Syllabus design (and a bit about Coursebooks)

Three questions to start us off:

What is your definition of a syllabus?
How does it differ from a curriculum?
How does it differ from a course plan?

Actually, the questions are quite difficult to answer. They shouldn't be but ELT authorities and practitioners
use the terms rather differently. Some would say loosely. For the purposes of what follows, the definitions
used in this guide are:

syllabus

a list of the topics to be covered on a course. This is usually drawn up by the institution in which teaching
takes place sometimes with input from both internal sources (students, teachers, academic managers etc.)
and external sources (sponsors, examination boards, ministries etc.).

curriculum

an externally imposed and prescribed set of learning objectives and content. Such lists are often drawn up
by ministries or other external powers such as examination boards.

course plan

a list of the content and ordering of a schedule of work to be covered by a group of learners and their
teacher(s). Such lists are usually drawn up by teachers and/or academic managers and based on a syllabus
which, in turn, may be based on a curriculum.

Diagrammatically, we can represent the distinction as a hierarchy:

Curriculums (or curricula if you prefer) do not usually prescribe how a course will be taught; they merely
list what is to be taught and what the learners should be able to do by the end of a course (or series of
courses spread over considerable time such as secondary school curricula).
 Syllabuses (or syllabi if you prefer) often do prescribe the methodology even if only implicitly (see below).
Course plans are usually set out for a period of days, weeks or months and are more an overview of the
timetable into which day and lesson plans can be inserted. They are often quite explicit concerning the
design of a lesson in terms of methodology.

Types of syllabuses in English Language Teaching

There are rather too many of these. The following is available as a PDF document.
The design of a syllabus often betrays the underlying theory of language and learning to which the syllabus
writers adhere.
For example, if a syllabus lists only structural items to be taught, it shows that the writers believe that
language is structurally based and that learning requires the ability to use structures, grammar and other
formal linguistic items successfully.
Nunan (1988:52) points out, in a centrally important text in this area

the traditional distinction between syllabus design and methodology has become blurred

This is because more recently devised syllabus types clearly require the application of certain types of
methodology to deliver the content. A task-based syllabus, for example, demands the application of a task-
based teaching approach. Here's a list:

Syllabus Description Typical content

A 'traditional' syllabus, listing formal Such a syllabus will usually contain lists of grammar,
language items to be learned. The
lexis and phonological features to be covered. For example,
ordering of items usually depends on
First conditional
a judgement concerning their
Gerunds after verbs
complexity rather than
going to for intentions/plans
communicative utility. Simple forms
have got (possession)
are handled first, more complex ones
Imperatives
later.
let's + bare infinitive.
Past simple vs. Past progressive
Present perfect with for, since etc.
Words to describe the appearance of people
Schwa and other common weak forms
Skills-based This kind of syllabus targets language Usually a list of skills to be demonstrated and taught. For example,
abilities rather than the formal Delivering a short talk
aspects of language. Writing a letter of complaint
Understanding a lecture
Reading an academic article

Situational This kind of syllabus will cover the Typical content will include items such as:
settings in which learners will have to At the doctor's
deploy appropriate language. A key In the post office
distinction is made in such syllabuses Travelling by air, train, car
between structural and lexical words Renting a flat
(by, be, which etc. vs. house, table,
gasp etc.)

Topic-based This is a syllabus organised around Typical topics in such a syllabus might include:
topic rather than language structure Lifestyles
which has similarities to both a lexical Personal relationships
and a situational syllabus (with both School
of which it is often combined). Technology
Religion
The weather

Lexical This kind of syllabus focuses on lexical Typical items would include:
patterns and common ways to Collocational patterns: adjective + noun, adverb + verb etc.
express meaning. It usually draws on Delexicalised verb patterns
corpus research to discover patterns by: expressing who, how, when, where
and frequencies in the language. would: expressing past habit, unlikelihood

Notional A syllabus which focuses on learning Typical content will cover lists such as:
the language to describe universal adequacy/inadequacy
concepts, notions such as size, desirability/undesirability
temperature, frequency, likelihood texture
etc. delay/earliness
frequency
speed

