Appled Part II PDF

Language Teaching
http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA
Additional services for Language Teaching:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design Part II
Michael P. Breen
Language Teaching / Volume 20 / Issue 03 / July 1987, pp 157 - 174

DOI: 10.1017/S026144480000450X, Published online: 23 December 2008
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S026144480000450X
How to cite this article:

Michael P. Breen (1987). Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design Part II. Language Teaching, 20, pp 157-174
doi:10.1017/S026144480000450X
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 27 Feb 2015

State of the art article
Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design
Part II
Michael P. Breen Department of Linguistics & Modern English Language
University of Lancaster
represent recently developed views on the nature
3.1 Towards an alternative of language and its use and on the learning and
paradigm teaching of language. In doing so, they express an
When we plan the objectives and content for emergent paradigm within our community which
language teaching and learning at the present time, challenges established frames of reference. Whilst I
there are alternatives in how we may do this which believe that process plans realise an alternative
derive from the diverse influences of theory, paradigm, and that syllabus design in the 1980s may
research, and classroom practice. This paper offers be interpreted as one manifestation of paradigm
a descriptive interpretation of these alternatives. In shift within our profession, only time will reveal
Part I of this account, I suggested that syllabus whether a fresh synthesis will occur - through
design is a decision-making process which has to be assimilation of the new or accommodation by the
responsive to a range of requirements upon any old - or whether process plans will be the commonly
syllabus including its sensitivity to the curriculum, accepted statements of what is to be achieved
classroom, and educational contexts for which it is through teaching and learning in the 1990s.
designed. In order to meet these requirements, the I will address possible future directions at the end
designer creates a syllabus on the basis of the four of this paper, whilst the central focus of Part II will
organising principles of focus, selection, subdivision, be upon two further types of syllabus - or proto-
and sequencing. The particular way in which the types - which exemplify process plans. I shall
designer applies these principles will never be neutral describe the Task-Based syllabus and the Process
or objective but will reflect views on language, syllabus which, although growing from common
upon using language, and upon the teaching and roots, are as different from each other as are Formal
learning of language which the designer shares with syllabus types from Functional syllabuses. Indeed, as
the wider community of specialists in language may be seen from the account which follows, the
education. Any syllabus will therefore provide a Process syllabus represents a strong version of a
particular representation of what is to be achieved process plan. As a preface to the descriptive
through teaching and learning as an expression of interpretation of these two syllabus types, I shall
the dominant paradigm or frame of reference of the briefly identify some of the innovations within
profession at a particular moment in its history current theory, research, and classroom practice that
(1.4). partly illustrate the paradigm shift which has
In Part I, I interpreted Formal and Functional motivated Task-Based and Process syllabus types.
syllabus types as expressions of a currently estab-
lished paradigm. Although varying in their realisa-
tion of the four organising principles, Formal and
3.2 Changing frames of reference
Functional syllabuses directly express a commonly We have seen that a paradigm is a consensus within
accepted interpretation of language and its most a professional community concerning which ideas
appropriate pedagogic organisation through a pro- are considered important, which problems are
positional plan of the knowledge and capabilities identified as worth pursuing, and how both ideas
required in a new language (2.1). and problems should be worked upon or acted upon
In this Part of the paper, I offer an account of (1.4). The particular priorities which the community
currently available syllabus types which can be recognises in each of these things will reflect shared
characterised as process plans. These alternatives assumptions, beliefs, values, and ways of interpreting
experience. In order to illustrate the frames of
Michael P. Breen is a lecturer in the Department of
reference which currently shape Task-Based and
Linguistics and Modern English Language at the
Process syllabus types, I shall refer to four main areas
that exhibit innovation in ideas, problems, and ways
University of Lancaster. He has been a teacher for 28
of working within our profession. The brief review
years in primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.
which follows is necessarily selective, but the four
He has worked with teachers in over a dozen overseas
main areas of innovation seem to me to have a direct
countries. At Lancaster, he has directed the M.A. in
bearing upon syllabus design. There are important
Linguistics for ELT, been Director of the Institute for
changes in our views of (a) language, (b) teaching
English Language Education, and currently coordinates
methodology, (c) learner contributions, and (d) how
the many research students in the department.
we may plan for teaching and learning.
