syllabus? Sinclair and Renouf (1988) say:
(1) convenience and (2) lack of supporting documents. Also, if the tests are going
to be based on the textbooks, then following the course book’s path may be most
logical. In that case, one solution is to base the syllabus on the course book’s Table
of Contents, but expect to make significant adaptations.
Also, a good syllabus should clearly define assessment protocols. However, many
of the best-selling course books (1) do not provide student assessment protocols,
nor do they and (2) clearly push a single methodology. For example, the so-called
communicative course books often leave the specific methodology up to the teacher
(Whong, 2011), perhaps because many of them are a mish-mash anyway. Because
of these points, the course book should not become an “instant syllabus” – but you
know understand why this happens so often.

SYLLABUS ANALYSIS

Richards and Rodgers (2001, pp. 20–34) discuss their tiered framework for
evaluating methodologies. The three tiers are Approach (the underlying theories),
Design (selection of content), and Procedure (specifics of the activities). This has
become a somewhat standard tiering framework for TEFL/TESL courses. It is a
method that forces teachers to consider the development and the connectedness
across the three tiers. An adaptation of Richards and Rogers’ framework (Figure 1)
may help teachers and writers to: (1) sharpen their awareness of theory and (2) force
them to examine how theory relates to the design of courses, the procedures within

3
R. S. MURPHY

the classroom, and how it ultimately affects theory by either strengthening it or

editing it.

Figure 1. The dynamic effects of the approach-design-procedure framework

PRODUCT VS PROCESS?

The product syllabus focuses on what linguistic content is to be learned. It is very

clear and formal—such as a list of grammar points, or vocabulary words. This is
suited for standardized tests (such as TOEIC) where everything is clearly prescribed
and transparent. The product syllabus and the standardized test have a reciprocal
relationship; they tend to inform each other and can create their own microcosm
(Figure 2). This can be dangerous. Since they can (and do) exist within their own
universe, they can exist without real-world applicability. This is not to say that they
are not without merit, but the potential of them turning into an existence for their
own sake is also very real. This type of syllabus can also be called a content-based
syllabus, or in extreme cases, “teaching for the test.”

Figure 2. The potential microcosmic nature of the product syllabus and test cycle

4
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The opposing type of syllabus is the process syllabus. It does not work off a
list of words of bullet points, but a set of learning processes. It short, it defines
the skills that are to be acquired—but not the content. According to Nunan (1988,
p. 40), the product syllabus and the process syllabus are therefore incompatible.
As defined, the process syllabus creates open-ended learning situations for building
real-world skills. The content syllabus puts sharp focus on very particular content,
often ignoring the development of the real-world skills necessary to use the content
(White, 1988). This argument is logical, but remember that it is fully possible to
fit both approaches into your lesson plans, because this dual approach is certainly
beneficial, I encourage you to do so!

SYNTHETIC VS ANALYTIC?

The synthetic syllabus assumes that the teaching of small bits of the language will
eventually create a whole structural framework for which the language will live. It
assumes that language is like a set of building blocks that can be layered down for
a foundation and then built into meaningful structures. Such a syllabus obviously
matches grammar-based pedagogy.
What about the analytic syllabus? In short, it seeks to (1) identify needs and
then (2) satisfy them with the appropriate language usage. Robinson (2011, p. 306)
assures that due to cognitive research and various other factors, “the shift from
synthetic to analytic approaches … can be expected to continue.” Wilkins’ describes
the analytic syllabus as: (1) a list of purposes for the L2 learning and (2) the means to
meet those purposes. It is a more social, real-world, and student-centered. Grammar
instruction comes when called for.
Which is more appropriate for the L2 classroom, synthetic or analytical? Ellis
responds (2012, pp. 342–343):
There is now plenty of evidence to show that both approaches can contribute to
learning… it will have to be filtered through the teacher’s personal understanding
of the instructional context, and this, to a large extent, will depend on experience.
So, according to Ellis, although analytical syllabi are now popular, it seems that,
to some extent, some parts of a synthetic syllabus should be adapted into teachers’
and course writers’ syllabi.

LINEAR VS CYCLICAL?

Is language learning more like a delivery truck, or is it more organic than that? The
linear syllabus assumes the former. Similar to the above mentioned product syllabus,
the linear syllabus attempts to add new blocks of information to a collecting mass.
The more blocks added, the more learning. The problem is, language learning is not
linear (Dörnyei, 2008, p. 41). We are not computers. We cannot keep feeding our
brains with new linguistic information and expect it all be retrievable on demand.

5
R. S. MURPHY

Research tells that that language acquisition is much more of an organic, natural
process (Skehan, 1996, pp. 18–19). So, we need a recycling, or cyclical syllabus.
Furthermore, motivation to learn language is also not linear either. It’s dynamic
(Dörnyei, 2011, p. 11).
So, although the better choice is obvious, this Linear vs Cyclical discussion
is still very relevant because many mainstream course books (and therefore
syllabi) still use a linear design! Good teachers know that recycling is important,
so adding a recycling design into the syllabus may be deemed unnecessary—
but should we really assume this? Can we realistically expect all teachers to
know about and actually implement the necessary recycling without constant
prompting from the course book? There is no consensus on this yet, but my
feeling is that at least some cyclical features should be incorporated into any
syllabus.

