Module 1

Selecting approaches to language course design

“Curriculum takes content (from external standards and local goals) and shapes it into a plan for how to conduct
effective teaching and learning. It is thus more than a list of topics and lists of key facts and skills (the “input”). It is
a map of how to achieve the “outputs” of desired student performance, in which appropriate learning activities and
assessments are suggested to make it more likely that students achieve the desired results”

(Wiggins & McTighe, 2006:6)

By the end of this module, you will be able to: Code

 Restate the definition of three core concepts “input”, MD1.1
“process” and “output” which are also three key
components of a language course;
 Describe major steps in three different approaches to MD1.2
course design “forward design”, “central design” and
“backward design”;
 Compare/contrast the main features of the approaches; MD1.3
 Identify the situation which each of the approaches best MD1.4
fits;
Learning Target  Draw relevant implications for your course design. MD1.5

Keywords:
Approaches to course design, Input (content), Process (Methodology), Outcome, Forward
design, Central design, Backward design, Linear/Dynamic process

Core reading material:

1. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, Central,
and Backward Design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.

Supplementary reading material:

1. Wiggins G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design: A framework for effecting
curricular development and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

1
 Selecting Approaches to Language Course Design

1. Key components of a language course MD1.1

Activity 1:
Read the following passage and complete the missing information in Table 1 below
Table 1: Key components of a language course
Component Definition Example
Input Linguistic content of a course Vocabulary, grammar, functions
[negotiation, responding to
complaint, writing emails,
presentation, etc], text types
Process - Concerns teaching methods [approach] and Methodology encompasses
the design of classroom activities and learning activities, procedures,
materials and techniques employed by
- Refers to how teaching is carried out and teachers
constitutes the domain of methodology in
language teaching

Outcome ~ Output: what students are able to do as the result of - a targeted level of
a period of instruction after the course achievement on a
proficiency scale/ on a
standardized
- the ability to engage in
specific uses of language
at a certain level of skill
- familiarity with the
differences between two
different grammatical
items
- the ability to participate
effectively in certain
communicative activities
In a language course, the term curriculum is used to refer to the overall plan or design for a
course and how the content for a course is transformed into a blueprint for teaching and learning
which enables the desired learning outcomes to be achieved.
 How to teach
What to teach
Why do we need to teach that content
Curriculum takes content (from external standards and local goals [specific consideration for learners in a
particular area] ) and shapes it into a plan for how to conduct effective teaching and learning. It is thus
more than a list of topics and lists of key facts and skills (the “input”). It is a map of how to achieve the
“outputs” of desired student performance, in which appropriate learning activities and assessments are
suggested to make it more likely that students achieve the desired results. (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006:06)

2
The term Input here refers to the linguistic content of a course. It seems logical to assume that
before we can teach a language, we need to decide what linguistic content to teach. Once content
has been selected, it then needs to be organized into teachable and learnable units as well as
arranged in a rational sequence. The result is a syllabus. There are many different conceptions of
a language syllabus. Different approaches to syllabus design reflect different understandings of
the nature of language and different views as to what the essential building blocks of language
proficiency are, such as vocabulary, grammar, functions or text types. Criteria for the selection of
syllabus units include frequency, usefulness, simplicity, learnability and authenticity. Once input
has been determined, issues concerning teaching methods and the design of classroom activities
and materials can be addressed. These belong to the domain of process.
Process refers to how teaching is carried out and constitutes the domain of methodology in
language teaching.
Methodology encompasses the types of learning activities, procedures and techniques that are
employed by teachers when they teach and the principles that underlie the design of the activities
and exercises in their textbooks and teaching resources. These procedures and principles relate to
beliefs and theories concerning the nature of language and of second language learning and the
roles of teachers, learners and instructional materials, and as ideas abou

3
language and language learning have changed, so too have the instructional practices associated
with them. Throughout the twentieth century there was a movement away from mastery-oriented
approaches focusing on the production of accurate samples of language use, to the use of more
activity-oriented approaches focusing on interactive and communicative classroom processes. Once
a set of teaching processes has been standardized and fixed in terms of principles and associated
practices it is generally referred to as a method, as in Audiolingualism or Total Physical Response.
Output refers to learning outcomes, that is, what learners are able to do as the result of a period
of instruction. This might be a targeted level of achievement on a proficiency scale (such as the
ACTFL Proficiency Scale) or on a standardized test such as TOEFL, the ability to engage in
specific uses of language at a certain level of skill (such as being able to read texts of a certain
kind with a specified level of comprehension), familiarity with the differences between two
different grammatical items (such as the simple past and the present perfect), or the ability to
participate effectively in certain communicative activities (such as using the telephone, taking
part in a business meeting, or engaging in casual conversation). Language teaching since the late
nineteenth century has seen a change in the intended outputs of learning – from knowledge-based
to performance-based outputs. Hence while in Europe in the nineteenth century, foreign language
learning was often promoted because of the mental discipline and intellectual development it was
believed to develop in learners, in the twentieth century languages were taught for more practical
goals. Today, desired learning outputs or outcomes are often described in terms of objectives
or in terms of performance, competencies or skills.
Activity 2:
Identify the “Input”, the “Process” and the “Output” component (if any) in the following
courses.

Oral Communication
This course emphasizes the development of fluency and
intelligibility in spoken English (Output). Through individual and
University of Missouri group activities, (process) students work on improving
pronunciation, practicing conversation strategies and delivering
oral presentations (Input). Enrollment in Oral Communication is
restricted to graduate students and scholars who have attained a
satisfactory score on the TOEFL.

Five C’s English Course

Our online language courses by Middlebury Interactive are
designed to be learner-centric and provide students with a
Middlebury Language
comprehensive 21st-century world language education. All levels
School
integrate The Five C's—communication, cultures, connections,
comparisons, and communities (Input) at varying degrees of
immersion while leveraging interactive exercises, tasks, and
practices (Process) Courses

4
 are developed at grade level with age-appropriate topics and
engaging themes (Input ) specifically designed for K–12 learners.
Business English
Business English skills are essential for getting ahead at work.
Improving your business English vocab and knowledge (Output)
will help you work more effectively and open up new career
British Council
opportunities. Here you can find activities to develop your
interview skills, write clear emails and increase your awareness of
business topics and issues [tiến trình] (Input). Watch videos, listen
to podcasts or read articles, then complete the specially designed
tasks (Process) to help you understand the topic and use the
language.(Input)

2. Forward, Central and Backward Design MD1.2-3

Activity 3:
In groups, discuss and label each of the illustrated procedures below Forward Design, Central
Design or Backward Design. Read the following passage to check your answers.