157
11-2
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
reassessment of how language users apply their
(a) Views of language competence and turn it into action. Formal and
Using Halliday's (1973, 1978) analysis of the textual, Functional syllabuses focus upon the four skills as
ideational, and interpersonal functions of language — capabilities which need to be developed in learners.
and the underlying knowledge that each entails But, just as communicative performance can be seen
for the language user - we saw that the Formal as a surface expression of underlying knowledge,
syllabus focused upon the first of these knowledge the four skills can be regarded as tips of the iceberg
systems (2.2). The Functional syllabus, building of psychological processes and underlying abilities
specifically upon ideas derived from Speech Act (Widdowson, 1978; Breen & Candlin, op. cit.).
theory, represented a shift towards interpersonal Indeed, the underlying ability to negotiate may be
knowledge and the uses to which language can be seen as the catalyst for the learning and refinement
put in social situations. The Functional syllabus was of language knowledge itself.
a particular response to a central idea concerning In deciding which knowledge and capabilities to
language knowledge which has been explored in focus upon, the syllabus designer is currently faced
our profession since the 1970s. The notion of with a complex task. Not only does the designer
communicative competence developed by Hymes need to reinterpret a diversity of descriptions of
(1971, 1972) extended the Chomskyan view of the language knowledge - linguistic, sociolinguistic,
language user as having an underlying knowledge and pragmatic - in terms of a padagogic plan, s/he
of the linguistic system to a person who can relate is also obliged to represent underlying capacities in
their knowledge of the language to a knowledge knowledge and not merely the surface performance
of the conventions governing its use in everyday which derives from them. It is not surprising,
situations. Hymes' communicative competence perhaps, that the appropriateness or even the
referred to the underlying capacity to mobilise possibility of designing a syllabus to represent
linguistic competence in socially appropriate ways. communicative knowledge are seriously in doubt
Although the Functional syllabus interpreted the (Widdowson, 19846, 1987).
'communicative' aspect of Hymes' proposals in
terms of the linguistic exponents of social functions
of language - focusing upon a repertoire of com- (b) Views of teaching methodology
municative performance rather than underlying We have seen that the Functional syllabus was
knowledge of appropriacy (2.4 a) - pedagogic initiated at a time when there was a growing
interpretations of communicative knowledge have beendisillusionment within certain quarters of the
a dominant issue in language teaching since the early profession with the apparently mechanical and
70s (Savignon, 1972, 1983). The period has also analytic methodology associated with grammar-
been characterised by occasions when the notions of translation and audio-lingualism (2.4a). The popu-
' communicative' and ' competence' have both been larity of the Functional ' approach' may be seen as
inflated to cover a diversity of phenomena which, partly symptomatic of a search for alternative
whilst comoditising the terms, bear little resem- methodologies, although Functionalism never di-
blance to the original concepts developed by rectly entailed innovation in teaching. A recogni-
Hymes. tion of this limitation has led, perhaps harshly, to
More recently, our view of a person's knowledge a questioning of the pedagogic validity of the
of use of language has been extended to embrace the Functional syllabus itself (Widdowson, 1984;
capacity to participate in discourse (Widdowson, Richards, 1984 a).
1978) and a knowledge of the pragmatic conventions There has been a coincidence in the last decade
which govern such participation (Levinson, 1983; between redefinitions of the subject matter of
Leech, 1983). Hymes' original dualism of linguistic language teaching and an active exploration of
competence and social use competence has also been innovations in methodology (Roberts, 1982;
further elaborated so that we may now regard Quinn, 1985). Building upon 'wholistic' interpre-
knowledge of language as a cluster - or' complex' - tations of the process of learning (Newmark, 1966;
of competencies which interact during everyday Rogers, 1969), a new wave of alternative method-
communication (Canale & Swain, 1980). A crucial ologies has captured the curiosity and enthusiasm of
feature of this ' complex' of language knowledge is many teachers, particularly in North America
that it not only reflects a person's knowledge of the (Stevick, 1976, 1980; Blair, 1982). Recent years have
rules and conventions of communication, but that it also been typified by a diverse and wide-ranging
enables a person to be creative with these rules and exploration of the practicalities of a communicative
conventions and, indeed, to negotiate them during ' approach' to the teaching of language (Allen &
communication (Breen & Candlin, 1980; Brumfit, Howard, 1981; Breen, 1983; Yalden, 1983; Brumfit,
1984 a). 1984; Savignon & Berns, 1984; Mitchell, 1985).