SYLLABUS DESIGN FACTORS

What factors influence the design of a syllabus? Below is a general list adapted from
Tagg and Woodward (2011).
A. Common practice/trends
B. Theories of Second Language Acquisition/pedagogy
C. Wider educational context
D. Course Objectives
E. Learner backgrounds
Of these, mainstream course books would connect most directly with A, B and C.
Less mainstream course books may focus on D. However, this leaves E alone—left
for the teacher to deal with and/or up to chance. But, how many teachers and syllabus
writers know specific details about their students before designing their syllabi?
From a student’s point of view, is it is fair to leave one of the most important
factors on this list up to chance? What can be done about this? Below (Figure 3) I
have provided my own assessment sheet of important design factors for consideration
during syllabus design. I believe this assessment sheet can be useful during the pre-
design stages of syllabus and materials writing, and also as an in-use and post-use
assessment plan. It can be applied per chapter for single chapter assessment—then
all chapters assessments can be strung together to form the basis of a comprehensive
syllabus assessment. Or, it can be used more simplistically by applying just once, for
the entire syllabus.
In syllabus design, once the general design begins to take shape, how are the
smaller instructional blocks to be designed? An instructional block should be self-
contained, yet contribute to the larger goals of the syllabus (Richards, 2001).
The typical syllabus has chapters that would are self-contained and individually
assessable. Within each chapter, there may be several subsections that breakdown
the learning into smaller chunks. Richards (2001, p. 166) furthers: the coherence

6
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Figure 3. The materials design factor assessment sheet

of each chapter should be both horizontal and vertical, meaning that there should
be front-to-back coherence throughout the chapter, and top-to-bottom coherence on
each page (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Richards’ horizontal and vertical coherence models

Richards pushes for ‘closure’ on each page. Several mainstream course books
adhere to this maxim. However, there are still course books, such as readers, where
long passages break these design rules.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF FIVE COMMON SYLLABUS TYPES

This section will take a look at five common syllabus designs: grammatical, notional-
functional, lexical, task-based, and content-based. We will briefly look into their
histories and significance, then, critically analyze their design and potential.

7
R. S. MURPHY

Grammatical Syllabus

The grammatical syllabus has long been a standard in language teaching. The
historical roots of the grammatical syllabus are known to have come from the study
of Latin. What is the grammar-translation method? It is a method of translating text
from L2 to L1 and deducing grammatical features (top-down), conducted in the L1.
It is very straight-forward and needs little (or no) L2 communicative competence
from the teacher. Simply put, the grammar-translation method (GTM) is the
basis of the grammatical syllabus—GTM is derived from the teaching of Latin.
This “explains why this method was not concerned with developing productive
L2 competence in the learners” (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 273). According to Dörnyei,
GTM is a simplistic and pragmatic method that is regrettably not “conducive to
developing productive language skills.”(ibid.)—the grammatical syllabus is an
extension of this methodology. Let’s now take a closer look.

Criticisms: The grammatical syllabus. Skehan (1996) discusses how chosen

structures presented by a teacher do not automatically lead to language acquisition.
Ellis (1997) agrees by saying that teaching may have very little effect on when
and how learners may or may not learn a structure because of each student learns
differently. Widdowson (1988) argues that because grammar teaching separates
learning from real-life contexts, the true meaning is often lost. This questions
the purpose of teaching and learning. Lightbown and Spada (1999) question the
effectiveness of the grammar-based syllabi, stating that focus on accuracy does not
directly connect to high proficiency.
However, some teachers continued to argue that the grammatical syllabus is
useful. During this battle, interestingly, a halfway point did emerge (Dörnyei, 2009).
There are several versions with confusingly similar name structures, but I shall
simply discuss them collectively as a focus on form (FoF) here.
Although a strict grammatical syllabus was proven to be inadequate for most
purposes, the full dropping of grammar teaching was equally inadequate (Doughty
& Williams, 1998; Dörnyei, 2009; Whong, 2011). The term FoF cleverly hid the
word grammar, while having learners focus on sub-sentence grammatical issues.
Sometimes these issues were based on real-time needs, sometimes they were based
on pre-emptive or proactive decisions by the teacher (or course writer).

Advantages: The grammatical syllabus. Are there advantages to the grammar-

based syllabus? It is easy to follow and easy to assess. Such a syllabus can be
very transparent, so by going through the steps, there may be a strong feeling of
achievement. Progress can be easy to measure.
In short, such a syllabus is easy to manage because of its pragmatic approach. It
is also probably familiar to most teachers from their own L1 learning, so it would be
relatively easy to implement for novice teachers. Moreover, while it may not make
every learner proficient, inevitably, some students will and do have a strong aptitude

8
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

with this methodology and therefore some of them will build a natural preference for
this methodology. These, for lack of a better term, “lucky” grammar-based learners
do excel within this framework.

