Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T14:16:55.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syllabus Design: An Overview of Theoretical Issues and Practical Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Janice Yalden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not a simple matter to determine the contours of syllabus design for second/foreign languages in the late 1980s. Definitions are disparate, the field diffuse. For example, in the abstracrs in Language Teaching over the last five years, the area which was traditionally thought of as syllabus design (cf., Shaw 1982:78) is treated under Theory and Principles, Curriculum Planning, Syllabus/Course Design, Materials Design, and even Teaching Methods. This is not surprising, for there is no longer a standard definition of syllabus Accordingly, I shall begin this survey of the state of syllabus design in the late 1980s with the question of definition, then look at the growing literature on syllabus types, their implementation and evaluation, and conclude with some notes on applications of theory.

Information

Type
Communicative Language Teaching
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 8 , March 1987 , pp. 30 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. P. B. 1984. A functional-analytic approach to ESL at the secondary level in Ontario. Bulletin of the Canadian association of applied linguistics. 6. 2. 71–80.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. 1986. Functional-analytic course design and the variable focus curriculm. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford. Pergamon. 3–24. [ELT Documents, 124.]Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. 1987. Variable focus curriculum design: Some considerations for the eighties. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: The state of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 50–64.Google Scholar
Allwright, R. L. 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom learning. Applied linguistics. 5. 2. 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, H. and Ryan, A.. 1986. An ordered inventory of communicative functions of general ELT. In Kasper, G. (ed.) Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. 145–161.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. and Savignon, S. J.. 1986. The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern language journal. 70. 4. 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1986. A case for field-experimentation in program evaluation. language learning. 36. 3. 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. and Davies, A.. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT journal. 39. 2. 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. P. 1984. Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford; Pergamon. 47–60. [ELT Document, 118.]Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. 1984a. Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. 1984b. The Bangalore procedural syllabus. ELT journal. 38. 4.233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. 1984d. The limits of the language syllabus. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 261–271.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. 1984. Syllabus design as a critical process. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 29–40. [ELT Documents, 118.]Google Scholar
Crombie, W. 1985. Discourse and language learning: A relational approach to syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, H. et al. , 1984. Second-language acquisition through subject matter learning: A study of Shetered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian modern language review. 41. 2. 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1984. Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G.. 1986. Strategic competence in foreign-language teaching. In Kasper, G. (ed.) Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. 179–194.Google Scholar
Finnemann, M. D. 1987. Liberating the foreign language syllabus. Modern language journal. 71. 1. 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, B. and Pagurek, J.. 1984. Frameworks for communication needs courses. Ottawa: Centre for Applied Language Studies, Carleton University.Google Scholar
FrÖhlich, M., Spada, N., and Allen, J. P. B.. 1985. Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL quarterly. 19. 1. 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furey, P. R. 1984. Considerations in the assessment of language syllabuses. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 3–28.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. 1986. The problem with grammar: What kind can the learner use? Modern language journal. 70. 2. 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, G. H. 1983. Designing a foreign-language syllabus. Modern languages. 64. 1. 17–22.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. 1984. Sequencing in language syllabus design. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 130–150.Google Scholar
Goldstein, R. 1986. A language teaching policy for adult ESL. TESL Canada journal. 4. 1. 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, J. 1985. Bangalore revisited: A reluctant complaint. ELT journal. 39. 4. 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkey, R. 1984. From needs to materials via constraints? Some general considerations and Zimbabwean experience. In Read, J. A.S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center. 112–132.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. (ed.) 1984. Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. (eds.) 1985. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 77–100.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 1983. Syllabus desigh: Possible future trends. In Johnson, K. and Porter, D. (eds.) Perspectives in Communicative language teaching. London: Academic Press. 47–58.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. and Porter, D. (eds.) 1983. Perspectives in communicative language teaching. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kinsella, V. (ed.) 1985. Cambridge language teaching survey 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knop, C. K. 1983. Classroom applications of the notional-functional syllabus. Medium. 8. 1. 55–62.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1986. From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern lanaguage journal. 70–4–366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lian, A. and C., Mestre. 1983. Toward genuine individualisation in language course development. Australian review of applied linguistics. 6. 2. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. 1986. What's an ESL teacher good for? TESL Canada journal. 1. 1–15. [Special Issue.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1985. A role for instruction in secound language acquistion: Task-based language training. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. (eds.) Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 77–100.Google Scholar
