Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1989) 10, 135-144. Printed in the USA.

Copyright 1990 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/90 $5.00 + .00

CHANGING DIRECTIONS IN LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DESIGN

Elite Olshtain

Introduction

Language syllabus or curriculum design is a constantly changing and continu-

ously expanding sub-field of applied linguistics, as pointed out by Yalden (1987). In its
historical development it has drawn, on the one hand, upon general syllabus design, and
on the other hand upon relevant fields in applied linguistics such as: language teaching
methodology, second language acquisition research, and language planning and policy
making. The interaction with these fields of specialization has enriched the process of
curriculum design and made it sensitive and responsive to needs on the one hand and to
research and evaluation on the other.

The process of design relates to a hierarchy of decision-making steps which lead

to the publication of a document specifying the objectives, the content, and the proce-
dures of a course of study. The term syllabus or curriculum might be attached to a
document of a broad scope, at the national or regional level, or to a much narrower and
more local program such as a school or a course. In essence such different documents
share basic properties, but they may differ greatly in the degree of specification and
detail.

According to Dubin and Olshtain (1986:46), the process of syllabus design "is
highly affected by views of language learning and educational concepts in general."
Focus on process needs to be realized in three areas within the syllabus: 1) the organiza-
tion of language content; 2) the roles teachers and learners take on during the learning
process, and 3) the types of learning tasks in which learners are involved. Following this
view, a language syllabus will provide practitioners with the content of the course in an
organized and sequenced fashion as well as with the specification of tasks in which
learners and teachers should be involved.

Syllabus Types

Syllabus experts have defined syllabus types in different ways. The present
article suggests a categorization into five types which permit discussion of historical

135

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 136 E. OLSHTAIN

perspectives of language syllabus design as well as of future trends which are to be

expected. These syllabus types are not new, but their scope will be slightly redefined.
Furthermore, many of the elements which need to be specified in a syllabus can be shared
by various types, although each type will be different from the others with respect to what
is considered the core of the syllabus.

The five syllabus types are: content-based, product-based, process-based, learner-

based, and context-based. Any of these syllabus types could be made compatible with a
current approach to language learning and teaching, although the elements specified
within the syllabus would differ according to that approach. The specification of ele-
ments within any one of these syllabus types would reflect the designers' views of the
nature of language, of the nature of language learning, of the nature of the intended
learner audience, and of the needs of the society within which the syllabus is to be imple-
mented.

A content-based syllabus is focused on the content of the course, viewing matters

of product, process, and context as secondary. In other words, such a syllabus will
provide much greater specification of content than specification of procedures and re-
sults. Historically, such a syllabus was possible in the grammar-translation era where it
would have specified the literary texts and the grammar rules to be taught in a course. In
the structural era it would have specified the language structures to be taught within a
carefully organized and sequenced framework. In the functional/notional era this type of
syllabus could have specified the notions, or the functions, or both, to be taught in a
particular course of study, and in the communicative era it could specify the communica-
tive interactions which students should experience during the course. Although the
elements to be specified might have been so very different, what is shared across the
content-based syllabuses of any era is the fact that the specification focuses on elements
of course-content, giving them first priority.

A product-based syllabus defines the expected end-product, or the outcome of the

course, in greater detail than any of the other elements. This type of syllabus was most
compatible with a behavioristic approach to learning since it placed importance on
defining the expected linguistic behavior which the learner would reach at the end of the
course. It can, however, be made compatible with other approaches whenever there is a
need to define outcomes. Such outcomes can also be defined in terms of the amount and
type of knowledge which is expected or in terms of the type of competence which the
learner will gain as a result of the course.

