THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

English Language & Applied Linguistics

VACATION ESSAY

Term 1Student Number: 1243929

MA – TEFL

Year 2014/2015

Title of Module: Syllabus Material and Design

Question: Select one type of syllabus from the list below, and comment on its strengths

and weaknesses.

A lexical syllabus

A notional/functional syllabus

A grammatical syllabus

A task-based syllabus

A situational syllabus

Show how the syllabus has been influenced by theories concerning language and

learning/acquisition. Describe the teaching situation (or situations) best suited to this

type of syllabus.

Number of words:

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

I declare:

a. that this submission is my own work;

b. that this is written in my own words; and

c. that all quotations from published or unpublished work are acknowledged

with quotation marks and references to the work in question.

Date:

1. Introduction

The popularity of grammatical syllabus has seen its rise and decline. Although it used to be

widely applied in the second language classrooms, the grammatical syllabus, along with the

development of research and theories of second language learning, has also been criticised by

some linguists such as Krashen (1982), Ellis (2002), Prabhu (1987) and Wilkins (1976) who

considered the grammatical syllabus as less effective to build the communicative competence

of learners. Despite the criticisms, the grammatical syllabus is still preferable in some

institutions, especially where the main focus of foreign language learning is the

comprehension of literary texts and less on the ability to communicate the foreign language

communicatively (Richards and Rogers, 1986: 4). Thus, it can be said that the grammatical

syllabus is still regarded as effective for certain teaching situations. The contrasting opinions

toward the grammatical syllabus make it an interesting point to be discussed in an academic

essay. Therefore, this essay aims at discussing the grammatical syllabus as well as its

strengths and weaknesses. The second unit of this essay will explore the definition of

grammatical syllabus as well as its features. The third unit will discuss the strengths of

grammatical syllabus whereas the weaknesses will be described in the fourth unit. The best

teaching situation for grammatical syllabus will also be explored in the fifth unit to provide

the illustration toward the grammatical syllabus.

2. Grammatical Syllabus

Grammatical syllabus (also known as the structural syllabus, the grammar-based syllabus, or

the traditional grammar syllabus) is a syllabus which focused on learning the structures of

language. To design the grammatical syllabus, the syllabus designer use the synthetic strategy

in which different parts of language are taught successively in order to develop a gradual

process of language acquisition until the whole structure of the language has been built up

(Wilkins, 1976: 2). To perform the latter task, the designing process of the grammatical

syllabus involves the analysis of linguistic components (lexical and grammatical items) of

types of performance which will be taught to the learners as well as the isolation of language

items into separated units (Yalden, 1983: 23). To bridge the discrepancies between the lexical

items that are usually found in the textbooks and ones that are really used in daily

communication, Wilkins (1976: 4-5) points out frequency, range, availability, familiarity, and

coverage as the criteria of lexical items that put into the grammatical syllabus. On the other

hand, all of the structures of language should be put into the grammatical syllabus. However,

the content is usually arranged from the structures of language which considered as ‘the

simplest’ to ‘the most complicated’ forms to be taught to the learners. To determine the

complexity of the forms in the content selection of grammatical syllabus, the syllabus

designer may apply traditional criteria for the selection and grading of grammatical structures

(by following the principled selection of marked linguistic features or identifying gaps in the

learners’ implicit knowledge through error analysis) (Ellis, 1993: 108). Then, the learners

have to re-synthesize the language which has been broken down into a list of grammatical

structures and lexical items along the stages of learning in order to master the target language

(Wilkins, 1976: 2). The grammatical syllabus assumes that learners can synthesize the

language by analysing the available rules and patterns of language as they check the accuracy

of language production or produce the utterances or discourse. In the end, the learners can

transform the analysed information or the possibly conscious knowledge into the unconscious

behaviour that makes up language use (Krahnke, 1987: 16). Hence, as stated by Steiner in

Yalden (1983: 23), the mastery of the substance and form of language becomes one of the

objectives of grammatical syllabus. Due to its synthetic nature, the grammatical syllabus has

been associated with the cognitive theory (Krahnke, 1987: 17). Second language acquisition,

according to the cognitive theory, is based on the knowledge systems that can be activated

automatically for communication. However, the aspect of target language has to be noticed

first by the learners before they can comprehend it (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 41). As

conceded by Batstone (1994: 54), “Noticing precedes structuring”. The importance of noticing is also mentioned by Lynch (2001) and Rosa and Leow (2004). Noticing helps language becoming more salient to learners and giving them more chance to acquire the target language. One of the ways to make learners notice the structure of target language is by providing them with instruction (Harmer, 2007: 54). Schmidt (1990: 143) comments that instruction may provide learners with a priming effect that increases the chance to notice certain language aspects. Instruction provides learners with explicit knowledge or knowledge which can be described. According to Ellis (2007: 30), the latter knowledge may help learners notice

features in the input and the gap between the input and the existing interlanguage of learners. However, in spite of its importance, noticing is not the only factor in learning language. Learners also have to incorporate input into their interlanguage system by structuring and restructuring processes. The former process takes place after learners notice the