These recent extensions of the notion of com- Even in Europe, where the early years of the decade
municative competence have further motivated a were characterised by a primary concern with
158

syllabus development, there has been a gradual them manageable. A learner not only consciously or
recognition of the need to balance precision in unconsciously seeks to superimpose his or her own
planning objectives and content with close attention plan of content upon the teacher's syllabus (Corder,
to the entailed development of classroom imple- 1981), but learners will also superimpose their own
mentation (Council of Europe, 1984). learning strategies and preferred ways of working
upon classroom methodology (Rubin & Wendon,
1987; Breen, 1987). On the basis of recent refine-
(c) Views of the contributions of learners ments in our view of learner contributions, it ap-
Perhaps one of the major sources of impetus for the pears that the variables which intervene between
recent interest in alternative methodologies has been the planning of a syllabus and the actual learning
an intensified theoretical and research focus upon which the plan is intended to serve are such that the
the language learning process and, in particular, the nature of the original plan might be rendered
contributions of the learner to that process. The virtually irrelevant.
wider recognition of the centrality of the learning
process has had important implications for syllabus
(d) Views concerning how we may plan for
planning. We are reminded that a syllabus can only
have, at best, an indirect influence upon actual teaching and learning
language learning. It is mediated by teaching and Almost twenty years ago, Postman and Weingartner
the encircling classroom context within which challenged an assumption which they saw as preva-
instruction is only one element. And it is further lent in the practice of contemporary education.
mediated by learners' participation in classroom They pointed out that' the invention of a dichotomy
work and by their own interpretation of appropri- between content and method is both naive and
ate objectives and content for language learning. dangerous. . . the critical content of any learning
Classroom oriented research on language learning experience is the method or process through which
casts some doubt even on the effects of instruction the learning occurs... It is not what you say to
upon learning. Long (1983<J) suggests that attend- people that counts; it is what you have them do'
ance in a classroom is marginally more effective (1969, p. 30).
than letting a learner loose in the second language These writers were participating in a debate
environment, whilst Allwright (1984) is fairly which has a long heritage in educational thought
convinced that learners don't learn what teachers and practice (Dewey, 1916; Peters, 1959; Parker &
teach. Among Allwright's possible explanations for Rubin, 1966; Friere, 1970; Stenhouse, 1975; and
the phenomena that learners learn less than what is Holt, 1976). The assumption that the content of
taught and things other than the teacher intended is lessons is what is learned is challenged by the view
the crucial intervening variable of learner participa- that the teaching-learning process - and the activi-
tion. For him, it is not the content of a lesson that ties and roles it entails - is the significant substance
is the basis for learning but the process of classroom of lessons for those who participate in them. This
interaction which generates opportunities for learn- view implies that any syllabus is not merely
ing. And these opportunities are further acted upon subordinated to methodology but actually replaced
in a selective way so that learners learn different by what is learned from the experience of classroom
things from the same lesson. work. Postman and Weingartner's assertion of the
An intensification of the classroom-centred in- primacy of methodology as content may be
vestigation of learning has coincided with a renewed regarded as an extreme interpretation of the
concern with the integrity of the learner within the relationship between the two. But it serves to
pedagogic process (Altman & Vaughan James, highlight the unrealistic task of planning content as
1980; Holex, 1980; Candlin, 1984). Both of these if it was somehow separable from the ways in which
developments have been complemented by the it may be implemented and worked upon by the
emergence of two major proposals from current users of a syllabus. We have seen, however, that any
research regarding the learner's active intervention syllabus implicitly captures the designer's view of
upon whatever content or methodology we might how the syllabus may be implemented through the
try to implement. Mainstream second language ac- ways in which it is organised (1.2 and 3). A crucial
quisition studies assert the primacy of the learner's function of a syllabus is to facilitate the learning of
inherent psychological capacity to acquire linguistic new knowledge and capabilities through such
competence when this capacity acts upon compre- organisation. If the argument that the teaching-
hensible language input which itself extends a learning process actually redefines and further
learner's present competence (Krashen, 1985; Ellis, reorganises content is accepted, then we may
1985). The second major proposal concerning wonder whether any syllabus can serve this facili-
learner contributions refers to a learner's inclination tative purpose.