Forward

Backward

Central

5
 Forward, Central and Backward Design
Forward Design
Forward design is based on the assumption that input, process, and output are related in a linear
fashion. In other words, before decisions about methodology and output are determined, issues
related to the content of instruction need to be resolved. Curriculum design is seen to constitute a
sequence of stages that occur in a fixed order – an approach that has been referred to as a
‘waterfall’ model (Tessmer and Wedman, 1990) where the output from one stage serves as the
input to the

6
stage that follows. This approach is described in Richards and Rodgers (2001:143-44),
summarizing Docking (1994):
The traditional approach to developing a syllabus involves using one’s understanding of subject matter as
the basis for syllabus planning. One starts with the field of knowledge that one is going to teach (e.g.
contemporary European history, marketing, listening comprehension, or French literature) and then
selects concepts, knowledge, and skills that constitute that field of knowledge. A syllabus and the course
content are then developed around the subject. Objectives may also be specified, but these usually have
little role in teaching or assessing of the subject. Assessment of students is usually based on norm
referencing, that is, students will be graded on a single scale with the expectation that they spread across a
wide range of scores or that they conform to a pre-set distribution.

Wiggins and McTighe (2006:15) give an illustration of this process with an example of a typical
forward-design lesson plan:
 The teacher chooses a topic for a lesson (e.g. racial prejudice)
 The teacher selects a resource (e.g. To Kill a Mocking-bird)
 The teacher chooses instructional methods based on the resource and the topic (e.g. a
seminar to discuss the book and cooperative groups to analyze stereotypical images in
films and on television)
 The teacher chooses essay questions to assess student understanding of the book.
A similar example would be a teacher planning a unit around ‘narratives’ in a writing class. The
starting point would be an understanding of the nature of narratives and their linguistic and
discourse features. Models of different kinds of narratives would then be studied as preparation
for students writing their own narrative texts. Assessment tasks might involve reviewing and
correcting poorly written narratives or writing further texts based on the features that had been
taught and practiced.
In language teaching, forward planning is an option when the aims of learning are understood in
very general terms such as in courses in ‘general English’ or with introductory courses at primary
or secondary level where goals may be described in such terms as ‘proficiency in language use
across a wide range of daily situations’, or ‘communicative ability in the four language skills’.
Curriculum planning in these cases involves operationalizing the notions of ‘general English’, or
‘intermediate level English’ or ‘writing skills’ in terms of units that can be used as the basis for
planning, teaching and assessment. This is the approach that was adopted by the Council of
Europe in the 1970s. John Trim was a key member of the group of experts commissioned by the
Council of Europe to develop a new approach to language teaching, and he described what they
wanted to achieve:
We set out to identify a number of coherent but restricted goals relevant to the communicative needs of
the learner. We then attempt to work out in detail the knowledge and skills which will equip the learner to
use the language for the communicative purposes defined. In the light of his characteristics and resources
we then have to establish a formal language program leading to the mastery of this body of knowledge
and skills, and a means of testing and evaluation to provide feedback to all parties concerned as to the
success of the program. (Trim, 1978: 9)

7
Two examples of Forward Design
The audiolingual method, the audiovisual method and the structural situational method
have already been cited as examples of forward design methods. More recent examples include
communicative language teaching and content based teaching/CLIL:
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): [ mix of structural and functional syllabus] the
impetus for the development of CLT came from a change in the understanding of the nature of
language, prompted by Hymes’ notion of communicative competence. While the concept of
communicative competence was embraced enthusiastically by the language teaching profession,
an initial concern in CLT was with the operationalization of the notion of communicative
competence and the development of a communicative syllabus to replace earlier grammar-based
syllabus models. Trim (2012) explains that it was an outcome of discussions about how to arrive
at a new kind of syllabus that would reflect the theories of Hymes (communicative competence),
Austin (speech acts), and Wilkins (notional analysis) and would deliver communicative
competence as the outcome of teaching and learning. The result was the development of the
syllabus that lies at the heart of Threshold level (Trim, 2012: 26). Clark suggests that the
communicative approach still reflects the same assumptions as Audiolingualism since they both
start with a model of language that is broken down into smaller units – elements of knowledge
and part-skills. These are then sequenced from simple to more complex and build towards the
desired learning outcomes. This approach:
has had a powerful influence in recent years on the design of foreign language curriculum. It has given
rise to the audio-lingual, audio-visual/situational, topic-based, and functional notional approach to foreign
language learning … All of these approaches have sought to bring about an effective communicative
ability in learners as their ultimate goal, but have conceptualized this ability and the way to bring it about
in different ways, adopting different organizing principles in the design of the foreign language
curriculum, The Audiolingual approach conceptualized a communicative ability in terms of good
grammatical habits. The audio/visual situational approach focused on the ability to understand and
produce appropriate phrase related to particular situations. Topic-based approaches emphasized the ability
to cope with certain topics. The functional-notional approach has focused on mastery of formal means to
interpret and express certain predetermined meanings (Clark, 1987: 23).

The priority of syllabus specification over methodology in CLT is reflected in Munby’s (1978)
Communicative Syllabus Design – an influential book in its day and described as a model for
specifying the syllabus content of a course based on learners’ communicative needs.
Methodological issues are described as a ‘dimension of course design which is subsequent to
syllabus specification’ (Munby, 1978: 217). The next step in curriculum development with the
Munby model thus involves designing a methodology that is compatible with a communicative
syllabus. The final stage in the process is the development of principles for assessment, which
aim to measure how well learners can demonstrate communicative language ability (Wier, 1990).
Content-based Instruction (CoBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
Both CoBI (cited as CoBI here to distinguish it from Competency-based Instruction – CpBI in
this paper) and its more recent variant CLIL are also examples of forward design. They seek to
develop language proficiency as well the mastery of subject matter, critical thinking, and other
cognitive skills through the use of a syllabus that integrates both language and subject matter
(e.g. science, geography, history, environmental studies). Although CoBI and CLIL may take
many different forms, as with other forward design models the process of developing a
8
curriculum typically starts