Functional / A syllabus which focuses on learning Typical content will cover lists such as:
Communicative the language to perform certain Asking about/expressing likes and dislikes
functions in the language such as Greetings and introductions
asking for and giving information, Offering/accepting/declining refreshment
apologising etc. Expressing forgetfulness
Such a syllabus may subsume within it Expression political opinion
a notional approach but that is not Granting forgiveness
common.
Task-based / This kind of syllabus focuses on using Task types are usually listed and sometimes particularly tasks are prescribed. F
Procedural tasks to help learners deploy language example,
communicatively. It is important that Negotiation tasks: reaching a consensus
the tasks represent real-world Forward planning tasks: planning an excursion
language. Judgement tasks: writing a review of a film
This kind of syllabus is often There is a guide to task-based approaches on this site linked in the list of relate
combined with a skills-based syllabus. the end.

Learner- This relies on learners knowing what Typically, these syllabuses end up as lists of concepts, topics, skills and structur
generated they need to do in English and what Using the present perfect
they need to learn to master the skills Writing an email
they need. The syllabus is then Interacting informally
negotiated between the students and Giving a presentation at work
the teacher/institution.

Mixed This is possible the most common Typical content will include items from any of the areas above.
type of syllabus and focuses on In many cases, a mixed syllabus will be a combination of a structural, functiona
combining elements of all syllabus syllabus. Language will be set in a topic area, the structure will be presented a
types so that each lesson or series of practised and then the learners will focus on using the language to communica
lessons focuses on different aspects Many coursebooks prescribe this type of syllabus for reasons explained below.
of what is to be learnt.

This is not, as you would imagine, the end of the story. There are other components of syllabuses which, while not
forming a syllabus in themselves, are often inserted into the syllabus. Two of most common ones are

• cultural syllabuses
which list the sorts of things learners need to know about the speech community's shared values
and knowledge (for example, systems of government, cultural icons etc.). This kind of syllabus
often forms a considerable part of the programme for teaching, for example, immigrant
populations.

• content syllabuses
in which the language to be taught is drawn from the need to teach and learn a different topic –
teaching English through the teaching of other knowledge and skills such as happens in English-
medium schools situated in many settings where English is not the official language, for example,
teaching sciences in English because the majority of texts are in that language.
Another term for this kind of syllabus is Content and Language Integrated Learning or CLIL, to which
there is a guide on this site linked from the list of related guides at the end.
 Combining syllabi

It is rare to find any course or institution focusing on only one of the syllabus types outlined above. Most will
combine aspects of two or three syllabuses to try to meet the needs of learners who may be quite disparate in this
regard. For example:

communicative plus

Communicative Language Teaching varies. A strong form of the approach is one in which any formal
teaching of structure (including phonology) is abjured, the principle being that learners will acquire the
formal aspects of language in the effort they make to communicate in the language. A weak form, which is
more commonly used, sets as its target the enhancement of the learners' ability to use language for real
communicative purposes. However that is achieved is a matter for the teacher and syllabus designer (often
the same thing).
It is common, therefore, to find a communicative syllabus alongside a structural one with elements of a
task- and skills-based syllabus running parallel.
This can be effective in terms of, particularly, the teachers' comfort zones and the learners' expectations of
what a language course should involve.
The downside is that the various strands may not be adequately linked so the linguistic resources in terms
of structure and phonology required by the learners to attain their communicative goals may not be given
adequate attention. This often means that, while the learners are deploying language to achieve some
form of quasi-realistic communication, they are not actually learning anything new. Lessons can, in this
way, focus only on practice rather than be real learning opportunities.

structural plus

The other side of the equation is the combination of a syllabus which is ostensibly structural in nature and
takes language items and the grammar and phonology in order of complexity will have, grafted onto it,
communicative tasks for the learners to carry out and in which to set the formal aspects they are learning.
This can be effective in showing the learners the real-life relevance of the language they learn as they
proceed through the items on the syllabus.
The downside is that in order to achieve the mix, the communicative tasks which are carried out have no
relevance to the learners' needs outside the classroom and, while an exercise to use the present perfect
simple, for example, to discuss current levels of experience may be a vehicle for the deployment of the
structure, its relevance in terms of whether the learners will ever need to do that in the language is
overlooked.
task-based plus

