approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching

ED 283 385

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB_DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

FL 016 783

Krahnke, KarlApproaches to Syllabus Design for FOreign LanguageTeaching. Language in Education: Theory and Practice,N6. 67.Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.;ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages ahd LinguiStics,Washington:, D.C.Office of Edrcational Research and Improvement (ED),Washingtnn, DC.ISEN=0=13-043837-5-0187400-86-0019105p.Prentice-Hall, Inc., Book Distribution Center, Route59 at Brook Mill Drive, West Nyack, NY 10994($9.33).Cuides_- Classroom Use Guides (For Teachers) (052)-- Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProd,.cts (071)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Communicative Competence (Languages); Course Content;*Course Descriptions; *Course Organization;*Curriculum Designs *English (Second Language);*Notional Functional Syllabi; Program Implementation;*Second Language Instruction; Skill Development;Structural Grammar: Student Centered Curriculum*Content Area Teaching

An examination of foreign language syllabus,designreviews current literature on_six syllabus types_and_discusses theprocetS_of choosing and integrating syllabi for classroom use. TheSik_tyllabus types_are_structural, notional-functional, situational,skill=based, task-based, and content-based, characterized asdiffering by increasing attention to language use and decreasingattention to language form. Possible suggestions for using each_typeare suggested, and each is evaluated. Grounds for choosing a syllabustype and various ways of combining and_implementing_them in a foreignlanguage teaching program are discussed._The_diScussion focuses onthe teaching of English_as a_second_or_foreign language because ofthe_ektensive_literature_in this area and the ease with which it canbe generalized to instruction in other languages. An annotatedbibliography and a list of references are included. (MSE)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied:by EDRS-are the best that Cat: be Made

fromitheioriginalidocumenti***********************************************************************

"PERAISSION TO REFRODUCETHISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

u

UAL DEPARTMIENT OP EDUCATIONoffice EducationSt ReiliikA and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL REWURCESINFORMATIONCENTER IERIC

42/(na 40tument Aliit_been _reproduced- asreceived from the person Of oronizahon

_ ongtnating II. _

hitriegthinpos nave been made to improvereprOdUCtiotrqual

TO_THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESPtiMiot View ovoprvons stated in thssdoettINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." ment do not rooesuptY repreSent entailOERI posthon or PAW

4 EA

AM.

Language in Education:Theory and Practice

APPROACHESto SYLLABUS DESIGNfor FOREIGN LANGUAGETEACHING

3

APPROACHESto SYLLABUS DESIGNfor FOREIGN LANGUAGETEACHING

Kari Krahn e

A publication of di& Center for Applied Linguistics

Prepared by !ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages arid Linguistics

PRENTICE-HALL, INC. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

4

litwarv of Cowes Cotaloging-io.Puhfindion Data

Krahnke, Karl.Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language

teaching.

(Language_in education : 67) 1 :

n_publication of Center for Applied Linguistics."Bibliography: p._ 11111. Language and languagesSLudy and teaching.

2. Curriculum planning. I. EB1C_CleatingbouSe onLanguages and_Linguistics-11:ritle.P53.295.1(73 1987 418..007 87-1270ISBN 0-13-043837-5

LANGUAGE IN IEDUCATMN: Theory and Practice 67

This publication was prepared wIth funding from the Officeogpliof Educational Research and Improvement; Depart-ment of Education; untler contract no. 4004641019. The

_ af_EAmworaLaxf opinionsupressed_inithis reports.lo_not necessarily reflect

us owvimia*.N.. the positions or policies of (JERI or ED.

Editorial/Production supervision: Martha M. MastersonCover design: Karen StephensiManufacturing buyer: Margaret Ritti

Published 1987-by Prentice-Hall, Inc.A Division oZ Simon & SchusterEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

All rights reserved. No part of this book any bereproduced, in any form or:by any meansiwithout permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 0-13-043837-S 01

Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, IentlenPrentice-Hall of Australia Pty_i_Limited, SydneyPrentice-Hall Canada Inc., TO-rento-Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, S.A., MexicoPrentice-Hall of India Private Limited, -New -DelhiPrentice-Hall of Japan, Inc., TokyoPrentice-Hall of Sourheast-Abia Pte.-Ltd.,-StagaporeEditors Prentice-Hall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro

5

ContAl s

Chapter L The Place of the Syllabusin Language Teaching

Chapter 2: Six_Types of LanguageTeathing Syllabus

Chapter 3: The Structural Syllabus

Chapter 4: The Notional/Functional Syllabus

Chapter 5: Situational Syllabi

Chapter 6: Sldil-Based Syllabi

Chapter 7: The Task-Based Syllabus

Chapter e: The Content-Based Syllabus

Chapter 9: Choosing and Integrating Syllabi

Annotated Bibliography

References

About the Author

1

15

29

41

49

57

65

93

97

105

Language in Education:Theory and Practice

ERIC (Educational Rezources Information Center)-isanationwide network of information centers;_each respon-sible for a _ven educational level or field of study. ERICis supported bythe Office_ofEducationalitesearch andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education. Thebasic objective of ERIC is to-make current developMentSin educational research; instruction; and personnelpreparation readily accessible to educators and membersof related professions;

ERIC/CLL. The ERIC Clearin ouse on Languages andLinguistics (ERIC/CLL), one'of the specialind clearing-houses in the ERIC system, is o erated by the Center forApplied_Linguistics (CAL). ERI /CLL is spetificallyreSponsible for the collection and dissemination_ofinformation on research in languages and linguisticsand its application to language teaching and learning.

bedsTGUAGE:IN EDUCATION: THEOR-Y-AND PRAC=TICE._ In addition to processing information, ERIC/CLLis alsa involved in-information synthesis_ and analySia.The Clearin6ouse commissions recogniwed authoritiesin-languages arid linguistics to write analy_ses of thecurrent issues in their areas of specia4.-Theretultatitdocuments; intended for use by educators and research-ers,_ are published under the-series-title, Language inEducation: Theory and Practice; The series includespractical guides for classroom teachers and extensivestate-of-the-art papers.

This publicati )n-may-bepu-rchased direttly-fromPrentice-Hall, hic., Book Distribution_Center,-Routs 59 atBrook Iiill-pr.WestNyack, NY 10995, telephone (201) _

767-5049; It alsoAvill be announced-in-theERIC-maithlyabstract journalResources in Education aUE)end_will beavailable-from-the-ERIC-Document- Reproduction- Service;Computer Microfilm International Corp., -3900 WheelerAve., Alexandria,.VA 22304. See RIE for orderinginformation and ED number.

For further- information on the ERIC SyStem, ERIC/CLL,and CAL/Clearinghouse publications,-write-to ERICClearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, "Center forApplied I..;inguistics, 1118 22nd St. NW1 Washington, DC20037.

Gina Doggett, Editor, Langzwge in Education

vi

The Placeof the Syllabus

in Language Teaching

In any case, teachers of English as a second lan-guage are on the whole more used to thinkingabout methodology than about syllabus-design.

riralden, 1983, p. 17)

Among the various aspects of second or foreign lan-guage teaching, one of the most ignored has been thecontent of the teaching, what is generally referred to ascurriculum or syllabus design. While teachers and_ ad-ministrators frequently speak of differences in method,differences in the content of instruction are examinedmuch less often. While the content of language teachinghas generally been discussed in terms of three types ofsyllabusthe structural, the situational, and, mostrecently, the notional/functionalsix different ways todefine language teaching syllabi are examined here.Each type will be defined as though it existed indepen-dently of the others, although in practice syllabus typesare frequently, combined. Possible applications are sug-gested for each type of syllabus, and each is evaluated.In addition, grounds for choosing a syllabus type arediscussed, along with various ways in which syllabi canbe combined and implemented in a second or foreign

APPROACHES TO SIIIABUS DESIGN

language 1eachigpogi.Thit discussion of language teaching syllabi will

concentrate on the teaching of English as a second orforeign language. This focus excludes a great iamountof _work in the teaching of other language& However,extensive literature is available on the teaching ofEnglish, and all the questions arising from it can easilybe generalized to the teaching of other foreign Ian,guages; In addition, this approach eliminates the needto cite examples in a variety of foreign languages.Teachers of otherlanguages should be able to supply thenecessary examples from their own fields.

The distinction between curriculum and syllabus isnot a major concern here. While a distinction is fre-quently made in the literature, itis rarely clear. What isusually assumed is that curriculum includes syllabus,but not vice versa (see Dubin & Olshtairi, 1986, p. 3; faran example of this view). A syllabus is more specificand more concrete than a curriculumi and a curricu-lum may contain a number of syllabi; For example, acurriculum may cover an entire school year, while alanguage teaching syllabus may make up only one partof the curriculum. Or the overall curriculum of afull-time intensive language teaching program mayinclude three Or more specific Ekill-area syllabi at anyone time. A curriculum may specify only the goals(what the learners will be able to do at the end of theinstruction), while the syllabus epecifies the content ofthe lessons_ used ta move the learners toward the goals.

Content, or what is taught, is the single aspect ofsyllabus design to be considered here. Content is onlyone element of some actual teaching syllabi that includebehavioral or learning objectives for students, specifica-tions of how the content will be taught, and how it willbe evaluated. These are all valid and important con-cerns, but they are, again, broader questions:than thequestions of which definition of language will be as-sumed by:the instruction and what choice of linguisticcontent will form the basis and the organization for theinstruction;

The six approaches to syllabus 1design presentedhere can be characterized as_ differing by increasingattention to language use and decreasing attention to

9

The Place of the Syllabus

language form. The use/form continuum can be viewedas a scale an which to measure various actual syllabusdecisions. The six types will be summarized in Chapter2, and considered in detail in each of the following1sixchapters. But first, it would be useful to relate syllabusdesign to the broader context 1of language teaching

Umcertainty about what the components or ingredi;ents of language teaching are has resulted in a confus-ing discussion of method versus approach versus sylla-bus, and so an. A taxonomy of the major elements orcomponents of language teaching is needed so that likeitems can be compared or contrasted. The best taxon-omy of the language teaching enterprise available is byRichards and Rodgers (1982, 1986)_

According to the analysis of language teachingproposed by Richards and Rodgers, "method" is the cov;er term for all of language teaching, from theory topractice. Method is divided into the three levels _of (a)approach, (b) design, and (c) procedure. Approach fafurther divided, into theories of language and theories oflearning. Design is divided into syllabus design andcontent; roles of materials; roles of learners; and rolesof teachers. Procedure specifies the activities that areactually used in a-classroom.

Richards and Rodgers argue that all "methods" ex-ist on all levels, although they may not be explicitly doc-umented on all levels. The implicit assumptions aboutlanguage learning -rnade_by, for example, Gattegno's(1972) method,_the Silent Way, are as real as the explicitassumptions of cognitive code learning. Since languageteaching can be analyzed into relatively discrete compo-nents, comparisons between methods are facilitated.

The element of method that is most relevant here isthat of the syllabus on the design level. It is worthwhileto quote Richards and Rodgers at length in defining thesyllabus:

All methods_ of language teaching involve the useof the target language. All methods involve deci-sions concerning the selection of content that isto be used in the teaching program. Content con-cerns involve both subject matter and linguisticmatter. In straightforward terms one makes de-

1 0

APPROACHES TO SYLLABUS DESIGN

cisions as to what to talk about (subject matte0and how to talk about it (linguistic matter). ESP[English for special purposes] and immersioncourses, for example; are necessarily subject-matter focused. Structurally;based courses artnecessarily linguistically focused. Methods typi-cally differ in what they see as the:relevant lan-guage ancl subject matter around which lan-guage instruction should be organized and theprinciples they make use of in structuring andsequencing content units within a course.

(1982; p. 157)

A language teaching syllabus, then, is the linguisticand subject matthr that make up the teaching. Choicesrange from more 1o1 less purely linguistic syllabi, wherethe content of instruction is the grammatical andlexical forms of the language, to the purely semantic orinformational, where the content of instruction is someskill or information and: only incidei&tlly _the:form ofthe language. Methods differ from each other in manywaysin classroom procedures, roles for teachers andlearners, and in theories of language and learningbut one of the more explicit ways in which they differ isin their definitions_of the content of the instruction, orthe design of the syllabus.

The aspect of language teaching method that is mostclosely related to syllabus is the theory of language thatis assumed by the method. To design a syllabi's is todecide what gets taught and in what order. For thisreason; the theory of language explicitly or implicitlyunderlying the method will play a major role indetermining what syllabus is adopted.

While there is no clear taxonomy of theories oflanguage,: the defiiiition of communicative competenceprovided by Canale (1983) is the most useful for lan-guage teachers. Although many writers mistakenlyconsider communicative competence to lie distinct fromlinguistk competence (e.g, Patilston; 1974), in Canak'staxonomy linguistic or grammatkal competence is butone component of the overall ability to know a languageand fimction M it. According to Canale, communicativecompethnce (or language proficiency) can be divided

1 1

The Place of the Syllabus 5

. . . . . .into grarnmattcal, sociolingutstic, chscourse, and stra-tegic competence.

Canale's taxonomy of language and the componentsof communicative competence provide a way to describevarious theories of language that underlie -languageteaching methods and affect syllabus design. The struc-tural or grammatical theory assumes that grammati-cal competence is primary or basic. A functional orsemantic theory assumes that sociolinguistic com-petence is _primary. A communicative or use-basedtheory of language assumes that discourse and stra-tegic competence are primary. Certainly, the broad con-struct of language can be analyzed differently from theway Canale has analyzed it, but, for the present,Canale's components of communicative competence aremast useful for characterizing the differences in theoryof language underlying various methods.

A theory of language is not, however, the only basisfor syllabus choice; theory of learning will also play animportant part For exampe, a teacher may accept astructural theory of language, but not accept that learn-ers can, acquire language material according to a strictgrammatical sequence of presentation. While the basicview of language may be structural, the syllabus, inthat case, may be more situational or even content.=based. Only with the audio-lirigual method in the 19608did language teaching operate on a clearly enunciatedtheory_of learning behaviorism. Although they werenever as clearly formulated and stated, cognitive codemethods were based on a theory of learning that calledfor conscious_recognitiori of the structures and patternsof language_form.

More recently, Krashen (1982) proposed a theory oflearning that is characterized by unconscious acquisi;tion of language ability thiough exposure to appropriatelanguage input_in meaningful settings, assigning aminor_role to conscious learning and formal practice.

Clearly, a syllabus based on the theory of learningespoused by cognitive code teaching would have to em.=phasize language forms arid whatever explicit descrip-tive Imowledge about those forms was presently _avail-able. A Syllabus based on an acquiSition theory of learn-ing, however, would emphasize unanalyzed, though

12

6 APPROACHES TO SYLLABUS DESIGN

possibly carefully selected, experiences of the new lan-guage in an appropriate variety of discourse types._

Learner type is another variable in the choice ofsyllabus, Much has been said and written about types oflearner in the last jévéraL decades (Birckbichler &Omaggio, 1978; Brown, 1980). A prevailing belief inlanguage teaching is that there are numerous anddistinct types of learners and lemming, and that differ-ent experiences should be provided so these learnerscan proceed toward the same goal of communicativecompetence in their own manner (Krahnke & Knowles,1984). Unfortunathly, little empirkal evidence supportsthe notion that there really are different types of lan-guage learners (see Corbett & Smith; 1984; for a relevantnegative study) although experience suggests thatthere are. Even less evidence exists showing that alllearning styles_ are equally effective and lead to the sameend. At present, it seems most probable that there aredifferent types of learners, and the difference betweenthem kads more to difference in overall proficiencythan it does th the same proficiency through differentroutes.

Learner type can, then, be considered a _causalfactor in syllabus choice, although no principled basisexists for doing so. Learner types can be seen inpractical and observable terms; such as type of cognitiveactivity; life style; aspirations; employment; educationaland social backgrounds, and so on. These are muchmore salient cathgories than field dependence/indepenslence, tolerance for ambiguity, or ego permea-bility. The more observable characteristics allow foreasier choices about syllabi than the more abstract andhypothetical constructs. Clearly, learners who intend tolimit their use of a new language to very specific andnarrow applications; suth as taking orders in a res-taurant, have quite different instructional needs frOnithose a the immigrant with career and social aspira;tions, And learners with no previous experience withlanguage in written modes; no formal education; andimmediate work and residence needs require quitedifferent instruction from students learning the newlanguage as a school subject.

The choice of a syllabus is a major decision in

13

The Place of the Syllabus 7

language teaching, and it ShOuld be made as con;sciously and with as much information as poscible.There has been much confusion over thR years as:towhat different types of contentare possible in languageteaching syllabi and as to whether the differences are insyllabus or method; Several distinct types of languageteaching syllabus are _presenthd in the following -chap-ters, from the most formal to the most semantid oruse-based, and the ways in Nvhich the various_types_canand should be implemented in various teaching situa;tions:are discussed;

;This is not, however, a how-to for syllabus design,describing the process a teacher or program should gothrough to produce a usable document or_definition_ ofcontent. InStead, it describetypesi_of product, the dif;ferent kinds of content that_Can be included in languageteaching, and some principles to be invoked in deCidingwhat type or types to use. The process of construCtifig;implementing, or modifying an existing_syllabus isanother matter that deserves a work of its own.

14

Six TypeS_Of LatiguageTeadhitig Syllabut

Ea eh of six different types of language teaching syllabusis treated here largely As though it occurred "purely,"or independently of the other types. In practice, ofcourte, these different types rarely Octur independentlyof each other. Almost all actual language teachingsyllabi are combinations _of tiro or more of the typesdefined here_ On the Other hand, for a given course,text, or curriculum, one type of syllabuS usually domi-nates; that is, while other typeS of content may becombined with the dominant type, the majority of thecontent reflects one or another type of syllabus, Fur-thermore, the six types of syllabus Are not entirelydiStinct from each other. The distinction:between syllabidefined as skill-based and thoSe defined as task-based,for example, may be miniinal; In such cases, the dis-tinguishing factor is often the way in which the in-structional content is used in the adtual teachingprocedure. The six_ types are treated separately so thattheir characteristics; differeriees, and strengths andweakneSses can be iclearlY defined. There is no reconi-mendation that language teaching adopt one or anotherin pure form for any 1purposëthatsoever;

The question of selecting, implementing, and,possibly, _combining syllabi is discussed in Chapter 9.For now, brief definitions of the six types of syllabi to be


examined are as follows:

1. A structural (or formal) syllabus is one in whichthe content of language teaching is a collection of theforms and structures, -usually grammatical, of thelanguage being taught. Examples of structures include:nouns, verbs, adjectives, statements, questions, com-plex sentences, subordinate clauses, past tense, and soon, although formal syllabi may include other aspects oflanguage form such as pronunciation or morphology.