9
with the design of a syllabus that contains both content and language components. This then
leads to the choice of suitable instructional materials as well as selection of activities for
delivering, reviewing and assessing instruction (Crandall, 2012:150). The following example
(from Mehisto et al., 2008: 50-69) illustrates in summary form the procedures used to develop a
one-week science unit on volcanoes and is similar to the example from Wiggins and McTighe
cited above.
 Content and language needed for the topic of volcanoes is identified.
 Aims in terms of content learning, language learning and skills learning are identified.
 Resources chosen to facilitate a variety of whole class, group based and individual
activities focusing on different aspects of content and language.
 Informal assessment procedures used to assess student learning.
Like other communicative approaches, the instructional processes used in CoBI/CLIL are varied
and no specific teaching methods are prescribed. A range of teaching activities are used,
depending on the type of course and its context:
In CoBI, teachers can draw on a range of relevant, meaningful, and engaging activities that increase
student motivation in a more natural manner, activities that involve co-operative, task-based, experiential,
and project-based learning …
CoBI lessons include the use of both authentic and adapted oral and written subject matter materials
(textbooks, audio and visual materials, and other learning materials) that are appropriate to the cognitive
and language proficiency level of the learners or that can be made accessible through bridging activities
(Crandall, 2012: 151-52).

Implementing a Forward Design Curriculum

The curriculum design process associated with forward design can be represented as:

In some contexts, the planning and development of each stage in the curriculum development
process is carried out by different specialists who have expertise in each process, such as
specialists in syllabus design, methodology, and assessment. Graves (2008: 150) describes this as
a ‘specialist approach’, and comments:
In the specialist approach, the potential for mismatch [i.e. lack of alignment between the different
components of the curriculum –author’s note] is great because each different group of people performs
different curricular functions, uses different discourses, and produces different curricular products.

 Pre-determined content
 Structural syllabus
 Main teaching activities: translation of forms, drilling
 Accuracy emphasized
10
Central Design
While a progression from input, to process, to output would seem to be a logical approach to the
planning and delivery of instruction, it is only one route that can be taken. The second route I call
central design. With central design, curriculum development starts with the selection of teaching

11
activities, techniques and methods rather than with the elaboration of a detailed language
syllabus or specification of learning outcomes. Issues related to input and output are dealt with
after a methodology has been chosen or developed or during the process of teaching itself.
Clark (1987) refers to this as ‘progressivism’ and an example of a process approach to the
curriculum.
We communicate, and if it is found useful we can look at the product of our efforts and discuss what has
occurred by examining the exponents and attempting to relate them to particular notions and functions, or
to lexical and grammatical categories. But this is an after-the-event way of breaking up the flux and flow
of a particular discourse, rather than means of predetermining what one may wish to say. This does not
deny that the teacher and pupil may need to focus on particular elements of rhetorical, semantic, and
grammatical content that arise in the discourse. It seems important to insist, however, that such focuses
should arise out of language in use, rather than precede them, so that learners are enabled to discover rules
of use, form-meaning relationships, and formal rules and systems against the backcloth of real
contextualized discourse (Clark, 1987: 40).

Research on teachers’ practices reveals that teachers often follow a central design approach when
they develop their lessons by first considering the activities and teaching procedures they will
use. Rather than starting their planning processes by detailed considerations of input or output,
they start by thinking about the activities they will use in the classroom. While they assume that
the exercises and activities they make use of will contribute to successful learning outcomes, it is
the classroom processes they seek to provide for their learners that are generally their initial
focus.
Despite the approach they have been recommended to use in their initial teacher education,
teachers’ initial concerns are typically with what they want their learners to do during the lesson.
Later their attention turns to the kind of input and support that learners will need to carry out the
learning activities (Pennington and Richards, 1997). This contrasts with the linear forward-
design model that teachers are generally trained to follow. Summarizing research on teachers’
planning, Freeman (1996: 97) observed:
[Teachers] did not naturally think about planning in the organized formats which they had been taught to
use in their professional training. Further, when they did plan lessons according to these formats, they
often did not teach them according to plan. Teachers were much more likely to visualize lessons as
clusters or sequences of activities: they would blend content with activity, and they would generally focus
on their particular students. In other words, teachers tended to plan lesson as ways of doing things, for
given groups of students rather than to meet particular objectives.

This is illustrated in an account of how a second language teacher approached her lessons in a
study by Fujiwara, where she describes her struggle to follow the prescribed linear forward-
planning model (1996: 151):
… my method of planning still begins with activities and visions of the class. It’s only when I look at the
visions that I can begin to analyse why I’m doing what I’m doing. I also need to be in dialogue with
students, so it’s hard for me to design a year’s course in the abstract. Just as my language-learning process
is no longer in awareness, so my planning process is based on layers and layers of assumptions,
experiences, and knowledge. I have to dig down deep to find out why I make the decisions I do.

12
In general education this approach was advocated by Bruner (1966) and Stenhouse (1975) who
argued that curriculum development should start by identifying the processes of inquiry and
deliberation that drive teaching and learning – processes such as investigation, decision-making
reflection, discussion, interpretation, critical thinking, making choices, co-operating with others
and so on. Content is chosen on the basis of how it promotes the use of these processes and
outcomes do not need to be specified in any degree of detail, if at all.
[The curriculum] is not designed on a pre-specification of behavioural objectives. Of course, there are
changes in students as result of a course, but many of the most valued are not to be anticipated in detail.
The power and the possibilities of the curriculum cannot be contained within objectives because it is
founded on the idea that knowledge must be speculative and thus indeterminate as to student outcomes if
it is to be worthwhile (Stenhouse, 1975).
And again:
Education as induction into knowledge is successful to the extent that it makes the behavioural outcomes
of the students unpredictable (Stenhouse, 1970 in Clark, 1987: 35).

Central design can thus be understood as a ‘learner-focused and learning-oriented

perspective’ (Leung, 2012). Graves alludes to this approach when she refers to ‘curriculum
enactment’ as the essence of a curriculum.
The processes of planning, enacting and evaluating are interrelated and dynamic, not sequential. They
move back and forth to inform and influence each other. Classroom enactment shapes planning and vice
versa. Planning shapes evaluation and vice versa. The aim of evaluation is to improve teaching and
learning, not just to measure it.
… In curriculum enactment, what happens in classrooms is the core of curriculum. What happens in
classrooms is the evolving relationship between teacher, learners, and subject matter (Graves, 2008:152-
53).