The temptation, when using a task-based approach to teaching, is to combine the syllabus with elements of
a skills-based approach and even some elements of a structural approach. This is often done to try to
ensure that the learners have the skills and language they need to carry out the tasks they are set. It is also
the case that elements of a communicative syllabus are implanted in the syllabus to make the tasks more
focused on real life.
The advantage here is that this may overcome the common criticism of task-based approaches that they do
not, in fact, lead to learning but to learners deploying language and skills they already know.
The disadvantage is that the principle underlying task-based learning is overlooked, i.e., that the tasks are
meaningful to the learners. Task design then tends to be driven by assumed skills, structural or
communicative needs rather than the tasks representing real language use for the learners.

situational plus

Situational syllabuses attempt to set language socially rather than treat it as a series of items to learn
(whether those are structural, notional or functional). The obvious temptation is to use the situation as a
backdrop for the use of communicative strategies or the deployment of structural, phonological and lexical
items, rather than focusing on the social nature of a situation.
The positive outcome is that communication is based on recognisable and often familiar settings for the
learners who can see the relevance of what they are doing to real-life encounters.
The negative impact is that the social nature of language may be overlooked so the learners use language
which is appropriate for the people in the room with whom they are interacting but are not prepared for
encounters (whether spoken or written) in which the power relationships, intentions and social distances
may be very different.

topic plus

Topic-based syllabuses are rarely used discretely but topic-driven courses are quite common. In such a
course, for example, the learners may be exposed to language set in a variety of topic areas such
as education, health, transport and so on.
This sort of syllabus can readily be combined with situational, communicative, skills-based and lexical
syllabuses and the last of these is often a frequent partner.
The advantage is that lexis, in particular, is encountered in a connected field with the nouns, verbs,
adjectives and so on most typically encountered together. This makes the teaching of collocation (both
lexical and textual) much easier and more consistent.
The disadvantage is that, in an attempt to insert other elements into the topics, realism is overlooked and
communicative functions may be inappropriately deployed with learners talking, reading, listening and
writing about topics which may, or may not, be relevant or of interest to all (or any) of the learners in a
group.

All the syllabus types outlined in the table above can be combined with others in this way to try to provide
some kind of all-round approach which will engage and be of use to the learners. That's a positive.
The negative is that this kind of eclecticism can lead to a loss of focus and the inappropriate insertion of
rogue elements into a syllabus.
 Who determines the syllabus?

Unless the syllabus is purely learner determined, somebody, somewhere needs to decide on the targets of
a teaching programme. This is often neither the people who will deliver it nor those on the receiving end of
the teaching-learning process. That is, some say, unfortunate.
We noted above that curriculums are often decided nationally or regionally and even in the private sector,
may well be determined by powers somewhat distant from the classroom such as sponsors, agents and
head office managers. Curriculum designers are, into the bargain, often not concerned with the nitty-gritty
of classroom content but with setting targets in terms of competencies that the learners will attain by the
end of the process. In the UK, for example, the language studies curriculum is set out by the government
and has the following aims:

The national curriculum for languages aims to ensure that all pupils:

• understand and respond to spoken and written language from a variety of authentic sources

• speak with increasing confidence, fluency and spontaneity, finding ways of communicating what
they want to say, including through discussion and asking questions, and continually improving the
accuracy of their pronunciation and intonation

• can write at varying length, for different purposes and audiences, using the variety of grammatical
structures that they have learnt

• discover and develop an appreciation of a range of writing in the language studied

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-languages-
progammes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-languages-progammes-of-study

At what is called Key Stage 3, the government further demands (op cit.) that:

Teaching should focus on developing the breadth and depth of pupils’ competence in listening, speaking,
reading and writing, based on a sound foundation of core grammar and vocabulary.