Maley, A. 1984. Constraints-based syllabuses. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre. 90–111.Google Scholar
MalstrÖm, L. 1983 Needs-oriented language learning for adults. In Van Els, T. and Oud-de Glas, M. (eds.) Research into foreign language needs. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg. 113–136.Google Scholar
McAllister, J. and Robson, M.. 1984. Building a framework. Cambridge: The National Extension College.Google Scholar
McDonough, J. 1984. ESP in perspective: A practical guide. London: Collins Educational.Google Scholar
Mills, G. and MacNamee, T.. 1987, Recent development in second language curriculum in British Coloumbia. Canadian modern language review. 43. 2. 246–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, K. 1987. Language teaching syllabuses: Fact or fiction? In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre. 33–38.Google Scholar
Munby, J. Communicative syllabus design: Principles and problems. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 55–67.Google Scholar
Page, B. 1985. Graded objetives in modern-language learning. In Kinsella, V. (ed.) Cambridge language teaching surveyls 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 60–77.Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1985. Linguistic simplicity and learnability: Implications for language syllabus design. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienneman, M. (eds.) Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 137–152.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1985. Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. (eds.) Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 23–76.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. 1984. Procedural syllabuses. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 272–280.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, T. J. 1984. Functional approaches in language pedagogy. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics, 5. New York: Cambridge University Press. 60–80.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. 1984. Language curriculum development. RELC journal. 15. 1. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. 1985. Planning for proficiency. Prospect. 1. 2. 1–17.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S.. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodgers, T. S. 1984. Communicative syllabus design and implementation: Reflection on a decade of experience. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 28–51.Google Scholar
Rodgers, T. S. and Candlin, C. N.. 1985. Talking shop: Curriculum and syllabus design. ELT journal. 39. 2. 101–108.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (ed.) 1985. Who controls the learner? Applied linguistics. 6. 3. 211–213.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. M. 1982. Foreign-language syllabus development: Some recent approaches. In Kinsella, V. (ed.) Language teaching surveys 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 78–95.Google Scholar
Speda, N. M. 1987. Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied linguistics. 8. 2. 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1984. Review and discussion. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. [ELT Documents, 118.]Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1987. Directions in syllabus design. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 19–32.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach. Parts 1 and 2. ELT journal 39. 1. 2–12 and 39. 1. 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefson, J. W. 1985. Research on refugee resettlement: Implications for instructional programs. TESOL quarterly. 19. 4. 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefson, J. W. 1986. Functional competencies in the U.S. refugee program: Theoretical and practical problems. TESOL quarterly. 20. 4. 649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, Els T. and Oud-de Glas, M. (eds.) 1983. Research into foreign language needs. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg.Google Scholar
Van, Patten B. 1986. The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Implications for grammatical accuracy in the classroom? Studies in second language acquisition. 8. 1. 56–67.Google Scholar
Wenden, A. L. 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Appiled linguistics. 7. 2. 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R.. Curriculm development and English language syllabus design. In Johnson, K. and Porter, D. (eds.) Perspective in communicative language teaching. London: Academic Press. 69–82.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1983. Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 23–28. [ELT Documents, 118.]Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1987. Aspects of syllabus design. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 65–89.Google Scholar
Willis, J. D. 1984. Specifying a task-based syllabus. In Read, J. A. S. (ed.) Trends in language syllabus design. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre. 281–311.Google Scholar
Yalden, J. 1983. The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford: Pergamon. [Reprinted 1987, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pentice-Hall].Google Scholar
Yalden, J. 1986. An interactive approach to syllabus design: The frameworks project. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: Pergamon. 25–38. [ELT Documents, 124.]Google Scholar