The Libyan Academy
School of Languages
English Department
PROCESS-ORIENTED SYLLABUSES
LEARNING EXPERIENCE
Course Title: Syllabus Design
Course Instructor: Dr. Omar Albukbak
Presenter: Huwaida Habara
Spring 2019
Overview
Content-Based Learning
Content Syllabuses
Advantages of Content Syllabuses
Integrating Language and Content
The Knowledge Framework
A Critical Review of Mohan’s Model
The Natural Approach (Basic Premises)
Typology of Learning Goals
Major Weaknesses in the Natural Approach
Syllabus Design and Methodology
A Debate
Solution to the rehearsal Requirement
Restrictions
Grading Tasks
Typology of Activities
Grading Content Syllabuses
Further Reading
Content-Based Learning CBL
Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989, p. vii) defined CBL as the…
“integration of content learning with language teaching aims. More
specifically, it refers to the concurrent study of language and subject
matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation
dictated by content material.”
Marsh (2002, p.15) “ …any dual-focused educational context in
which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of
the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and
learning of non-language content”.
Content Syllabuses
They refer to the teaching of a target language by employing experiential
content from a well-defined subject area, such as science, math, geography, etc.
Content syllabuses are formulations of the analytic approach.
The content syllabus can be placed anywhere along the product/process
continuum.
(Nunan, 1988)
Advantages of Content Syllabuses
It fosters subconscious learning.
The syllabus is given logic and coherence.
Tasks can be graded in terms of the logic of the subject that is being studied.
For ESL classrooms, the syllabus is planned according to the skills and
knowledge which are considered central for immigrants.
Thus, the syllabus includes relevant themes (Nunan, 1988).
Integrating Language and Content
Mohan (1986) argues that content syllabuses facilitate learning with language and not
simply through language. This cannot be realized if we allege that language and subject
learning are distinct operations. Both aspects, nevertheless, are still commonly
distinguished from each other.
Mohan designed a knowledge framework for organizing pedagogic tasks and knowledge
(actions and theoretical understanding). It provides a solid basis for organizing content.
(as cited in Nunan, 1988)
The Knowledge Framework
Specific practical General theoretical
Description Classification
Who what where What concepts apply?
What persons, materials, equipment, items, settings How are they related to each other?
Sequence Principles
what happens? what happens next? what is the plot? cause-effect means-end methods and techniques
what are the processes, procedures or routines? Rules Norms Strategies
Choice Evaluation
What are the choices, conflicts, alternatives What values and standards that are appropriate?
Dilemmas, decisions? What counts as good or bad?
(Adapted from Mohan, 1986; as cited in Nunan, 1988)
A critical Review of Mohan’s Model
Perry (1987)
Are the knowledge structures included in the framework the relevant structures?
Is practical knowledge restricted to only three aspects?
It is assumed that the integration of language and content takes an inductive direction.
Could this be generalized to all types of learners? Does other parameters interfere?
Level of maturity
Individual learning strategies
Previous learning experiences
(as cited in Nunan 1988 p.51)
The Natural Approach
'' It is based on an empirically ground theory of second language acquisition, which has
been supported a large number of scientific studies in a wide variety of language
acquisition and learning contexts''
(krashen and Terrell 1983, p. 1)
Basic premises of the Natural approach:
Aim at developing communicative skills
Comprehension precedes production
Production emerges
Subconscious acquisition
Lowering the affective filter
Typology of Learning Goals
Learning goals are divided into two subcategories:
Basic personal communicative skills
Academic learning skills
These categories are in turn subdivided into oral and written modes.
Major Weaknesses in the Natural Approach
Some learning goals may not fit this typology.
It may be well suited for developing the personal communicative skills and not
the academic learning skills.
The natural approach’s basic aim is to develop the basic personal
communicative skills. However, this emphasis will eventually lead to the
development of the academic skills of learners.
Nunan (1988) puts forward that “language consists of a single underlying
psychological skill, and that developing the ability, say, to understand the radio
will assist the learner to comprehend academic lectures” (p. 52).
Major Weaknesses in the Natural Approach
The natural approach denies the interplay between language and social
aspects.
Breen (1985, p. 149) ” … what is significant to the learners in a
classroom is not only their individual thinking and behavior, nor, for
instance, their long-term mastery of a syllabus, but the day-to-day
interpersonal rationalization of what to be done, why, and how.”
(as cited in Nunan, 1988)
Syllabus Design and Methodology
There are two basic views regarding syllabus design and its relation to teaching
methodology ; the Broad View and the Narrow View.