So, the requirement is for a mixed skills- and structure-based syllabus in schools.
And that requires:

Grammar and vocabulary

• identify and use tenses or other structures which convey the present, past, and future as
appropriate to the language being studied

• use and manipulate a variety of key grammatical structures and patterns, including voices and
moods, as appropriate
 • develop and use a wide-ranging and deepening vocabulary that goes beyond their immediate needs
and interests, allowing them to give and justify opinions and take part in discussion about wider
issues

• use accurate grammar, spelling and punctuation

Linguistic competence

• listen to a variety of forms of spoken language to obtain information and respond appropriately

• transcribe words and short sentences that they hear with increasing accuracy

• initiate and develop conversations, coping with unfamiliar language and unexpected responses,
making use of important social conventions such as formal modes of address

• express and develop ideas clearly and with increasing accuracy, both orally and in writing

• speak coherently and confidently, with increasingly accurate pronunciation and intonation

• read and show comprehension of original and adapted materials from a range of different sources,
understanding the purpose, important ideas and details, and provide an accurate English
translation of short, suitable material

• read literary texts in the language [such as stories, songs, poems and letters] to stimulate ideas,
develop creative expression and expand understanding of the language and culture

• write prose using an increasingly wide range of grammar and vocabulary, write creatively to
express their own ideas and opinions, and translate short written text accurately into the foreign
language

which strongly implies some kind of communicative syllabus running alongside skills and structure
development with an element of a cultural syllabus added to the mix.

What the government is silent about, however, is precisely how the syllabus itself is to be written, what it
will contain and how it will be delivered. For that, teachers and schools are obliged to develop their own
syllabus or use an off-the-shelf set of teaching materials which provide the syllabus for them.

In non-state sector education, it is rare to find a curriculum set out in such detail but even in small
establishments some effort is usually made to list the aims of a programme and the competencies to be
attained.
 The elements of syllabus design

Near the end of this guide, you will find a diagrammatic representation of how a syllabus may be designed
in terms of exploiting published materials but, before we look at that, it is as well to consider how the
process of syllabus design works, whoever is in charge of it.
The following is based, somewhat loosely, on the methodology of designing a syllabus for a course in
Academic English (Jordan, 1997:57) but the considerations are identical, whatever kind of syllabus you are
involved in devising.

A little explanation:

1. The first two steps are linked:

a. First, we need to establish the needs of the learners and for that, see the guide, linked
below in the list of related guides. We need here to bear in mind what the students want,
what they actually need, what any sponsors want and what demands will be placed on the
learners when they have completed the course and start to use the language.
 The list of needs at this stage has to be prioritised because not all will be core needs. A
simple way to do this is to divide the needs into two categories:

i. essential: core needs

ii. desirable: peripheral needs

b. From that, we can identify the goals of the course and there will usually be a list of these
concerning communicative competence, linguistic accuracy and the skills we are aiming to
teach, develop or improve. This will not be a short list on most courses.
The goals of the course at this stage will be in the form of a wish list because the outcomes
of the next step will probably reduce them to what is realistic.

2. The third step involves careful and clear-sighted considerations of what is possible given the
staffing, the institute's resource base and constraints concerning time availability and so on. When
this step is complete, it may be necessary to re-visit the objectives bearing in mind the constraints
that have been identified.

3. The fourth step involves a hard look at the possible syllabus types we might use (or a mix of them,
in all probability). From this will emerge a timetable which is balanced in terms of how the needs
(steps one and two) have been prioritised.

4. Next comes considerations of how the syllabus will be delivered and that involves looking at three
elements:

a. Approach: what principles of language analysis and language learning theories are we
applying?

b. Design: how are lessons to be constructed? This will usually involve considering
Presentation → Practice → Production vs. Test → Teach → Test or Task-based structures
for lessons. It will also involve some consideration of how autonomous the learners can be
and how much of the syllabus may be delivered in non-classroom-based environments
(learning centres, on-line work, private study etc.). This will have emerged for the first step
of the process where we set out the learner profile.

c. Techniques and Procedures: Once we have a general idea of how most of the lessons will
be structured, we can consider the nuts and bolts of the approach(es) we have
selected. Types of tasks, amounts of individual, group and pair work, teacher roles and so
on as well as the choice of materials (see below) will all be set out here.
In other words, what will we expect to see happening in the classroom and elsewhere?