Advantage or disadvantage? According to Dörnyei (2009, p. 273), the Grammar-

Translation method (and/or the grammatical syllabus) may still favorable because it:
• requires little set up time
• requires minimal teacher L2 competence and fluency
• is safe for the teacher
• is easy to assess (with multiple choice tests, for example)
• is easy to explicitly focus on (discreet) points
• can be mostly taught in the L1
• requires no higher-level (meta-cognitive) thinking/assessment

Synthesis: The grammatical syllabus. In this subsection, we examined the

grammatical syllabus. Although it has advantages as being transparent and
pragmatic, there are several criticisms of this type of syllabus design. Perhaps the
most important is that although it sets out to be a no-nonsense, pragmatic syllabus,
its nevertheless synthetic and moreover, does not often enough result in higher
proficiency than other design types. It takes learners “though the motions”, and may
make learners feel like they are studying hard and learning, which may or may not
raise their motivation, but by the end of the day it would seem that much of that work
goes to waste.
I find that the biggest faults in the grammatical syllabus lie within the inherent
assumptions that go with it:
• L2 learners need to explicitly learn grammar
• L2 grammar teaching leads to grammatical L2 usage
• L2 grammar has logical rules that are definable, teachable, and learnable
• all L2 learners can learn L2 grammar at the same pace
• (from teachers) “I learned it this way, why can’t you?”
These inherent assumptions that may have been nurtured by the long-term
historical adherence to grammatical syllabus design, are assumptions that I would
define as old school. They are traditional assumptions that have no significant
neuroscientific basis. Ironically, they can still be found in classrooms that have
decided to stop using a grammatical syllabus. This is presumably because these old
school assumptions have been carried over to other forms of L2 teaching.

Notional-Functional Syllabus

The notional-functional (NF) syllabus developed in Europe as a reaction toward

the grammatical syllabus, although it ultimately, and ironically, gathered many of

9
R. S. MURPHY

the same criticisms. What is the NF syllabus? Wilkins’ (1976, p. 18) in a definitive
statement says,
(I)t takes the desired communicative capacity as the starting point. In drawing
up a notional syllabus, instead of asking how speakers of the language express
themselves or when and where they use the language, we ask what it is they
communicate through language. We are then able to organize language t e a c h i n g
in terms of the content rather than the form of the language. For this reason the
resulting syllabus is called the notional syllabus.
The 1970s showed a shift toward a more communicative approach with
more of a focus on context and therefore the social aspects of language usage.
Keypoints from Wilkins (1976) are that (1) the NF syllabus is a communicative
syllabus, (2) it raises motivation because it is communicative, and (3) it covers
“all kinds of language functions” (ibid, p. 19). Let us focus on Wilkins’ first
point. Is the NF syllabus really a communicative syllabus? Widdowson argues
that there is no such thing as a communicative syllabus (1990, p. 130); this
categorically disqualifies NF. What is the NF syllabus then? Let us examine the
words separately.
White (1988, p. 75) describes notions as categories that describe the intentions
of the language usage. Nunan (1988, p. 35) describes them as conceptual meanings
via language usage such as objects or relationships. Examples would be: time,
ownership, direction, frequency, and cause (Nunan, 1988, p. 35). The functions
are then the communicative purposes of the language in use. Examples would be:
approving, persuading, suggesting, and identifying (Nunan, 1988, p. 35). This
type of syllabus is a logical step up from the grammatical syllabus, yet it does not
bury grammar. It simply shifts the priority to more meaningful usage (to notions
and functions), with the importance of grammar teaching basically remaining
intact. In this way, it embodied natural language usage more realistically (Whong,
2011).
Although at first glance the NF syllabus may appear to be a process-based
syllabus, upon closer examination, it is still a “to-do list”—telling us what is to be
learnt, but with no defining teaching guidelines to go with it.
For the above reasons, the NF syllabus should not be assumed to be a process-
based syllabus. Additionally, it is also a synthetic syllabus by design. It puts forth
a list of to-dos, making it look like it is based on true learner needs (Stern, 1992),
but ultimately the NF syllabus moves on regardless of the learners’ real-world
needs.

Criticisms: The notional-functional syllabus. What are the criticisms of the NF

syllabus? As touched on earlier, the NF syllabus is similar to the grammatical
syllabus in many ways, so they share many of the same criticisms. Widdowson
(1979) agues that although the shift from a list of grammar points to a list of NF
points still produces a list—and such lists are not automatically compatible with
real learning. Brumfit (1981) identifies difficulties in defining these ‘notions’ and

10
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

goes on to explain the difficulty in applying the learning to real social contexts,
seriously attacking the NF design. Nunan (1988, p. 37) agrees by saying that
breaking language into small pieces misrepresents the nature of communication.
In sort, the NF syllabus is as synthetic—and therefore, problematic:
Because of the inherent dependency for a needs analysis, it can be argued that
the NF syllabus can only be as good as the quality of the needs analysis. So, the
inadequacies of any needs analysis trickle down to the NF selections. This brings
up other problems as criteria for assessment and sequencing: Which NF list items
should come first and why? How can we decide which functions are more complex?
More appropriate?
Also, the outcomes of NF teaching are not foreseeable because they are
not controlled by the syllabus, therefore making comprehensive design and
assessment of the outcomes problematic. Furthermore, the lack of protocols
may be one reason for its current lack of popularity, especially compared to the
grammatical syllabus with its clear focus on accuracy, making assessment not
only easy, but, transparent. In this way, although the NF and grammatical syllabi
have several similarities, differences such as a lack of focus on accuracy make it
more difficult to implement.

