Humberto Marino

My first belief for creating a course of my own is that Irujos ideas are very good to create a
syllabus for a group of training teachers. They are professionals trying to specialize in the
field and can make wise decisions as of what topics, activities and final projects their
course should comprise. Because of this, my 1st belief that would support my own
syllabus would be to use a learner-centered approach. There are many advantages to this,
for example: the changing role of the participants from passive to active being responsible
of their education, a way to meet everybodys needs in a heterogeneous group, and the
development of skills that will allow them to be life-long learners.
This kind of syllabus would be great to use among teachers in the future when I have the
chance to be a collaborator to other teachers, but not with my 3rd secondary students in my
present context because they are not ready, they have told me that they dont want to
study English. They dont see the importance of learning another tongue and all the help
this would bring them in the future. In my context theres the culture that the teacher gets
to decide what to study and how to do it, and whenever a student is asked what he would
suggest, the majority answers that whatever the teacher says because he is the expert.
Furthermore, my school gives me a curriculum and a textbook I must follow in order that
parents will not complain at the end of the school year why their children did not finish the
book which, by the way, was very expensive. Also, to implement a negotiated curriculum I
would have to ask for permission from the principal and explain the whole process and
convince them that it will work.
The only moment I get my secondary students to decide, is when I ask them which
vocabulary game they want for todays class but I have to split my class time in 2 halves,
one for a fun warm up game to practice new words and the other one for grammar, which I
told them was mandatory and non-negotiable. This is the only kind of negotiated syllabus I
have been able to implement with my teenage groups.
Another basic belief that I have stems from a dilemma that I encounter in my present
groups. This predicament is when to choose breadth or depth in the topics of the syllabus
that I will teach. Currie-Knight (2013) says teachers usually want to cover a lot of topics
because one of them might be of great interest to some students who otherwise would be
bored but he understands that many times teachers have to decide which topics are really
important for students and decide to focus on them due to a lack of extra time.

When encountering this problem, my belief about it is that, although it is a good idea to
teach more and more topics, it is usually better to explain properly 1 or 2 important
themes. This belief will certainly be present when I finally get to do my own syllabus
because, instead of letting my students choose many topics, I will tell them it is mandatory
to study the most important ones at a certain depth before moving on to something else. It
would be a great idea to spend enough time with these essential topics: Introduction to
methods of teaching languages, Theories and Methods of Language teaching and Lesson
Planning.
I have come to the conclusion that depth is better because of my experience. I have
always had the need to finish the English textbook and quickly study all the topics until this
year the principal told me she wanted the kids to learn few topics of the book but well
learnt. I did just as she told me and it has been much more beneficial to students even
though we didnt finish the whole book. I still think that choosing breadth or depth depends
on the particular situation encountered but as a first choice I will go for prioritizing depth.
Another personal belief that I will certainly be aware of when making my own syllabus is
Sterns (1987)1 social factors that affect language learning and Ellis (1994)2 individual
learner differences. I will consider educational settings (teaching proficiency, skills,
competencies), historical and political conditions (if teachers come from EFL or ESL
settings), economical and technological resources (aids for mediating the teaching
process), linguistic features (if they come from a monolingual or bilingual environment) and
the geographical location (international or intranational language) as well as individual
learner differences like beliefs, affective states and experience in language teaching.
As I mentioned earlier,I am going to do a process syllabus and depending on my trainees
expertise on teaching, I am going to choose more advanced topics or easier ones. I will
definitely check if they come from educational backgrounds where they can use
computers, projectors and Internet connection because if not I will be careful not to include
topics about Technological Aides in Teaching. Only English will be a must if I am dealing
with language proficient teachers but Spanish will be allowed sometimes when speaking to
teachers that come from monolingual environments. If I get to be a collaborator to teachers
1 In Rico Troncoso(2005)
2 In Rico Troncoso(2005)

who are willing to change and try out new methods I will suggest new activities but if I run
into people who stick to the traditional approach I will give them more conservative tasks.
If I were to give a course to teachers in the school I am at the moment, I would run into
experienced educators who can control the group effectively, who have access to many
technological features but lack a proper knowledge on how to use them. The majority has
never gone to the USA and has a hard time maintaining advanced level conversations, but
they have good attitude and would be willing to learn and try out new things. For this group
I would design a syllabus that wouldnt focus so much of basic or middle topics about
teaching methods but had a significant time spent on acquiring technological features and
application of digital devices to language learning. I would suggest including
communicative activities for them and new methods of providing ample opportunities to
practice spoken English to promote fluency in them and in their own students.
Once I get to know my students needs I will do a consensus about not only the objectives
but also about assessment (activities for evaluation) and instructional strategies (activities
to reach the objectives). The Eberly Center(2015) highlights the importance of these 3
components to be articulated properly; if this is not done correctly the students might feel
that the test doesnt have anything to do with what they saw in class or maybe the teacher
might think that students have good grades without mastering what was expected from
them. According to this same center it is better to choose the objectives first and then
decide which tests and daily activities will help evaluate and reach to the main objectives.
In my course I will follow Irujos advice and give my students a draft syllabus, understood
as a syllabus meant to be revised that includes objectives, assessment activities and daily
activities according to their particular social backgrounds and needs. I will make sure that
objectives, assessment and daily work is well articulated. As the year progresses we might
spend more time on a certain topic (study in depth) or perhaps decide we want to omit
certain activities; in short I hope my students will start to take ownership of the course and
adapt it to their own needs. I am really eager to try this out in a future course of my own
and I hope a University or private school where I will be working will help me to do this.

Bibliografa
Center, E. (2005). Design and Teach a Course. Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.htm
l Consulted on March 18th 2015.
Currie-Knight, K. (2013). The Battle Between Breadth and Depth in Creating a
Course (or Syllabus) Kevin Currie-Knight. Institue for Humane Studies.
Irujo, S. (2000). A Process Syllabus in a Methodology Course: Experiences,
Beliefs, Challenges. En M. a. Breen, Classroom Decision-Making. CUP.
Troncoso, C. R. (2005). Searching for coherence in language teaching: the issue
of teaching competencies. Colombia: Colombian Applied Linguistics
Journal.