Clark’s description of the features of ‘progressivism’ captures the essence of central design:
 It places less emphasis on syllabus specification and more on methodological principles
and procedures.
 It is more concerned with learning processes than predetermined objectives.
 It emphasizes methodology and the need for principles to guide the teaching learning
process.
 It is learner-centered and seeks to provide learning experiences that enable learners to
learn by their own efforts.
 It regards learners as active participants in shaping their own learning.
 It promotes the development of the learner as an individual.
 It views learning as a creative problem-solving activity.
 It acknowledges the uniqueness of each teaching-learning context.
 It emphasizes the role of the teacher in creating his or her own curriculum in the classroom
(Clark, 1987: 49-90)

13
Two examples of Central Design
Task-based Language Teaching TBLT (Version 1). There are several different versions of
TBLT, some described as task-based and some described as task-informed and since there is no
consensus as to the exact nature of a TBLT course it is best described as an approach rather than
a method. They share in the use of “tasks” as the mechanism that best activates language learning
processes. Tasks in this approach are activities in which the primary focus is on meaning, there is
some kind of information gap, learners need to use their own linguistic and non-linguistic
resources, and there is an outcome other than merely the display of language.
Central-design versions of TBLT are those which employ primary pedagogical tasks as the basis
for classroom instruction – specially designed classroom activities that are intended to call upon
the use of specific interactional strategies and may also require the use of specific types of
language (skills, grammar, vocabulary). The tasks drive the processes of second language
learning and linguistic and communicative competence are the outcomes of task work (Willis,
1996). There is no pre-determined grammatical syllabus and the goals are to develop general
language ability rather than the ability to use language in specific contexts and for specific
purposes. This use of TBLT is sometimes applied in teaching young learners and in other
contexts where learners do not have very specific needs for the English. (Compare this with
TBLT version 2 below in a backward design approach).
Dogme. A more recent example of the use of central design in language teaching has been
labelled Dogme (a term taken from the film industry that refers to filming without scripts or
rehearsal) by Scott Thornbury – who introduced the approach to language teaching (Meddings
and Thornbury, 2009). It is based on the idea that instead of basing teaching on a pre-planned
syllabus, a set of objectives and published materials, teaching is built around conversational
interaction between teacher and students and among students themselves.
Teaching should be done using only the resources that the teachers and students bring to the classroom-
i.e. themselves and what happens to be in the classroom. Thornbury explains that Dogme considers
learning as experiential and holistic and that language learning is an emergent jointly-constructed and
socially- constituted process motivated both by communal and communicative imperatives.

An approach that shares some features with Counseling Learning (but without the New Age
psycho-babble), the syllabus or language focus is not pre-planned and language and content
emerge from the processes of interaction and negotiation that the teacher initiates. Midlane
comments:
Dogme approach focuses on emergent language; teaching is not a question of imposing an external
language syllabus, but of nurturing the students’ in-built language-learning mechanisms and language
acquisition agenda.

Implementing a Central Design Curriculum

Each of the innovations referred to above offers different versions of the idea of a classroom as
focused on the learner or as a learning community, a notion which has been theorized in greater
detail and depth by Wenger (1998), van Lier (2004, 2009) and others. From this perspective,

14
learning takes place in a context and evolves through the interaction and participation of the
participants in that context. Learning is not viewed as the mastery of pre-determined content but
as constructing new knowledge through participating in specific learning and social contexts and
through engaging in particular types of activities and processes.
Yet in other respects the approaches described above are a disparate group that reflect very
different assumptions about the nature of second language learning and the role of instruction in
language teaching. What they have in common, however, is the priority they attribute to learning
processes, classroom participation, and the role of the teacher and the learners in creating
opportunities for learning. The syllabus or learning input – rather than being something that is
predetermined or prescribed and regarded as essential in initiating curriculum development, is
rather an outcome of teaching and learning. In the older method-based proposals referred to
above, testing has the role of assessment of learning (i.e. achievement testing) while in the more
recent proposals a more dynamic role for assessment is assumed – assessment for learning –
where teaching and assessment inform each other at every stage of the teaching/learning process.
The ongoing interaction between the different curriculum elements can be represented as
follows:

 C

Backward Design
The third approach to curriculum design is to begin with a specification of learning outputs and
to use these as the basis for developing instructional processes and input. Following Wiggins and
McTighe (2006) and continuing with the analogy of forward and central design used above, the
term backward design will be used to describe this approach. Backward design starts with a
15
careful statement of the desired results or outcomes: appropriate teaching activities and content
are derived

16
from the results of learning. This is a well-established tradition in curriculum design in general
education and in recent years has re-emerged as a prominent curriculum development approach
in language teaching. It was sometimes described as an ‘ends-means’ approach, as seen in the
work of Tyler (1949) and Taba (1962), who viewed instruction as the specification of ends as a
pre- requite to devising the means to reach them. The process consists of:
Step 1: diagnosis of needs
Step 2: formulation of objectives
Step 3: selection of content
Step 4: organization of content
Step 5: selection of learning experiences
Step 6: organization of learning experiences
Step 7: determination of what to evaluate and of the ways of doing it (Taba, 1962: 12).
The role of methodology was to determine which teaching methods were most effective in
attaining the objectives and a criterion-referenced approach would be used for assessment. There
is no place for individually-determined learning outcomes: the outcomes are determined by the
curriculum designer. The following are examples of the use of backward design in language
teaching.
Backward Design through Objectives. Tyler’s work had a considerable impact on curriculum
planning and helped establish the use of objectives as planning units in instructional design. An
objectives-based approach reflects the essential assumptions of backward design. As Tyler put it:
Educational objectives become the criteria by which materials are selected, content is outlined,
instructional procedures are developed, and tests and examinations are prepared. … The purpose of a
statement of objectives is to indicate the kinds of changes in the student to be brought about so that
instructional activities can be planned and developed in a way likely to attain these objectives (1949: 45).