A process-based syllabus defines the process by which learners are expected to

learn, rather than the outcome of that learning. Such a syllabus reflects the notion that the
manner in which learning is achieved can lead to an ability or competence which learners
can utilize beyond the course itself. The beginning of the 1980s witnessed a gradual shift
from emphasis on product to emphasis on process in educational syllabus design but
particularly in language syllabus design. This shift started with statements such as
"Language learning may be seen as a process which grows out of the interaction between

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 CURRICULUM DESIGN 137

learners, teachers, texts and activities" (Breen and Candlin 1980:95) which inspired
practitioners and syllabus developers to pay focused attention to the process via which
language was acquired rather than to the definition of the product of acquisition. To-
wards the end of the 1980s the process-based rather than the language-based syllabus
(Breen 1987) became a working reality in many learning contexts. Such a process-based
syllabus was realized by placing central focus on tasks and activities which learners were
expected to carry out as part of their learning process. It is, therefore, often referred to as
a task-based syllabus. This syllabus type is probably most compatible with the commu-
nicative approach.

A learner-based syllabus is a syllabus which places the learner at the center of

planning. As a result, relatively little planning can be done prior to the onset of the
course of study. The syllabus will develop gradually from loosely-planned guidelines
based on learners' needs, and it will change throughout the course to further accommo-
date the changing needs of the learners and the teachers. As Nunan explains, "A crucial
distinction between traditional and learner-centered curriculum development is that, in
the latter, no decision is binding. This is particularly true of content selection and grada-
tion" (1988:5). Not only are learners viewed as the core concern of this type of syllabus,
but they are full participants in its development. Learning is viewed as the gradual
attainment of achievable goals, and learners have a realistic idea of what can be achieved.
They take responsibility, sharpen their learning abilities, and learn to self-evaluate them-
selves.

A context-based syllabus does not yet exist, but is gradually becoming necessary
in order to cater for a fast developing technological society. In this type of syllabus,
emphasis and centrality might be given to concerns relating to the context within which
learning is going to take place. In a high-tech society, the use of computers, videos,
video-disks, and other high-tech equipment will have to become central. The definition
of learner needs will derive from the requirements and resources the environment pres-
ents. High-tech is, however, not the only type of concern that could be part of a context-
based syllabus. Context needs can relate to social concerns, political concerns, or reli-
gious concerns. In contexts where the language serves as a vehicle for religious or social
involvement, it is obvious that the values needed for such involvement will be central to
the curriculum, and knowing the language will serve the attainment of those other goals.
Even if the syllabus looks, explicitly, like a product- or process-based syllabus, its real
hidden or implicit focus is on needs dictated by the context

The Decision-Making Process

Any educational curriculum, whether it is a language curriculum or a curriculum

in any other subject matter, expresses the cultural, social, and political perspectives of the
society for which it is intended. It combines past and present ideologies, experiences,
philosophies, and innovations with dreams, aspirations, and expectations for the future.
Obviously, all these values are filtered through the perception of the decision-making
agencies involved in curriculum development.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 138 E. OLSHTAIN

The decision-making process in syllabus design can follow a "top-down" or a

"bottom-up" approach. In the top-down approach, policy decisions are made by a higher
level authority; e.g., a ministry or a board of education which needs to present a docu-
ment providing guidelines for a variety of school types, school populations, and learning
contexts, within the national or regional setting. The document needed for such a situ-
ation can be referred to as a proto-syllabus which maps out the overall goals and guide-
lines for teaching language at a particular time. In a highly centralized system, the proto-
syllabus may be quite specific, focusing not only on general goals, but also on pedagogi-
cal guidelines and means of implementation. In less centralized systems, considerable
autonomy of implementation is left to local school networks or individual courses, which
develop their own practical procedures in line with the specified objectives.

The "bottom-up" approach to syllabus design derives from the classroom. The
decision-making process results from teacher/learner interactions and is described by
Nunan: "a negotiated curriculum model is developed in which much consultation, deci-
sion making and planning is informal and takes place during the course of programme
delivery" (1988:3). This decision-making process is closely linked to the learner-cen-
tered curriculum described above.

By definition, the top-down syllabus allows little involvement and contribution

from the teacher and the students implementing it. Even if the committee which worked
on the proto-syllabus consisted of syllabus experts as well as practicing teachers, the
resulting document cannot be suited to every teaching situation. If the syllabus is com-
prehensive and contains details on all components such as goals, content, process, and
product, then the individual teacher is left with little autonomy to make his/her own
decisions.