2. A notional / functional syllabus is one in which thecontent of the language teaching is a collection of thefunctions that are performed when language is used,_ orof the notions that language is used to express. Ex-amples of functions include: informing, agreeing, apol-ogizing, requesting, promising, and so on. Examples ofnotions include size, age, color, comparison, time, andso on.

3. A situational syllabus is one in which the contentof language teaching is a collection of real or imaginarysituations in which language occurs or is used. A sit-uation usually involves several participants who areengaged in some activity in a specific setting. The lan-guage occurring in the situation involves a number offunctions, combined into a plausible segment of dis-course. The primary purpose of a situational languageteaching syllabus is to teach the language that occurs inthe situations. Sometimes the situations are purposelyrelevant to the present or future needs of the languagelearners, preparing them to use the new language inthe kinds of situations that make up the syllabus. Ex-ampks of situations include: seeing the dentist, com-plaining to the landlord, buying a book at the booksthre,meeting a new student, asking directions in a newtown, and so on.

4. A skill-based syllabus is one in which the contentof the language teaching is a collection of specific abili-ties that may play a part in using language. Skills arethings that peopk must be able to do to be competent in alanguage, relatively independently of the situation orsetting in which the language use can occur. While sit-

16

Six Types of Syllabus 11

national syllabi group fiinctions together into specificsettings of language use, skill-based syllabi group lin-guistic competencies (pronunciation, vocabulary, gram-mar, sociolinguistic, and discourse) together into gen-eralized types of behavior, such as listening to spokenlanguage for the thaM idea, writing well;formed para-graphs, giving effective oral presentationS, taking lan-guage tests, reading textfi for main ideas or supportingdetail, and so on. The primary purpose of skill-based in-struction is to learn the specific language skill. A poS-sible seCondary purpose is to develop more general com-petence in the language, learning only incidentally anyinfbrmation that may be available while applying thelanguage skills.

5. A task-based syllabutS and a content-based sylla-bus are similar in that in both the teaching is not organ-ized around linguistic features of the language beinglearned but according to some other organizMg prin-ciple. In task-based instruction the content of the teach-ing is a series of complex and purposeful tasks that theStudents want Dr need to Perform with the languagethey are learning. The tasks are defined as activitieswith a purpose other than language learning, but, as ina content-based syllabus, the performance of the tasks isapproached in a way that is intended to develop secondlanguage ability. Language learning is subordinated totask performance, and language teaching occurs onlyas the need arises during the performance of a giventask. Tasks integrate language (and other) skills in spe-cific settings of language use. They differ from situa-tions in_that while situational teaching has the goal ofteaching the specific language content that occurs inthe situationa predefined product task-based teach-ing has the goal of teaching students to draw on re-sources to complete some piece of work=a process. Thelanguage students draw on a variety -of langnage forms,functions, and skillS, often in an individual and unpre-dictable way, in completing the tasks. Tasks that can beused for language learning are, generally, tasks thatthe learners actually have to perform in ariy case. Ex-amples are applying for a job, talking with a socialworker, getting housing information over the telephone,


completing bureaucratic forms, collecting informationabout preschods_to decide which to send a child to, pre-paring a paper for another course, reading a textbookfor another course, and so on.

6._ A content-based syllabus is not _really _a languageteaching syllabus at all. In content-based languageteaching, the primary purpose of the instruction is toteach some content or information using the languagethat the students are also learning. The students aresimultaneously ianguagestuñents and students ofwhatever content is being taught. The subject matter isprimary, and language learning occurs incidentally tothe content learning. The content teaching is not organ-ized around the language teaching, but vice-versa. Con-ti; nt-based language teaching is concerned with infor-mation, while task-based language teaching is con-cerned with communicative and cognitive processes.An example of content-based language teaching is ascience class taught in the language the students needor want to learn, possibly with linguistic adjustments tomake the science more comprehensible.

In general, the six types of syllabi or instructionalcontent are presented beginning with the one basedmost on language structure, and ending with the onebased most on language use. If language is viewed as arelationship between form, and meaning, and instruc-tion as emphasizing one or the other side of this rela-tionship, then the six types of syllabi can be representedas a continuum, ranging from that based most on formto that based most on meaning. Sucha relationship canbe represented in graphic form as in Figure 2.1.

structural notional- situational sIdll- task- content-functional based based based

emphasis on form emphasis on meaning

Figure 2.1. Continuum of syllabi.

1 8,

Six YylJes of Syllabus 13

Another way of differentiating them is the dep-ee towhich they call for an analysis of the language _before itis presented to the learner. In a structural syllabus, theanalysis of the language and_language behavior is donebefore the teaching, and the teaching consists of presen-tations ofihe results of the analysis to the learner. Thelearner, then, presumably incorporates the lmowledgeinto behavior. In a content-based syllabus, the learnerexperiences the language without benefit of preanalysison the part of the teacher or syllabus designer (althoughadjustments in the language being used may be made tofacilitate comprehension and learning), and must carryout whatever psycholinguistic processes are necessaryto develop the new language behaviors himself orherself_

Yalden (1983) lists four paradigms 1thát reflect aspectrum of syllabus types like those that have beencharacterized here. They are synthetic-analytic, formal=functional, structural-contextual, and grammatical-communicative. All fall well within the extremes of thespectrum. Clearly, some instructional content is rela-tively removed from any real or imagined context of use,and some instructional content is identical with thelanguage being learned.

The six archetypes presented here differ in the waysin whinh they relate linguistic form to meaning anduse. The structural syllabus ii its idealized form pre-sents_language form reMoved from actual occasionS ofuse.. The notional/functional syllabus attempts to _relatelanguage forms to occasions of use by presenting CanOn-ical or customary rdations between form and categoriesof use (functions). The situational syllabus and skill-,task-, and content-based syllabi all present languageforms in various types of contexts of use. The situationalsyllabus provides idealized settings, presenting lan-guage forms to the learner on the basis of intuition orinvestigation on the part of the course writer. Theskill-based syllabus does it by defining types of use onthe discourse level and requiring the learner to applythe skills to real or imaginary language forms. Thetask-based syllabus does it by defining some process orgoal that the learner has to achieve in the language andrequiring the learner to carry out the process or reach

19


the goal, using naturally occurring language formsand real information to 1achieveit, The content-basedsyllabus doesit by_requiring the learner to acquire someknowledge through the occasicn of use directly, with theacquisition of language form subordinated to the acqui-sition of knowledge.

All of these approaches to content have succeeded ingetting lanvage students to learn a new language,although task-based syllabi are relatively new and un-tested. Choosing between and among the various typesof syllabus or instructional content and integratingthem in a useful and effective way in an actual teachingprogram requires an awareness of the strengths andshortcomings of each.

In the following chapters, each of these types ofcontent in language teaching is examined in greaterdetail.

3The Structural Syllabus

The structural or grammatical syllabus iS dOlibtless theintitt familiar of syllabus types. It haS A king history,and a major portion of languageAeaChilig has been car=?led out using some forth of it The structural syllabusis based Olt a theory_ tif language that assumes that thegraMmatical or structural aspects of language formate the most basic or useful. When fUrietional ability, orability to use or communicate m the new language, is apal of instructioni the striktUral syllabus can be said toenibrade_ a theory of learning that holds that functionalability arises from structural knowledge or ability.

The content of the structural syllabus is languageform, primarily grammatical form; and the teachMg isdefined in terms of form. Although the definition oflanguage form Arid the most appropriate 7-grammar" touse in pedagogy have long been_tlisputedi iriost existingstructural syllabi use some feria of traditional, Latin;based, descriptive/prescriptive grammatical clASSifica-tion and terminology. The usual grammatidal categor-ies are the familiar_ ones of nonii; Verb; pronoun,adjective, singtilar, plural,_ present tense, past tense,and so on. The domaM of Structural syllabi has tendedto be limited to_ the Sentence. That is, the Sentence is thelargest unit of discourse that iS regiilarlY treated. AClassification of sentence typeS USually includessemantically defined tyPes such as statements Ordeclaratives, questions or interrogatives, exclarnationsi

21


and conditionals; anldL grammatically defmed typessuch as simple, compound, and complex sentences.

A good deal of morphology can also be found instructural syllabi, such as singular and plural mark-ing, the forms marking the tense system 1Of the1 lan-guage, and special morphology such as determinersand articles, prepositions and postpositions, gendermarkers, and so on. Morphology also deals with vocab-uluy, specifically formal aspects such as prefixes andsuffixes.

A key feature of the structural syllabus is that it_is"synthetic" (Wilkins, 1976; Yalden, 1983). Synthetic syl-labi require analyses of the language (content), such asword frequency coimts, grammatical analysis, and dis-course analysis. The syllabus designer uses the ele-ments isolated as a result of the analyses to make up thecontent of the syllabus. In most cases these are rules,patterns, and grammatical elements, usually withguidelines for their combination and use. Because oftheir synthetic nature, strictural syllabi assume a gen-eral theory of learning that holds that learners cansynthesize the material being taught in one of at leasttwo ways. First, the analyzed informationthe rulesand patternsare available as the learner attempts touse them in linguistic communication. The learneruses the information either to generate or produceutterances or discourse, or to check the accuracy ofproduction. Second, analyzed information is trans-formed from analyzed, possibly conscious knowledge,into the largely unconscious behavior that makes uplanguage use.

There are several ways to present language struc-ture, of course. For example, the syllabus may call fordescriptive ability on the part of the students. That is,the students are expected to be able to describe rules orexplain why an utterance is right or wrong. This isexplicit itructüràl knowledge. A second type of struc-tural knowledge is reflected in recognition or judg-mental ability. This is the type of structural knowledgeor ability that native speakers havethe ability merelyto judge whether a given form is acceptable or not, and,usually, to correct unacceptable forms. A third possiblegoal of structural teaching is accurate productive be-

22

The Structural SyllabtiA 17

haviorthe learners should become able to use thestructures being taught withOnt neteSsarily being ableto describe or _make judgments about them. These arethree quite different ilseS of structure in the classroom,and teaching often does not keep them clearly distinct.The first, at least; woult1 require a very different type ofinstructional content than the other_t*o. Teaching fordescriptive or explanatory abihty *Ould require that theinstructioniinelude_ eiplieitly stated rules and explana-tionsi: which the other approaches might ribt need toinclude;

Structural syllabi have thOtt frequently been asso:.ciated with:cognitive methods of language teaching;audiolinguahsm, grathmar-translation methods, andSeVeral innovative methods such as the Silent Way.Some versions of cognitive: theory have asserted thatlanguages are best learned through conscious knowl .edge of the forms_iof the language and the rules for theircoMbination. Audio-lingual methods Use a behavioristlearning_ model to instill structural knowledge and be-havior in learners.: Grammar-tranSlation methods pre:-sent the grammatical fonts and :patterns of the lan-guage explicitly; and then call for the student to_ practiceand apply the_knowledge in translating thin his or hernative language to the language being learned, and viceversa. More recenticognitiVe Methods dispense with thetranslation, but still Call for explicit identification:of theforms and structures of the language asmbined withapplication and practice focusing on the forms (Carroll,1966; Rivers, 1981). : =

With structural Syllabi, the problem of selectingin4ructional_ content is usually minimal. Except in theCase of uncommonly taught languages, the grammati-cal structure of the language being taught is usuallywell known. Of 'course, eSpeCially in recent years assyntactic facts have accumulated through work iriSyntactic theory; many little:Inown aspects of thegrammars of even well-known languages have beendocumented.

One minor: probleni With the selection of content isthe_degree of detail the instruction should be concerned*ith; A grammatical point can be pre:setae& in a basicor general way, with little detail and few exceptions, or

23


it can be presented with all of its quirks and intricacies.For example, in teaching the English present perfecttense, it is not immediately obvious how much to dis-tinguish it from the past tense in order to providelearners with useful. Ithowledge.

While the selection of content is not a major prob-lem, the sequencing or grading of the content is. Severalcnteria have been proposed for dethnnining the order inwhich to present various structures and patterns in alanguage. Kelly (1969) provides a historical perspective,and identifies complexity ("facility"), regularity ("gram-matical analysis"), and productivity, or the usefulnessof the structure, as the three most frequently invokedcriteria. A recent summary is provided by Canale andSwain (1980). The familiar criterion of grammaticalcomplexity is, of course, primary, although no objectivemeasure has ever been established, and syllabus andmaterials writers have had to resort to intuitive criteriaor "the cumulative experience of language teachers"(Alexander, 1976, p. 91) to determine complexity andsequencing. Other criteria are communicative facility,communicative generalizability, degree of facilitation ofacquisition of other structures, perceptual accessibility,and dialectal markedness. Strict sequencing of struc-tures in language teaching syllabi is to be avoidedbecause it leads to difficulties in applying the concepts tospecific cases,

Other criteria that can be invoked in makingsequencing decisions include degree of differencebetween the structure concenied Ifld its equivalent inthe learners' first language, the learners' communica-tive need for the structure, and the order in which thestructure occurs in a natural acquisition sequence.

Ultimately, however, the sequencing problem isunsolved. No single criterion is used, and empiricalevidence is lacking. hi practice, sequencing decisionsare generally based on presumed simplicity, frequency,and need. In English, for example, the simple presenttense is usually presented before 1the more complexpresent continuous, and the past before the presentperfect. Ordering of the present continuous and thepast, however, remains variable, and principles forsequencing them relative to each other are lacking.

24

The StrutuiI Syllabus 19

Yalden (1983) summarized1 the structural sequencesused in a number of textbocks. Although she concludesthat there is great similarity in their sequencing, infact, structures such as the ones just mentioned arepresented in quite varying order irLdifferent texts. Ofthe four sequences examined by Yalden, the futuretense WAS presented before the present perfect in twoand after it in two. The present continuous was pre-sented muth earlier than the past in one text and afterthe past in two.

The sequencing or grading problem is complicatedby -questions of learning theory, whether structures areto be mastered on initial presentation or gradually re-fined and expanded during repeated presentationi(spiraling), and by problems of relation to_and integra-tion with other types of syllabus. These issues will beconsidered again in Chapter 9.

Examples of Structural SyllabiTextbooks are not syllabi, but they frequently become

syllabi and they certainly reflect what informed %vXitersbelieve should be the content and_ order of teaching.Rather than. provide an example of an imaginary struc-tural syllabus, or of a real but unrepresentative vne, thecontent and order of several representative ESL text-books are provided as examples of structural syllabi.

The following partial content list is from a textbookseries for beginning students of ESL that is structurallyorganized, although it contain& some situational con-tent. The book is New English 900, published in 1978 byCollier Macmillan.

This and that

YourBe,_present tenseSubject pronounsPredicate adjectivesSubjea_pronounspluralPossessive adjectivesDemonstrative pronounsImperatives _

Negative of be

Third singular present tenseSimple pastNegative _questionsGoing to futureCouid as possibilityAdjectives of comparison--er; -est

Two-word verbsCoukast of canInfinitives


Tag questionsCount, noncountPresent continuousPossessive pronounsPast of beSimple presentMay, may notCan, can 7Simple present, negativeCount and mass nounsFrequency adverbs

Indirect object positionWill futureWoutd like, woutd ratherMast, must notPast continuousErnbedded_wh_clauses--

relative_clausesReflexivesly adverbs

Shouldlf + real condition

Note that the groupings and grading tend to followan order of difficulty and frequency of use, and that notall formally related material is presented _at ±onceThemodals, for example, are presented separately fromeach other, presumably in an order based on frequencyor communicative need.

The second example is from Understanding andUsing English Grammar (Azar, 1981), one of the mostwidely used recent ESL structural texts. The contents ofthe book are as follows (with some abbreviations):

Question&yes/noWh-questionsnegative questionstag questions

Singular and pluralsubject-verb agreeementpronoun agreementsome singular, plural usages of nouns---irregular noun plural,,

count and noncount nouns, etc.

Verb tensesirregular verbs and spellingan overview of English verb tensessimple, progressive, perfect,

etc.using verb tensessimple present, present progressive, etc.

The passive

Modal auxiliaries

Gerunds and infinitives 26

The Structural Syllabus 21

Adjective clausesNoun clausesConjunctions

Adverb clauses and related structurestime, cause, and effectopposition and condition

Comparison

Conditional sentences

Gerunds and infinitives (advanced)

Note that structural material is grouped in this book ac-cording to type. Obviously, this book is not intended asthe sole learning_ source for students; otherwise, all theycould do for the first =it would be to ask questions. Pre-sumably, this is a remedial or review grammar, in-tended to increase students' existing knowledge.

Positive Characteristicsof Structural Syllabi

Structural approaches to language teaching have,come under severe criticism at many times in the his=tory of the field (Kelly, 1969) for many obvious reasons.Nevertheless, structural syllabi, :either in their :pureform or _in combination with other types of syllabi,remain the most _common in the language teachingworld. Several factors account for structural syllabi'spopularity that are also reasons why structural contentneeds to _be _considered in_ language_ teaching;

One reason; frequently oveHooked in recent discus-sions, is that structure or grammar is the most generalcomponent of communicative competence. Every utter-ance; if it is reasonably well formed,_ involves a givenstructure, which can be used for a variety of functions,situations; and meanings; Because form is the mostgeneralizable aspect of language, it can be argued itshould be the basis for language course content. Thefundamental nature of structure has been restated bymuch recent work in second language acquisition;

27


almost all of which (see Du lay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982,for a summary) has focused on the development ofstructure. Dulay and Burt (19761 argue for the use ofstructure as an index of overall linguistic development.Thus, despite doubts about the utility of structuralknowledge, the importance of structural ability in lan-guage use is recognized_ The question of how easilyformal knowledge1 transfers to functional ability re-mains unanswered, however.

A second reason for the popularity of structuralsyllabi is simple familiarity. "Grammar" is frequentlyexpected in a language class and usually constitutesfamiliar content. The grammar of a language may becomplex, but the basic outlines are generally wellknown and make up a relaVvely fmite body of knowl-edge. If a language course promises to teach the basicgrammar of the language, prospective learne-s arcfairly sure -of what to expect.