The broad view denies any distinction between syllabus design and teaching
methodology.
Process syllabuses combine both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’
The narrow view advocates a clear distinction between syllabus design and
teaching methodology, syllabus design focuses on the selection and grading of
content while teaching methodology focuses on the selection of learning tasks and
activities.
(Nunan, 1988, p. 5).
Syllabus Design and Methodology
a Debate
As teaching methodologies develop so does syllabus design.
Previously, designers restricted the planning, selection and grading of
syllabuses to a specific language teaching theory.
Widdowson (1987) argues that syllabus design is separate from the
concept of teaching methodology.
(as cited in Nunan, 1988)
Syllabus Design and Methodology
Process syllabuses focus on the methodology ‘the how’ rather than ‘the
what’.
Product syllabuses have predefined syllabus orientation which promotes
the internalization of formal structures of language.
Functional-notional syllabuses promote activities that replicate possible
real-world encounters ‘dress rehearsals’.
Drawbacks: learners may not be able to carry out what they rehearsed in
actual communication outside the classroom.
Solutions to The Rehearsal Restrictions
Widdowson (1987, pp. 71-72):
“[the methodology] would engage the learners in problem-solving tasks as
purposeful activities but without the rehearsal requirement that they should be
realistic or ‘authentic’ as natural social behaviors. The process of solving such
problems would involve a conscious and repeated reference to the formal
properties of the language, not in the abstract dissociated form use, but as a
necessary resource for the achievement of communicative outcomes”
(as cited in Nunan, 1988)
Solutions to The Rehearsal Restrictions
Widdowson’s ideas conflict with those of process oriented syllabi in that
he denies:
The rehearsal requirement
The subconscious learning of grammatical forms
The interrelation of what and how of task-based syllabuses
The process consideration belongs to methodology and not design
Solutions to The Rehearsal Restrictions
Breen (1984) rejected the idea of one prevailing method.
Breen (1984, p. 52) claims that process consideration belong to the realm
of syllabus design:
“the designer would give priority to the changing process of learning and
the potential of the classroom – to the psychological and social resources
… the syllabus could become a plan for the gradual creation of the real
syllabus of the classroom”.
(as cited in Nunan, 1988)
Grading Tasks
The concept of grading occupies a major concern in syllabus construction.
Product oriented syllabuses regard the degree of difficulty of structural
units as a criterion for input selection and grading.
The advent of the communicative approach to language teaching added
another aspect to language, namely meaning, which laid emphasis on the
role of authentic materials in syllabus design.
There is no control on the range of linguistic structures included in such
materials. Thus, grammatical complexity alone cannot be considered as a
benchmark for grading content.
Grading Tasks
Procedural and task-based syllabuses are centered around tasks.
The arrangement of classroom activities are made with regards to the
demands they pose on the learners.
Demands can be
Cognitive: requiring some mental effort by an individual.
Language: refers to the language level the individual is required to understand or
use.
For example, receptive skills are assumed to be less demanding than the
productive skills.
Typology of Activities
According to Nunan (1988) activities are classified according to learner
responses.
The classification makes use of the comprehension, production and
interaction distinction.
“recent classroom-based research suggests that interactive language use
in which learners are required to negotiate meaning can stimulate
processes of second language acquisition” (p. 55).
Typology of Activities
no response non-verbal
processing physical
response verbal
non-physical
Material repetition drill
Source productive response meaningful practice
rehearsal
interactive stimulated role play
discussion
real problem solving (Nunan, 1988)
Typology of Activities
Basic level activities: an aural activity, for instance, in which learners should
make a non-verbal response such as raising their hand each time they hear a key
word.
Advanced level activities: the same aural text is given. Learners are required to
discuss and answer questions in groups and make inferences based on such
discussions.
Grading Content Syllabuses
In content syllabuses, the subject area of study provides a means for
grading.
The syllabus is arranged in succession starting from the basic primary
concepts and gradually moving on to the more complex ones.
This grading is applied to the design regardless of the linguistic
complexity.
Further Reading
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle Publishers.
Faravani, A., Zeraatpishe, M., Azarnoosh, M., & Kargozari, H. R. (2018). Issues in syllabus design. Sense. https://
doi.org/10.1163/9789463511889
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics:
A handbook for language teachers. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford
Marsh, D. (ed.). 2002. CLIL/EMILE European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. European Commission,
Public Services Contract DG 3406/001–001.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Terrell, T., & Krashen, S. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco: The Alemany
Press.
file:///C:/Users/User1/Downloads/KJ00008796023.pdf
