Approach to Syllabus Design Meral OZTORK™ OZET ! mitfredatlar, dil ogreniminde sozciiklerin tekrar giindeme meveut miifredat tirlerine bir alternatif olarak ortaya cikmistr. ‘mifredat tirlerinin hemen hepsinde (yaptsal, durumsal, fonksivonel 1 hedeflere yer verilmekie birlite, ilk defa sédzciiksel mifre- {oecikler bu kadar énem kazanmustir, Bu makalede sdzciikse! mif. g0re hazirlanms bir Ingilizce ders kitabi incelenmektedir. Collins English Course Wilis & Willis, 1988) isimli bu ders kitaby, milf. Jer alan hedef sozciiklerin segiminde ve bunlarim sevivelere gore mda kullanilan kriterler ve hedef sdzciiklerin dgretilmesinde fan ‘tastyicilar’ acisindan tartisilmaktadir. Ingilizce sdzciiklerin seciminde vazarlar kullanim sikhisy Jritorini fa ve bunu belirlemede Birmingham metin bankast kullaniiarak sozciik saytm: sonuclarint esas aldiklarim: ifade etmektedirler. Ki- toplam 2500 adet sézcik kullanuma yonelik olarak ogretilmekte, buna olarak da her tinitede gok sayida anlamaya yonelik sdzctik Ogretimi lenmektedir. Kitapta ayrica hedef sézciikler listesinde yer almayan pek soaciigin bulnmast mifredatin yogunlugunu artarmakta ve gercekgi boyutlara ¢rkarmaktadir. Bundan baska, kullanum sikh kriterine iki sikiya bag kalmmadigina dair kuskular ortaya gikmaktadir. Sozciklerin swralanmasinda da sistematik bir yontem kullanilmadigi /mektedir. Hedef sdzcikler, tig kitaptan olusan setin seviyeleri arasinda tiriliirken ayrim noktalarmin neye gore belirlendigi belirtilmemistir. nite basa diiyen hedef sdzcik sayisinn da iiniteden iiniteye biiyitk degisivor olmasi, bu konuda da mevcut bilimsel arastirma verilerine h olmayan rasgele bir uygulama yapildiga izlenimi dogurmaktadir. Sozctiksel hedeflerin Ogretilmesinde tasnict olarak komular ve ‘teler kullanilmakiadir. Konular herkesi ilgilendirebilecek kadar genel ae Pr. Uda Ontverstest Ein Faitesi Inge: Dil Ett Anablim Dat Ofretin Gare 4‘olmakla birlikte zaman zaman dagilmaktadir. Konusmaya yénelik aktiviteler ise yeterince etkilesimsel olamamisti. Sonug olarak Collins COBUILD kitabmin migfredan bilinen mifre- datlardan ¢ok énemli bir farklilik gdstermemektedir. Bu durum tamamen sdaciiksel kriverlere dayali migredatlar hazirlanabileceyi konusunda ciddi ssitpheler uyandirmaktadir. INTRODUCTION Lexical approach is one of the latest proposals to language teaching and to syllabus design in ELT (Sinclair, 1991; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Lewis, 1993). Earlier approaches advocated a variety of principles for the organisation of ELT programmes: structural, situational, topical, func- sional, or cognitive principles. Although vocabulary is accommodated in all of these approaches, it is in the lexical approach that lexical criteria were given prominence as the main organising principle in course design. This Paper reviews one such implementation of a lexical syllabus. Collins ‘COBUILD English Course (COBUILD Course from now on) written by Jane and Dave aa (88 is claimed by the authors to be based on lexical Principles. After a brief introduction of the material, we go on to discuss ‘these principles while making a critical evaluation of singh ofthe authors in terms of effectiveness of learning. Collins COBUILD English Course COBUILD Course is a complete set for teaching general English comprising three levels with accompanying cassettes and a practice book. ‘The target audience and aims of the course are indicated in fairly broad terms in the Introduction. We are informed that the course is designed for classroom use with adults, and is assumed to be appropriate both for learners ‘with a variety of first language backgrounds and for those speaking the same ative language. The audience is also specified in terms of English profi- iency level as beginners’ level, early intermediate level and intermediate evel. More offen than not, these terms refer not only to the learners’ lexical Sompetence but also to his structural competence. However, the fact that the ie ‘pe of syllabus the course is based on is lexical leaves us in doubt as to the | Sb nitions ofthese terms. Are proficiency levels defined lexically, wae __ Tie sims of the course are specified very broadly as “to consolidate ad extend their vocabulary and communication skills” 25s pare learners for Cambridge First Ceriof the vocabulary introduced in each level is specified of the set. The first book which is for false beginners the second book aims to teach 850 new words to early and Level 3 which is for intermediate students teaches ‘cad of the course, learners are assumed to have learnt ‘total of 2500 words with the addition of a “sizeable recep- ~ A certain connection is implied between the proficiency ‘of words to be learnt. There is no indication, however, made in the number of the words according to the profi- ‘not been decided arbitrarily. How do we know, for exam- of 700 words represent an early intermediate level of Unit of Analysis ‘organising unit in a lexical syllabus is the “word”. However, the ‘of the “word” as the basic unit of analysis is quiet disputable. Renouf (1988:141) justify a lexical syllabus arguing that in “measurement of progress often includes an assessment of ‘of words that leamers know”. This statement dangerously ‘Progress with increase in vocabulary size and thus reduces all lan- ing down to vocabulary learning. While vocabulary size is often anguage proficiency, language proficiency is a complex skill con- ‘of other types of knowledge such as phonological, morphological, iscoursal, social, pragmatic, etc. as well as lexical, Vocabulary be a relatively reliable indicator of proficiency, but not profi- itself, we cannot take it that every individual with a big vocabulary is Proficient in the L2, nor that we can teach language by teaching alone. Interestingly, graded readers are not graded solely on the basis number of words, they are also graded according to syntactic com- Furthermore, their main purpose is to provide opportunities for to improve their comprehension of written English texts and they suitable as materials for extensive reading outside the classroom. . the fact that readers are lexically graded would not justify a lexi- s for an English for General Purposes course which is supposed to all four skills. Another theoretical assumption underlying a lexical syllabus is that 483