5. Finally, no syllabus is complete without planning some way to evaluate its outcomes. We need to
assess:

a. How well the learners mastered the course content: this involves summative testing at
specific points but certainly at the end of the course and, often, some formative testing
along the way to see what needs recycling or re-presenting.

b. How well the syllabus worked in terms of load on the teaching staff and stresses it induced
in the institution. On large courses, some kind of questionnaire for the teachers needs
 devising but on smaller undertakings a focus group with a clear agenda is probably all that
is required.

c. How motivating, enjoyable and useful the learners found the course. There is a range of
ways to do this and they are often combined – questionnaires, focus groups, one-to-one
interviews etc.

As you can see, designing an entire syllabus from scratch is a demanding and time-consuming process.
Few teachers have the time or the skills to set about writing their own syllabus from scratch, although
course and lesson planning are expected to be two of their competencies. For this reason, schools often
opt for a single coursebook (or books) which in their view will successfully provide a syllabus which matches
the aims of their programme(s).

The syllabus and coursebooks

Sheldon (1988:237) pointed out that:

ELT coursebook publishing is a multi-million pound industry, yet the whole business of product assessment is
haphazard and under-researched.

Coursebook production is a complex, expensive and time-consuming business (unlike, for example, the
cobbling together of a set of engaging classroom activities into a kind of busy teacher's source book).
The undertaking requires (or should require) researching the demands of an international range of
curriculum authorities, the setting out of a syllabus, the construction of the students' book, the teacher's
book, a set of audio / video materials, a website and, often, a test book and set of supplementary
materials. All this material has to be written, edited, re-written and assembled by a team of dedicated,
professional and qualified people working under an experienced and well-paid editor.
In addition, professional graphics designers and other in- and out-of-house experts are drawn into the
process which may take several years to complete.
Moreover, all of this work has to be repeated because the course may consist of a complete set of
materials at four or five levels.
It is little surprise that this is not task lightly undertaken.

Publishing houses are not, for the most part, charitable organisations and they want to maximise the
financial returns on their considerable investment in the process of creating, marketing, printing and
distribution. To do this, they have before them an enormous and potentially hugely lucrative market. The
British Council's states it this way:
By 2020, we forecast that two billion people will be using [English] – or learning to use it.
The British Council, 2013

A market of over a billion people (and rising) is not something at which many publishers are reluctant to
aim. A yearly income of €0.05 per learner would yield €50 million.

Accordingly, the focus is on producing materials with the widest possible appeal to the broadest market
they can access worldwide. There are significant implications:

1. Breadth of content:
An example is given above of what is required from a language-teaching process in UK school and
most governments worldwide have developed similar schemes. Unfortunately for course-book
authors and their publishers, all the schemes are different, some radically so.
There is little incentive for publishers or writers to confine the market for their efforts too narrowly
and, therefore, deny themselves the opportunity to sell their materials worldwide. Consequently, a
coursebook or a series of them will endeavour to cover the whole of the content of very disparate
curriculums and will include targets, language items and skills which will appeal wherever the
materials are used and fit well with whatever form of syllabus is developed locally.
This will be evident, especially, in the structural work covered in course materials so that each part
of the series covers the core curriculum of as many state-driven syllabuses as possible. Materials
which do not do this run the risk of being locked out of some nations' educational institutions.

2. Cultural neutrality:
Similarly, publishers and authors will naturally be constrained not to offend or to make their
materials too culture bound. Topics and situations which, for example, may appeal to European
audiences may have less relevance elsewhere and those which are attractive and familiar in some
cultures may be mysterious or offensive in others.

3. Social neutrality:
By the same token, coursebook producers will attempt not to limit their potential market with
materials which appeal to particular age groups, sexes, occupational categories or social classes.

4. Methodological neutrality / coverage:

There is little point, for publishers at least, in producing materials closely linked to any specific
approach or methodology so, for example, content which is only suitable for use in a strictly
communicative setting will be abjured and the materials must cater for structural, task-based and
lexical approaches, among others.
Hence the tendency for course materials to include a range of activity types and procedures aimed
at different approaches to defining best practice and theories about how second-language
acquisition is best promoted in the classroom.