A third feature of structural syllabi is that theircontent is relatively easy to describe. Noun, verb, imper-ative, plural, and gerund are terms that are generallyshared1 within_ the language profession, and there isgeneral agreement about what they mean. This is cer-tainly more true of structure than it is of, say, thefunctions of language, where the definitions are oftenunfamiliar and frequently not agreed_ on by the "ex-perts." 1Moteimportant, grammatical concepts aresimply better defmed than functional ones: A past tenseis a clearer concept than an invitation or a directive.

A fourth reason why structural syllabi are fre-quently used is that structural knowledge is the mostmeasurable of the components of communicative com-petence. Because of the relative finiteness of structuralknowledge and its relatively clear definition, measure-ment tasks are easily prepared_ to determine how muchstudents have or have not learned. The grammar test isa familiar task, and its presence on almost any type oflanguage evaluation is evidence of its ease of use. Also,it is easier to make_right-or-wrong decisions about thestructural aspects of learners' language than about anyother aspect. Since much of language instruction takesplace in contexts in which learners' knowledge is mea-sured, either to rank students or to measure their prog-

28

The Structural Syllabus 23

ress, the choice of a structural basis for instruction andevaluation often seems natural.

Fifth, while structural lmowledge does not seem tobe used directly by learners (see Ellis, 1986, for a thor-ough discussion), some evidence (Higgs & Clifford,1982) suggests that it can prevent later fossilization orcessation of learning_ Basing their conclusions on non=experimental longitudinal observations and an analysisof the prior experience of students who succeed andthose who fail to progress past an intermediate stage oflanguage learning,. Higgs and Clifford state that theonly factor that clearly differentiates the successfulfrom the unsuccessful learner is prior instruction inthe structure of the language. Generally, students whoultimately achieved high proficiency in a new languagewere students who had earlier received instruction inthe form of the language. Students who fossilized orwere not able to progress beyond a high iatermediatestage were those who had acquired the -languagewithout benefit of much formal instruction. Much moreresearch needs to be done to investigate and validateHiggs and Clifford's suggestion, however.

Sixth, according to the prevailing theory of languageacquisition, Krashen's acquisition or "Monitor Theory"(Krashen, 1982, 1985), structural _knowledge can play alimited but well-defined Tole in language use by servingas the basis for the learner to Monitor, or check on theaccuracy of production and self-correct according toknown rules when time and the attention of the lan-guage user allow for it. These conditions are met onlyon discrete-point language tests and, to some degree, inthe editing of writing. Monitoring is also limited to theuse of relatively easy rules, and there is some evidence(Tarone, 1986) that the attempt to _Monitor using com-plex rules actually -decreases the accuracy of languageproduction. According to Krashen's theory, however,Monitoring, within the limitations he proposes for it,does play a useful role in second language perfor-mance, and Krashen_ recommends the teaching ofstructural knowledge so that second language learnerscan use such knowledge under the conditions that allowfor it

Seventh, instruction in language structure offers a

24 APPROAChS TO SYLLABUS DESIGN

basis for teachers or others to provide learners withfeedback on the accuracy of their production. Learners'errors are corrected with specific reference to previousinstruction inaccurateforms or to explanations orrules. This factor is of doubtful value because extensiveeVidence has demonstrated that such overt error correc-tion has no effect on accuracy. Nevertheless, error cor-rection is a widely accepted and practiced technique fordealing with._ learners' errors, and many teaching cur-ricula call for it.

Eighth, structural syllabi are naturally value- andculture-free. They can be taught independently of cul-tural values in instructional settings where the lan-guage Itself may be desired, but not the social andcultural values that are associated with it. This isbecoming increasingly true in some developing coun-tries, where major world languages such as Englishare needed, but for political, social, or religious reasons,authorities do not want the social and cultural values ofEngland, the United States, or other English-speakingcountries to be imported along with the language.

Negative Characteristicsbf Structural Syllabi

Several notorious weaknesses are associated withstructural syllabi. The most important of these is theusability, applicability, or transferability of structuralknowledge. Structural knowledge may be teachable,and there is some evidence that it is learnable, but thereis alinost no evidence that it affects behavior in lan-guage use to any great degree. Studies of the relation=ship of teaching of language form to writing ability inthe learners' first language,_for example, have shownthat it has no measurable effect on any aspect of theirwriting ability (Hartwell, 1985). The studies on the orderof acquisition of certain basic structures in languages,measured by_appearance in actual language use, showlittle or no relation to the order in which_ they areusually taught or the order in which the studies' sub-jects were taught. Instruction in structure, therefore,does not seem to transfer to behavior very well or easily,

30

The St:hi-add-id Syllabtis

if at all (see Ellis, 1986, for a detailed treatment of thisquestion).

Although the real and apparent successes of struc-ture-based teaching cannot be fully deScribed here,several points can be made. FirSt, many students do"learn" structural matter, and they can demonstratetheir knowledge on certain types of tests, but this knowl=edge- does not seeM to manifest itself during unmoni-tored language use. Thus the knowledge is learnable,but the degree to which it it; usable is questionable.Second, while instruction in form may have few directbenefits, it certainly has indirect benefits in that it canprovide usable language input on the basiS of which thestudent develops his or her own vertion of the language.Students may become competent in the new languageas a conSequence of instruction but not as a direct reSultof instruction in form. Their competency may well_develoP from various forms of instruction. The laek ofdirect benefits of instruction in language form iscounterintuitive to many language teachers and stu=dents, especially those who are familiar with the largenumber of grammar-based language teaching pro-grams that have produced second language users ofsome competence. AlmoSt all recent studies of the re-lationship of experience to outcome, however, havefailed to demonstrate a direct connection between in-struction and ab.lity.

A second major drawback1 to structure-based in-struction is that it can mislead learners into thinkingthey are learning a language when, in fact, they arelearning facts or information about a language. Someteachers contend that the fact that learners request ordemand instruction in language structure is reason initself to offer it. The reason is compelling, but suchdemands on the Part of students need to be carefullyexaMined and managed. In most cases, they areprobably demanding such inStruction because it is fa-miliar and makes them feel secure, and because inlearning structure the students think they are learningthe language.

A third drawback to structural syllabi is a result ofthe sequencing or _grading problems referred to earlier.A strictly structural syllabus prevents students from

31


producing structures they have not been taught Eitherthe students have to be severely limited or controlled intheir use of the new language until the needed struc-tures have been taught, or groping and error must betolerated or ignored untiLthe appropriate instructionappears in the sequence. This dilemma has led to thedevelopment of "controlled communicative activities"that are intended tz provide practice in using forms thathave been taught.

ApplicationsThe low transferability of_ structural knowledge to

actual language behavior severely limits its applicationin language teaching settings, at least to languageinstruction whose goal is the ability to fimction in thelanguage. If passive structural knowledge- is an end initSelf (Le., explicit metalinguistic knowledge, as mightbe desired in a descriptive linguistic% course), thenextensive instruction in language structure can beuseful. It is also widely held that by focusing onstructure or grammar, second_ language accuracy isimproved. But, as indicated eaHier, very little evidencesupports this point of view. In addition, the notionoverlooks the fact that learner error involves manyaspects of language besides grammar. Indeed, mostlocal grammatical errors do not interfere with under-standing or otherwise mark the person who commitsthem more than vocabulary or pronunciation errors.The desirable but limited role that Monitoring can playin language use can also justify a limited amount ofteaching of language form.

In some settings, however, a structural definition ofthe language being taught may be the only one possible.This is often the case when the language is being taughtin locations that are removed from the language'snative-speaking communities. Given the limited goalsand resources of such teaching, it may be that a smallamount of structural knowledge of the lanvage is allthat the learner can expect to take _away_ There mayeven be cases in which, for political or cultural reasons,the sponsors of the instruction may not want the

32

cultural values of the language to accompany the lan-guage instruction. In such cases, instruction limited tothe structure of the language may be all that is possible.

_Beyond these general remarks, space does not allowfurther discussion of the eternal dispute over whethergrammar or structure can or should be taught to bringabout second language behavior. Proponents of struc-tural instruction still argue that structures can betaught and learned, and eventually appear as naturallanguage behavior. Until objective evidence supportsthis as a general and direct rather than an exceptionalor indirect route to second language ability, defininglanguage instnicticnal content in terms of stnuturalinformation will at best detract from more useful in-structional content. The primary role for the structuralsyllabus seems to be to instruct learners in aspects ofthe new language that are cognitively accessible anduseful to them (the easy rules) under the limited con.-ditions that time and the conditions of speech or writingall ow.

A more complex, and more common, role for struc-tural content is ta serve as the organizing framewo&for other types of language instructional content, suchas situations (dialogues), notions and functhns, andhigher-level language skills. Such an organizing func-tion may obscure or dilute the characteristics of thestructural syllabus reviewed here, but the basic func-tions of such content remain the same The question ofcombining types of content into actual teaching syllabiwill be considered in Chapter 9.

TheNotional /Functional

Syllabus

The notional/functional syllabus is the best known ofcontemporary language teaching syllabus types. Ithowever, also the object of a great deal of misunder-standing. On the one hand, while notional/functional-ism has been referred to as an "approach" (Brumfit &Johnson,: 1979; Widdowson, 1979), it has never beendescribed as anything other than a type of content oflanguage instruction that can be taught through avariety of classroom techniques. On the other hand,notional/functionalism has been closely associated withwhat: has ibeen called "communicative languageteaching" (Brumfit & Johnson; 1979; Richards &Rodgers, 1986; Widdowson, 1979); a rather amorphousview of language teaching that has been referred to as amethod but is really a collection of different approachesand procedures clustered around notional/functionalcontent.

Because of its broad scope, its confusion with in-structional method, and its own lack of definition,notional/runctionalism is difficut to describe_clearly. Anarrow perspective is taken here, viewing the notion,al/functional_ movement only in terms of a means fordefining instructional content. In this sense, notion-

34


al/functional syllabi have much_ in coniinón with struc=tural syllabi in that both are subject to a variety of in=terpretetions and can be associated with a variety ofmethodologies.

Notional/functionalism grew out of a functionallyoriented linguistic tradition that his long existed inBritain. Rather than examine language in isolationfrom its uses and social context, British linguiSts suchas Firth (1957) and Halliday (1973)_have insisted thatadequate descriptions of language Must include infor-mation on how and for what purposes and in what wayslanguage is used. The philosophical work of Austin(1965) provided the basis for much of the recent analy-sis. In the United States, the_ sociolinguistic work ofHymes (1972) and others on_communicative competenceprovided much of the theoretical basis for notional/functionalism in language teaching.

At its simplest, notional/functionalism is, in_ Rich-ards and Rodgers' (1986) terms, a theory of lafigUage. Itholds that basic to language are the uses to which it isput If language is seen as a relationship between formand function, notional/functionalism takes the functionside of the equation as primary and the form side itssecondary. For example, rather than regarding thefuture tense form (with win) in English as basic anddiscussing the uses to which it can be put (e.g., talkingabout the future, making promises) as secondary, in afunctional view of language, notions such as future andfunctions such as promising:are considered basic andthe future tense form is discussed as one way ofrealizing these notions and functions. Figure 4.1 pre-sents the two different types of relationthip.

Other interpretations and applications have elab-orated on_ notionalifilnctionalism, but the most basicpoint of the movement in language teaching is thatcategories of language use rather than categories oflanguage form have been taken as the organizingprinciple for instruction.

While the categofies used to talk about languageform are familiarnoun, verb, statement, question,present tense, subordinate clause, and so ohthecategories of language use are Much lesi; well known.Notional/functionalism defines them in two ways. First,

35

The NetionsWunclional Syllabus 31

notions;i_ or categories of meaning, are what Wilkins(1978) has _called semanticogrammatical categories,which are usually characterized by interaction betweencategories of meaning and grammatical formsininostlanguages. Examples of notions areitintei duration;quantity; _agent; instrument; place; and many others.

The second category of language use is functions; orthe uses to which language forms are put, whatFinocchiaro and Brumfit have- called:the communica,tive purpose(W_of _language (1983; p; _13 Examples areagreement; greeting; approval; prediction; requestingdirections; apologizing, and so on. An excellent listingof functional categories -for teaching-second:Or:foreignlanguages ranJje found in van Ek (1976) and Finocchi-aro and Brainfit (1983);

Each notion or function can be associated with, a var-iety of forms; of course. Instrumentality can be ex,pressed with prepositions (e.g., "by bus," "with_ anaxe"); verbs "used an axe;" "chopped"); and withprepositional _phrases (e.g. "by chopping it"). Futuretime can be expressed by ftiture tense forms (e.g.; "I'llgo tomorrow," "I'm going to go tomorrow"); presenttense forms (e.g., "I leave tomorrow"); or present con-

Form (e-.T., will )

From structure to tunctton

Function (future)

Function (promising)

Function (prediction)

From function to structure

_ Form (be going to)

Function (e.g., "future") Form (will)

Form (be + -ing)

Figure 4.1. Differing relationships between formand function

36


tinuous forms (e.g., "I'm leaving tomorrow"). In thissense, notional/functionaliem is not really new. Instructural teaching, forms are primary, and indica-tions are often (but not _necessarily) made as to how theforms can be used. In notional/functionalism, the usesare primary and forms are supplied as necessary.

The detetmination of what notions, functions, andforms to include in a teaching syllabus ia often regardedas part of notional/functionalism. Actually, notional/functionalism is a procedure for designing a syllabus orchoosing content for a specific syllabus, but it is not apart of the content of the syllabus itself._ Determiningspecific syllabus content involves examining the tnie ofdiscourse the learners are going to need to engage in,noting the notions and functions and the specific formsthat are used to express them in the types of discourseinvolved, and putting them together into a language-teaching syllabus (see Munby, 1978, for a detaileddescription of this type of procedure). This teachingtoward specific discourse types, based on an analysis ofthe discourse, is one reason why notional/functionalismis often called "communicative." A second reason issimply that by teaching the association of form andmeaning, communicative ability will be more likely toresult than if form is taught alone. A third reason isthat many applied linguists active in the notionaliftmc-tionaI movement realized that both the content and notjust the procedures of language teaching nad to beexpanded and modified in order to develop appropriatefunctional ability in students.

It is important to note, though, that notional/func-tionalism was initially associated with a cognitive typeof learning theory that called for explicit presentation oflanguage material, conscious recognition, and practice,More recently, it has begun to incorporate experientiallearning theory, similar to Krashen's acquisition theory(Krashen, 1982), and to use techniques such as creatinginformation gaps and problem-solving tasks as class-room activities (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).

Sequencing and grading of language matenal do notseem to be of major concern to notional/functional sylla-bus designers. Little in the literature discusses prin-ciples for sequencing material, and the question is

3 7

The NotionaliTunctional Syllabus 33

rarely raised. Littlewood (1981) mentions only the criter-ion of simplicity of form for sequencing specific func-tions. Finotchiaro and Brumfit (1983) note that "selec-tion and gradation is more flexible than in the past"(p. 40), and invoke the criteria of learners' need forfunctions, preexisting linguistic knowledge, grammati-cal complexity of the structures needed, and, the lengthof utterance needed to perform some function.

Selection of material was discussed earlier. Whenfunctions associated with multiple forms are the basisfor instruction, it is clear that some selection must bemade. In the most general approach to notional/func-tional syllabus design, that of the European unificreditsystem (van Ek, 1976), the determination was made as aresult of individual and committee work using anymeans available to determine what the linguistic needsof educated adult learners in the European communitywould be. A general European syllabus was designed onthat basis, a syllabus that would provide a basis forforeign language teaching to adults throughout Europe.Munby (1978) presents a detailed process for carryingout an analysis and turnin it into a syllabus. Theemerging field of discourse analysis provides much ofthe basis fbr selection of instructional content.

Notional/functional syllabi have been around for _amuch shorter time than structural ones, althoughaspects of them_certainly have a longer history. Muchmisunderstanding and lack of definition still surroundthem, in addition to the confusion resulting fromvarious connotations of the term "communicativeProblems in using them are similar to the problemsthat have arisen_ with structural syllabilow transfera-bility and sequencing difficulties. When combined witha cognitive theory1 of learning and not combined withmore interactional and experiential classroom activi-ties, notionattfunctional syllabi become little differentfrom structural syllabi, a point noted by Widdowson(1979):

The notional syllabus, it is claimed, develops stu-dents' ability to do this [become communicativelycompetent] by accounting for communicativecompetence within the actual design of the sylla-

38

a4 APPROACIEES TO SYLIABUS DESIGN

bus itself. This is a delusion because theriotionalsyllabus_presents language_ as an inventory _ofunits, of items for accumulation_ and storage.They _are notional rather than structural iso--lates, but they are isolates all the same. (p. 248)

Examplesof Notional/Functional Syllabi

The major source of information on the content ofnotional/fiinctional syllabi is van Ek (1976), who pre-sents the general syllabus for the European unit/creditsystem, plus inventories of notions and functions andtheir formal exponents. A number of textbooks, manyBritish, same American, have been written using no-tions and fiinctians as_their content. Two widely usedseries are the In, Touch and Lift Styles series, theformer (a_ series for beginning students) by Castro andKimbrough (1980) and the latter (an intermediate ser-ies) by Lozano and Sturtevant (1981). Both use a situ-ational organization with functional content. A sampleunit from each follows.

What's the matter?

Talking about sicknessMaking a suggestionAccepting or rejecting a suggestionMaking a requestAgreeing to a request

(Castro & Kimbrough, 1980)

Do you want to come with me?

Invite someone to do somethingRefuse an invitationAsk for and give information about peopleOffer to do somethingAccept an offer

The NotionaWunctional Syllabus

Ask someone to give a message to another personMention a condition for doing something

(Lozano & Sturtevant, 1981)

Finocchiaro and Brumfit provide a sample "curricu-lum" (i.e., syllabus) that illustrates the organizing_roleof functions and the possible relationship of the func-tions to situations, structures, and activities (see Fig.4.2).

Positive Characteristicsof Notional/Functional Syllabi

Without doubt, including information about howlanguage is used in a teaching syllabus potentiallyincreases the usefulnessof -language instruction(Finocehiaro & Brumfit, 1983). Reductionists who teachaccording to a narrow definition of language (e.g., thegrammatical system, much vocabulary) can oftendemonstrate dramatic results in the short term but stillfail to develop learners' overall ability to function in anew language. The greatest strength of the notional/functional syllabus is that it includes information aboutlanguage use that structural syllabi do not. If thecontent of an appropriate notional/functional syllabuscan be learned, then the students will be better able tofunction in written or spoken interaction. They willhave more experience with, and knowledge about,which linguistic farms do what in the new language,and they will have had exposure to at least some real orsimulated interaction in the language. They may viewthe language less as an abstract system of elements andrules, and more as a communicative system.