On the other hand, the bottom-up syllabus is what Nunan (1989) calls the
collaborative approach to syllabus design. In this approach teachers are partners in
curriculum development and often initiators of the decision-making process. Instead of
the "high committee" of experts who decide on syllabus specification in a top-down
approach, the bottom-up approach involves learners, teachers, school administrators, and
sometimes lay persons such as parents or community leaders. According to Nunan
(1989), senior teachers are involved in writing curriculum frameworks. As a result,
courses cater for the needs of the particular learner audience, since an important part of
these curriculum frameworks is a description of the learner type for whom it is intended.
It becomes obvious that, in this type of syllabus design, teachers need to receive training
and experience in curriculum considerations, and learners need to develop awareness of
learning strategies, personal preferences, and self-evaluation techniques.

In terms of the categorization of syllabus types presented above, any type of

syllabus can be planned in a "top-down" or "bottom-up" decision-making process. In
either case, the syllabus type will reflect the concurrent views on the nature of language
and the nature of language learning. However, the preference for any particular syllabus
type would also depend on the implicit societal values and concerns.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 CURRICULUM DESIGN 139

Curriculum Implementation

The document describing the curriculum or the syllabus would remain useless if it
were not implemented in an educational system. It is the implementation of the specified
goals, contents, and means of a course of study that test its validity and suitability for the
intended audience and put the theory to practice. The process of syllabus implementation
requires a number of vital components to function together: material development,
teacher training, and program evaluation. Depending on the particular syllabus, addi-
tional components might be needed.

Material development, which is viewed here as an integral part of syllabus im-

plementation, is the creation and publication of textbooks, teaching/learning activities,
courseware, multi-media matter, etc. The process of material development can be carried
out by one teacher for his/her classroom or by a professional team of material designers
who intend their product to serve a rather wide and diversified student population. It is
the compatibility between these multi-dimensional materials and the specified goals and
content of the syllabus that turn the activity into syllabus implementation.

A professional team of material designers will need to set up a decision-making

process starting with the widest scope of syllabus policy implementation paired with a
consideration of the needs of the intended audience and the context within which im-
plementation will take place. A useful frame of reference at this stage can be found in
Spolsky's (1989:15) model of second language acquisition. According to this model, the
material-design team would have to set its goal to develop materials which would enable
students to move from their present language knowledge and skills [Kp], to a future
desired and syllabus-specified knowledge [Kfj, after taking into consideration the stu-
dents' overall abilities [A], their motivation and attitudes towards learning the target
language [M], and the opportunities available to them for target language exposure [O].
Thus, Spolsky's formulaKf=Kp + A + M + Owould provide useful guidelines for
the first steps in the decision-making process of material development.

One of the major questions arising at the stage of material-development initiation

relates to the types of people who should make up the team of material designers. To
some extent, the answer to this question will depend on the type of syllabus which is to
be implemented. Any type of language-material development would require the involve-
ment of language experts; however, the question whether these experts should be gram-
marians, sociolinguists, or language pedagogues will often be dictated by the principles
specified in the curriculum. Teachers and teacher trainers make up another group which
needs to be represented on the team of material developers. They would bring the class-
room dimension into focus and ensure that the materials are actually usable in the class-
room context.

Depending on the type of syllabus which is to be implemented, it may be neces-

sary to involve students, lay community people, parents, and others in the decision-
making process. Ideally, these would not be part of the development team, since they

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 140 E. OLSHTAIN

would not have the expertise in material design, but they would be part of an ongoing
experimentation process which would provide the developers with formative evaluation.
The input from this experimentation can and should affect the materials produced before
they are published and put into widespread use, but in an effective system the input might
also create a need to redefine elements of the syllabus.

A number of practical decisions have to be taken by the material-design team

relating to the following:

a. the organization of units, lessons, or modules within the materials;

b. the organization of content within the units;
c. the definition of the teacher's role;
d. the definition of the learner's role;
e. the specification of available resources for graphics, teaching aids, and other
accessories.