to impose order upon new knowledge and capa- There have been two reactions to this dilemma
bilities which have to be learned in order to make within language teaching in recent years. The first
159

has proposed that planning for language teaching challenges. At one extreme, it might be deduced
should be broader in scope and more comprehensive that planning energy formerly devoted to syllabuses
in its concerns. It argues that the planning of content should be redirected elsewhere. At the other
needs to be located within planning the purposes, extreme, it may be argued that, as a planning docu-
methodology, and evaluation procedures of ment, a syllabus of content is independent of its
language programmes. Syllabus design, therefore, implementation through teaching. (And necessarily
should be an integral part of the development of a independent of its implementation through diverse
language curriculum (Breen & Candlin, 1980; learning processes.) The rationale for a syllabus can
Stern, 1983; Richards, 1984; Allen, 1984; Dubin & be seen to reside in priorities other than the direct
Olshtein, 1986.Johnson, 1987). The second reaction facilitation of teaching and learning. These would
has been a direct exploration of the content and include a public account, a record, and a basis for
method relationship within a syllabus. Task-Based evaluation of what should be achieved through the
and Process syllabus types exemplify this alternative. teaching and learning (1.2). A third reaction might
be to try to meet the challenges head-on and to
develop alternative kinds of syllabus. I interpret
3.3 The challenges for syllabus design process plans as illustrations of this reaction.
From this brief review of recent changes in frames
of reference within our profession, it seems that
4.1 Process plans: task-based and
there are (at least) eight major questions which
confront syllabus designers at the present time: process syllabuses
1. How to represent language knowledge as a We have seen that propositional plans - such as
'complex' of competencies (linguistic, sociolinguis- Formal and Functional syllabuses — represent what
tic, discoursal, pragmatic, etc.). • is to be achieved through teaching and learning as
2. How to represent language knowledge as the formal statements (2.1). Knowledge and capabilities
underlying capacity to apply, adapt, and refine rules will be organised and presented in the plan as things
and conventions during language learning and which are inherently system-based. They will be
language use. expressed in logical formulae, structures, rules,
3. How to represent language capability as the schemas or categories deriving from an analysis of
abilities to interpret and express meaning and to the knowledge that is assumed to be the objective
negotiate with and through spoken and written which the plan serves. Propositional plans map out
texts. knowledge of language and the conventions of
4. How to represent such knowledge and language performance.
capabilities in ways which are amenable to the pro- Process plans, on the other hand, represent how
fession's development of the practice of teaching. something is done. They will seek to represent
5. How can syllabus planning interact with knowledge of how correctness, appropriacy, and
methodology in a mutually beneficial way during a meaningfulness can be simultaneously achieved
period of innovation ? during communication within events and situations.
6. How can the syllabus harmonise in an un- They may derive from an analysis of performance
constraining but facilitative way with the internal within events and situations, but map out the pro-
process of language acquisition, the strategic be- cedural knowledge or the underlying operations
haviour of learners, and with the personal-syllabus which enable a language user to communicate
creation of different learners ? within not merely one event or situation but within
7. How can the syllabus harmonise in an a range of these. (Such communication would, of
unconstraining but facilitative way with relatively course, include communication through the written
unpredictable and necessarily diverse teaching- medium.) Task-Based syllabus types therefore
learning processes which will transform the syllabus organise and present what is to be achieved through
into action? teaching and learning in terms of how a learner may
8. If the designer's plan of content is consistently engage his or her communicative competence in
subordinated within the more salient teaching- undertaking a range of tasks. As we shall see, the
learning experience of the classroom, how might Task-Based syllabus also addresses how learners
the designer nevertheless exploit the organising may develop this competence through learning; a
principles of a syllabus so that the accessibility of new concern with how to learn alongside a concern with
knowledge and alternative ways of developing how to communicate. The Process syllabus goes
language capabilities is maximised for both the further in relation to procedures for learning. It is a
teacher and the learners? In other words, how representation of how communication and learning
might the focusing, selection, subdivision, and to communicate might be variously undertaken in
the specific situation of the language classroom. Just
sequencing of content become explicit elements
as tasks are socially situated in real communication
within the classroom experience?