At the same time, common sense says that the morespecific instruction is, the more useful it will be. Ifnotional/functional syllabi are based on accurate andadequate analyses of the types of discourse the learnerswill need to engage in, and if the learners continueaccording to their plan, then notional/functional syllabihave a higher probability of developing effective users ofa new language, within a limited domain, in a rele-

40


tively short time. Such success is a result of the intrin-sic relationship between form and function on whichnotional/functional syllabi are based.

ntle andflatehon

SitaaTsan

emanunicativeExpressionsor Form:akar

Structures

Nouns

Tier&

A4jectives

Adverbs

SiructureWar&

Miicetksneous

AcanWeir

A MINI-CURRICULUM

Apologizing Requestingdirections

Department At the busstre (returning stepsomL

I'm-sorm -Mudd I beg yourit be possible -.;-.? p-ardon.

Could youtell me ...?

Simple past; Interroga-present perf&ct fives (Min&

present)IWO-dalmust

shirt

buy, wear

small

tao

you

names ofplaces

must_get to,get off, take

hoc-, where

dates numbers

Aural compre-hension; indirectspeechchangingregister

Readingquestions andanswers;doze prcr.e.-dures; dicta-tion

ExTressingfrustration

Home (dinnerguesta late)

How inco,..sid-eroM! Whycouldn't theyhave telephrtned?

6eIt's (time)

food-, dessert;roast

ruin, spoil, serve

time, numbers

Role play; auralcomprehension;dictoomp

Fig. 4.2. Syllabus with functions as organizing principle

Note, -From -The Functional-Notional Appn3ack_Frorn_TheorytoPractice briAmy Finocchiaro and-Christtpher-Brumfit. Copyright©1983 by Okford University Press; Inc. Adapted by permission.

41

The Notional/Functional Syllabus 37

Negative Characteristicsof Notional/Functional Syllabi

As suggested earlier, notional/functional syllabithat remain simple series of isolated form-functionpairings will do little to develop interactional andcommunicative ability because these isolated functionsare not synthesized into discourse. If notions and func-tions are taught according 1to1 cognitive learning theory,then there is no reason to believe that such instructionwill be much more effective than structurally basedinstruction.

A converse of one of the strengths of notional/functional instruction is that because the content is tiedto specifics of use, the instruction is less generalizablethan structural content. For example, the future tenseis the future tense, whether it is used to indicate actionin the fixture, make a promise, or giva_an order. Thus, afew structures can be used to perform many functions.However, a student can learn the limited range of func-tions taught in a notional/functional syllabus and stillhave major structural gaps.

A third problem arises if notional/functional syllabiare limited to short utterances or exchanges involvingtin functions in question. Like structural syllabi, func-tie content ean be presented entirely in short utter-ances and units of discourse. Jf this mistake is made,and larger structures of discourse are ignored, the stu-dents may be unable to handle the new language inlonger, connected discourse.

A fourth potential weakness lies in the ease withwhich notional/functional syllabi can become primarilya vehicle for teaching what are called "routines" and"patterns" in second language acquisition studies. Rou-tines are short, formulaic utterances generally used toperform some specific function, such as No, thank youfor a polite refusaL "Patterns" are utterances with openslots into which various lexical items can be inserted(e.g. , Would you like to ?). Some notional/functionalteaching tends to emphasize suck routines and to teachthem as the unanalyzed chunks they often are, ratherthan as the products of a grammatical system. While

4 2


the role of routines and patterns in language acquisi-tion is open to dispute (Du lay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982),one view is that if functions are taught as relativelyfrozen phrases they would be learned as vial, and theunanalyzed routines would be used_ instead of produc-tive language structures. Once again, this shortcomingcan be overcome with appropriate instructionaltechniques.

Application

Proponents of notional/functional syllabi contendthat they are applicable to almost any languageteachhig Situation and that they are simply an improve.=ment over structural and, to some extent, situationalsyllabi (see Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983). To the_degreethat notional/functional syllabi are either geared forgeneral applications or adapted on the basis of specificdiscourse and needs analyses, they certainly have wideapplication.

In the development of specific 1teaching prograinsfor specific purpotes, notional/functional approaches toSyllabus may be appropriately used to define the contentof such courses. By allowing an examination of thespecific functions occurring in 1variouwtypes of dis-course, the notional/functional approach makes itSomewhat easier to develop a syllabus with the appro;priate emphasis than it would be with a structuralsyllabus.

_ .But, as with structural syllabi, notionallfunctIonalsyllabi prestnt a problem of transfer. The claim hasfrequently been made that they will lead to more"corathunicative ability" (Littlewood, 1981, p. 1). Asindicated earlier, however, this claim _has never _beenempirically validated, and analysis of the content ofnotional/functional instruction provides little reason toaccept such a claim. Because narrowly defined notion-al/functionalism offers no truly interactional e*per-iences, and no guidance for developing discourse orstrategic competence, its students are not any betterprepared to communicate than students taught usingmore structural syllabi. It would seem that the dif-

4 9

The NtitiöhaFFUnctional Syllabus

ferente between_ teaching &OM form to function andteadhing frem function_ to:form would be minimal Tallthat is taught is a set of unanalyzed pieces of:infor-mation about the new_language _that ithe leainer has tosynthesize Oh his :or her ()Vitt The learners may stillneed real communicatiVe and interactional experiencesto acquire these_ abilitiet. _More experiente and icon.,trolled studies of notional/functional teathing will benecessary to evaluate their pOteUtial in Meeting com-municative goala of language teitChing.

When combined, with a ,more interactional meth-othilogy and an acquisitionbased theory of languageinotional/functional: instructional tOntent may:lead. tomore functional ability. When thiS ia a goal of theinstructional prograM, a notional/functional syllabustedght be an appropriate syllabus choice. For inStrUetional programs whose _primary goal_is_ structuralknowledge, the notional/functional SYllabni is still apossible thoite. AS it kelatea_ forms to functions, thenotional/functional syllabus may be an excellent way toimpart conscious knowledge of the stillettfre and func-tion of a language.

Situational Syllabi

The situational syllabus has a long history in languageteaching, but situational content has mostly been usedas an adjuncito instruction thatiis primarily focused onlanguage form and structure; Many "methods;" fibnigrammar-translation to Berlitz to modern integratedtextbooks, have used examples of the language beinglearned in situations and settings. These range fromshort dialogues tolengthy themes_ with casts of charac-ters acting and behaving in complex ways. Many col-lections of conversation or communication activities areorganized in terms of situations.

It is important to realize that there_is not just onesituational syllabus; but many; differentiated by type ofinformational content and type of linguistic content.Alexander (1976) has distinguished three types of situa-tional syllabus; differentiated_ by type of information:"limbo;" concrete; and mythical; The limbo situation isone in which the specific setting of the situation is oflittle or no importance. Alexander gives the example ofintroductions at a party; where the setting of _the party islargely irrelevant; and what is important is the particu-lar language focus involved. The concrete situation isone in which the "situations are enacted against specific settings7 (p; 98); and what is important is the settingand the language associated with it; Ordering a meal ina_ restaurant and going through customs are examplesof concrete situations. The mythical situation is one that

45


dePends on some sort of fictional story line, frequentlywith a fictional cast of characters in a_ fictional place.

Among the different linguistic focuses that can befound in situations is the grammatical focus, withwhich Situations are presented in such a way_thatparticular structures or sets of structures are empha-sized. It is postible to imagine a pronunciation focusthat 1emphasizesparticular pronunciation problems.Another is_a lexical focus, whose emphasis is on someset of vocabulary items. Situations may emphasizefunctions, such as introthiction or apology, or notions,Such at time or _color or comparison. Finally, situationsmay be constructed to present various types of discourseor interactional phenomena.

A related way to distinguish situational syllabi is toconsider whether situations are _presented to studentsin tbe form of completed discourse, or the students areexpected to create or modify parts or all of it. Manysituations are presented in full, and students are thenasked to play out the same situation using their ownlanguage and, possibly, settings. On the other hand,situations Can be presented as role plays, in which thestudents are expected to create, supply, or fill in muchof the language that occurs in_ the situation.

The mott familiar way of presenting a situation isat a dialogue, usually at the beginning of a lesson,although dialogues may occur anywhere in a lesson.The many ways in which dialogues can be handled inclassrooms are not described here, but they includepassive listening, active listening, and memorizatim;they can serve is models for student improvisation; andSO On.

The topics, settings, and participants in situationscan vary.infinitely. For any use of language, a dialogueOr situation can be created or selected to represent it.The cOntent of situations can be c, --qpktely created bymaterials writers or teachers or taiwa from real life.

One version of situations is role plays, in whichlearners act out or perform roles in defined situations.In role plays, the language may be provided, or thelearnera may ad lib the dialogue. A more sophisticatedversion of situationt is DiPietro't scenarios (DiPietro,1982). Scenarios require learners to play out roles in a

46

Situational Syllabi

particular dramatic situation, usually a complex prob-lem-solving setting with elements that the participantsdo not anticipate. The situation is provided to the learn-er without dialogue or language, and the learners, usu-ally in a group, write or prepare the language and per-form the scenario. Alexander (1976) suggests that situa-tions be personalized by putting students' names andpersonalities into the situations.

With any language instructional content that at-tempts to incorporate some sort of language use, theimportant distinction between "real" and "realistic"(Taylor, 1982) must be kept in mind. Language that iscreated for the classroom but intended to mirror actualoccasions of language use is merely "realistic" at best.Language that actually occurs outside of the classroom,with few artificial constraints, is "real." Most class-room dialogues are, at best, semirealistic.

Only rarely do situations make up the entire contentof a language course. Usually they are used to presentnew material, providing examples of the phenomenabeing taught, and are folkrwed by other, more focusedexercises. Situations in the form of dialogues or roleplays_may also be used to practice material that hasbeen presented in more isolated form. Situational ma=terial in many forms may be used simply to providecomprehensible input (Krashen, 1982) to learners. Someconversational courses may rely on situational materialalmost exclusively.

Because of the wide variety of types and applicationsof situational content, it is not associated with anyspecific theory -of learning. Situational content has beenused with audio-lingual (behaviorist), cognitive, andexperiential (acquisition-based) instruction. Situationalsyllabi are also associated with various theories of lan-guage. A syllabus that relied almost exclusively onrealistic situations, rather than contrived or artificialsituations devised simply to exemplify linguistic struc-tures, would, however, be most closely associated with abroadly communicative view of language and an experi-ential theory of learning.

4 7


Examples of Situational Syllabi

As already indicated, situations rarely make up theentire_content of a language course. They may, how-ever, form the backbone or continuing story line of acourse. One example of this is the sthry line that unifiesthe integrated course text, Intercom._ A representativelist of the situations used in the continuing story is asfollows:

1. What's in the news2. More news3. Fun and games4. TV news: Fire at the Ritz5. Newspaper headlines6. At the dentist's office7. A weight problem8. On a diet9. A visit to the doctor

10. The wedding11. Vacation places12. Travel plans13. On the way14. Away from home

(Yorkey, Barrutia, Chamot, Rainey de Diaz, Gonzalez,Ney, & Woolf, 1984; Book 3, pp. iii-iv)

Another representative list of situations is takenfrom a supplementary conversation text:

The pet shopThe service stationAdvertisingDowntownFire!The working womanThe universeHousework

(Dobson & Sedwick, 1975, p. vii)

48

Situational Syllabi 45

Positive Characteristicsof Situational Syilabi

Situational syllabi can lead more directly than oth-ers to learners' ability to communicate in specific set=tings. This aspect of situational syllabi may not neces-sarily be a strength_. If the setting in whith the lan-guage is to be used is_reiatively closely represented bythe_ language in the pedagoeical situation; thei transfermay take place. To the degree that there is a mismatch,or that there is unpredictability in the real-life situation,th_en frUstration_and 1lack _ ortransfer may be evident;When learners are being trained for hthly specific andpredictable settings, situations can indeed be useful.

Situations provide contexts of discourse in whichform and meaning _coincide. Students are not asked tolearn disembodied forms with multiple potential mean-ings or uses, but to hear and use the forms in contextsthat illustrate and reinforce the form,meaning relation-ship. In this way, situations can break the sentence-level barrier and demonstrate to learners, to somedegree, how language operates in larger units ofdi s course.

The use of situations in language teaching can helpto provide some social and cultural information aboutthe_language and its users in a nondidactic way; Well-prepared situations can show how native speakers actand what they talk about and are concerned about.

Negative Characteristicsof Situational Syllabi

While situational syllabi can potentially increasetransfer to language use in settings that are closely re-lated to the instructional situations, too great a use ofpredetermined and artificial situations can lead to lackof transfer, as students are led to rely on prelearnedroutines and_ patterns OL language use Jather thancreative and negotiated uses of language. Routines andpatterns are unanalyzed chunks of language (e.g., Howhave you been?) that learners acquire without learning

4g


the structural elements and rules that make them up.The role of routines and patterns in language acquisi-tion is controversial (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1_982), butit seems that overreliance on thern can interfere withproductive language learning. For those with very lim-ited convertatiorkal goals, however, routines and pat=terns mayi be Useful.

It is extremely difficult to create authentic languagefor instructional purpoites. First, the actual patterns ofuse of native speakers in many situations are still un=known, ani_intuition is not a reliable guide. Many of thestudies in the Collection by Wolfson and Judd (19_83)demonstrate this. Relying on intuition usually resultsin artificiality and inaccuracy hi addition, even whenaccurate native speaker norms are available, a specialtype of talent is required to write focused-and naturaldialogAie, rarely found in published texts. A third prob-lem with authenticity in situational content is its ten-dency to become outdate& The more specific and accu=rate the language associated with a situation, the morelikely it will become inappropriate quickly.

A reliance on situational content can cause pr)b-lems where the learners or the instructional setting donot Want _cultural values to accompany the language.For exaMPle, when the purpose of teaching English orother languages is academic, business-related, bureau-cratic, or otherwise put.ely instrumental, the culture inwhich the language is being taught may have a lowtolerance or Acceptance level for the cultural valuesassociated with the language. UnleSS the situations arewritten to reflect local valueS or the specific activities forwhich the language is being learned, they may reflectunwanted foreign language values._ As with other types of instructional content, situa-tional syllabi present sequencing problems. Few cHteriaare available for determining the difficulty of situationsand Sequencing them in instructional syllabi. Sequen-cing can reflect some natural chain of events (buyingthe ticket, getting on the train, fmding_the seat, apolo-gizing to a seat=mate, hut it is difficult to controllanguage that might _occur in such sequences without,again, resorting to artificiality.

50

Applidations

Situational Syllabi 47

As indicated at the heginning of this chapter, situa-tional syllabi rarely carry the entire content weight ofan instructional program. One exception is the conver-sational course whose objective is limited conversation-al ability with specific topics. Another is instructionintended fort learners with specific situations in whichto use the language being learned, where the languagethat will occur is highly predictable (e.g., with waitersin restaurants). A third case for situational content isas a corrective tool far learners who have alreadyreceived a great deal of formal instruction but who haveweak ftmctional ability in the language.

In general, however, situational cantent is mostuseful when mixed with other types of instructionalcontent and used for the reasons mentioned earliertointroduce new material, to practice material in realisticways, to provide a continuous story line through gomeset of materials or a course, or to provide opportunitiesfor learners to create their own discourse in definedSituations.

Situational content is usable with learners of allages, though it is especially useful for children whoneither want nor are ready for formal analysis.

Skill-Based Syllabi

Much less is known about the skill-based, task-based,and content-based syllabi than about the types alreadydiscussed. This is especially true of the skill-based sylla=bus, a type that has not been previously identified as aseparate kind of instructional content in the literatureon language teaching. The term "skill" in languageteaching has generally been used to designate one of thefour modes of language: speaking, listening, reading,or writing (Chastain, 1976). Here, however, the term isused to designate a specific way of defining the contentof language teaching.

A working definition of skill for this volume is aspecific way of using language that combines structuraland functional ability but exists independently of spedf-ic settings, or situations, Examples are reading skillssuch as skimming and scanning; writing skills such aswriting specific topic sentences and certain kinds of dis-course (e.g., memos, research reports, work reports);speaking skills of giving instructions,_delivering publictalks, giving personal information for bureaucratic pur-posesi asking for emergency help over the telephone;and listening skills such as getting specific informationover the telephone, listening to foreign radio broadcastsfor news or military information, taking_ orders in a res-taurant, and so_ on, Anether, and more traditional, wayof viewing skill-based instruction is what is calledcompetency-based instruction. Competencies are simi-

52


lar to behavioral objectives in that they define what alearner is able to do as a result of instruction. Extensivelists of competencies have been developed for adult ESL(refugee and immigrant) programs in the UnitedStates.

Not all native speakers of a language are equallycompetent users of language. Also, :individuals havevarying competence in the different_skill areas. For ex-ample, even though anyone reading this book may beconsidered a speaker of English, including many nativespeakers, not all are reading with the same degree ofefficiency. _Some are more "skilled" readers than others;At the same time, one person may be a particularlyskilled reader but perform extremely poorly when re=quired to carry on an emergency conversation on amobile radio. Or someone who is an inefficient readermaybe adept at getting people to buy watetheds;

The ability to use language in specific ways (settingsand registers) is partially dependent on general lan-guage ability, but partly based on experience and theneed for specific skills. Language skills may, in fact, belimited to specific settings. Many waiters and wait-resses in restaurants, and other workers in similarjobs, have learned only the English skills needed to car-ry out:their work in the restauranL Theyhave learned aspecific second-language skill; Preparing students toundertake higher education in _a second language ofteninvolves teaching them specific skins such as note7taking, writing formal papers; and skimming andscanning while reading.

Such skills are somewhat independent of a moregeneral language ability. Experience has shown thatlearners with limited overall ability in a second lan-guage learn to perform specific JimitedL tasks:but cannotalways generalize to other applications of the skills inthe language. Still; while teaching with specific occa-sions of use in mind is possible, the degree to which it ispossible depends on the complexity and predictability ofthe task; Taking an order in a restaurant is a relativelypredictable task. So is the assembly of a computer chip.To some degree, the same possibility holds for aspects oflanguage use in academic settings, where wen-definedforms and routines are supposed to occur. Neverthe-

Sid 11-Based Syllabi 51

less, increasing evidence shows that the predictabilitythat is often assumed may be a matter of folklore, andacademic language use may be as varied and unpredic-table as any other.