5. Aim neutrality / coverage:

Coursebook writers do not, by definition, know the people individually at whom the materials are
aimed. General coursebooks are, therefore, written with general, not to say diffuse, aims in mind
because the pressure is to produce materials which have learning outcomes applicable to the
widest possible set of needs for using English. Skills work will, accordingly, be evenly balanced
usually and the genres of texts used will not be explicitly linked to any particular register.
 6. Learner appeal:
Although learners are infrequently consulted by institutions concerning the content of their course
materials and the nature of the syllabus they are obliged to follow, institutions will be concerned to
choose material which they feel will be engaging and trusted by their customers and
clients. Learners and many teachers often see the coursebook as the syllabus and will be
impressed, so the theory goes, by a contents list which is long and broadly based, covering skills,
structures, topics and settings of general appeal to the 'middle ground'.

7. Teacher appeal:
In many institutions, the teaching staff will have limited but real choices concerning the materials
they use to deliver the syllabus (which they may have contributed to designing). Hence, authors
and publishers are concerned to produce materials which can be used by teachers at all levels of
training and expertise. Materials which require high levels of skill in classroom management or
language and skills analysis will be avoided in favour of simple-to-use materials which do not
require large amounts of preparation.

8. Formulaic procedures and activities

The way the materials are presented will also follow a consistent pattern with each unit in each
part of the course looking very much like all the others apart from the content. Even across a series
of coursebooks aimed at different levels of learner, the same phenomenon is apparent with each
part of the course mirroring its counterparts at other levels. This makes it easy for even novice or
under-skilled teachers to use the materials because, once they are familiar with the formats, the
teaching approach follows predictable patterns.

Overall, it may be argued that the combination of these factors will mean that commercially produced
coursebooks will often be bland, scattershot, predictable, unrealistic, irrelevant and intellectually,
culturally, socially and emotionally undemanding.
In a word, boring.
In another word, ineffective.

The DIY syllabus

The disparagement of coursebooks in place of a proper syllabus above may tempt some to abandon the
idea of an externally imposed syllabus altogether and opt for a wholly teacher- (and learner-) generated
syllabus directed towards the needs of the individuals in the group while maintaining relevance to any
imposed curriculum aims.
That might be a mistake because discerning use of commercial materials alongside the generation of
learner-specific elements of a syllabus may be a better route.
To do that five steps are needed:

This approach to syllabus design which combines generic material with that which is targeted more finely
to your learners, their personalities, their needs and your understanding of how to meet them seeks to
avoid the two most obvious dangers of coursebook-driven teaching by:

a. injecting variety of approach, techniques, topics and materials so lessons do not follow the same
sequences and employ the same procedures time after time in a predictable and ultimately
demotivating way.

b. ensuring that the core needs of the group and even the needs of individuals within it can be
addressed, getting away from what temporally, physically and culturally distant authors and editors
think your students are like.

Related guides

needs analyses for a guide to discovering your learners' needs

for more on content and language integrated learning (teaching

CLIL
English by using it to teach other parts of a curriculum)

task-based language teaching for more on the approach

the five central hypotheses, The Natural Approach in practice and

Krashen and the Natural Approach
criticisms of the theory

Gardner's four motivational categories, Expectancy Theory and Task,

motivation
Institutional and Global motivation

assessing course materials the guide to how to evaluate and assess coursebooks

The history and development of the ways in which theories of language and theories of learning have
English Language Teaching developed and informed ELT methodologies
Communicative Language Learning for more about the dominant approach and theories of language

some alternative approaches including considerations of syllabus-free approaches

lexical approach for more on what a syllabus might contain in this methodology

for a guide to the reasons many are dissatisfied with any single
post-method methodology approach to teaching and learning (including syllabuses and
coursebooks)

Of course there's a test.

References:
Brumfit, CJ & Johnson, K, 1979, The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Hutchinson, T & Waters, A, 1987, English for Specific Purposes: a Learning Centred Approach, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Jordan, RR, 1997, English for Academic Purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Nunan, D, 1988, Syllabus Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Prabhu, NS, 1984, Procedural Syllabuses, in Read, J.A.S. (ed.) Trends in Language Syllabus
Design. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre
Sheldon, L, 1988, Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials, English Language Teaching Journal, 42/4, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
The British Council, 2013, The English Effect, British Council 2013 / D096
White, RV, 1988, The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management, Oxford: Blackwell
Wilkins, DA, 1976, Notional Syllabuses, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Willis, D, 1990, The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching, London: COBUILD
Yalden, J, 1987, Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press