Advantages: The notional-functional syllabus. What are the advantages of the NF

syllabus? Conceived as an improvement over the grammatical syllabus, there are
several advantages to it. It can implement more realistic learning tasks based on
real-world communication. It provides a means for contextual understanding and
realization before performance because it grasps onto cultural needs (Finocchiaro &
Brumfit, 1983, p. 17). But perhaps most importantly, the lack of assessment protocols
discussed as a disadvantage on the previous page allows for more flexible teaching,
such as cyclical pedagogic practice, and naturally allows for the addition of socio-
cultural components. Regardless of the actual learning outcomes, it can also be
motivational for the students because the syllabus, or the to-do list, is transparent;
students may gain a healthy feeling of completion after each item is crossed off the list.

Synthesis: The notional-functional syllabus. Although the NF syllabus was

designed to be a step up from the grammatical syllabus, in reality it is (a) very
similar in many ways and (b) actually a step down when it comes to assessment
policies. On the plus side, it is more humanistic—it allows for the additions of socio-
cultural aspects and the realization of contextual influences. At the end of the day
however, it is still synthetic and product-based; it is not scientific nor is it logical
from a biological perspective.

Lexical Syllabus

What is the lexical syllabus? It is a syllabus with a keen focus on lexis. Why is it
called lexis and not vocabulary? The more common word is of course vocabulary,

11
R. S. MURPHY

and it is often taught separately from grammar. However, when a “word” is treated
as having generative functionality (as in, having its own unique grammatical
functionalities and idiosyncrasies), then it is upgraded to the term lexis (Tagg &
Woodward, 2011). It can also be used for chunks or formulaic language, where
sets of words are used as a singular utterance – often with a singular meaning. It
is important to note that while on paper and within traditional grammar, individual
words seem to be their own entity with their own purpose, the lexical concept of
formulaic language is that small phrases can act together as a single unit and are
not registered as individual words within our minds. Corpus-based research is often
used help generate the lexical syllabus—by looking at real-life collocations. This
blurs the premise of the traditional grammar vs vocabulary dichotomy and forces
us to think and re-think the psycholinguistic and pedagogical implications set forth
by these notions.
Generative Lexicon theory (Pustejovsky, 1998; Pustjovsky et al., 2012), although
perhaps not famous in the mainstream is slowly becoming its own sub-field of study.
Pustejovsky theorizes that lexicon functions generatively by:
• providing words for characterizing lexical information
• developing a framework for manipulating distinctions in word descriptions
• formalizing a set of mechanisms for specialized composition that function in
context, especially in novel situations
The third part is the distinctive part. Far too many theories of language simply
ignore the fact that we can combine words uniquely and use words and grammar in
novel ways based on context, without instruction. We have the capacity to create
formulaic utterances “from the air”, simply based on the context we happen to be
in. Generative lexicon theory embraces the fact that we can produce specialized
compositions in novel situations, in a non-dictionary-like way. It is an important step
forward in understanding language learning and pedagogy.
So what is a lexical syllabus? The lexical syllabus moves away from
straight grammar teaching and focuses on real-world word/phrase usage,
frequency, and their unique generative powers. Therefore, instead of moving
from simple grammatical forms and gradually building up to complex forms,
the lexical syllabus focuses on the unique generative properties per word or
phrase (collocations) with the keys being found with the usage and frequency.
In essence, each word/phrase is treated as having its own generative word map—
different usage patterns are studied per word/phrase, making the learners experts
at identifying the word and its varied usages efficiently. Below (Figure 5) is a
map of the usage of HAVE.
The lexical syllabus does not (cannot) offer an underlying theory of language
acquisition (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). However, the lexical syllabus does
assume that the rote memorization of the grammatical rules of a language is not as
effective as repeated exposure to naturally occurring usage. Therefore, it agrees with
the cyclical syllabus.

12
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Figure 5. A map of HAVE usage, taken from a course book lexical activity

The underlying pedagogical theory was, by viewing words/phrases as lexical

items, the learners would be able to have a better chance of recognizing and using
the words and phrases correctly in real word contexts because of the cyclically
interconnected coverage generated from the connection of meaning and usage of
each lexical item. On the other hand, in the real world, a strict focus on grammar
learning via a grammar syllabus would call for real-time spontaneity, creative
thinking, an excellent memory, and the ability to take personal risks for the sake
of communication. This is too much to deal with for the average learner, especially
under pressure to communicate. With the real world demands put on potential
grammar-based learners as users being so intense, the lexical syllabus, with the
way it primes learners on all typical usages per word, then providing them with the
capacity to generate context appropriate phrases, seems to be a much more elegant
pedagogy. This was a smart step away from straight grammar teaching that brought
to light a very new way of looking at language teaching and linguistics. However,
there are criticisms.