To the degree that situations of language use andthe needs of learners can be defined and matched, it issometimes possible to teach or emphasize specific typesof language use and to teach toward them. To somedegree, skill-based syllabi have been used in languagefor specific purposes (LSP) programs, for learners whohave some more or less well-defined activity they need tocarry out in the_second language. Actually, such pro-grams have used a ccmbination of structural, func-tional, situational, and skill-based content.

Skill= or competency-based syllabi are also becomingwidely used in adult education ESL programs, espetial-ly programs for immigrants and refugees. The Main-stream English Language Training Project (MELT)(U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 1,985) is anexcellent example of this type of syllabus. The motiva-tion for their use in such programs seems to come fromthe program designers' goals of making the students asfunctionally competent in society and in the work placein as short a time as possible. The volume Fram theClassroom to the Workplace: Teaching ESL to Adults,published by the Center for Applied Linguistics (1983),is an excellent survey of the concerns of life skills andvocational ESL and the role of skill- and competency-based instruction.

Skill-based instruttional content often reflects areductionist theory of language, which views the overalllanguage system as reducible, at least for teaching pur-poses, to specific skills or applications. At its worst,reductionism embraces the notion that specific skillscan be grafted onto limited general ability (according towhich a 5-year-old can learn to play virtuoso violinpieces). More generally, the reductionist view holds thatlanguage as it is used in some specific ways is formu-laic and predictable.

Another approach to skill-based instruction addres-ses general or overall language ability through specificskill instruction. In this approach, instruction in spe-cific skills is provided in addition to instruction de-

54


signed-to-develop global languageability. The skills:arepresented broadly- and with varied_and_variable applica-tions (e.g., intensive reading_of many different types oftexts)._so_that specific skills and global ability are devel=oped_simultaneously.

Skill7based ingtruction is-not associated with _anyspecific theoryof learning.:._The_ general _theory _is _thatthe_ learning_of complex_ behaviors such as language isbest .facilitated by _breaking them down-in-to -small bits(skills), teaching the- bits, and- hoping that- the learnerwill he able to put them together when actuallyi_usingthem. This -notion is- shared_by many_approaches toinstructional content in language teaching.

Examples of Skill-Based SyllabiOne example of a skill-based syllabus is used in an

advanced-level reading course for students preparingfor higher education:

Guessing vocabulary from contextScanning of nonprose materialReading_for the main ideaUsing affixes as clues tolnferencingMore scanning of nonprose materialSummarizing readingsMore work on affixesDictionary workRestatement of informational c:;ntentMore inference workMore affix workMore restatementMore inferenceAnalysis of paragraph structureMore affix workCritical reading skillsUsing contex: JuesUsing expectations

(1983, pp. 477478)

Examples of some competencies in adult educationESL are as follows:

55

Skill-Basd Syllabi 53

Student will be able to identify common hod items from each foodgroup.

Student will be able to read name and price labels.

Student will be able to identify coins by name (e.g., nickel, dime) andamount.

Student will be able to give correct change.

Student will be able to identify family members by name and relationship.

Student will_be able to write name, address, telephone number, and agein appropriate place on form.

(Center for Applied Linguistics, 1983, p. 17)

Positive Characteristicsof Skill-Based Syllabi

Skill-based_ content is most useful when learnersneed_ to master specific types of language uses, eitherexclusively or as part of broader competency. For ex=ample, students planning to work in higher educationin a second language obviously 1need broad proficiencyin the language. It is impossible to predict all of thekinds of language and information they will encounteror need. On the other hand, it is possible to predict atleast that these students will need specific1 reading andnote-taking skills, the skill of comprehending academiclectures, and the ability to do certain types of academicwriting. Graduate students who need to read limitedtypes of second language material in specific fields needonly those specific reading comprehension skills_ Re-cently arrived immigrants and refugees need immedi-ate abilities in the practicalities of daily life (housing,food, health, social services, law), and those beingtrained for work need specific skills in comprehendingwork instructions. These immediate needs may 1be sub-ordinate to a more general proficiency in the newlanguage. A military intelligence officer being trainedto monitor enemy radio broadcasts may1 need no s ',tak-ing or productive skills, but only certain narrowly de-

5 6


fined listening comprehension skills using the mediumof the radio and tape-recorder and dealing with_ theinformational content of military intelligence. Thusefficiency and_ relevance of instruction are majorstrengths of the skill-based syllabus.

Relevance to student-felt needs or wants is an ad-vantage of the skill-based syllabus because learners whoknow what they need to do with the language generallyshow great acceptance of instruction that is clearlydirected toward their goals.

NegativeLharacteristics6f Skill=Based Syllabi

As with other types of instructional content, thedrawbacks to skill-based syllabi are potential ratherthan absolute. Under the right circumstances, the skill-based syllabus has few drawbacks. One theoreticalquestion is the degree to which ability to perform specif-ic tasks in a language is dependent on or independent ofoverall language proficiency. If the skills are limitedand predictable, and can be performed with the overallcompetency the learner already has, then skill instruc-tion is unarguably effective. If there is a great degree ofunpredictability in the language the learner will have toprocess, however, a greater degree of general profi-ciency will be required. The question of amount ofgeneral proficiency needed thus raises the issue of therelationship between skills instruction and generalproficiency. It can be argued that teaching specificskills also addresses general language proficiency. In-deed, any meaningful second language activity probablyimproves overalL ianguagei proficiency, but the morespecialized and narrowly defined the instructioi., themore unlikely it is to enhance overall proficiency.Instead, instruction in specialized language skills willremain just that, an efficient way to achieve specificlanguage Ilse abilities._

Serious social and philosophical questions have beenraised about the social values that are contained inmany skill- or competency-based instructional pro-grams (Auerbach, 1986). It nossible that skill- or

5

Skill-Bawd Syllabi 55

competency-based instruction that is too limited inscope can program students for particular kinds ofbehavior (e.g., obedience in a work setting) Or isolatethem from achievements and ambitions that the com-petencies do not prepare them for (e.g., educationrather than entry-level employment).

Applications

Obviously, skill-ba&ed instruction is most appropri-ate when learners need specific skills, and especiallywhen these skills are well-defined and the learnershave little need for global language ability. Skill- orcompetency-based instruction has a valuable applica-tion in_life skills anti vocationally oriented languageprograms for adult immigrants and refugees. Thepractical and immediate needs of these learners is anatural application for skill-based instruction. Lan-guage programs preparing students for academic workcertainly h&ve some need for skill instruction, as dovocational language programs and especially prevoca-tional instruction whose content is intended to be ap-plicable to a variety of similar work situations (e.g.,receiving directions, measuring, counting). All of theseare LSP program&

Skill-based instruction is probably more appropriatefor adults than for children, for whom an emphasis onconcrete content is more appropriate. Children, how-ever, may need a combination of skill and content workto help develop their cognitive and academic languageability along with the new language, especially if, forexample, they are limited-English-proficient (LEP) stu-dents in a public school system where the language ofinstrUction is English. Skill-based instruction is notappropriate, in large amounts, at least, for general-purpose or beginning-level language programs inwhich the needs of the learners are broad or yet to bedefined in such cases, focusing on nal-Tow skill-basedapplications will take instructional time away from con-tent that is more likely to address their need for overalllanguage proficiency.

The Task-BasedSyllabus

The task-based syllabus is relatively little-known. It islargely based en work by Krahnke (1981, 1982), Candlinand Murphy (1986), and Johnson (1982). The definingcharacteristic of task-based content is that it uses activi-ties that the learners have to do for noninstructionalpurposes outside of the classroom as opportunities forlang-aage learning. Tasks are distinct from otheractivities to the degree that they have a noninstructionalpurpose and a measurable outcome, Tasks are a way ofbringing the real world into the classroom.

Task-based learning is sometimes similar to situa=tional leaining, but the content of the situations ig pro-vided by the students themselves. Tasks are also notstatic; that is, they should involve a process of informa-tional manipulation and development. They should alsoinvolve informational content that the language learn-ers do not have at the beginning of the task. Anothercharacteristic of tasks ig that they require the student toapply cognitive processes of evaluation, selection, com-bination, modification, or supplementation (so-called"higher-order thinking skills") to a combination of newand old information. In task-baSed instruction, lan-guage is not taught per se, but is supplied as needed forthe completion of the task.

An example of a task is to have the students develop

59


a guidebook to their school or instructional program bractual use by other students. Immigrant studentsmight research the availability of health care in theircommunity and develop a guide to using health carefacilities. In an academic setting, students might workon a paper or report that is actually needed for a con-tent-area class. Beginning students might tackle theprocess of applying for a program or iob, obtaining theforms and information necessary to complete theprocess.

The intent of task-based learning is to use learners'real-life needs and activities as learning experiences,providing motivation through immediacy and relevan-cy. The focu s on processing of new and_ old informationin an interactional manner stimulates transfer. Lan-guage form is learned through language use.

Task-based learning is structurally geared towardlanguage learning or acquisition because the tasks arepart of a language learning environment or program,are chosen in part for what they will contribute to lan-guage development, and are implemented in a way thatprovides as much experience and feedback as possible.The Janguageneeded_ to carry out tasks is not providedor taught beforehand, but discovered by students andprovided by teachers and other resources as the task iscarried out.

Ideally, task-_based instruction can constitute theentire curriculum of a language teaching program.Because it fosters language acquisition in the broadestsense by providing maximal amounts of comprehen-sible input (Krashen, 1982, 1985), students should ac-quire the same overall language proficiency as stud_entstaught through more linguistically focused instruction-al approaches. The one aspect of language knowledgethat may not be addressed by task-based instruction,however, is explicit metalinguistic knowledge, or theability to make descfiptive or prescriptive statementsabout language and manipulate language as an end initself. If such knowledge is a desired outcome of in-struction, task-based learning can be combined withmore traditional types of instructional activities. Unitsor activities focusing on structural content can easily beincorporated into the syllabus, as need or overall pro-

60

The Task-Baiied Syllabus

gram_ objectives dictate.The primary theory of learning underlying task=

based instruction_ is Krashen's acquisition theory(Krashen, 1982). Acquisition theory_ argues that theability to use a language is gained through eiPósure toand participation in using it, that experience, not train-ing, is necessary. The theory of language most closelyassociated with task;based learning is communicative,representing the MI spectrum of communicative_ com-petence,_including linguistic, socielifiguistic, discourse,arid strateec competence (Canale, 1983). Linguistic andsociolinguistic competence is acquired through compre-hensible input as the student processesthe informationneceSsary to perform the task (plus whatever instruc-tion in language form that accompanies it); discoursecompetence is acquired through experiencing the vari-ous discourse types called for by the tasks; and Strategiccompetence, or the _ability to use communicative strat-egieS, it; acquired througk the need for understandingduring the interaction required to accomplish the tasks.

Tasks can be selected according to the students' cog-nitive and linguistic readiness for particular tasks,their need for the particular discourse Or interactionaltype, and availability of resources for carrying out thetasks. Sequencing of tasks should follow some of thesame criteria as for selection, plus _the following:shorter and simpler tasks should be undertaken beforelonger and more complex ones; tasks requiring knowninformation should come before tasks calling for newinformation; and tasks calling for existing ability toprocess information should precede those iequiiiinew types of cognitive processing (e.g., see Bloom's(1956) taxonomy). Beginning learners need short tasksthat draw on information they already possew and callfor more comprehension than_ production. Regihnersshould not have to _perform, for exaMPle, ceitieal orevaluative tasks if they are not ready for them. Simplerecall or combination may be more appropriate. Moreadvanced learners may be ready to handle tasks thatextend over several days or weeks, call_for a great dealof new or unknown information, and require complexprocessing 137-ch as evaluation, comparison, integra=tion, and presentation.

.161

APPROACHES 'Iro SYLIABUS DESIGN

Examples of Task-Based Syllabi

Published examples cannot be provided of a fullydeveloped task-based syllabus because syllabi must bedeveloped for each group of learners in accordance witheach setting in which the instruction will emir. Follow-ing are some examples of tasksthat11might be used atvarious levels of instruction for different types oflearners.

Beginning

preparing profiles of class members for other classesor administrators or teachersplanning and carrying out a class outing or picnic ordinnerproducing _a class cookbook containing recipes fromhome culturefilling out applications for drivers' licenses, socialsecurity cards, and so on

Intermediate

preparing a handbook to the school to be used by otherstudentsproducing an employment procedure guidewhere togo, what to do, whom to talk towriting various types of lettersrequests for in-formation, applications, complaintsproducing newsletters for the other students in theschool

Advanced

writing term paper,' for other content classesdoing a priceromparison survey of food sthresproducing collections of the learners' community folk-lore and folkways (like the Foxfire series published byArrow Books)

62

The Task-BaSed SYlkhus 61

Positive Characteristicsof TaSk-Based Syllabi

Task-based instruction is potentially very powerfuland widely applicable. It is suitable for learners of allages and backgrounds. It addresses the crucial problemin language teachingthe transfer problemdirectly,by using active and real tasks as learning activities.Ability to perform the instructional task is equivalent tothe ability to use the language, so functional abilityshould_ be a natzral outcome of the instructional ex-perience. In addition, task-based language instructioncan be the vehicle for instruction in other types of con-tent or knowledge at the same time as it addresses lan-guage acquisition.

Task-based Iearning_can be very effective when thelearners are engaged in relatively similar ottt-of-elassactivities (social or academic). It can also be valuable forlearners who have a clear and immediate need to usethe language for well-defined purposes. Task-basedlearning can be especially useful_ for learners who arenot accustomed to more traditional types of classroomlearning or who need to learn cognitive, cultural, andlife skills along with the language.

Negafive Chäteristicsof Task-Based Syllabi

The weaknesses of task-based syllabi lie not so muchin the potentiLl effectiveness of this type of instructionalcontent but in problems of implementing the instruc-tion. :Prob1em1 can easily arise with teachers, the in-structional setting, or the students. Task-based learn-ing requires a high level of creativity and initiative onthe part of the teacher. If teachers are limited to moretraditional roles or do not have the time and resourcesto implement task-based teaching, this type of teachingmaTbe impossible.

Second, task-basecl learning requires resources be-yond the textbooks and related materials usually &Lindin language classrooms. Where there are limited re-

63


sources for gaining access to information via the targetlanguage, such as when the language is being taughtoutside the culture where it is used, task-based instruc-tion can be difficult to implement

Finally, because task-bitsed learning is not whatmany students exPect and want from a language class,they may, at least initially, resist or object to this type ofinstruction. In addition, task-based Matruction is notteacher=centerek instead, it requires individual andgroup responsibility and commitment on the part ofstudents. If students are notably lacking in thesequalities, task-based instruction may indeed be difficultto implement.

Evaluation a task-based learning can be difficult.Traditional discrete-point achievement tests are oftennot a good measure of the language that is acquired intask learning. Overall language proficiency, hOwever,should be at; easy to measure as with any other type ofinstruction. While students may be making adequateimprovements in their language proficiency, the globalnature of task=based learning prevents it froth beingmeasurable by some of the more restHcted tests. If aneducational system requires students to demonstrateprogress through performance on such teSts, task-based instruction may have to be limited, or it may notbe appropriate at all.

ApplicationsTask=based learning_can be aPplied in a number of

instruttional_settings,_ essentially anywhere thAt real=life_tasks can be devised or- discovered for leathatiLTasks_ are easier to provide 'when the_languageia_beffigtaught in a setting_where_it is_spoken,_but approprifttetaska_eati_alto__be_found in a foreign language -settWith _reliance on printed_resourceo _an-d invited peo;Aefor information in the target larg_uage. :Taak,baap-3,ilearning can beused with learns_rs _of _all_ agesbackgrounds, although_some unifbithitY of interests ina:alias:can be an asset._ Since task-based learning dipends heavily on the learners'_ receiving comprehen-sible input, it is especially applicable in SeCOnd-lan-

6 4

The Thsk-Based Syllabus

guage teachirig Settings where the iëàrnërs are sur-rounded by resources in the target language.

Little has been published in the way of experiencewith, or reports on, task-based language instruction.This type of instruction holds great promise for theteaching of languages in second language settings forboth adults and children. Further work will help to de-fine its potential contribution to the overall field of lan-guage teaching.

The Con ent-BasedSyllabus

Content-based language teaching has been in existencefor some bale, but has only recently been recognized asa viable way of teaching language as an end in itself. Inconcept, content-based teaching is simple: It is theteaching of content or information in the language be-ing learned with little or no direct or explicit effort toteach the language itself separately from the contenbeing taught. In practice, many programs usingcontent-based approach have also included an instruc-tional component specifically focusing on the targetlanguage, but such specific language instruction is notregarded as the primary contributor to target languageacquisition.

Recent developments in content-based teaching areclosely related to the broader issue of attempts to provideeffective instruction to LEP children in public schools inthe United States and Canada. One solution to_ theproblem of limited school language proficiency has beensome sort of controlled immersion in the language ofthe school or society. "Immersion" essentially hasmeant that students are given contentinstrtiction in alanguage they may not control well or at all; that is,they simply go to school in that language. When under-taken responsibly and informedly, immersion can max-imize the students' comprehension of both the target

66


language and the content material.The potential for the _success of immerSion was

established by controlled reseafth :Carried out inCanada (Lambert & Tucker,1972) Iii thia research pro-grant, StudentSi were placed in school:subject classes,Starting at the kindergarden level, that were taughtinlanguages other than their first The_ reahlta of theresearch demonstrated that suth Students had learnedboth the ethitent being_ taught and the language inwhich it was taught, _and that cognitive development*as not slowed by such an experience._

This type of evidence, And the:need tb_ethitate largenumbers of non-English,Speaking Children in theUnited: States and Canada, gave support to bilingualedncation programs in both countries as a solution tothe problem of educating children who -dti ha:Speak thelanguage of: the educational sySteni. The gears of bilin-gual education programs lave been to keep non-domi-nant language speakers in Sehool, to ensure:that theircognitive development continues at an acceptable rate,and to give them ability_in_ the community language thatthey did not have proficiency in, leading, ideally, tobilingualism.

The probleins that have arisen with this eohcepthave led to its revision, but not abandomment Oneproblem has to:do with the condept of immersion itself.When immersion is interPreted as the placing ofattdents with runited proficiency M the target languagein a class composed primarily of native speakerswithout making any provision to assist their compre,hension of content and their iiettnisition of the targetlanguage, little content learning or languageSition takes place. But when teaching techniquet aroadjusted so that students : comprehend the contentmaterial as it is presented:in the iie* language, bothcontent and language acquisition do occur. ImmersionWitheint adjustment or assistance has been labeled"Siibinersion" (Krashen, 1985, p. 81).