It is apparent that all these practical decisions revolve around the specification of
goals and content in the syllabus itself. A content-based or product-based syllabus will
dictate a different organization from a process-based or learner-based syllabus. Further-
more, a context-based syllabus would need to place special importance on the specifica-
tion of resources in the society in terms of computers, media, and overall technological
development, and would probably involve the participation of information and communi-
cation experts.

It is the intention of this article to present the need to view syllabus design as
encompassing material development and implementation as an integral part of its es-
sence. Depending on the type of syllabus which is to be implemented, designers can
make use of suggestions offered by such writers as Low (1989) and Dubin and Olshtain
(1986) with respects to potential structuring and organization of units and of Breen
(1989) and Nunan (1989) with respect to task evaluation and learner roles.

Teacher training programs, both of the pre-service and of the in-service type,
must accompany syllabus design and particularly the implementation phase of material
design. It is ultimately the teachers and their students who will implement the syllabus in
the real classroom situation and will thus attempt to reach the specified goals. Teachers
have to be made aware of the rationale behind the goals, of the needs as perceived by the
planners and policy makers, and of the resources made available for implementation. If
the new program requires changes in classroom procedures, redefined roles for learners
and teachers, and a redefined focus for the materials themselves, teachers must be al-
lowed to learn and experience the new approaches and prepare themselves for the im-
plementation phase.

The teacher training has to be closely linked to the development of the materials
and can take the form of written guidebooks, computerized training programs, video
recordings, or any other form of accessible information. However, all these new techno-

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 CURRICULUM DESIGN 141

logical possibilities cannot and should not replace the intensive workshop which will
allow teachers to discuss, share, and evaluate the new ideas. A very useful model for
teacher-training workshops is presented by Breen, et al. (1989). Such workshops should
be carried out prior to the fmalization stage of the materials so that the teachers' input and
reactions (on a large scale) can be taken into consideration.

Once a new syllabus has been accepted into the educational system, its theoretical
and practical considerations should become part of pre-service teacher-training programs
so that new and previously inexperienced teachers can take full advantage of the implica-
tions and guidelines of the latest programs. Furthermore, it will most probably be these
new teachers who will carry out the new programs and who will be involved in wider
scale evaluation programs, which ideally will lead to future changes in a never-ending
cycle of syllabus renewal.

An evaluation program which accompanies the experimentation stage of syllabus

design and further interacts with a full scale implementation phase in the school system
must be viewed as an integral part of the overall process. Brown (1989) presents a very
useful framework for the various dimensions and possibilities of evaluation of language
programs. It is this phase of the implementation of a new syllabus that will require
additional experts coming from the field of educational evaluation. These experts, not
having been involved in the initial decision-making process, will add the professional,
objective dimension to the process of evaluation and will thus be able to provide useful
feedback for immediate as well as future planning.

An important feature of the evaluation phase is the need to test for program
effectiveness with various student populations. A new syllabus needs to cater for student
populations which vary in terms of learning abilities, motivation, and expectations.
Evaluation instruments such as tests, questionnaires, self-reports and self-evaluations,
observations, and personal interviews can enable the evaluator to go beyond an assess-
ment of how closely the specified goals have been attained and examine the efficacy of
the program in terms of its suitability to the needs of the particular students in the given
context.

Conclusion

Modem language syllabus design, like general syllabus design, has been develop-
ing in the direction of a contingency model. Such a model needs to allow for changes
and adaptations which derive from the particular components that interact in any given
situation. The model itself specifies the elements which need to be considered but allows
for varying degrees of importance to be assigned to each component according to the
specific context, the student population, the teacher population, or the societal needs
which happen to represent a certain situation.

A contingency model for language syllabus design has to allow for changes and
fluctuations in theories of language and of language learning. According to this type of

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 142 E. OLSHTAIN

model, a syllabus design which favors a content-based type can become compatible with
a functional, sociolinguistic view of language or with a structural, grammatical view. In
the communicative era, when the goals of most courses of study aim at communicative
language ability, the content of the syllabus which forms the core elements can be either a
hierarchy of functions and speech acts or even a hierarchy of grammatical structures. In
the last few years there seems to be a renewed interest in the accuracy perspective of
language acquisition. In this vein, Rutherford (1987) suggests that the syllabus combine
grammar with the learner's consciousness-raising, encouraging the learner to develop
instruments for grammatical exploitation. In this way the learner takes personal responsi-
bility for the acquisition of language and for developing his/her awareness of how the
grammatical rules work. Thus, the knowledge of grammar can help the learner become a
more effective and accurate communicator.