Criticisms: The lexical syllabus. Pesky questions that arise with a corpus-derived
syllabus such as: Which corpus should we choose and how should we use it? Should
a beginner course use a corpus created from children’s books or from adult’s? Either
answer (or a mixture of both), could be justifiable but the choice would significantly
alter the content of the syllabus; usage and frequency vary greatly per corpus. How
can we make that choice?

13
R. S. MURPHY

Also, from the Willis’ perspective, there is the inevitable heavy reliance of usage
analysis on the learners’ side. So, without comprehensive and cohesive analysis, the
learners may gain little from the lessons. As Willis and Willis define it, the lexical
syllabus has students be the researchers, while the teacher is only the facilitator, who
may not know better then the learners in some cases (the results from the analysis
may be just as illuminating to the teacher as it is to the learners). Lewis contradicts
this by shifting the focus onto the importance of teacher talk and the teacher’s
output. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 136) discuss how a nice blend could be more
favorable.
Identified problems/question with the lexical syllabus that have yet to be worked
out:
• No standard or unifying foundational theory of language acquisition
• Focuses on single words or collocations too much; what about longer phrases?
• (3) Should the highest frequency lexical items (such as: the, and, but, and a) be
taught first, or not? [Logical arguments can be made for both paths]
• (4) Willis’ implementation works in tandem with task-based pedagogy. So, is the
syllabus a task-based syllabus, or a lexical syllabus?
The lexical syllabus has yet to gain mainstream popularity, although it remains
highly innovative theoretically. Collaborative efforts with the task-based syllabus,
seem much more promising. Along those collaborative lines, Segalowitz and
Gattbonton, who have done extensive work in psycholinguistic issues, provide
ACCESS methodology (2005) a form of Communicative Language Teaching,
with innovative cyclical activities for the automatization of formulaic language.
Regarding the lexical syllabus, the immerging patterns seems to be that lexical
theory can be used for innovative purposes in other syllabi types, but currently, the
lexical syllabus alone seems to be insufficient.

Advantages: The lexical syllabus. The lexical syllabus is a novel approach to

language teaching, based on research. It is therefore more scientific than other designs.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the lexical syllabus from the pragmatic point of
view is the lack of guesswork; the syllabus is not based on writers’ assumptions.
With the focus on lexical items and usage that is based on real-world usage, the
learning content tends to be more natural and may even foster deeper processing
(Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997, p. 3). But even more importantly, the introduction of
the generative lexical concept was ground breaking. Doing away with the grammar
vs vocabulary dichotomy, and viewing word/phrases as having their own generative
grammatical qualities based on context was a significant step forward.

Synthesis: The lexical syllabus. Perhaps the lexical syllabus should be summed
up as “having great potential as a theory, but not developed enough to be a
syllabus.” It is a major theoretical syllabus type that is not globally popular,
although there are currently some corpora-based course books commercially

14
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

available; the flagship of such course books would have to be the Touchstone
series (McCarthy et al., 2005) from Cambridge University Press. However,
without a unifying theory underlying the teaching, the lexical syllabus remains
shallow from the researcher’s perspective, and it suffers from this. It is therefore
often combined with other syllabus types, such as the task-based syllabus,
discussed in the next subsection.

Task-Based Syllabus

What is a task-based (TB) syllabus? In theory, it is a type of syllabus that is

learning-centered (not to be confused with learner-centered). It therefore should be
a procedural syllabus based on teacher-selected tasks that are assumed to promote
the language acquisition process, while downplaying the learning of pre-selected
linguistic content (Tagg & Woodward, 2011). Skehan’s view (1998, p. 260) is
that the students should be given freedom within the framework of the tasks for
real communicative engagement in the tasks. Skehan’s view can also be read as
being learner-centered, making it a hybrid learning and learner syllabus. More
importantly, in contrast to other types of syllabi discussed earlier (that have little or
no pedagogical protocols), the TB syllabus, grounded in task-based methodology, is
a syllabus that is inseparable from the methodology. In other words, it is a syllabus
that is based on a clear methodology and a clear theory. That said, defining what a
“task” actually is has not been easy—this ha caused some controversy. Moreover,
Dörnyei (2009) discusses how TB is little more than a repackaged form of
Communicative Language Teaching (or perhaps notional-functional), with the most
significant difference being that it may incorporate a bit more focus on form. It may
be controversial to say this, but since TB is so grounded in methodology, it could/
should probably primarily be viewed as a methodology instead of a syllabus type. In
that way it could be blended into other syllabi, strengthening its own mission while
enhancing the “host” syllabi (such as with the lexical-TB culmination discussed in
the previous section).

What is a task? Anything related to learning can be construed as a task, but such
a wide-ranging definition is not very helpful. Van den Branden (2006) concurs. He
proposes that it should be an activity that has a communicative goal to be met via
meaningful usage of language, rather than, but not exclusive of a focus on form. In
other words, it can be just about any communicative classroom activity that does not
have a keen focus on grammatical accuracy. Not everyone agrees.
Below are a few typical definitions:
Nunan: A piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending,
manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their attention is
principally focused on form (1989, p. 10).
Van den Branden: An activity in which a person engages in order to attain an
objective, and which necessitates the use of language (2006, p. 4).