The second:problem with the Understanding of im-mersion education has to do With the students' age. It isWidely believed that very young children can acquit*new language naturally but _that older children andadults lose this capacity and need largo amounts of

67

The Content-Bosed SYllahas 67

formal training. While _there is some truth to this; re-cent research_in language acquisition has establishedthat adults can acquire languages in the same man=ner that children do, and that, in addition, they can takebetter- advantage of formal instruttion: than childrencan, Studies an what is called late immersion," orimmersion that starts after the age of 11 or 12, havedemonstrated that older students can benefit fromcontent-based instruction (California State Board_ofEducation, 1984; Genesee, Polich, & Stanley; 1977),Older stifdents may benefit more from immersion orcontent-based instruction if the immersion is precededby a period of formal instruction in the language(Lapkin & Cummins, 1984; Swain, 1984).

A small body of _literature exists on content-basedlanguage _instruction (Chamot, 1983, 1984; Mohan,1979); Widdowson (1978) suggested a type of content-based teaching (incorporating aspects of task-basedteaching) as a means of bringing more language useinto the school classroom:

I would argue, then, that a foreign language canbe associated with those areas of use which arerepresented by the other subjects on the schoolcurriculum: and that this not only helps toensure the link with reality and the pupils' ownexperience but also provides us with thf mostcertain means we have of teaching thelanguageas communication, ias _use, rather than simplyas I 3age. The kind of language course that Ienvisage is one which deals with a selection oftopics taken from the other subjects: simpleexperiments in physics and chemistry, biologicalprocesses in plants and animals; map-drawing,descriptions of historical events and so on. . . , Itis easy to see that if such a procedure wereadopted, the difficulties associated with the pres-entation Oflanguage use in the classroom would;to a considerable degree, disappear. The presen-tation would essentially be the same as the meth-odological techniques used for introducing thetopics in the subjects from whicn they weredrawn. (p. 16)

68


The learning theory associated with content-basedinstruction is an acquisition theory that accounts- forlearning without explicit instruction (Krashen, 1982;Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Content-based learning seemsto be most effective with younger children, but it hasalso been validated for older children and adults (Cah=fornia State Board of Education, 1984). Some evidence(Mason, 1971) suggests that even adults in highereducation programsmay benefit from large doses ofcontent instruction. Some intensive academic curriculaattempt to include a component of content=based in:struction by having students take content courSeS withlanguage instructional support. Evidence for the suc-cess of such programs is largely anecdotal, and prac-tical and administrative problems frequently preventthem from being attempted.

In the United States, the bilingual immersion_ ap-proach is being superseded in some places by a morerefined approach known_ as the "sheltered classroom."This is an exclusively content-focused classroom forstudents whose profifiency in the school language islimited. Instead of direct language inStruction, the stu-dents in a sheltered claSsroom are given content in-struction while special attention is paia to their lan-guage learning needs: greater comprehensibility of thetea: her's explanations, more time to complete assign-mer., s, rich language experiences 1throughout the cur-riculum, and so on. Snch controlled immersion is often,but not always, supplemented by explicit formal in=struction in the target language.

The theory of language assumed by content-basedinstruction embraces the full range of communicativecompetence, including a structural component (gram=matical competence), sociolinguistic and discoursecompetence (especially1 in school settings and in _schooldiscourse), and strategic competence, again as it relatesto academic activities. It is a use-based theory of lan-guage that sees langua3e as arising from the settingsin which it is used. Content:based learning does notclearly distinguish form and function in teaching lan-g,,,,ge but makes the new language available in the con-texts of its functions and meanings.

Content-based instruction has been investigated

69

The Content-Rased Syllabus 69

primarily in the context of schools, using schooL subjectcontent as the vehicle for language learning and theprimary instructional objective. It would be equallyapplicable outsidc1 of sehooL settings, especially for chil-dren, and for adults if an adequate support and moni-toring mechanism is provided. Some vocational lan-guage instruction may indeed benefit from a content-based approach. Content-based instruction has a longhistory as _an informal method, as many languagelearners expose themselies to immersion experiencesin the process of using the language for specific pur-poses, improving tht ir competence along the way.

Examplesof Content-Based Syllabi

Any content-based syllabus is by definition identicalto the syllabus of a content course at any level inscience, social studies, or any other school subject._Extensive reading of literature or other content materialin a target language can also be ,,een as a type ofcontent-based learning. A content syllabus might besupplemented with traditional, form-focused, lan-guage-intensive work on, for example, vocabulary devel-opment, spelling, specific and intensive writing activi-ties, and so on.

Positive Characteristicsof Content-Based Syllabi

The strongest point in favoi rf content-based in-struction is that it allows school students to learn sub-ject matter and language si-nultaneously, avoiding theproblem of having to learn the language of instructionbefore experiencing the instruction and, as a result ofthe delay, falling behind their cohorts and experiencingdelayed cognitive development.

A second point in favor of content-based instructionis that the language is learned in the context of its use,eliminating the problem of transfer from instruction to

70

70 APPROACHES TO SYLIALBUS DESIGN

use. What is learned is language use, not an inventoryof items and rules that the learner must subsequentlylearn how to use.

A third benefit of content-based instruction is thatthere is an almost perfect match between what needs tobe learned and what is provided. A needs analysis, for-mal or informal, of what learners_will need to do withthe language is avoided, and the problem posed by theinevitable inaccuracy of such a needs analysis is by-passed. Students learn exactly what they need to learn.

A possible fourth benefit is themotivational aspect ofcnntent-based instruction. Students who are not mo-tivated to learn in a class focused on language itselfmay acquire the language more willingly when it isused to present content material that the student finds

Aing.

Negative FeaturesOf Content=Based Syllabi

Content-based instruction potentially can lead topremature fossilization or overreliance on compensa;tory communication strategies if learners are not care-fully monitored and given appropriate feedback on theirlanguage proficiency. While the causes of fossilizationand markediformal _inaccuracy are not clearly under=stood, the absence of feedback probably contributes.Formal inaccuracy can be overcome with adequateiandappropriate feedback and, I-Jr-haps, some formal in-struction (see Higgs & Clifford, 1982, for a discussion ofa related problem in the development of second lan-guage proficiency).

Content-based instruction is often problematic withbeginning or low-level adult students, although moreeffective ways to use it with adults will probably bedeveloped; Children seem to be able to use a variety oflinguistic and environmental cues to gain accesa to anew linguistic system, while adults frequently blockimportant information out; Adults may require someamount of analytic and formal instruction, either aspreparation for content-based instruction or concurrentwith it, to overcome their affective resistance and to

71

The Content-Based Syllabus 71

provide them with the limited forma- and meta-linguistic skills they may need to refine ieir secondlanguage ability.

Applications

The content-based syllabus is; obviously, most ap-plicable in primary and secondary school settings withsignificant numbers of studenti eaking alanguageother_than_the_one primarily a _in the_ educationalsystem;_lt_can be_ used in a fereici.; language setting if,for example;_ a school -has 0.: .ned- that its studentsshould -have -academic -competency in a second _lan-guage._ The school_ may_ then choose to teach_ one ormorecontent _classes in_the second language;_ starting stuEdents from an early age. -Content -instruction -it= Asoi ofcourse; applicable to LEP studentsi whom U.S._schoolsystems-- are encountering- in increasing _

Rather than_ pulling the students out of content clr.siiti,;for ESL instruction;_ or delaying content instructiok;til some: sufficient level of English-ability is:reached;administrators can- group such _students togetherin __a

sheltered; content-base_d _classroom and provide themwith_ the instruction_ necessary to develop both types ofability simultaneously (Cumminc.,1981 01.re shen; 1985)iEve-n individuals or small groups af _LEP students canbe_taught_along with English,profIdent studer s; aslong as _efforts are _made_ to ensure that the -subjectmatter they are being taught is being-presented throughEnglish in a way that -is comprehensible to the student.Of coursei: suchSheltered;_ content,hased instructioncan_ be;__and_ probably__always _should be, _accompanied bysome specific language (ESL) instruction._

,ent-based instruction can probablyibe_of benefitto acibltsinather_language_and._ coritent learning.._set-tings_ _also; Immigrants; refugees; _and guest worke-rscan be taught life skilLi -and social information in- thelanguage c!' -the society they will be living in; gettingcontent_andlanguage_ at the same _time._ VOCE mal lan-guage instruction_ can follow_ the same model, with jobskills ann -the accampanying language abilities beingtaught at the same time.

72

72 APPROACHES TO SYLIABUS DESIGN

Bec. use of limitations on instructional time and re-sources, content-based _instruction may not be appropri-ate where a second or foreign language is regarded as aschool subject by itself, or where knowledge of somenarrowly specified language instructional content ismandated or expected. One exception occurs when_ex-tensive reading in the new:language is assigned, pos-sibly as an out-of.class activity, Reading of literature orsubject,matter material in the target language can beregarded as content-based instruction. Most literaturestudy in the new language may be viewed as a type ofcontent-based instruction. In these settings, however; itis unlikely that junior high sehool social studies will betaught in French to the students who are studyingFrench as a foreign language. In schools with real bi-

programs, however, where English-sEpeakingchildren take content easses in, for example; Spanish,along with_ the Spanish-speaking students, content;based teaching of a foreign language is taking place.

Testing may interfere with content-based instruc-tion if students' achievement e.nd progress in the educa-tional system is measurei by tests that focus on narnw-ly defined formal featm of the target language (e.g.,spelling, phonics, grammc,tical accuracy). In general;students with global language abilities will do well onsuch tests of specific khowletig,:., even though the spe-cifics may not have been the focus of instroo.However, specific formal knowledge may take longer todevelop. If such tests play an important role in the ed-ucational system, content-based instruction may have tobe supplemen, with some type of formal instruction.

Content-based instruction does not guarantee suc-cessful commu .%.0-tive ability, especially productiveability (Mohan, 1979); unless extensive productive ac-tivities are included as part of the overall instructionalexperience:

Choosing andIntegrating Syllabi

The term syllabus, as used here, does not refer to a doc-ument guiding the teaching of a specific languagecourse, but to a more theoretical notion of the types ofcontent involved in language teaching and the bases forthe organization of language courses.

This chapter concerns the factors affPcting thechoice of content to be included in a second languageteaching syllabus, including the program, the teacher,and the students. Following this, several desig, issuesrelating to syllabus choice are discussed. Finally, aprocedure for actually producing a syllabus for a courseis outlined. This outline is brief because the _questionhas been treated in great detail elsewhere (Dubin &Olshtain, 1986; Steiner, 1975; Yalden, 1983).

In the preceding chapters, six 4rpes of syllabus con-tent were defined and described as ideal or isolatedtypes. In actual teaching settings, of course, it is rarefor one type of syllabus or con; -2:nt to be used exclusivelyof other types. Syllabus or content types are usuallycombined in more or less integrated ways, with one typeas the organizing basis around which the ethers arearranged and related._ For example, many foreign lan-guage courses are organized around a structural syl-labus, with each unit or chapter focusing on severalgrammatical features. Accompanying the grammatical

74


focus and organization, however, are other types ofn ntent, usually situatioal (dialogues) and functional

(how to introduce yourself).Basic syllabus design involves several questions.

The first question concerns the types of content to in-clude or exclude. The second is whPther to combine var-ious types of syllabus content or to rely on a single type.The third, assuming that more than one type of contentwill be included, is whether to ute one type as basic andto organize others around it, or to sequence each typemere or less independently of the other. In discussingsyllabus choice and design, then, it should be kept inmind that the issue is not which type to choose butwhich types, and how to relate them to each other. Be-fore this issue is discussed,_three factors that affect thechoice of syllabus or content in language teachingprogram, teacher, and studentsare examined.

Program Factors AffctingSyllabus Chtiité ahd DéSign

Goals and Objectives

The major determinant in choosing a syllabus typefor second language teaching must be the goals andobjectives _of the overall instructional program; that is,the type of knowledge Or behavior desired as an outcomeof the instruction. This truism has not been consiStentlyrecognized. For example, for a number of years it hPs

een widely accepted that ability to function communi-catively in a second language is a desirable outcome(among others) of foreign language instruction in Sec-ondary schools and at the college level. The emphasis inmuch of this instruction, heweVer, has remained on thestructural and formal aspects of language, presumablyunder the assumption that one kind of knowledge(structural) will lead to the other (ability to function).Yet ample evidence has shown_ that more direct routesto functional ability are possible, using a variety of typesof instructional content, such as situational, skill, andnotional/functional content. Thus the relationship of the

75

Choosing and Integrating Syllabi 75

goals of instruction to the content of instruction has notalways been direct.

While it may seem like an oversimplification, auseful guiding principle in second language learning isthat learners learn to do what they do while they arebeing instructed. Students who spend their instruc-tional time hearing, repeating, and role-playing thelanguage of various situations will learn how to speakin those situations, but not others. Students who spendtheir instructional time learning social studies throughthe second language (content-based instruction) willlearn how to use the second language in the ways thatare needed to learn in similar academic content areas.

Given this general guideline, the question of therelationship of overall program goals and instructionalcontent is one of choosing a type or types of instructionalcontent that most closely match the goals of the pro-gram._ For almost all instructional programs, it is dearthat some combination of types of instructional contentwill be needed to address the complex goalt of theprogram. Previous chapters identified how each type ofsy:tiabus relates to various goals and objectives. Here itis sufficient to note that for most general 1foreignlanguage teaching applications, whose goal is func-tional ability in broadly defined settings and structuralknowledge and communicative ability in specific situa-tions, a combination of functional, structural, situation,-al, and skill-based instruction is the probable choice. Onthe other hand, in some second language teachingsettings, skills and tasks can be more narrowly spe-cified, instructional resources are richer, or specificstructural or formal knowledge is not required by theprogram for the students to succeed, and a combinationof task=based, skill-based, situational, functional, andcontent instruction may be chosen. The specific propor-tions of each type have to be further determined on thebasis of narrower specifications of students' need andan the basis of empirical and theoretical arguments forthe need and usefulness of each type of instruction. Theoutcomes of eadi type of instructional content have beenidentified in the preceding chapters.


instructional Resources

Clearly, one factor that will affect the type of syllabusOr syllabi that can be chosen is the instructional re-sources available. Re Sources may include elementssuch as time, textbooks and other materials, visuals(films, slides, Pictures), realia, and out-of-classroomresources such as other speakers of the language, radioand television programs, filma, field trips, and so on.

Of these resources,ititbooks certainly play thegreatest role in the determination of syllabus. For manyprograms, they are the only determinant Frequently,programs adopt textbooks for courses and expect teach-ers to use them as the Sole or major source of classroominstruction._If a text already exists for a course, it isusually the basis for the course's syllabus. If a text is tobe adopted, prospective texts should beiexamined fortheir adequacy as a basis for a syllabus, Space does notpermit a taxonomy of available texthooks, but mostmajor educational publishers offer textbook series forthe commonly taught languages. In general, theseseries tend to be structurally focused and organized butinclude some situational and skill content- Many recenttexts, especially for English language teaching, empha-size functional content and organization. No task=basedtexts are yet available, and contentzbased thaching willusually use text material intended for native speakers ofthe language.

The availability of nontext or supplementary textresources clearly affects the ease with which instruc-tional content beyond the textbook can be included in alanguage course. For example, skill-based instructionfocusing on the comprehension of native-like speech,either in conversatior,d or in academic lecture settings,is difficult to undertake where few other Speakers of thetarget language are available for conversation or lec-tures or where taped material or the means to use it islimited. Similarly, a situational lesson requiring stu-dents to ask directions to get around a town_ would bedifficult to implement without maps, diagrams, or pic-tures of the town. Tasks also may require resourcessuch as schedules, forMs, reference books or other ma-terial, people, information sources, and so on.

77


In general, however, the resourceful instructor orinstructional planner can devise resources:and modifyactivities so that available resources can be used; AnESL textbook (Plaister, 1976), for example, makesnative-like lecture and reading material :available forskill instruction in academic course work :almost en-tirely through the _textbook alone, in the hands of acompetent instructor. Tasks can be devised usim;room resources, such as duplicated forms to be hIledout or a variety of newspaper stories about a single topicto be combined into a single, usable version by thestudents.

Content-based second language instruction requiresthe resources that are normally needed to teach thecontent in the native,speaker classroom, plus whateverinstructional: aids can help make the content moreaccessible and comprehensible for students with limitedlanguage ability (the sheltered classroom).

Accountability and Measurement

A final1 program factor affecting the choice of in-structional content may be the need to make theinstruction accountable to authorities or measurable byexternal measuresusually tests. The influence oftests on the content of nstruction is a well-knownphenomenon. Teachers and instructional programsoften teach toward a particular kind of knowledge if it isgoing to be tested, even though the knowledge may notbe what the students really need. One clear examplehas been the emphasis on teaching toward the kind oflanguage abilities tested by the Test of _English as aForeign Language (TOEFL) in academic-preparationESL programs in the United States. Because, until re-cently, the TOEFL did not test writing directly, but didinclude many items that seemed to require gram-matical judgments, academic-preparation ESL pro-grams have tended to stress grammar instruction anddeemphasize instruction in writing. A more recentexample is the impact that the new ACTFL_ ProficiencyGuidelines seem to be having on the curricula andsyllabi of foreign language teaching programs in theUnited States. By including evaluative criteria, for ex-

t-%--'


ample, for understanding the spoken language as it isused on the telephone and through other electronicmedia, the guidelines are leading instructional pro-grams to inchide rnore skill-based instruction withsuch types of language use in mind.