From the 1950s, educating teachers in how to describe learning outcomes in the form of
objectives became a minor industry, and since then generations of teachers have been taught to
write objectives that fulfilled criteria such as the following:
1. They describe the aims of a course in terms of smaller units of learning.
2. They provide the basis for the organization of teaching activities.
3. They describe learning in terms of observable behaviour or performance.
Critics of the use of objectives in curriculum planning argued that they are linked to an efficiency
view of education, that is, one based on the assumption that the most efficient means to an end is
justified, that they run the danger of turning teaching into a technical and almost mechanical
exercise of converting statement of needs into objectives, and that in the process the broader
goals of teaching and learning – to provide meaningful and worthwhile learning experiences
– are
17
forgotten. This criticism is often aimed at curriculum focused on narrowly defined behavioural
objectives. It is also implied by advocates of a central-based approach to curriculum planning. As
we noted above, teachers tend not to start planning instruction around outcomes but often focus
their planning on classroom activities, i.e. central design.
However, the use of classroom activities and processes as the starting point in instructional
planning is strongly criticized by Wiggins and McTighe (2006), who argue for starting with a
clear description of learning outcomes as the basis for curriculum planning. In backward design
they recommend that three steps are required:
1. Identify desired results.
2. Determine acceptable evidence of learning.
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction.
The planning process begins with a clear understanding of the ends in mind. It explicitly rejects
as a starting point the process or activity-oriented curriculum in which participation in activities
and processes is primary. It does not imply any particular pedagogical approach or instructional
theory or philosophy. A variety of teaching strategies can be employed to achieve the desired
goals but teaching methods cannot be chosen until the desired outcomes have been specified.
From this perspective many of the central-design methods or activity-oriented approaches
discussed above fail to meet the criterion of good instructional design.
The error of activity-oriented design might be called “hands-on without being minds-on” – engaging
experiences that lead only accidentally, if at all, to insight or achievement … activity-oriented curricula
lack an explicit focus on important ideas and evidence of learning. …[learners] are led to think the
learning is the activity instead of seeing that the learning comes from being asked to consider the meaning
of the activity … The shift, therefore, is away from starting with such questions as “What book will we
read?” or “What activities will we do?” or “What will we discuss” to “What should [the learners] walk out
the door able to understand [or do] regardless of what activities or tests we use?” And “What is evidence
of such ability?” and, therefore, “What texts, activities, and methods will best enable such a result?”
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2006: 16-17).

In language teaching a number of curriculum approaches and procedures have been advocated
that reflect the principles of backward design.
Needs Analysis. Identifying learning outcomes or objectives is often seen to depend upon a
systematic analysis of the learners’ communicative needs, and emerged in the 1960s as part of
the systems approach to curriculum development – an aspect of the prevalent philosophy of
educational accountability from which the use of objectives was also derived (Stufflebeam et al.,
1985).
The need for convincing precision in educational needs assessment was also reinforced during this period
by the behavioural objectives movement in educational planning, particularly in North America, which
insisted on specifying in measurable form all goals of importance in an educational system. The emphasis
on precision and accountability clearly influenced the appearance of needs assessment as a form of
educational technology and its diversification into a collection of educational research methodologies
(Berwick, 1989: 51).

18
Needs analysis is part of the process by which aims and objectives are determined:
Informal needs assessment deals with the informal negotiation that takes place between class teachers and
students in the form of chats with either individual students, groups of students, or the whole class in
order to select a focus for the class … [It] is a necessary component of information retrieval on students’
learning needs and should be recorded. It can subsequently be used as input for aims and objective setting
and for devising course outlines (Shaw and Dowsett, 1986: 47-49).

The steps involved are:

1. Identify learner’s communicative needs.
2. Develop statements of learning objectives.
3. Identify linguistic content and skills needed to attain the objectives.
4. Prepare course plans.
5. Select materials and teaching methods.
Two examples of Backward Design
Task-based Language Teaching (Version 2). Needs analysis is also the starting point for
curriculum development in some versions of Task-Based Language Teaching and is used to
determine an inventory of target-tasks learners need to be able to master in the target language.
The design of a task-based syllabus preferably starts with an analysis of the students’ needs. What do
these students need to be able to do with the target language? What are the tasks they are supposed to
perform outside of the classroom? Using different sources and different methods (such as interviews,
observations, and surveys) a concrete description of the kinds of tasks students will face in the real word
is drawn up. This description, then, serves as the basis for the design and sequencing of tasks in the
syllabus (Van den Branden, 2012: 134).

The methodology of this approach to TBLT is then built around activities or tasks that require
communicative language use, from which the learners’ need for particular aspects of language is
derived:
In TBLT, students do not first acquire elaborate knowledge about language then face the daunting
challenge to translate all the acquired knowledge into spontaneous and natural language use. In a task-
based approach, students are confronted with approximations and simulations of the kinds of tasks they
are supposed to be able to perform outside the classroom and learn about relevant forms of language
while trying to understand and produce the language that these communicative tasks involve (Van den
Branden, 2012:133).
Thus in this model of TBLT the sequence is:
1. Identify target tasks through needs analysis.
2. Design classroom tasks.
3. Apply TBLT methodology.
4. Identify language and other demands of the tasks.

19
5. Follow up language work.

This can be represented as:

Competency-based Instruction (CpBI). Competency-Based Instruction is another widely used
example of backward design.

With CpBI the starting point of curriculum design is a specification of the learning outcomes in
terms of ‘competencies’ – the knowledge, skills and behaviors learners involved in performing
everyday tasks and activities and which learners should master at the end of a course of study.
Curriculum development with CpBI starts from a similar stage as TBLI in the version described
above. The characteristics of CpBI are described by Schenk (1978: vi).
Competency-based education has much in common with such approaches to learning as performance-
based instruction, mastery learning and individualized instruction. It is outcome-based and is adaptive to
the changing needs of students, teachers and the community… Competencies differ from other student
goals and objectives in that they describe the student’s ability to apply basic and other skills in situations
that are commonly encountered in everyday life.
Thus CBE is based on a set of outcomes that are derived from an analysis of tasks typically required of
students in life role situations.

The process can be represented as:

An example of how this approach was used in developing a vocational curriculum for refugees
and immigrants in the US is given in Mrowicki (1986). The process consisted of:
1. Needs analysis.
2. Identify topics for the survival curriculum (e.g. banking, health, shopping).
3. Identify competencies for each topic.
4. Group competencies into instructional units.
20
5. Identify the language knowledge and skills needed for each instructional unit (e.g. the 4 skills,
vocabulary, grammar).
6. Choose instructional materials.
Advocates of CpBI suggest it has similar advantages to the backward design approach proposed
by Wiggins and McTighe (2006).
Competency-based approaches to teaching and assessment offer teachers an opportunity to revitalize their
education and training programs. Not only will the quality of assessment improve, but the quality of
teaching and student learning will be enhanced by clear specification of expected outcomes and the
continuous feedback that competency-based assessment can offer (Docking, 1994:15).