Comparable to renewed thoughts on the content of the syllabus, there are new
trends in the process of syllabus development. The most important bases for these trends
are the multi-dimensional perspectives which lead to a syllabus which consists of varied
language areas in combination with a variety of content and subject matter taken from the
broader school curriculum. Furthermore, modern syllabuses involve teachers and stu-
dents as active contributors. Thus, at the material development level, students and teach-
ers are involved in selecting both content and activity types. Furthermore, modern
language-teaching materials deliberately build open-ended activities which enable the
learners to incorporate their own data, which is then further used in the learning process.
Taking this approach one step further, it is necessary to prepare for learners who will act
as researchers and information processors on their own. The materials will need to
enable them to use the language for their own projects and research questions by utilizing
various technological developments available to them. The target language will serve
these students as a vehicle to gain knowledge and while doing so will improve their
proficiency in language. With these varied requirements for future syllabuses, it seems
that only a contingency model for syllabus design can provide a suitable answer to the
perceived needs and a way to accommodate new developments.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Breen, M. P. 1987. Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. 2 Parts. Language

teaching. 20.2.81-92, 20.3.157-174.

Breen was one of the earliest and strongest advocates of the process-based
syllabus, and this article provides an excellent reference to the shift from
product- to process-syllabuses. Breen describes four different syllabus
types: formal, functional, task-based, and process.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 CURRICULUM DESIGN 143

Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain. 1986. Course design. New York: Cambridge University Press.

This volume presents an overview of the course designer's task, beginning

with the most fundamental aspectsocietal needs assessmentthen
working through curriculum and syllabus construction, and finally coming
to the stage of materials development The authors stress the importance
of the learning context and of the learners' characteristics.

Johnson, R. K. (ed.) 1989. The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

This latest collection of articles on language curriculum design is a wel-

comed addition to the field. Its main chapters deal with: curriculum
overview and planning, ends/means specification, program implementa-
tion, classroom implementation, and evaluation. The articles, although
written by a group of experts in a variety of fields, present a useful frame-
work for an organized and well planned discussion of language syllabus
design.

Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

This volume is a useful textbook in curriculum design which takes a new

and different view: the teacher's perspective. It carefully develops the
steps of policy planning and decision making which go into the design of a
learner-centered curriculum showing how teachers and learners can be
collaborating partners in a negotiating process.

Nunan, D. 1989. Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: A case

study. TESOL quarterly. 23.1.9-25.

This article presents the theory supporting a learner-based, collaborative

approach to syllabus design. The author manages to explain both theoreti-
cal and practical considerations via the description of the planning of the
Australian Adult Migrant Education Program.

Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

This book presents a general theory of second language learning and its
relevance to language teaching. The theory, which is presented in the
form of a preference model, allows for individual learner variation within
different language learning contexts. Its relevance to syllabus design lies
in the fact that the model calls for a precise description of the goals and
outcomes of learning.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252
 144 E. OLSHTAIN

Yaiden, J. 1987. Principles of course design for language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

This volume is an excellent example of the integrative approach to sylla-

bus design. The author takes the reader through theoretical considerations
to practical implications. Three detailed case studies of curriculum design
in the Canadian context are presented.

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Breen, M. P. 1989. The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson
(ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 187-206.
and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied linguistics. 1.2.89-112.
, et al. 1989. The evolution f a teacher training programme. In R. K. Johnson
(ed.) The second language curriculum.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 111-135.
Brown, J. D. 1989. Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In
R. K. Johnson (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 222-241.
Low, G. 1989. Appropriate design: The internal organization of course units. In R. K.
Johnson (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 136-154
Nunan, D. 1989. Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation.
In R. K. Johnson (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 176-186.
Rutherford, W. E. 1987. Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London:
Longman.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Huddersfield, on 11 Jun 2017 at 17:38:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001252