15
R. S. MURPHY

Edwards and Willis:

• The principal focus of a task is on the negotiation of meaning rather than language
form
• Learners are aware of the goal or purpose of the task, which may include creating
a list or a map, of solving a problem
• The outcome of the task is to be shared with other students
• Listening, reading, writing and/or speaking may be involved
• Language focused study is incorporated into a TBL lesson, but not generally until
after the task is completed, so that learners remain focused on the communicative
purpose of the task (2005, p. 3).
Skehan (1998, p. 95) takes is further and emphasizes the need to make the task
copy real-world usage with the goal being the solution of a real-world problem. This
seems to be the natural and logical extension of this methodology. However, Van den
Branden (2006, p. 6) argues the validity in real-world problem solving within the
classroom—how realistic can an artificial environment be?
Perhaps the more global question is, compared to the TB syllabus, how
realistic are the other types of syllabi and their textbooks? J. Willis (1996a,
p. 68) calls them “impoverished and restricted.” They only render caricatures
or over-simplified versions of usage. Deeper significances and socio-cultural
nuances are typically stripped away from the material because they are presented
in neat packages. D. Willis (1996, p. 51) agrees, “we know that language is
a complex system which cannot be ‘presented’ to learners in a series of neat
packages.”
But is the TB syllabus the answer? J. Willis (1996a, p. 88), realized the need to
expand; learners needed real-time interaction outside of the classroom for exposure
to semi-prefabricated chunks of usage, which could lead to top-down discourse
analysis. In this way we can see how Willis and Willis bring corpus analysis and TB
learning together.
If linear learning is a fallacy and naturally cyclical learning (relying on each
learner’s internal analytical processing that is not directly controlled by the teacher)
is closer to reality (as discussed by Dörnyei, 2009), then the TB syllabus should have
more potential for elegant language learning and teaching.
Results from TB learning are not linear and therefore may not be immediate
(Skehan, 1996, pp. 18–19). For this reason, TB does not directly teach grammar
nor does it expect learners to rote-memorize grammar points. Learners are seen as
hypothesizers that learn from implicit and explicit guesswork via task work, or a
conscious focus on meaning via interaction with an unconscious focus on structures
(Skehan, 1996, pp. 18–19).
The TB syllabus is the first introduced here that seriously considers the cognitive
processing and development of students. Long and Crookes (1991), and Prabhu
(1987) also argue similarly, with a focus on the importance of negotiation of meaning

16
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

and the reliance of analytical internal processes, while J. Willis (1996b) also stresses
the importance of student motivation.

How is the task-based syllabus designed? The typical J. Willis (1996b) style has
three parts:
Pre-task: introduction to the topic, the task, special words/phrases
Task cycle: small group work; teacher is monitor; plan and prepare in small
groups for a public demonstration of their outcomes.
Language focus: not to be grammar-focused, but exploration of language usage
for consciousness-raising and reduction of fossilization.
Because the term of ‘task’ is so inherently wide, there have been a number of
classifications that have been mandated over the years:
Task Classification: Dichotomies
Nunan (1989): real world tasks vs pedagogical tasks
Long (1989): divergent vs convergent
Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993): one way vs two way
Willis and Willis (2007, pp. 72–78), focusing on cognitive processes list these
seven requirements for tasks:
• Listing
• Ordering and sorting
• Visual support
• Matching
• Comparing and contrasting
• Problem solving tasks and puzzles
• Projects and creative tasks
• Sharing personal experiences
No matter what the task, there is a heavy reliance on autonomous discovery along
with peer-to-peer affect (inclusive of help and pressure). Although this may seem a
bit too idealistic, it does emulate real world interaction, probably more realistically
than any of the other syllabi introduced so far. But it should be noted that the other
syllabi were basically method-less (lacking in theory), whereas TB is the deliberate
meshing of theory, method, and syllabus.

Criticisms: The task-based syllabus. Are there criticisms of the TB syllabus?

Samuda and Bygate (2008) find it to be controversial and to be an attractor of
vocal critics, as does Dörnyei (2009). Van Avermaet and Gysen (2006, p. 29)
identify three problems: (1) specificity, (2) complexity, and (3) extrapolation.
Regarding specificity, it is assumed that the teacher/writer bases specifications
on some sort of a needs analysis—but is it really possible for the teacher/writer
to be able to realize an appropriate set of tasks for every student need? If not,

17
R. S. MURPHY

how useful would approximations be? Regarding complexity, how is a task to be

graded?
Regarding extrapolation, how much can be expected from the learners?
How much should the teacher attempt to induce? If a teacher “gives in” and
sums up the learning with explicit grammar instruction at the end, would this
negate the previous learning, or add to it? What if the students requested explicit
grammatical instruction during the task? Would it be wrong to assist them? These
are all important questions that each TB proponent may have different answers
to, making the TB syllabus much less transparent and more confusing than it
intended to be.
Moreover, Edwards and Willis (2005, pp. 27–28) point out that teachers
comfortable with a grammar-based syllabus may actually be hostile toward TB
learning because of the lack of control over language usage and linguistic outcomes.
Indeed, a non-native English teacher may not feel confident enough to facilitate
TB English language learning without clear answer sheets or rulebooks to rely on.
(Without a native or native-like competence, how can they assess the learning output
competently? They would not be able to.) This is perhaps the number one reason for
the popularity of the grammatical syllabus among non-native teachers – you don’t
need to have a native-like competence as long as you been provided with an answer
sheet or rulebook to assess by.