Like other backward design approaches, CpBI makes no assumptions about teaching methods,
since any set of classroom activities can be used that enables students to master the desired
competencies. However, since student learning is assessed on the basis of performance and the
ability to demonstrate mastery of pre-specified skills and behaviours, teaching is generally based
on helping learners acquire the communicative skills needed for specific situations, tasks and
activities. As with other backward design approaches, needs analysis is the starting point in
curriculum development.
Standards and the Common European Framework of Reference. A related approach to
backward design is through the use of standards (also known as benchmarks, core skills,
performance profiles and target competencies). Standards are descriptions of the outcomes or
targets students should be able to reach in different domains of curriculum content, including
language learning, and are generally specified in very general terms.
For example, standards related to the use of both oral and written language could
include: Students will develop knowledge and understanding of:
 The relationship between texts and contexts
 Cultural reference in text
 The relationship between purposes and structures of texts
 Language forms and features of texts (McKay, 2000).
Katz and Snow (2009: 67) offer the following explanation of standards:
Standards may be described as tools that can be used to improve outcomes. The kind of outcomes desired
depends on the goals for improvement – whether they target teachers, teacher trainers, educational
leaders, students, programs – and so on. The major benefit of standards is that they set out clear
expectations for all involved in the educational enterprise, including the public. They provide a “common
language” for talking about the process of teaching and learning. For teachers and administrators, they
provide guidelines for designing instruction, curricula, and assessment.

The primary motivation for an increased emphasis on statements of learning outcomes in the
design of language programs and particularly the use of ‘standards’ as ways of identifying
learning targets across a curriculum is described by Leung (2012):

21
the prominence of outcomes-based teaching in the past thirty years or so can be associated with the wider
public policy environments in which the twin doctrines of corporatist management (whereby the activities
in different segments of society are subordinated to the goals of the state) and public accountability
(which requires professionals to justify their activities in relation to declared public policy goals) have
predominated.

In order to assist in the planning process, standards are generally accompanied with more
specific ‘indicators’ that ‘describe assessable, observable activities or behaviors that may be
performed to show the standard is being met’ (Katz and Snow, 2009: 67). These are often
described in terms of competencies. The following is an example of a standard with related
indicators in the domain of oral language use:
Standard: the learner can participate in casual conversation
Indicators:
 Can use strategies to open and close conversations.
 Can initiate a topic in casual conversation.
 Can select vocabulary appropriate to the topic.
 Can give appropriate feedback responses.
 Can provide relevant evaluative comments through back channeling.
 Can take turns at appropriate points in the conversation.
 Can ask for clarification and repetition.
 Can use strategies for repairing misunderstanding.
 Can use appropriate intonation and stress patterns to express meaning intelligibly
(Adapted from Goh and Burns, 2012: 180)
The use of standards in curriculum planning thus involves the following sequence of activities:
 Identify the domains of language use the learners need to acquire (e.g. reading, writing,
listening, speaking).
 Describe standards and performance indicators for each domain.
 Identify the language skills and knowledge needed to achieve the standard.
 Select teaching activities and materials.
Perhaps the most widespread example of backward design using standards in current use is the
Common European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe,
2001), which is designed to provide a ‘common basis for explicit description of objectives,
content and methods of the study of modern languages, within a wider purpose of elaboration of
language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks’ etc. across Europe’
(Council of Europe, 2001:1). It describes six levels of achievement divided into three broad
divisions from lowest (A1) to highest (C2) which describe what a learner should be able to do in
reading, listening, speaking and writing at each level.
Basic user – A1, A2; Independent user – B1, B2; Proficient user - C1, C2

22
For example, the standards described for ‘conversation’ in CEFR at levels B1 to C1 are
described as follows:

No specifications are given for input or process. It is the teacher’s or course designer’s
responsibility to work out how the outcomes can be achieved and to develop teaching strategies
and materials and content relevant to the context in which they are teaching. Leung (2012:165)
comments:
Quite clearly teachers will need to judge the appropriateness of the B1 descriptors (or any other within the
CEFR scales) in relation to the students they are teaching. If one is working with, say, a group of Italian-
speaking bank employees learning English for professional reasons, then some of the descriptors might
make sense at some stage of their teaching. However, if one is teaching linguistic minority students in
England who are learning to use English to do academic studies, then these descriptors would only be, at
best, appropriate in a very vague and abstract sense; they would need to be adapted and expanded locally
because an independent user of English as a second language in school would have to do a good deal
more than what is covered in these CEFR descriptors.

The lack of a syllabus or specification of content that would enable the outcomes in CEFR to be
achieved has been identified as problematic in using the framework and has led to the
development of the English Profile project:
The aim of English Profile is to create a “profile” or set of Reference Level Descriptions of English linked
to the CEF. These will provide detailed information about the language that learners can be expected to
demonstrate at each level, offering a clear benchmark for progress that will inform curriculum
development as well as the development of courses and test materials to support learners, teachers and
other professionals involved in the learning and teaching of English as a foreign language.

Backward design with CEFR thus involves:

23
 3. Main features of three approaches MD1.2-3
Activity 4:
Based on your understanding of the three approaches to course design described above (Section
2), use the following features to fill the missing information in Table 2 below:
Language-centred; Needs based; Cumulative mastery of taught forms; Explicit presentation of
rules; Transmitter of knowledge; Practice of real-life situations; Activity-based; Activities that
involve negotiation of meaning; Negotiator of content and process; Performance based
assessment
Table 2: Features of three approaches compared
Forward design Central design Backward design
Syllabus (1)_Language-centred (2) Activities based (3)Needs based
Content divided into its Content negotiated with Ends-means
key elements learners/ stake approach
Sequenced from simple holders/parents Objectives or
to complex Evolves during the competency-based
Pre-determined prior to course Sequenced from part-
a course Reflects the process of skills to whole [eg.:
Linear progression learning to achieve listening
Sequence may be skills -> listen to
[eg. Teaching grammar determined by the lecture, conversation,
level b1] learners talk, etc.]
Cynical Progression Pre-determined prior to
[eg. Story telling course course
for primary students] Linear progression
Methodology Transmissive and Learner-centred Practice of part-skills
teacher-directed Experiential learning (6)Practice of real-
Practice and control of -> have adjustment life situations ->
elements Active engagement adapt to needs of
Imitation of models in interaction and learners
(4) Explicit presentation communication
of rules Meaning prioritized Accuracy emphasized
Accuracy emphasized over accuracy over fluency

