Syllabus Design and The Concept of Syllabus Design and Curriculum Development

Definition of Syllabus:
Main components and features:
Types of language Definition Advantages Disadvantages
syllabi
• This method is not
concerned with
Grammatical developing productive
Syllabus L2 competence in
students.
• The chosen structures
presented by a teacher do
not automatically lead to
language acquisition.
• Here students may or
may not learn a structure
because each student
learns differently.
• Grammar separates
learning from real life
contexts, true meaning is
often lost.
• Lightbown and Spada
(1999) question the
effectiveness of
grammar-based syllabi,
stating that focusing on
precision is not directly
connected to a high level
of proficiency.
• A strict grammar
syllabus was inadequate
for most purposes
(Doughty & Williams,
1998; Dörnyei, 2009;
Whong, 2011).
It can make students feel
like they are studying
hard and learning, which
may or may not increase
their motivation, but at
the end of the day it
seems like a lot of that
work is wasted.

• It is a syllabus that tells

us what to learn, but
Notional-Functional without accompanying
Syllabus defined teaching
guidelines.
• The NF curriculum
should not be assumed to
 be a process-based
curriculum.
• Widdowson (1979)
argues that, although
changing from a list of
grammar points to a list of
NF points still produces a
list, such lists are not
automatically compatible
with actual learning.
• Nunan (1988, p. 37) In a
way, the NF syllabus is so
synthetic and therefore
problematic:
• Additionally, NF teaching
outcomes are not
predictable because they
are not controlled by the
curriculum, making
comprehensive design and
evaluation of outcomes
difficult.
• In NF programs the lack
of focus on precision
makes it more difficult to
implement.
• The NF syllabus was
designed to be one step
ahead of the grammar
syllabus, but it is actually
one step down when it
comes to assessment
policies.
• The lexical program
does not (cannot) offer
Lexical Syllabus an underlying theory of
language acquisition
(Richards & Rodgers,
2001).
• Annoying questions
arise with a corpus-
derived curriculum, such
as: Which corpus should
we choose and how
should we use it? Should
a beginners course use a
corpus created from
children's or adult
books? Either answer (or
a combination of both)
could be justified, but
the choice would
significantly alter the
content of the syllabus;
 usage and frequency
vary widely by corpus.
• There is the inevitable
great dependence on
analysis of use by
students. Therefore,
without a thorough and
consistent analysis,
students can get very
little benefit from the
lessons.
• Problems / questions
identified with the
lexical program that
have not yet been
resolved:
- There is no unifying or
standard fundamental
theory of language
acquisition
- Focuses too much on
single words or
collocations; What about
the longer sentences?
• Although still very
innovative in theory the
lexical syllabus has yet
to gain popularity in the
mainstream.
• Currently, the lexical
curriculum alone appears
to be insufficient.
• TB learning outcomes
Task-Based Syllabus are not linear and
therefore may not be
immediate (Skehan,
1996, pp. 18-19). For
this reason, TB does not
directly teach grammar
nor does it expect
students to memorize
grammar points by heart.
• Samuda and Bygate
(2008) find it
controversial and
attracting vocal
criticism, as does
Dörnyei (2009). Van
Avermaet and Gysen
(2006, p. 29) identify
three problems: (1)
specificity, (2)
 complexity, and (3)
extrapolation.
• There are many
questions that make the
TB curriculum much less
transparent and more
confusing than it was
intended to be.
• Edwards and Willis
(2005, pp. 27-28) note
that teachers who are
comfortable with a
grammar-based
curriculum may actually
be hostile towards
learning TB due to lack
of control over use. of
language and linguistic
outcomes.
• A non-native English
teacher may not feel
confident enough to
facilitate learning TB
English without clear
answer sheets or rules to
rely on.
• Finding suitable
content can be difficult
Content-Based depending on the
Syllabus makeup of students'
needs.
• Not appropriate for all
age groups.
• Not suitable for young
learners and beginners.
• If students fall into the
flow of CBI in a
meaningful way, they
can easily ignore the
means (the L2) and
"triumphantly" reach
their ends with their L1,
and be completely
satisfied with the
outcome.
• There is a second
problem that is not just a
CBI problem, but a
serious problem: L2
students must have at
least some explicit L2
instruction. Implicit
learning alone is not the
best way to learn L2
(Dörnyei, 2009;
Lighbown & Spada,
1999).