in everyday life, the Process syllabus recognises that
There are, perhaps, three possible reactions to these
160

communication and learning in classrooms are also the designer of a Task-Based syllabus this implies
socially situated in the classroom group. In a sense, that knowledge of linguistic form or knowledge of
the Process syllabus addresses three interdependent a range of language functions are surface and partial
processes: communication, learning, and the group definitions of what is to be learned. The Task-Based
process of a classroom community. syllabus does not, therefore, prioritise either or both
A major function of any syllabus is to provide a of these alone, but approaches communicative
helpful means towards learning a language. The knowledge as a unified system wherein any use of
syllabus provides a route from a state of relative the new language requires the learner to continually
unknowing on the part of learners towards the match choices from his or her linguistic repertoire
eventual use of the target language for particular (textual knowledge) to the social requirements and
purposes in a range of situations. Propositional plans expectations governing communicative behaviour
offer a route by the organisation of content so that (interpersonal knowledge) and to meanings and
it may harmonise with the objectives of a course. ideas he or she wishes to share (ideational know-
Process plans, on the other hand, more directly ledge). Communicative knowledge is seen as know-
address the ways in which learners may achieve ing the rules and conventions governing the
objectives and how they navigate the route itself. orchestration of code, behaviour, and meaning.
In addition to focusing upon knowledge of the
4.2 The Task-Based syllabus sub-systems of code (or text), behaviour, and
meaning and, in particular, knowledge of their
The Task-Based syllabus can be interpreted as a systematic relationship, the Task-Based syllabus also
particular expression of changes in our frames of focuses upon the learner's own experience and
reference through (i) its representation of com- awareness of language learning. Therefore, knowing
municative competence as the undertaking and what language learning is like, what it involves, and
achievement of a range of tasks; (ii) its direct re- how it may be undertaken to facilitate the develop-
liance on the contributions of learners in terms of ment of a new language are also addressed in the
the mobilisation of the prior communicative com- plan of tasks which this kind of syllabus typically
petence which learners bring to any task; and (iii) its provides. The Task-Based syllabus plans what is to
emphasis upon the learning process as appropriate be achieved in terms of two major task types: (i)
content during language learning. In this last communication tasks and (ii) learning tasks. The
characteristic, the Task-Based syllabus explicitly former focus upon the actual sharing of meaning
crosses the theoretical divide between content and through spoken or written communication where
methodology. the purposeful use of the target language is given
In order to describe the Task-Based syllabus — priority. Learning tasks focus upon the exploration
and so that it may be compared with Formal and of the workings of the knowledge systems them-
Functional syllabuses - the following interpretation selves and, in particular, how these may be worked
of it will be based upon the five questions applied to upon and learned. Therefore a distinction exists
earlier types (2.2 and 2.4): within the plan between communicative tasks and
(a) What knowledge does it focus upon or give ttietacommunicative tasks. These two major task
priority to? types are incorporated in the syllabus as two parallel
(b) What capabilities does it focus upon and give but mutually supportive routes. In a sense, the Task-
priority to? Based syllabus is two syllabuses side by side; a
(c) On what basis does it select and subdivide syllabus of communication tasks and a syllabus of
what is to be learned? learning-for-communication tasks which serve to
(d) How does it sequence what is to be learned ? facilitate a learner's participation in the former.
(e) What is its particular rationale ? However, the designer knows that even this dis-
tinction is valid only in terms of the syllabus plan.