(5) Activities that Learning and practice

involve negotiation of of expressions and
meaning formulaic language
 Enhance fluency/
reflex
Role of teacher Teacher as instructor, Teacher as facilitator Organizer of learning
model, and explainer (8) Negotiator of experiences
(7) Transmitter of content and process Model of target
24
 knowledge Encourager of language performance
Reinforcer of correct learner self- Planner of learning
language use expression and experiences
autonomy
Role of learners Accurate mastery of Negotiator of Learning through
language forms learning content and practice and habit
Application of learned modes of learning formation
material to new Development of Mastery of situationally
contexts learning strategies appropriate language
Awareness of correct
Understanding of Accept responsibility usage
language rules for learning and learner Development of
autonomy fluency
Assessment Norm-referenced, Negotiated assessment Criterion-referenced
[form, component] [outcome = criterion]
summative end-of- Assessment for (10) Performance-based
assessment
semester or end-of- Learning -> formative Summative assessment
course test Formative assessment Improvement oriented
[backwash]
Assessment of learning - Self-assessment Assessment of learning
> summative
(9) Cumulative mastery Develop capacity for Cumulative mastery of
of taught form
self-reflection and self- taught patterns and
evaluation Uses -> part to whole

4. Which approach is best? MD1.4-5

Activity 5:
In groups, discuss which of the above approaches is best. Remember to use specific examples to
support your ideas. Read the following passage and compare Richard’s idea with yours.
Forward Design: This approach is often used in traditional classroom settings where the teacher is
the primary source of knowledge. It’s beneficial when there’s a specific body of knowledge that
needs to be covered within a certain timeframe, such as in a school curriculum. For example, teaching
grammar rules in a foreign language class often employs a forward design approach.
Central Design: This approach is learner-centered and can be very effective in settings where
learners have diverse needs and backgrounds. For instance, in an adult English learning class where
learners have different proficiency levels and learning goals, a central design approach allows the
course content to be tailored to meet individual needs.
Backward Design: This approach starts with the end goal in mind and designs the course to meet
that goal. It’s particularly useful in competency-based education where the focus is on mastering a
specific skill or competency. For example, in a business communication course, the end goal might
be to write a professional business report. The course would then be designed with activities and
assessments that lead to the mastery of this skill.
 In conclusion, the “best” approach depends on the specific teaching and learning context. It’s
also worth noting that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in a
25
 blended approach to meet the diverse needs of learners. For example, a language course might
use a forward design approach to teach grammar rules (explicit knowledge), a central design
approach to facilitate speaking practice (negotiated meaning), and a backward design
approach to prepare for a final presentation (performance-based assessment). This way, the
course can address various aspects of language learning effectively.

Which approach is best?

A question teachers and planners often ask when presented with alternative ways of addressing
an issue is, ‘Which approach is best?’ The assumption underlying this paper is that there is no
best approach to curriculum design, and that forward design, central design and backward design
might each work well but in different circumstances. Each approach has advocates and
practitioners who can cite examples of their successful implementation. They might also work
concurrently in some circumstances. David Crabbe (personal communication) suggests:
In fact, design goes backwards and forwards whatever the starting point. As you point out, it’s not that
curriculum designers don’t think of goals when designing a syllabus. It's just that a content item is not
expressed as a goal. Similarly, a central design has a broad outcome in mind, even though it might not be
specified in detail. A backward design will often take account of the process of teaching an item in
formulating the outcome and it will often have content built into it. All three may be thought of at the
same time, rather than being linear.

Each approach however makes different assumptions about the context for the curriculum, for
example:
 whether intended for large-scale or small-scale implementation,
 the role of instructional materials and tests,
 the level of training of teachers,
 the roles of teachers and learners,
 teachers’ proficiency in English,
 the demands made on teachers,
 the level of teacher-autonomy assumed for teachers,
 the amount of support provided for teachers.
A forward design option may be preferred in circumstances where a mandated curriculum is in
place, where teachers have little choice over what and how to teach, where teachers rely mainly

26
on textbooks and commercial materials rather than teacher-designed resources, where class size
is large and where tests and assessments are designed centrally rather than by individual teachers.
Since forward design can be used to develop published materials there will generally be a wide
range of teaching resources and materials to choose from. Forward design may also be a
preferred option in situations where teachers may have limited English language proficiency and
limited opportunities for professional development, since much of the planning and development
involved can be accomplished by specialists rather than left to the individual teacher.
Central design approaches do not require teachers to plan detailed learning outcomes, to conduct
needs analysis or to follow a prescribed syllabus, hence they often give teachers a considerable
degree of autonomy and control over the teacher learning process. In the case of method-based
approaches, however, teachers may be required to understand the sometimes obscure theory
underlying the method as well as to master techniques and procedures that may initially prove
difficult. Or they may simply adopt the practices without worrying about their claims and
theoretical assumptions since they offer a supposedly ‘tried and tested or expert-designed’
teaching solution. Adoption of a central design approach may also require a considerable
investment in training, since teachers cannot generally rely on published course-book materials
as the basis for teaching. With post-method and learner-community approaches, teaching
strategies are developed according to the teacher’s understanding of the context in which he or
she is working as well as on his or her individual skill and expertise in managing the instructional
process and in developing teaching materials and forms of assessment. High levels of
professional knowledge as well as of language proficiency are probably a prerequisite.
A backward design option may be preferred in situations where a high degree of accountability
needs to be built into the curriculum design and where resources can be committed to needs
analysis, planning, and materials development. Well-developed procedures for implementing
backward design procedures are widely available, making this approach an attractive option in
some circumstances. In the case of large-scale curriculum development for a national education
system, much of this development activity can be carried out by others, leaving teachers mainly
with the responsibility of implementing the curriculum. In other circumstances such as a private
institute developing company specific courses, a much more bottom-up approach may be
adopted and the work required is carried out by a well-trained and skillful individual teacher or
group of teachers working together.
In conclusion, any language teaching curriculum contains the elements of content, process, and
output. Historically these have received a different emphasis at different times. Curriculum
approaches differ in how they visualize the relationship between these elements, how they are
prioritized and arrived at, and the role that syllabuses, materials, teachers and learners play in the
process of curriculum development and enactment. The notion of forward, central and backward
design provides a useful metaphor for understanding the different assumptions underlying each
approach to curriculum design as well as for recognizing the different practices that result from
them.