Teacher Factors AffectingSyllabus Choice and Design

Along with the more general program factors;teachers play a role in determining what the content oflanguage instruction will be. A truism of teaching_ isthat teachers tend to teach what they know; A teatherwho_ is not familiar with the fórmal aspects of a lan-guage will not be likely to try to teach a_ grammar les!.son, but might, for example, focus on the social uses(functions) of language or how it is used in: varioussituations._ On the other hand; the science teacher withone student who does not speak the language of theclassroom may go ahead and teach science in the bestway possible (content insfrUction) rather than try te givethe student a speciallanguage lesson;

Some research in teacher practice suggests thatlanguage teachers do not accurately describe their ownpractice (Long & Sato, 1983), have contradictory andinconsistent beliefs about language teaching (Krzhnke& Knowles; 1984) and tend to repeat their own ex-periences as students when they become teachers. As aresult, teachers can have a powerful influence on theactual syllabus of a classroom even if the oricial or overtsyllabus of the program is entirely different

The teacher s belief system or orientation is also amajor determinant of syllabus or content. A teachermay be fully knowledgeable about the linguisticstructure of the language being taught but may behevethat languages are best learned through experiencerather than through analysis and synthesis. ThiSteacher may then try to include as much task- andcontent,based instructioni as possible in the class, evenwhen the overt class syllabus might be a structural one.The teacher's ability is another potential major determi=nant of actual instructional content. Just as a teacher

79

Chooaing and Integrating Syllabi 79

who is not knowledgeable about the formal aspects ofthe language cannot teach them even if the syllabuscalls for it, a teacher with limited ability to use thelanguage functionally will not be able to assist andencourage students to carry out task-based instruction.And the teaCher who does not know enough about ascientific topic to discourse on it in the target languagewill not lae able to provide content-based instruction

Of course, teacher& can be trained, but training iscostly and time-consuming, and some of the researchcited earlier suggests that such training is of limitedbenefit. The conservative position on the relationshipbetween a teacher'S beliefs and abilities and the Choiceof instructional content is to expect that teachers berelatively willing and able to undertake the type of in-struction chosen before they undertake it; otherwisethey will use content with which they are morecomfortable at best and, at worst, flounder.

Student FactOtt AffédtindSyllabus Choice and Design

Pacts about students -1Ro affect what instructionalcontent can be used in tructional program. Themajor concerns here sre : eels of the students, theirexvrience, expectations, and prior knowledge, theirsocial and personality types, and the number of stu-dents in a given class.

Ideally, the goals the students themselves have forlanjuage study will match the goals of the proram.When this is so, the question of goals is easy to settle.Sometimes, however, programs and students have dif-&rent goals. For examPle, one instructional programwas designed to teach the English of the broadcastingprofession at a vocational school._ The program admin-istrators assumed that the students' language learninggoals were tied to the professional training they werereceiving. Many students, however, were more inter-ested in attaining general English proficiency to pre-pare them for even better positions than they were beingtrained for. One way to meet both sets of goals would beto increase the amount of general functional, situation-

SO


al, and skill content provided along with the specializedskill and structural content that was being taught.

The experience, expectations, and knowledge thatstudents bring to the instruction can also affect syllabuschoice, although the literature is curiously quiet aboutthis factor. Many syllabus and methodological recom-mendationa are made as though students can and willeasily accept any instructional content. With childrensuch a policy rnay be safer than with adults. Adultsoften have distinct ideas of what language instructionshould be, even though these ideas may, from a profes-sionally informed perspective, conflict with their lan-guage learning goals.

Generally, the difference between students' expecta-tions and the instruction they receive is between in-struction that focuses on form (structural content) andinstruction that focuses on function (functional, situa-tional, skill-based, or other content). Students who ex-pect one and get the other may resist. If so, the instruc-tor has three choice- to continue and possibly "lose"students; to "give in" to the students either completelyor by compromising; or to continue with the originalinstructior,a1 plan while trying to convince the studentsover time that the program decision is appropriate. Toooften, one of the first two routes is chosen, with notenough effort given to bringing the students around.For example, one group of students initially resistedengaging in task-based learning experiences, prefer-ring the intellectual anonymity of more traditional in-struction. Many strong resisters have been won over intime* however, by teachers who believed in their ap-proach and persisted with it.

There are extremes, however, and it would beidealistic to believe that all students can be easily madeto accept a type af teaching with which they are un-familiar or uncomfortable. Some syllabus decisionbmay have to be made only because the students have astrong allegiance or resistance to one or another type ofinstruction. Two possible solutions should be kept inmind. One is that students, as described earlier, can bebrought around to accepting a kind of instruction theymay not initially accept.

The other technique that may be used if students are

81

C oosing and Integrating Syllabi 81

resisting a type of instructional content that appears tobe what they need (e.g.; ft.;:ictional)in Savor of one withwhich they ere more comfortable (e.g., structural), isthe covert syllabus. A covert syllabus simply provides asignificant:amount of the -type ofinstruction thought thbe appropriatefor the students without calling attentionto it in the course descriptions or materials. The overtsyllabus may be structural, and teaching points andcourse organization may be stated in structural terms.However, the course might actually stress:functionalcontent; from the specific functions of various struc-_tures (notional/functional) to actual skill-, task-, orcontent-based instruction. The latter types might bepresented to the students as "practice."

Language instruction haS foundered or failed whenresisted by students. Students' readiness for one oranother type of instruction is, therefore, a crucial factorin deciding what syllabus type to adopt for a giventeaching setting; among other decisions Teachers andcours t! designers must remember; however; that theyare_ in control of the instruction and can best determineinstructional needs.

Other Issues

A host of other issues affect syllabus choice in lan-guage teaching, of which a few are touched on here.

Needs Analyses

Much discussion has appeared in the literature onsyllabus design in recent years about performing aneeds analysis-before designing a syllabus (Munby,1978; Yalden, 1983); 1niconcept; needs analyses arepie: the linguistic and communicative mateHalstudents will need is determined, and the teaching -labus is developed accordingly. Unfortunately, needsanalyses are diffictilt to perform for several reasons._

The first reason is economic; Many teaching pro-grams simply do not have the time, financial resources,and expertise needed to carry out a eeally useful needsanalysis. A good needs analysis requires the skills of a

4 . 82

APPROACHES TO SYLLABUS DESI

trained linguist as well as other profescionals.Second, needs analyses are often not practically

feasible. Such analyses may require an extensive timeinvestment Carrying ut needs analyses even onfamiliar activities such as doing academie work in sec-ond languages may require months of observing lec-tures, interviewing teachers and students, collectingexamples of written work; analyzing texts, and so on.Converting the systematic analysis_ into a syllabus maytake an equal amount of time and effort.

Finally, a needs analysis may reveal that students'needs are so broad that a useful selection of content isdifficult to make. The eventual ireign languagei needsof high school and university students in the UnitedStates is, possibly, one example of this.

For th:se and other reasons, few needs analyses areever undertaken in practice. Most often the processes ofneeds analysis _and_ _syllabus desigr occur ul-taneously, with no formal needs analysis. Also, fewfollow-up studies are done to determine whether what istaught is actually what students most need (seeChristison & Krahnke, 1986, for one such study).

The impracticality of needs analyses in relation tosyllabus design is a reality that can best be handled byadding caution and skepticism to the matter of syllabuschoice and design. Recognizing that decisioms :aboutinstructional content may well turn out tO be deficient orinappropriate; designers of instruction can choose thebroadest type of content possible to ensure that thefuture1 second1 language needs of the students willprobably be met.

Reductionism

One answer to the problems of syllabus design andlearnability, as well as accountability and measure-ment, has been to adopt a reductionist approach toinstructional content. A reductionist approach attemptsto define the least that shouldbei taught to meet somereal or imagined need. In audio-lingual languageteaching, for example, the amount of vocabal3ry stu-dents were required to learn was kept as snall aspossible in order to maximize learning of the structure

83

Choosing and Integrating Syllabi

of the target language; This reduced view of language(structure with little semantics) led to dramatic initialincreases in the learning of specific structures, bt,t,seems to have contributed little to overall languageacquisition,

In the teaching of ESL writingin academic settings,one approach has been to focus on teaching students theorganizational patterns assumed to predominate inacademic writing. Sometimes :this instruction :.f.fers anidealized procedure for producing wich products (aproduct approach). This reductionist approach to sec-ond language writing leads tn a rigid and limited viewof what writing is and how it is achieved, and poten-tially leaves_ stlients unprepared for the creative andunpredictable riting tasks they must face in realacademic work,

Reductionism in syllabus design is a temptationbecause of the apparent success with which limitedamounts of language can be taught and learned. Asometimes frustratingly slow and complex process isseemingly made simpler by eliminating many difficultaspects. Considering what students eventually need inorder to succeed with _a_ second language,-_ however; re,ductionist approaches to syllabus design do r-sore harmthan good. Once again, the most practical ative toreductionist 1 iabi is instructional conter at pro-vides_learmi :with the broadest possible rities and knowledge;

Flexibility of Syllabu Design

Little 'is mentioned in the literature about the ques-tion of how loosely _or narrowly to define a languageteaching syllabus. As with other aspects of syllabusdesign, no simple answer can be given. A narrowlydefined syllabus allows little room for modification byteacher or students: They do what the syllabus pre=determines for the classroom. Narrowly defined syllabiare sometir, es called "teacherproof." In contrast, aloosely defined syllabus allows for more flexibility, mod-ification, and innovation on the part of the teachers andstudents. The teacher's ability and resourcefulness in-

64


teract with the type of syllabus to produce varying de-grees of definition.

In instructional settings where teachers_have insuf-ficien::, time, competence in the language; instructionalability, or creativity to go beyond an assigned syllabusWith set materials; a narrowly defined syllabus is pref.=erable. Such a syllabus might also be desirable whenteachers are not well trained in the type of teachingdefined by the syllabus, or disagree with it. On the otherhand, teachers who are well-trained, competent, re-sourceful, and favor the type of teaching defined mightneed a much less narrowly defined syllabus, and feelprofessionally restrained by one that is too narrowlydefined.

The type cf syllabus also affects the degree of defmi-tion. Any type of syllabus can potentially be narrowlydefined, but structural; functional; and situaaonaltypes art obviously more amenable to narrow definitionthan skill-, task-, and content-based syllabi. The lattert,,nes can often be defined in a general way, but manyspt:cifics, especially laaguage specifics, may be unpre-dicta e ard have to be dealt with spontane -usly. Forexamr) e, while:teac,ling business letter-writing skills,a teacher may disco\ er that students have poor spellingor punctuation. instruction in these more specific skinsmay be necessary before the overall _objectives can bemet. In genere, structural; functional; and sicuationalsyllabi can be ^arc Lull), defined so that very few un-predicted learning needs arise.

Cyclical versus Linear Syllabi

Much has been made in recent years (Dubin &lshtain, 1986; Yalden, 1983) of a cyclical or spiraled

approach to the form of a syllabus rather than a linearone. In a linear syllabus, material is dealt with once,presumably rr,-,:.,tered by the students, and never di-rectly taken up again. This is the concept of masterylearning, by which a series of small, discrete steps istaught and learned, and all add up to the overall behav-ior desired. Although many language teaching syllabifollow a linear format, the concept has been questioned

85

Chcmning and Integrating Syllabi

for some time. Corder (1973) notes that "Languagelearning is-not just cumulative, it is an integrative pro-cess" -(p. 297), and argues for a cyclical pattern that al=lows language material to be dealt with repeatedly asthe syllabus progresses, usually with a greater degreeof' complexity each time it is encounter?-l. The cyclicaldesign is also in harmony with current kr owled -eabout the development of linguistic competence,characterized by recent work in first language ac-quisition (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982; Ellis, 1986).Language regularities do not emerge fully and perfectlyformed as a result of an in.strudional or other experi-ence; but instead form gradually and_with an_ increas-ing degree of refinement; A cyclical syllabus; at least inits more general features, resembles this process.

The literature shows a general preference for cycli-cal syllabus designs, but practical problems persist.Designing a syllabus that is both narrowly defined andcyclic:. ; may be a formidable challenge; The ordering of

nr13 is a basic theoretical issue even for a linearsy;lrIbus. Creating a cyclical one in which items werenot only well sequenced relative to eadi other; hut werealso appropriately rese4uenced ii increasingly complexforms would rcquiru great amounts of intuition,guesswork, and 'artful Nxtaposition. Nevertheless, evenloosely SDiraled syllabi are the preferred design formeiern language teaching;

Linearity and syllabus type also interact somewhatnaturally The more narrowly that language .iaterialis specified, the greater the sequencing problem. But iflanguage material is embeddad hi other types of in-struction (i.e., situations; contefY., tasks); it is naturallycycled and can be dealt with Si; needs for it arise in thecontext of the larger instructional objectives. For exam--de, in ailinear structural syllabus, a place must be de-_termined for a particular verb tense form, and most ofwhat is deemed relevant_ to the knowledge and use ofthat form must be presented at a few specified points inthe syllabus. In a cyclical syllabus, the same informa-tion reappears at several points. In a situational or oth-er _loosely defined syllabus; the verb tense form willnaturally recur (with, possibly, some deliberate inter-vention provided by the materials or imposed by the

86


teacher), and will recu- in a va_ .ety of collocations andcontexts.

Combining and IntegratingSyllabus Types

Throughout this monograph-,- syllabus: _types have-discussed more :.:7lest.ideally and_independently;

u eating each as _if it_were the_ sole type being used in in;struction..In_.practice; however, few -instructional pro-grams rely on only one type but combine types in vari-ous -ways.-

A distinction exists_between_ combination and inte-gration,althoughit_is not absolute. Combination- is theinclusion ofmore_ than one -type of syllabus with little EA=

tempt to relate the content types to each other. For_ex-ample, a lesson on- the.function _o_f disagreeing_ (func-tion-al) could- be followed _by_ one_ on listening for topicShift: (AHD_ in _which the _function of disagreeing has nosignificant occurrence. Such combination frequently-oc-cure in larguage teaching-when -v-arious rtwinnunica-tive or "fluency" activities (i..e., skills,_ tasks)_are_ addedon a_ structural,_ functional, or sittujional syllabus.L:ttle.or no_ attempt is made relate the content of thetwo_ types of instruction.

Integration is when some attempt is made to inter-relate content item& For example, if,_.after a structurallesson_on _the subjunctive; students were asked to pre-pare stories on the theme, "What I would -do if I wererich," -the two types -ofinstruction_woUld_be int6gratkL.

Integration-is obviouSly _more_ _difficult_ and complexto undertake _than combination:. _Integration- may seemto be_the preferred way to use different syllabus or con-tent types, and in some ways this- perception is_accu-rate. Instruction that_reinfortes_and relates_ vaHous syl-labus_and_content _types_ is probably more effective thaninstruction that is divided into discrete compartr .,ntLOn the other hand, again, when specific knowled,g:andbehavioral .outcomes are desired,_ discrete combinationsmay:be:preferable to _fuIly_integrated syllabi. For ex-ample, Tit_ is _true that instruction in form is- directlyusable by learners mostly for Monitoring (Krashen,

8 7


1982); then it may be that structural or formal syllabishould make up, as Krashen suggests, a limited butseparate part of the overall curriculum, with the objec-tive of enabling students to use the structural imowl-edge hi test-taking and editing settings; and not of en-abling them to gain active control over the use of thestructures in discourse.

Anothtr argument in favor of combination stemsfrom the finding that much of early Lecond language be-havior is a combination of formulaic language use (useof memorized chunks of language for particular film=tions) and more-creative and synthesized applications ofrules: (Ellis, 1986). It may be that some 'situational orfunctional content can be included with the objective ofpmviding the learners with the formulas and routinesthey need for immediate and specific communication,and other types of instruction can be used to foster theiroverall language acquisition;

Once again; a practical answer to the problem ofintegration and combination resides in the choice of syl=labus itself. If syllabus types on the lower end of thescaleipredominate in a program strUctural, Urine,tional, situational), then the problem of integration ismore acute. Syllabus types on the higher end of thesccle integrate language material naturally, or at leastprovide natural contexts for irtegrationi because theycontainimore complex_ discourse, and language ma-terial; skills; end informational contrt in mean-ingful ways and in larger ccrite--;-e inr.....ne, for ex-anr,le, an instructional task t . :quires students todraw in:ormation about a tourist attraction &mil-ea&ing ari2.. interviews to analyze, evaluate, and synthesizeinto a guide to the attraction; They wili encounter anumber of language forms and functions, and any diffiEculty will be addressed by the instruction. In addition ofcourse; _unintegrated instruction in various structuralor skill matters might also be included;

For both practical and theoretical reasons, then, in.;tegration of syllabus types-may not always be preferredover simple combination, If other criteria call for & re-liance on structural; situational, or functional content,then integration is a higher priority. If more analyticsyllabus types are used, however, the problem of inte-

t.; 88


gration_may not be as complex and may be handled bet=ter through natural-integration of content.

Before leaving the matter of combination and in=togration of syllabus_ types, :it would be useful _to examinetwo recent recommendations for a combination ap-proach_ to sylla5us design, _Yalden (1983) proposes theProportional-approach. -After .distinguishingi_to_-isomedegree,, structural and other types:of instructional con-tent, --she recommends_a __relatively unintrirated ap=proach in which structural content- is proN ided in ,in-creasingly smaller proport'c:7,s -relativ-e to instructionbased on increasingly largei units ofidiscourse_asiover-all -language proficiency increases...The structural ma-terial, it is assumed, .provides formal resf'.arces fbr thelearne r. in the ii.,:guisition of more complex languagefunctions and sKills and in carrying out m re complexcommunicative tasks.

Lingu. :IC form

Communicative func,ion

Figure 91; Three levels In a balanced system.

Not %_ From The Communicative Syllabus: &Glutton. Desygni, andImplementation (p. 122) by J. Yalden; _1983; Oxford; England:Pergamon. Copyright 1983 by Pergan.an. Reprinted by permission.

Krashen (1985) takes a stronger:position on thelimitations of structural_content and describes generalcurriculum types fo :. six types of teaching programs:university ESL programs (English far academicpurposes), foreign language teaching in high_ schoolsand universitiesi programs: for limited-English-pro-ficient students in U.S. public schools, foreign lan-guage programs in elementary schools, adult educationprograms, and special-purpose language teaching pro-grams. Like Yalden, Krashen does not make the same

89

Chmsing and Integrating SyIl&I;

distinctions in_ content ithat are made here, butdistinguish structural and other- formal inr.tra::.' Linfrom content with more complex discourse, especaflycontent,based instruction; Figure 9.2 illustratkKrashen's recommendations for high school arijuniversity- foreign language teaching. In the figt-re."Natural Approach" refers -to learningi that is mostiysituational, skill-based, task-based, and content-based;"Grammar study for Monitor use" refers to instructionfocusing on structural- content.

I General language !aching

Narl_Approach rOCLIS on topic,. or genera! interest-1:1±_Gx;in_nar s-ud for Monitor use

Sheheted subiect-rnanet teaching

A Slior _courses on geograph., current esents, histor ofspeakers or ihe target language

B Elective pleasure readingC Grammar sri;dy

1 connued study for Monitor use2 as subject maner flingloscs)

111 Partial makstrearn .orks of single author or gt oups of authortfarnihar settings

ISL_EuThrnatnstr.arn: thc sun e course

Figure 9.2. High school and unlverslt; .orelgn languagecurriculum.