Once the Tasks are actually worked upon during
(a) What know/edge does the Task-Based learning - when learners turn the plan into action -
syllabus focus upon? a communicative task may well facilitate the
What does a person need to know in order to learning of something new or uncover a problem
participate in communication ? He or she will need which has to be worked on in a subsequent learning
to know how meaning is coded in written and task. Conversely, a learning task - aimed at pre-
spoken texts in ways in which the meaning can be paring for a communicative task or solving some
shared with other people within the same social earlier problem in communication — can generate
group or culture. In sum, he or she will know the genuine communication between learners or bet-
rules and conventions governing how meaning or ween learners and the teacher.
ideation, their textual realisation, and interpersonal In sum, therefore, the Task-Based syllabus focuses
communicative behaviour are all systematically re- upon communicative knowledge as a unity of text,
lated in any communicative act or situation. For interpersonal behaviour, and ideation. Through its
161

provision of a plan of communication and learning tasks may reveal a task-appropriate repertoire of
tasks in mutual support of one another, it also language performance (the specific code or text
focuses upon the learner's experience and awareness realised during communication between doctors
of working upon a new language. and patients, engineers and technicians, or academic
specialists and their students, for instance) the
priority of the designer of a syllabus of com-
(b) What capabilities does the Task-Based munication tasks is to engage the underlying
syllabus focus upon ? competence required of a participant in a range of
Given its dual focus upon communicative know- communicative events. The designer looks beneath
ledge and its development, the Task-Based syllabus actual language use to the rules and conventions
also prioritises communicative abilities and learning which generated it and, thereby, to the knowledge
capability. A learner works within a Task-Based required of a participant in order to be accurate,
syllabus in order to learn how to be correct or appropriate, and meaningful within and across such
accurate, to be socially appropriate, and to be events. The designer also looks beneath skill use - or
meaningful or share meanings. But also to achieve patterns of skill use - to the ways in which a
such things simultaneously through the new participant may need to undertake interpretation,
language. This type of syllabus, unlike the Formal expression, and negotiation.
or Functional syllabus, does not take the four skills This selection of underlying knowledge and
as the important manifestation of a language user's ability use may be seen as a more demanding role
capabilities, but calls upon those abilities which for the designer than the identification and selec-
underlie all language use and which the four skills tion of a specific repertoire which learners might
reflect in an indirect way. The ability to interpret internalise in ways assumed to be true in the case
meaning (from written or spoken texts) and the of the Formal or Functional syllabus. However, in
ability to express meaning (through writing or selecting a wide range of task types — often clustering
speech) both rely on the crucial ability of negotiating different types - designers of a Task-Based syllabus
meaning. And it is the overt negotiation of meaning believe that they are directly providing bridges
interpersonally and the covert personal negotiation between a learner's present competence as a com-
of meaning which is the essential design feature of municator in the first language and the future use of
any communicative task. the new language. This focus upon the knowledge
One major assumption of this type of syllabus is and abilities that underlie a range of communicative
that learning tasks call upon and engage the same events in which the learner may ultimately partici-
abilities which underlie communication itself. pate rests upon two principles: first, that there will
Therefore interpreting and expressing how com- be areas of overlap between first language com-
munication works in the target language and the municative competence and target competence so
process of negotiating about such things - com- that the former can link with and accommodate
municating in order to learn - are taken to be the latter. Second, that underlying competence is
important elements of the Task-Based syllabus. The generative in the sense that it is the means by which
assumption behind this dual focus upon using the learner can cope with the unpredictable, be
abilities to communicate and using the same abilities creative and adaptable, and transfer knowledge and
to learn is that they both mutually contribute to the capability across tasks in ways that mastery of a
learner's overall capacities as a communicator. The fixed repertoire of performance might not facilitate.
Task-Based syllabus represents the claim that both From the analysis of actual tasks which exemplify
the participation in communication and communi- target language communication, the designer will
cating for learning are equally valuable and, indeed, select and cluster those tasks for the syllabus which
necessary activities when a person is confronted are most common in the target situation, or most
with the challenge of discovering a new language. generalisable to the target situation (core tasks from
which other tasks can be seen to derive), or most
relevant in terms of learner need and interest, or
(c) On what basis does the Task-Based through some combination of these selection cri-
syllabus select and subdivide ? teria.
