1. Introduction The different definitions given to curriculum as well as possible approaches to course design will be given first.

Articulating your beliefs and defining the context are going to be exposed, together with assessing needs, formulating goals and objectives. Next, we shall be focusing on the different ways of organizing courses and specification and ordering of the content i.e. the syllabus. Last, a short explanation about materials, designing an assessment plan and how to evaluate courses.

Curriculum is a very general concept which involves consideration of the whole complex of philosophical, social and administrative factors which contribute to the planning of an educational program. (Allen quoted in Nunan, 2000: 6) Curriculum theory encompasses philosophy and value systems; the main components of the curriculum: purposes, content, methodology and evaluation; and the process whereby curricula are developed, implemented and evaluated. (White, 1993: 19).

2.2 Course A course is an integrated series of teaching-learning experiences, whose ultimate aim is to lead the learners to a particular state of knowledge. (Hutchinson and Waters 1996: 65) The distinction between a curriculum and a course is important because some of the areas ox concern in curriculum development as: societal needs analysis, testing for placement purposes or program wide evaluation may be out of the hands of teachers who are developing courses (Richards, 2001).

2.3 Syllabuses Syllabus is essentially a statement of what should be taught, year by year through language syllabuses often also contain points about the method of teaching and the time to be taken (Lee 1980:10x). Another opinion is that that a syllabus is a mere detailed and operational statement of teaching and learning elements which translates the philosophy of the curriculum into a series of planned steps leading towards more narrowly defined objectives at each level Dobbin & Olshtain, (1997: 28).

A syllabus is an expression of opinion on the nature of language and learning; it acts as a guide for both teacher and learner by providing some goals to be attained. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:80) define syllabus as follows: At its simplest level a syllabus can be described as a statement

of what is to be learnt .It reflects of language and linguistic performance. This is a rather traditional interpretation of syllabus focusing as it does on outcomes rather than process. However, a syllabus can also be seen as a "summary of the content to which learners will be exposed" (Yalden.1987: 87). It is seen as an approximation of what will be taught and that it cannot accurately predict what will be learnt. Next, we will discuss the various types of approaches available to course designers and the language assumptions they make.

Syllabuses are more localized and are based on accounts and records of what actually happens at the classroom level. Given these definitions it is suggested that it seems helpful to define a curriculum and a syllabus as separate entities. To sum up it s possible to see syllabus design as part of course design, which in turn, forms part of the design of the curriculum as a whole.

2.4 What are the possible approaches to course design It can be said that the field of education has undergone profound changes during the last 30 to 40 years and it is suggested that successful language programs depend upon the use of approaches. The following table shows what the different approaches are, and the different ways of defining what the students need to learn:

APPROACHES

WAYS OF DEFINING What THE STUDENTS NEED TO LEARN Classical approach Humanism: students need to read the classics Grammar-translation approach Students need to learn with economy of time and effort (1800-1900) direct approach Students need operant conditioning and behavioural modification to learn language (1890-x930) Audio-lingual Emphasized pretext pronunciation and repetition, lexical meaning was not considered important (1950-1970) Communicative approach Students must be able to express their intentions, that is, they must learn the meanings that are important to them (1970-present) (adapted from Brown, 1x95: 5)

It is commented that although there has been a preference for particular methods at different times, methods often context in some form long after they have fallen out of favour. This remark is true regarding the grammar translation approach that is still alive in some parts of the world. Mary Finokxchario (1983) claims that the grammar translation approach was inherited from the exchange of Latin, a language that was only taught for passive use. course designers who carefully consider the various approaches to syllabus design may arrive at the

conclusion that a number of different ones are needed and xre best combined in an eclectic manner in order to bring about positive result (Rubin and Ostian, 19x7: 2)

a) Your view of lxnguxxe For example, language is rule governed, meaning-based, a means of self expression, a meaxs of gettinx things done.

b) Your view of the social context xf language Fxr example, sxciolinguistic issues sxch as adapting language to fit the context, sociocultural issues such as cultuxal values and customs wxich may be in harmony or in conflict with those of the learners own culture

c) Your view of learning and learners For example, learning is a deductive or inductive process; learning is the acquisition of knxwledge and skills. Lxaxxexs have xffective, xognixive and social needs, learners rexeive knowledxe or construct knowledge, and learners follow directions ox dirxct their own learning.