Advantages: The task-based syllabus. Are there advantages to the TB syllabus?

There are several, some on the theoretical level and some on the pragmatic
level. For one, it acknowledges the inadequacies of all product syllabi; it takes
into account human cognition and cognitive development by being a process-
based syllabi. It is also procedural. It builds and relies on learner autonomy—
something very real and important when the student leaves the classroom. Also,
students will inevitably be at different levels of competence and motivation in
any classroom. By consistently using group work in the beginning: (1) learners
of different levels may feel less pressure because of the smaller number of eyes
on them at any given moment, (2) learners implicitly and explicitly motivate
each other and help negotiate meaning with each other at a group level, and
(3) no matter how intuitive a teacher/writer may be, their predictions regarding
teaching order cannot replace real-time language usage during a realistic task
(Cox, 2005).

Content-Based Syllabus

What is content-based instruction (CBI)? Is not all learning “content-based”?

According to Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989, p. vii), it is the “integration of
content learning with language teaching aims. More specifically, it refers to the
concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of
language presentation dictated by content material.”

18
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

What good came of this? Some potent criticisms of standard L2 teaching have
been: (1) the separation of “meaningfulness” from the language being taught
(Kelly, personal communication, August, 2012) and (2) the “dumbing-down” of the
content—the learners are typically treated as cognitively deficient people (Murphy,
2009). But how else can you teach the basics of an L2? If you are teaching an L2,
isn’t it inevitable that you end up treating learners as being cognitively deficient? For
example, Klein (2001, p. 13768) says, “Linguists and laymen alike tend to consider
children’s way to their mother tongue to be the most important type of language
acquisition.”
CBI does away with this dilemma. With a content-based syllabus, the learners
are given a real topic to study that presumably matches their cognitive capabilities,
and expects them to make do with the content’s learning via their L2. It provides
the learners with a cognitive challenge that is realistically motivating in a way
that is disconnected from the typical focus on language learning. Although it may
sound counterintuitive and/or counterproductive (especially from a grammar-based
teaching perspective), this type of learning expects the onset of natural motivation
to use the language to accomplish the activity without ever having to focus on the
language usage as an integral part of the learning.
In CBI, the L2 usage is not necessarily seen as anything other than what it presents
as its innate instrumental value. In short, the L2 is no longer the subject of study; the
L2 becomes the means to reach the goal. Brown (2001, pp. 49–50) seems to agree
by saying, “Content-based classrooms may yield an increase in intrinsic motivation
and empowerment, since students are focused on subject matter that is important
to their lives.” Brown continues, “Students are pointed beyond transient extrinsic
factors, like grades and tests, to their own competence and autonomy as intelligent
individuals capable of actually doing something with their new language.” (p. 50).
Larsen-Freeman et al. (2011, p. 144), state that, “CBI can also be an effective way
for students to learn language in the language class, using themes that students find
of interest. Such themes provide sustained motivation beyond intermediate levels
of proficiency and prepare students.” It seems there is a consensus regarding the
motivational qualities and the real-world qualities of CBI, at least on a theoretical
level.

Criticisms. With such a promising foundation, what could be wrong with CBI?
On the theoretical level, it does look promising. However, several drawbacks can
be uncovered. For one, finding suitable content may prove to be difficult depending
upon the composition of the students’ needs. Also, would CBI be appropriate of
all age groups?—Probably not. Therefore, because CBI attempts to not “dumb-
down” the content, it may not be suitable to young learners and novice learners.
The most significant criticism would be that when and if students fall into the flow
of CBI in a meaningful way, they can all-to-easily disregard the means (the L2)
and “triumphantly” reach their ends with their L1, and be fully satisfied with the
outcome. This is due to the fact that the L2 usage, while expected, is secondary

19
R. S. MURPHY

to reaching the set goal. Teachers can monitor and police the L2 usage to some
extent, but if students are motivated to reach the challenging goal, it may be natural
for them to lose their periphery self control (due to mechanisms related to flow,
[Csikszentmihalyi, 2008]) and simply complete the task in their L1.
There is a second problem that is not solely a CBI issue, but a serious issue
nevertheless – L2 learners should have at least some explicit L2 instruction. Implicit
learning alone is not the best way to learn the L2 (Dörnyei, 2009; Lighbown &
Spada, 1999). Of course, CBI can include explicit L2 learning, but because the basic
plan is to make the L2 learning secondary to the non-linguistic learning goal, it
is natural to assume that learners within a CBI framework may not be able have
enough focus on form.

Advantages. The biggest two advantages of CBI must be: (1) the motivational
aspects that coincide with empowerment and meaningful goals and (2) the fact
that student are no longer only focused on studying about the L2, but using it as
needed, naturally. Furthermore, CBI is easy to implement. In fact, it does not need
a specialized course book—any book written in English could serve as the center
piece of a CBI course.