27
 Quiz and Performance Task

1. Quiz MD1.1-4
Activity 6:
Fill each gap in the following reading passage with NO MORE THREE WORDS OR A NUMBER
From the perspectives of language course design, a language course includes (1)____ main
components. (2)__________is concerned with the question as to (3)__________ or, in other
words,
the linguistic content of the course. Once this content is selected, it is first broken down into
teachable units and then sequenced in a linear, spiral or modular manner. (4)
____________refers to
the overarching methodology of the course. To be more specific, it reflects the course designer’s
beliefs about the nature of language, the nature of language learning, the role of teacher and
learners, the required characteristics of instructional materials as well as assessment practice. The
final component is (5)_______. This specifies the learning outcomes that L2 learners are
expected to achieve by the end of the course. The designer can select one of the components
above as (6)___________in the course development. However, each starting point will direct
them into a different route to reach their destination and thus result in a different (7)
__________to their
course design.
Activity 7:
Label the following features Forward Design, Central Design or Backward Design. Some features
might belong to MORE THAN ONE APPROACH.
Features Labels
1. In this approach, the first step is to examine the needs, interests and abilities of the
target learners as well as the key features of the teaching/learning context.

2. In this approach, the course design often has a clear picture of teaching content and
thus selects it as the departure point.

3. The learning tasks in this course are devised as authentic (real-life situation) as
possible.

4. Interaction is promoted in this course and thus learners have plenty of opportunities
for negotiation of meaning.

5. Accuracy is stressed in this approach.

6. Learners have their voice in deciding what to learn, how to learn and how to be
assessed.

28
 7. Assessment is to help learners to learn better.

Activity 8:
Choose the approach to course design that BEST fits the following situation.
Situation Approach
1. You are required to design an ESP course for a group of twelve flight
attendants.(learner-centred) The course provider offers you sufficient resources
[bank of content; choice to choose methodology] for your course design;
however, he needs to be well-informed about the learning progress and the course
outcome. [need to define outcome first
2. You are teaching English for eleventh graders at a public high school in
Vietnam. At the beginning of the academic year 2020-2021, you are given the
master curriculum, the textbooks and the guidelines for assessment practice all
developed by MOET. You are now required to design a language course that is
specific to
your own teaching context, based on the above documents.
3. You have a group of experienced and competent teaching staff. Now you are
required to develop a language course to help a group of EFL learners to improve
their IELTS writing scores from 6.0 to 7.0 within 06 months. (competency?)

2. Performance Task MD1.1-5

Study the procedure that Nation and Crabbe (1991) designed a vocabulary learning course below:
- Name each step in this procedure using the following labels: Goals, Need analysis,
Monitoring and assessment, Application of principles, Content and sequencing,
Evaluation, Format and presentation, and Environment analysis;
- What step is missing in the present procedure?
- What approach (Forward, Central or Backward Design) did Nation and Crabbe (1991)
use for this course design? Why do you think so?
- What are the good and the bad points of this procedure? How would you do to improve
this procedure if you were the designers?
01. The major constraints and their effects in ranked order were:
1 Limited time to invest in learning (therefore – focus on immediate needs; have very
Environme limited goals, i.e. vocabulary and only spoken use).
nt 2 Must be useful for a wide range of people and countries (therefore – include only
generally useful items).

29
 02. Future needs (necessities) were found by:
Need 1 Interviewing people previously in the situation that the learners will soon be in.
analysis 2 Analyzing the language section of guidebooks.
3 Personal experience.
There was no need to look at present proficiency as it was assumed that the learners were
beginners.
Wants were not looked at.
03. The following principles were directly stated:
Applicatio 1 Learners should get an immediate and useful return for their learning.
n of 2 Avoid interference.
principle 3 Use thoughtful processing.
4 Get fluency practice
04.Goal - The goal was to quickly learn a survival vocabulary.
> outcome
05. The content included approximately 120 words and phrases classified according to topic.
Content The learner can decide on the sequence of learning. The sections of the list are in order of
and usefulness. Advice is given not to learn related items together.
sequence
06. Suggestions are provided for self-study, such as using vocabulary cards, using deep
Format processing and practice.
and
presentatio
n
07.evaluati The checking of the list against personal experience is one kind of evaluation.
on

Here are the steps in the procedure labeled according to your request:
1. Environment analysis: The major constraints and their effects in ranked order were identified.
2. Need analysis: Future needs (necessities) were found by interviewing people previously in the
situation that the learners will soon be in, analyzing the language section of guidebooks, and personal
experience.
3. Application of principles: The following principles were directly stated: learners should get an
immediate and useful return for their learning, avoid interference, use thoughtful processing, and get
fluency practice.
4. Goals: The goal was to quickly learn a survival vocabulary.
5. Content and sequencing: The content included approximately 120 words and phrases classified
according to topic. The learner can decide on the sequence of learning. The sections of the list are in
order of usefulness. Advice is given not to learn related items together.
6. Format and presentation: Suggestions are provided for self-study, such as using vocabulary cards,
using deep processing, and practice.
7. Evaluation: The checking of the list against personal experience is one kind of evaluation.
The step missing in the present procedure is Monitoring and assessment. There is no mention of how the
learners’ progress will be monitored or assessed throughout the course.
Nation and Crabbe (1991) used the Backward approach for this course design. This is evident from specifying
the needs of learners -> goals -> identify content -> present -> evaluate

Good points of this procedure include a clear focus on immediate needs, the inclusion of generally useful
items, and the provision of self-study suggestions. However, the procedure could be improved by
incorporating the learners’ wants and present proficiency into the needs analysis, and by including a step for
monitoring and assessment to track learners’ progress and adjust the course as necessary. Additionally, the
procedure could benefit from more detailed guidelines for the format and presentation of the course, such as
specific instructional strategies or technologies to be used.
30
31