L'ote. From The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications (p- 7_8)by S. Krasten, 1985, New lork-: Longman. Copyright 1985 by1.,ongrnan. Reprinted by permission.

The two examples serve to illustrate the principle ofcombination or integration of syllabus types embodied inrecent recommendations for syllabus design. Both ex-amples recognize the different outcomes and objectivesof different types of content and provide a place for arange of types of Mstraction in the overall curriculum.

In summary, then, a simple principle emergesfrom the cuestion of syllabus choice and integration:Alwyschocse the syPabus type that includes thebroadest and most comprehensive representation oflanguage functions and discourse types and skill-,task-, or content-based learning. In this way thesyllabus designer ensures that two general goals oflanguage instruction will be addressed. First, thebridge to communicative ability will be easier to crossbecause the problem of synthesis of knowledge and

90

90 APPROACHES TO SYLIALBUS DESIGN

transfer of training is minin.i7,ed. Secondly, the objec-tives the students are required to meet will not be sonarrow as to handicap thew ,,rhen they are faced withactual occasions of language use. In applying thisprinciple, it is clear that skill-, task-, or content-focusedsecond language instruction may often have to besupplemented with instruction in more specific aspectsof the language.

A P'actical Guideto Syllabus Choice and Design

The resources available for actual language teach-ing syllabi have been described in this monograph,along with some of the constraints on choosing andcombining them. By now it is clear that no single type ofcontent is appropriate for all teaching settings, and theneeds and conditions of each setting are so idiosyncraticthat specific recommendations for combination are notpossible. In addition, the process of designing and im-plementing an actual syllabus warrants a separatevolume. Several hooks are available that address theprocess of syllabus design and implementation bothpractically and theoretically. Steiner (1976) does notreally address the question of difnrent syllabus types,and is concerned primarily with the process of de9ningbehavioral objectives for language courses. Nevr-the-less, she does deal at some length with the praaicalproblems of relating syllabus construction to matters oftextbooks, teachers' abilii,i2f3 and1 orientations, coursegoals and objectives, and various behavioral outcomesFocused on teaching foreign languages in public schoolsettings in the United States, her book is a valuablesource of practical guidance in making syllabuschoice&

More recently, Dubin and Olshtain (1986) have re-viewed the problem of course design, including cur-riculum and specific syllabus questions, for ESL andEFL settings. Once agai. without making specificrecommendations, they dc3cribe much of the process ofcourse design, from setting goals and objectives,through needs analysis and resource evaluation, to


syllabus preparation and materials preparation. Theauthors consider at length many of the practical andtheoretical constraints on syllabus design that werebriefly reviewed here.

These books, among others (see the Annotated Bib=liography, p. 93), can help language course designersmake specific decisions for their own programs. How-ever, a set of guidelines for the process is provided next.

Ten steps in preparing a practical language `syllabus:

1. Determine, to the extent possible, t=comes areJlesired for the students in the instri.program. That is, as exactly and _realistically as pos-sible, define what the students should be able to do as aresult of the instruction.

2. Rank the syllabus types presented here as totheir likelihood of leading to the outcomes desired.Several rankings may be necessary if outcomes arecomplex.

3. Evaluate available resources in expertise (forteaching, needs analysis, materials choice and produc-tion, etc.), in materials, and in training for teachers.

4. Rank the syllabi relative to available resources.That is, determine what syllabus types would be theeasiest to implement given available resources.

5. Compare the lists made under Nos. 2 and 4.Making as few adjustments to the earlier list as pos-sible, produce a new ranking based on the resourcesconstraints.

6. Repeat the process, taking into account the con-straints contributed by teacher and student factors de=scribed earlier.

7. Determine a final --anking, taking into accountall the information produced by the earlier steps.

8. Designate one or two syllabus types as dominantQrj


and one or two as secondary;

1. Review the question of combination or integra-of syllabus type and determine how combination)e athièved and in what proportion.

: ranslate decisions into actual teaching units.

ThiS iS intended as a general procedure to:flaking syllabus decisions for specific in,

structi programs._ It is ekpotted that quite different,igns will emerge for each application; and this is as

it shotild:be; What_ is important in making practkeil de-cisions abbtit syllabus design is that all possible fqttiitSthat might affect the teachability Of the Syllabils be takenintoiaccourit. This tan be-done only at the program ley,el. By starting With the definitions rf- syllabus type de-_stribed in thiS monograph and tailoring the -choice aiidintegration ofthe types according t6 lo-cal neds, a prin-cipled and yet practiod SoliitiOn to the problem of ap-propriateness arid effectiveness in syllabus design canbe reached.

Annotated Bibliographyof Basic Works

on Syllabus Design

I. Alexander, LXr. (1976)._ Where do we go from here?A reconsideration of some basic assumptions af-fecting course design. English Language Teaching,30(2), 89403.

some excellent suggestions for imple-menang 'Ainctional syllabi, but is primarily a thor-ough rev,ew of situational syllabi with a typology ofsit= syllabi and recommendations for usingthen.,

2; Corder. , :-rfoducing applied linguistes(Chap. :.rmondsworth: Penguin.

Older, predating n ltionalifunctional syllabi.Clear and useful review of structural content of syl-labi and sequencing of structural content. Alsotouches on situati.:- syllabi.

3. Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1386). Coarse design: De-velopir programs and materials for languagelearning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Not specifically on syllabus design, but reviewsthe process of developing_ course goals and objectivesand relating them to syllabus content and instruc-

94

94 APPROACH.' ';'; TO SYLLABUS DESIGN

tional materials. Communicatively oriented, but notin a narrowly notional/furictiOrial Sense. Useful andpractical.

4. Johnson; K. (1982}. COM municative Syllabus designand methodology. Word: Pergarrion Press;

A collection of papers discussing the role of var-ious types of "semantic" or notional/functional syl-labi from a theoretical arid "tIplotatory" per's; °c-titr. The relationship bet*een notiCnal/funt,r21Syllabi, task,based inatruction, andteaching methodologies is also colic -I. The au,thor recommends a' "multidimenak. approachto syllabua design, integrating iidtional/functionalmaterial with other types; He also suggests meth;odolog:cal solutions to some problems of syllabusdesign.

5. Maitty; S; (1980); Towards an integrated syllabus.In K Croft (Ed.), Readings in English as a secondlanguage (pp. 72;84). Boston: Little-Brown.

Reviews structural, fumtional, and situationalsyllabi. Recommends combination, *ith functionalpredominating. Thorough teVie* Of issues.

6. Mohan; B. (1979). Relating language teaching' andcontent teaching. TESOL Quattetlyi 13 (2), 171-182;

Discussion of the relation between lang,la rFe andcontent teaching. Presents varithiS models of the re-lationship and re;!ommeridS a elöser 6annection.

7. Mohan, B. (1977). Toward a Situatianal cuniculum.On TLSOL '77 Washington, DC: Teachers of Eng-lish to Speakers of Other Languages.

Breaks situations into four types co Sit1T ationalSyllabi ean be more easily organiied and related toother aspects of language and teaching.

8. Munby, J (1978). Communicative elabus aesign.Cambridge: Cathbridge Universily Press.

9,,

Annotated Bibliography

Major theoretical work inspecific-purpose sylla-bi. Rigorous and exhaustive. Difficult to apply.

9. Shaw, A.M. (1977). Foreign language syllabus_devel-opment: Some recent approache& Language Teach-ing and Linguistics: Abstracts, 10(4), 217-233.

Basic review a syllabus design, including gram-matical, situational, topical; notional, and 'opera-tional." Focuses on communicative syllabi. Usefuldiscussion of the process of syllabus design.

10. Steiner, F. (1975), Performing with objectives. Row-ley, MA: Newbury House.

An older work more concerned with setting be-havioral objectives for h3gh school foreign languagestudy than with syllabus design per se. It is, how-ever, valuable in :its discussion of the process ofdeveloping curricula and syllabi and relating themto the realistic and practical concerns of teachers,administrators, and existing texts.

11; Strattoni F. (1977), Putting the communicative syn..-bus in its ph. e. TESOL Quarterly, 11(2), 131441.

Discusses limitations on and recommendationsfor notional/functional syllabus design. Recom-mends a combination of structural and functional

12. van Ek, J.A. (1976). The threshold level for modernlanguage learning in schools. London: Longman.

Basic reference work on notional/functionalbi. Contains definition of basic concepts and exten-sive lists of notions, functions, and exponents.

13. Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Discusses structural, situational, and notionalapproaches to syllabus design. Provides historicaland theoretical perspective& Good_ section on designand implementation of communicative syllabi.

9 6

Rëfëtëtides

Alexander, L.G. (1976). (1976). Where do we go fromhere? A recomideration of some basic assumptionsaffecting course design. English Language Teach-ing, 30(2), 89-103.

Allwright, R. (1979). Language learning throughcommunicative practice. In C.J. Brumfit & K.Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach tolanguage teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Auerbach, E.R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: One stepforward or two steps back? TESOL Quarterty, 20(3),411-429.

AuStin, (1._L. (1965). How to do things with words.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

A.zar, B. (1981). Understanding and using Englishgrammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bircibichler, D., & Omaggio, k (1978). Diagnosing andresponding to individual icarner needs. MOdernLanguage Journal, 52(7), 336-345.

Bloom, as. (Ed.) (1956). A taxonomy of educationalobjectives (Handbook 1). Cognitive domain. NewYork: McKay.

Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of language learningand teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

9 7

APPROACHES '1'0 SYLLABUS DESIGN

Bruthfit, C.J., & Johnson, K._ (Eds.). (1979). Thecommunicatiueapproach_to language teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

California State Board of Education. (1984). Studies inimmersion education. Sacramento, CA: Office ofBilingual Bicultural Education, California StateBoard of Education.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases ofcommunicative approaches to second-languageteaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 147.

Candliit, C., & Murphy,. D. (Eds.) (1986). Languagelearning tasks (Vol. 7, Lancaster Practical Papers).London: Pergamon.

Carroll, J.B. (1966). The contributions of psychologicaltheoiY and educational research to the teathing offoreign language& In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends inlanguage teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Castro, 0., & Kimbrough, V. (1980). In touch. NewYork: Longman.

Chamot, A. (1983). Toward a functional ESL cur-riculum in the elementary school. TESOL Quar-terly, 17(3), 459472.

Chamot, A. (1984)._ A transfer curriculum for teachingcontent-based ESL in the elementary school. In J.ffandscome, IL Orem, & B. Taylor {Eds.), On TESOL'83: The question of control. Washington, DC: Teach-ers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Chastain, IC (1976). Developing second language skills:Theory to practice. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chrietison, M. &_ Krahnke, K. (1986). Student per-ceptions of acadethic language study. TESOL Quar-terly, 20(1), 61-82.

Corlett, S., & Flint Smith, W. (1984). Identifying student

98

learning styles: Proceed with caution. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 68(3), 212-221.

Corder, S. (1973). introducing applied linguistics.Harmonsworth: Penguin.

Cummins,__J._ (1981). The role of primary lantuagedevelopment in promoting success for languageminority students. In Office of Bilingual Education(Ed.), Schooling and language minority atudents: Atheoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation,Dissemination, and Assessment Center, CaliforniaState University.

DiPietro, R.J. (1982). The opennef.d scenario: A newapproach to conversation. TES ?uarterly, 16(1),15-20.

Dobson, J.M. & Sedwick, F. (1975). Conversation inEngli&h: Points of departure. New York: AmericanBook Co.

Dubin, F, & E. Olshtain. (1986). Course design;Developing programs _and1 material': for languagelearning. Cambridge: .Cambridge University Press.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1976). The bilingual syntaxmeasure: Technical handbook. New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krasher , S. (1982). Languagetwo. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second languageacquisition. Oxford: Oxfbrd University Press.

Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The fUnctional-notional_approachLFrorn theory to practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Firth, J.R. (1957). Rapers in linguistics, 1934-1951.London: Oxford University Press.

99


Gattegno, C. (1972). Thaching foreign languages inschods: The Silent Way (2nd ed.). New York:Educational Solutions.

Halliday, MAK (1973). Explorations in the functions oflanguage. London: Arnold.

Genesee, F., Polkh, E., & Stanley, M. (1977). Anexperimental FrefiCh immersion program at thesecondarY sChool level: 19694974. Cemadian ModernLanguage Review, 33, 318-332.

Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars, and theteaching of grammar. College English, 47(2),105-127.

Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push_ tawardcommunication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum,competence, and the foreign language teacher.Skokie, IL: National Textbook

Hymes, D. (1972). On communkative competence. In(LBPride & J. Holmes (Eds.),7_Sociolinguistics.Harthondsworth, Middlesex, England: PenguinBooks.

Kelly, LG. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Krahnke, K.J. (1981). Incorporating communicativeinstructioninto academic preparation ESLcurricula. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 210 915)

Krahnke, K.J., & _Knowles, M. (1984). The basis forbelief: What ESL teachers believe about languageteachint and why. Paper pmented at the 18thannual meeting of Teacher of English to Speakers ofOther Languages, Houston, March, 1984.

Krathen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in secondlanguage acquisition. Oxford: Peitaroon.

100

References 101

Krashen, S. (1985). The input _hypothesis: Issues andimplications. New Yo&: Longman.

Krishen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach:Language acquisition in the classroom. S a nFrancisco: /Oman), Press.

LaMbert, W. & Tucker, G.R. (1972). The bilingualeducationof children. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lapkins, S., & Cummins, J. (1984). Canadian Frenchimmersion education: Current administrative andinstructional practices. In California State Board ofEducation, Studies :In immersion education. Sacra-mento, CA.-Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education,California State Board of Education.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative languageteaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M, & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talkdiscourse: Forms and functions of teachers'questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Class-room oriented research in second language acquisi-tion. Rowley, IVLE Ne*bury House.

Lozano, F., & Sturtevant, J. (1981). Life styles. NewYork: Longman.

Mae-key, W.F. (1965). Language teaching analysis.London: Longman.

Mason, C. (1971). The relevance of intensive training inEnglish as a foreign language for universitystudents. Language Learning, 21(2), 197-204.

McKay, S. (1980). Towards an integrated syllabus. In K.Croft (Ed.), Reading in English as a secondlanguage. Boston: Little-Brown.

Mohan, B. (1979). Rotating language teaching andcontent teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13(2), 171-182.

1 01

102 APPROACBESIO SYLLABUS DESIGN

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

New Englieh 900. New York: Collier Macmillan.

Paulston, C.B. f1974). Linguistic and communicativecompetence. TESOL Quarterly, 8(4), 347-362.

Plaister, T. (1976). Developing listening coMprehensionpi ESL students. Englewood ClifTh, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1982), Method: Approach,design, and procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2),153468.

Rivas, W. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Steiner, R. (1975)-Performing with objectives. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education inCanada research and. evaluation studies. In Califor-nia State Board of Education, Studies in immersioneducation. Sacramento, CA: Offim of BilingualBkultural Education, California State Board ofEducation.

Tarone, E. {1986). Variability in interlanguage use: Astudy of Style shifting in morphology and syntax.Language Learning, 35(3), 373-404.

U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services- (1985).competeney-Based Mainstream English LanguageTraining Project (MELT) (Resource Package).Washington, DC:__ Social Security Administration,Office of Refugee Resettlement.

van Ek, J.k (1976). The threshold level pi Modernlanguage learning in schools. London: Longman.

Widdowson, H. (1978). Thaching language as communi-102

103

cation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Eviorations in appliedlinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Wolfson, N., & _Judd, E. (1983). Sociolinguistics andlanguage acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus:Evolution, design, and implementation. Oxford:Pergamon.

Yorkey, R. Barrutia, R. Criamot, A Rainey de Diaz,I, Gonzalez, J.B., Ney, J.B., & Woolf, W.L. (1984).Yew intercom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

103

Syllabus Design 105

About the Author

Karl J. Kiiihnke (Ph.D., The University_of_Micliigan) isan Assistant Professor of English and Director of ESLTeacher Training at Colorado State University. He isthe co-author, with Mary Ann Christison, of "Recentlanguage research and some language teaching pr-ciPleit.," published in the TESOL -Quartet*, and numer-ous short articles and reviews. He has taught Englishas a second language and administered ESL programsin Afghanistan, Iran, Michigan, Washington, andUtah.

104

- -,.

74 7. -...M..*

APPROACHES TO SYLLABUS nrcir:N FOR FOREIGN LANGHAr;R TPACHINGKarl Kr-at-mkt\

Mdriv

`1, rigucr-Thm, Iham from pdcriother and P,'er, Irc)rn Ifdch rn Dr hr--H-Inke pcirkssor vfEnQhsh anci ciTclur n EL a ~,, Ccocar-,c1,_, S1,31 Umvers,T, deInest siur mictura, norAmal1f,,nnlicoal.yrLational skjil Lq-1,-,t-d -isk Arror

30p,_,,2ch meetsIm-cy-atecl

i1 mie,s noal f-orr Prf,m,(cADULT VOCATIONAL ESL JcAn- ,1 ,,-

APPROAChE'S TO SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHINGAU COURANT Tr, 4ching rech vocabuidr,, aria Culture th, ,REr.INNING READING IN ENGLISH AS A-SECOND LANGUAGE.

COMPUTERS AND ESL. L:r..,c IvVyat

DIRECTORY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGESERVICE ORGANIZATIONS 3

ERROR CORRECTION TECHNIQUES FOR THE FL CL Asscroom, Ju cESL/LITERACY FOR ADULT LEARNERS. Wao,- VU Haverson &

ESL THROUGH CONTFNT-AREA INSTRUCTION Mathernancs Screncc SocaH Studic,

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SiGHOOL. State of the ArtFROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE WORKPLACE. Teachtng ESL to Adults

INCORPORATING LITFRATURE IN ESL INSTRUCTION a

LISTENING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN ESL. v.ia- e

REER INVOLVEMENT IN i ANGUAGE LEARNING.

PROBLEMS & TEACHING STRATEGIES IN ESL COMPOSITION

PROFICIENCY-ORIENTED CL ASSROOM TESTING. .11

READING DEVELOPMENT OF NONNATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISHTEACHING PRONUNCIATION Focus on English Rh'd,hm and IntonationTRAININr, TRANSLATORS AND CONFFRENCE INTERPRETERSUSING COMPUTERS IN TEACHING FORE:r;N LANGUAGES

:

?PENT;CE-HALL SEGETE

approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching

Documents