Synthesis. In theory, even considering its drawbacks, CBI is full of potential. In

fact, it is popular around the globe – clothed with different titles. For example, what
is the difference between CBI and English for Specific Purposes (ESP)? Depending
upon who you listen do, they either have considerable overlap, or they are identical.
Instead of saying that CBI is a synonym of ESP, Whong (2011) goes so far as to say
that CBI is a type of ESP. From a theoretical perspective, the ESP framing may have
the advantage because it would seem to have more inclination to a focus on form
than CBI would.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter we examined syllabus design theory and then five major syllabus
types: grammatical, notional-functional, lexical, task-based, and content based. The
oldest of the four is the grammatical syllabus and being based on the teaching a dead
language, Latin, it has proven to be not well-suited for practical language learning
such as conversational language learning. That said, being the oldest and most
naturally “back to basics” approach for explicit teaching that we have conceived
of historically, it seems to have a naturally appealing quality for (uninformed) adult
learners and teachers. The only problem, and this is a major problem, is that explicit
analysis and memorization of L2 grammatical structures has not been proven to
actually improve L2 fluency, and in fact has been shown to be detrimental in some
cases (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). That said, some focus on form seems to be helpful
for learners.

20
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Finding the correct balance between accuracy and fluency is sometimes

described as “an art more than a science.” This is due to the inevitable affect of
contextual variables and motivational dynamics that statically designed syllabi
(often top-down) cannot take account for. The NF syllabus was designed to be
an ingenious improvement over the grammatical syllabus but because it is still
product-based and static, it carries over many of the same criticisms from the
grammatical syllabus.
I would like to applaud the lexical syllabus for being scientifically oriented,
but without its own theoretical pedagogy, it is vague and somewhat lifeless as a
stand-alone syllabus. It is therefore often paired with task-based learning, which is
also a limping syllabus type, if it is an actual syllabus type all. While these two fit
together well enough as a mesh of ideas, and they do seem to have good potential as
a team, they have never gained substantial global popularity. This may be because
the methodology is complicated to understand, and because task-based activities
depend upon the teacher as being a monitor and facilitator. Also, non-native teachers
may feel inadequate when it comes time to assess without a provided set of answer
sheets, while native English teachers may find their job as monitor and facilitator too
simplistic, and a waste of their talents.
The final syllabus type was content-based (and variant, English for Specific
Purposes). This syllabus type is commendable for downplaying the “classroom
subject” aspect of English, by doing away with learning about English and
focusing on simply engaging in interesting learning via English. I would argue that
generally speaking, content-based learning potentially lacks a significant form on
focus, while the variant, English for Specific Purposes, may put the English back
into focus. So, although they are similar, there is a significant difference with the
inherent amount of focus on form. In sum, CBI is inherently more fluency based
while ESP is more accuracy based.
The purpose of this chapter has been to provide you with historical and critical
reviews of the major types of syllabi in ELT. You may ask the question, “Which is
the best syllabus type from the bunch?” However, as you have seen, all syllabus
designs have great strengths and weaknesses, often affected by the teaching context.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” syllabus to be found. However, after you weigh all the
pros and cons of the various types, it is hoped that you will arrive at a logical solution
for your own teaching contexts.

REFERENCES
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.
Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York,
NY: Longman.
Brumfit, C. J. (1981). The notional syllabus revisited. Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 83–89.
Cox, D. (2005). Can we predict language items for open tasks? In C. Edwards & J. Wallis (Eds.), Teachers
exploring tasks: In English language teaching (pp. 171–186). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

21
R. S. MURPHY

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks: In English language teaching.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (1998). The evaluation of communicative tasks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development
in language teaching (pp. 217–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harwood, N. (Ed.). (2011). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, C. (2012). Personla communication. Unpublished.
Klein, W. (2001). Second language acquisition. Retrieved from http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/
item/escidoc:77190:4/component/escidoc:1075586/2001secondlanguageacquisition.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & principles in language teaching (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly,
26(1), 27–55.
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone level 1 workbook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, R. S. (2009). Models for EFL theory and methodology derived from an SiR-based pilot study
on Japanese cognitive development (Published MA Dissertation). University of Birmingham,
Birmingham.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language
instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning, integrating theory and
practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., Isahara, H., Kanzaki, K., & Lee, C. (Eds.). (2012). Advances in generative
lexicon theory (2013rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Robinson, P. (2011a). Task-based language learning (1st ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of
language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M., & Renouf, A. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 140–158). Harlow: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Heinemann.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22
 THE CONCEPT OF SYLLABUS DESIGN AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Tagg, C., & Woodward, E. (2011). Syllabus and materials. Birmingham: CELS, University of Birmingham.
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2008). English language learning materials: A critical review. London: Continuum.
Watcyn-Jones, P. (1981). Pair work. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Whong, M. (2011). language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1988). Grammar, and nonsense, and learning. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood-
Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 146–155). New York,
NY: Longman.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. (1996). Accuracy, fluency and conformity. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and
change in language teaching (44–51). Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J. (1996b). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge
and change in language teaching (pp. 52–62). Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (Eds.). (1996a). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996b). Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Avarmaet, P., & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based
approach. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice
(pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Robert S. Murphy
University of Kitakyushu, Japan
and
University of Birmingham, UK

23