language feature and develop their initial hypothesis whereas the latter process happens as learners incorporate more input in target language and restructure their prior knowledge of target language (Batstone, 1994: 59). Thus, learners may be able to use their explicit knowledge quickly and automatically to the point they are not aware of using it (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 41). The latter point may be the reason of why the cognitive theory emphasizes on the idea that language can be learned through conscious

knowledge of the language structure and its formation rules. As a syllabus which based on the

cognitive theory, it can be concluded that the focus of grammatical syllabus is to develop the

knowledge that can be described by learners or explicit knowledge so that the learners can

transform it into implicit knowledge or unconscious knowledge that comes automatically

when learners communicate in target language. However, Ellis (1993: 100) comments that

the grammatical syllabus not only targets the development of explicit knowledge but also

implicit knowledge. The latter point is shown on how structural syllabus which used in the

Audio-lingual classroom focuses on developing implicit knowledge whereas the grammatical

syllabus used in the Grammar-Translation classroom focuses on explicit knowledge. Thus,

both lexical and grammatical items which presented in the grammatical syllabus may be

chosen and ordered to promote the explicit knowledge. The aforementioned features of

grammatical syllabus make it popular among teachers and language learners. The point is

mentioned by Krahnke (1987) and Yalden (1983). However, in spite of the well-intentioned

objective and the popularity, the grammatical syllabus is not considered as flawless. There

are certain weaknesses of grammatical syllabus which may make educators reconsider its

application. To provide further explanation, the next units will explore the strengths and

weaknesses of grammatical syllabus.

3. The Strengths of Grammatical Syllabus

As a syllabus that used to be widely applied to teach second languages, there should be

certain merits of grammatical syllabus which made it popular in the first place. Thus, the aim

of this unit is to discuss the strengths of grammatical syllabus. The latter points will be

elaborated into several points to give a better illustration.

3.1 Teacher-centred

One of the obvious strengths of grammatical syllabus is its teacher-centred aspect. Taking an

example from a grammatical syllabus used in the grammar translation method, Brown

mentions that the popularity of aforementioned method can be accounted to its less demand

on the specialized skills of teachers (1993: 17). It can be said that the grammatical syllabus

may demand less on the fluency of teachers as the main duties of teachers are to deliver the

ready-made rules of language to learners and ascertain the comprehension of learners. In

addition, the approach taken in grammatical syllabus may only require little, if any, materials

and preparation. Teachers only have to anticipate cases if the learners make the over-

generalisation in the rules of language (Thornburry, 1999: 40). The efficiency in preparing

the grammatical syllabus may be due to its familiarity and content that relatively easy to

describe. Although the rules of language may sound complicated, the basic outlines are

familiar and consist of finite body of knowledge. Besides that, the meta-language (grammar

terminology) used in the grammatical syllabus is quite familiar either for educators or

learners so that it will be easy to describe. Compared to the functional syllabus with its

functional concepts such as an invitation or a directive, the grammatical concepts are easier to

be defined (Krahnke, 1987: 22). Due to the prior points, teachers may focus on developing

the learners’ comprehension toward the rules of language instead of planning materials. Thus,

the grammatical syllabus can also be accounted as a time-savvy one for teachers.

3.2 Easy to be assessed

Besides the teacher-centred aspect, the grammatical syllabus is also easy to be assessed. Due

to the relative finiteness and the clear definition of structural knowledge, a test, which

measures how far the learners have learned, will be relatively easy to formulate. It is also

because language construction usually takes place in contexts where learners’ knowledge is

measured so that the selection of a structural basis for instruction and evaluation becomes

fairly natural. Hence, it is not difficult to make right or wrong decisions about the structural

aspects of learners’ language than any other aspect (Krahnke, 1987: 22). Thus, teachers will

not find it difficult to mark the results of learners. In addition to be practical (easy to set and

mark), Thornburry (1999: 141) comments that the test in grammatical syllabus is reliable or

the result will be consistent regardless the markers. It also has a positive spin-off or can be

used to review specific areas of difficulty that perceived by learners. Relating to my

experience as an English teacher, it was easier to measure the progress of learners when the

class only had to deal with grammatical tests as the tests have been provided with finite

answers than to measure the learners’ progress on oral test which requires more

communicative competence of learners. In addition to the previous points, the testing in

grammatical syllabus has the quality of face validity or, as described by Thornburry (1999:

141), recognizable for learners as it meets the expectations of learners toward what the test

should be like. A test which lacks of face validity may cause the underperformance of

learners or make learners doubt the result.

3.3 Systematic

4. The Weaknesses of Grammatical Syllabus

In spite of the strengths of grammatical syllabus which are explored in the previous unit, the

grammatical syllabus has certain weaknesses. Thus, this unit aims at discussing the

weaknesses of grammatical syllabus which will be explored into several points.

4.1 Less learner-centred

4.2 Sequencing problem

4.3 Less communicative

5. The Best Teaching Situations for Grammatical Syllabus

6. Conclusion

References:

Ellis, N. C. (2007). The Weak-Interface, Consciousness, and Form-focussed instruction: Mind the

Doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in

Honour of Rod Ellis, pp. 17-33, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. 2004. Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2 development.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 25/2, 269-292.