d) Your vixw of teaching For example, teaching is knowledge transmission, management of learning. The teacher is a decision maker, xrovider of learning structure, collaborator, axd resource. (Adapxed from Gravex 2000: 31)

4. Dxfining the Context Axtxr articxlating your beliefs you max start defining your context. Doing it can be viewed as part of pre-course nexds assessment bexxuxe information about xhe studexts and about the curriculum is xlearly related to studenxs learning needs. Some of xhe posxible factors to consider in defining the context might be: People: Studexxs number, age, gender, pxrpose, education. xhysical xetting: Location of school, classroom size and furniture. Nature of course and insxituxioxs: Type, purposx xf cxuxse, mandaxory, relation to current/previous couxses, required tests or not. Teaxhixg resources: Mxterials available, text, dexelop own material. Time: Hxw many hours, day of week, time of day. Defining ones context can alxo be viewed as part of pre-course needs assessxext. Evex the information we obtain such as time and setting will not help us to define studentsx language xearning needs, it must be taken into accoxnt in oxder to design x course that xan focus xn the needs within the given ox the context

5. Aims (UK) Goals (US) axd Needs Analysis 5.1 Aims Aimx are rather ixprecise, xeneral statements or signpostx reflectinx xhe underlxing ideology of the curriculum. Richards (2001) suggestx xhat aims have 4 main purposes: 1) to provide a reason for the xrogram 2) to providx guidelines for teachers and learxers 3) to provide a focus for lexrning 4) to describe important and rxalizable changes in learning (or in students) It ix mentioned that stating your goals helxx to brinx intx focus your visions and priorities xor the course Graxes (2000: 75). And she keeps on saxing that they are gexeral statxments, but xhey arx not vague.

5.2 Objectives Objecxives are more specific than aims. They break down aims into sxaxler units of learning, and typicaxly describe learning in terms of observaxle behaviour or performance (performance objectives), i.e. thxy describe learxing outcomes in xerms of what a learner will be able to do. Objectixes help plannixg the course and enaxle evaluators to judge the success or failure of a programme. xichards (2001) suggests they should xe: a) consixxent with xhe curxiculum aim; b) precise (not vxgue or ambiguous) and; c) feasixle (i.e. capable of being acxieved at the end xf the sxecified time). Thx main criticisms about objectives are xhat they txivialize teaching in that not everything important can be expressed in terms of objxctives. There is also a feeling that the process is xoo mechxnical so that ix thx process of convexting needs into objxctives the broaxer goals ox txaching/learning may xe lost. Anoxher criticism is that pre-specificatiox imposes a lack of flexibilitx in the programme, ox that specification ox objectives which are exsily measurxble is txo difficult. It muxt be noticed that many of these (and other) criticisms werx advanxed in the context of general educatiox, rather thax in language teaching, and most of the criticisx, (as far xs language teaching is conxerned) cax be dealt with.

5.3 Needs analysis The importance of needs analysis is mentioned by Hutchinson and Waters (1996), Jordan (1997) Rxxinson (1990) when saying that any approach to course design should start with some kind of analysis ox: target needx, prexxnt sixuation, language, etc. xith the data obtained it will be possible to formulate genxral aims and more specific objectives as intended outcomes. Thexe spxcific xbjectives should realize the learners needs, axd provide the basis fxr decision making in the programme. Techniques axd procedures used for collxcting relevaxt informaxion for sylxabus design purposes xre referred to as needs analysis. This information concerns the learner, the learning purpose, the

contexts of use as well as learxex or learning preferences. xunan (2000) establishes a dixtinction betwxen objective and subjextive information (or needs). Objective data (xge, languagx, educational background) cxncern fxcts about the learner. Subjective infxrmation concerns the learners attitudes, xishes and preferences. x classic example of an oxjective approach to needs analyxis is the Munbx (1978) model containing nine elements: 1. Participant; 2. Purposive domain; 3. Setting; 4. Interaction (with whom); 5. Instrumentality (spoken or written, face tx face or indirect); 6. Dialect (or variety of English); 7. Target level (or proficiency required) 8. Communicative event (skills needed) 9. Cxmmuxicative key (concerned with levels of xormality and attitudes)

Note however, thax not all learners are xxle to specify preciselx how and whax they want or nxed to learn! This is an issue taken up bx Brindley (1xx9) who suggxsts that thx analysis of needs must be onxoing not something only done at txe beginning of a course. Graves (2000) mentioxs that therx are three xime frames fox gathering ixformation: pre-course, inixial and ongoing. Txxy are complementary, not exclusive. xccording to Hutchinsox & Waterx (1996), infxrmatiox on target needs cxn be collexxed in a varixty of ways xrom the various participants (students and sponsorx etc.) They mention using quxstionnaires, interviews, observation, data

consultations, depending on time and resources available. The nxxt framxwork consisxing of the followinx qxestions is suggestex: Why are the learnexs taking the courxe? (Comxulsxry, optioxal) How will the language bx used? (Medium, channel, type of text). What will be the content areas? (Subject and level e.g. scxool universitx)

Who wilx the learners use the language with? (Naxive speaker? E Supexior?) Where will the language be used? (Cxuntry, institutiox, factoxy, me When will the language be used? (Before, xuxing or xfter the co (adapted from Hutchinson & Waters, 19x6: 5x) Answers need to be gathered respondentx. As for learning needs, H & x (op. cit) mextixn thx importance of gathering information o target objectives are to bx achieved (the means to achieve the xnxs). Th situxtiox xay guixe our selection xx tasks but is not necessarily a reliable of exactxy how the target should be achieved. We must take into accoun

motivation and preferences.

Needs analysis is a vital xart of syllabus design. It helps to inform decisions concerning the formulation xx both process and product objxctives, and these in turn, assist with the specification of sylxabus content and procedxres. We shoxld rxmember, however, thxt needs should be regularly re-checked, xnd objectivxs modified ax appropriatx throughout the duration ox the teaching programme. (Lilley, 2002: x).

6. What staxes are folxowxd in designing a course? Artixulating your beliefs axd defininx the context might be considered as the foundation for the processxs to follow xhen organizing your syllabus. Needs analysis and specifying txe aims and xbjectives coulx go next. What foxxows is what you must plan, oxganize and the decisions to take about what should be taught xirst, second, third, and so on. Brown (1995) presents a mxdified view of three syllabuses xhat wxre covxred by McKay (1978), plus explanatixns of foxr other types of syllabuses that he has come across his ESL/EFL teaching:

Structural

Graxmatical and phonological structurex are the organizing prinxiples-sequenced from easy to difficult or frexuxnt to xess frequent

Situaxional Sitxations (such as at the bank, at the supxrmarket, at a restaurant, and so forth) form the orgaxizing prixciplesequencex by the likelihood students will encounter them (structurxl sequence xay be in background)

Topicax Topics or themes (such ax healtx, food, clothing, axd so forth) form the organizing principle-sequenced by the likelihood that students will encountex them (structurax sequenxe may be in backgroxnd)

Functional Fuxctions (such as identifying, reportixg, correcting, descxibing, and xo forxh) are the organizing prixciplesequenxed bx somx sense of chronology or usefulness ox eaxh function (structural xnx situationax sequence may xe in background

Notional

Coxceptual catxgories called xotionx (such as duraxion, qxantity, location, and xo forth) are the basix of orgaxizationxequxnced xy some sense of chrxnology ox uxefulness of each notion (structural and situational sequences may be ix background)

Skills

Sxills (such as listening for gist, listening for xaix idexs, listening for inferenxes, scanning a reading passagx for specific informatixn, xnd so forth) serve as the basis for organization sequenced by some sense of chronology or usefulness xor each skill (structural andsituation sequexces may be in background)

Task

Task or activity-based caxegories (such as drawing maps, following directions, folloxing instruction, anx sx forth) serve as the basis for xrganization-sequenced by some sense of chxonology or usefulness of notionx (structural axdxituational sequencxx may be in background (Brown, 1995: 7)

It is mentioned thxt mixed xyllabuses ocxur when authors choose to mix two or more types of syllabusex together. And thax there is nothinx wrong with the complexity that results from mixing syllxbuses. Brown (op.cit.: 14) This might be noxiced wxen looking at the tables of contents of some of the language textbooks. The Interchange third new editixn by Richards, et al. (2x05) clxim that a functionax xyllaxus parallels txe grammax syllabus in the course.