Given the planning distinction between communi- Learning tasks are selected on the basis of
cation tasks and learning tasks as mutually supportive wietacommunicative criteria rather than criteria
routes within the Task-Based syllabus, two points of derived from the eventual competence required
reference exist for the selection and subdivision of during communication. Because they serve to
what is to be achieved. Communication tasks derive provide the groundwork for the learner's engage-
from an analysis of the actual tasks which a person ment in communication tasks and deal with learner
may undertake when communicating through difficulties which emerge during these tasks, they
the target language and, indeed, communicating address two issues: (i) how the knowledge systems
through any language. Although this analysis of work and how abilities are to be used in com-
162

munication, and (ii) how the learning and develop- pathway alongside gradual refinement. I will briefly
ment of these things may be best done. In this way, describe in turn sequencing relating to task and
learning tasks explicitly focus upon the rules and sequencing relating to learning problems.
conventions of the three knowledge systems and Tasks in themselves may be sequenced from those
their interrelationship; they are about what needs to which are familiar in terms of learners' current
be known - in much the same way as Formal or competence to the less familiar, or from the most
Functional syllabuses address knowledge. They also generalisable type of task to the least generalisable.
focus upon the ways in which interpreting, ex- These broad dimensions can apply to the nature of
pressing, and negotiating may be undertaken. In a the knowledge and/or abilities required in a task. A
sense, learning tasks are analytical in relation to both task may require familiar textual, interpersonal, and
communication and learning whilst — in contrast — ideational knowledge and familiar use of the abilities.
communication tasks require genuine participation A task may require knowledge and abilities which
in the use of the new language. underlie a wide range of communication tasks,
Task-Based syllabuses are subdivided on the basis therefore engaging 'core' knowledge and abilities
of task types. One form of subdivision involves which are of a generalisable nature. However, the
the mapping of facilitative learning tasks onto or Task-Based syllabus can exploit useful subtleties in
around one or more communicative tasks. Another sequencing precisely because it is based upon an
subdivision may represent a cluster of obviously analysis of the various components of communica-
related communication tasks - perhaps those which tion. For example, a task may require unfamiliar
occur within a single larger communicative event, knowledge but exploit a use of abilities which is
or those which exist in an everyday sequence in familiar to the learner, therefore enabling the latter
target language use, for instance — and these may to compensate for the demands of the former,
also link with supportive learning tasks. A third or vice versa. Similarly, and working within the
form of subdivision may be in terms of a single large knowledge systems, a task may be quite demanding
activity which naturally entails subordinate tasks at an ideational (or cognitive or conceptual level)
which together contribute to the completion of the but familiar and manageable in terms of the textual
overall activity. (For example, the learners may be and interpersonal knowledge which has to be
involved in projects such as planning a journey or exploited by the learner for the task's completion.
producing a magazine where activities of this sort Although the three knowledge systems interrelate
require them to interpret written material, express during communication, the manageability and
ideas and alternatives in writing or speech, and complexity of each of them can vary.
undertake several contributory tasks over a period The task designer therefore has several dimensions
of time.) Although activities and entailed tasks lend on which to base the relative familiarity or demands
themselves to subdivided units of learning work, the of any task - those of the three knowledge systems
Task-Based syllabus may also be subdivided on the and those of ability use. Initial tasks, however, are
basis of overriding sequencing or grading criteria. characterised by their deliberate exploration and
involvement of the communicative knowledge and
the communicative abilities which the learners
(d) How is the Task-Based syllabus already have as part of their competence underlying
sequenced? the language(s) they know and can use. In this way,
We have seen that the Formal syllabus is accumu- initial communicative tasks are diagnostic in two
lative in sequence wherein the learner gradually senses. First, they are aimed at uncovering what is
synthesises what is being learned. The Functional manageable for the learner - the competence the
syllabus is cyclic in sequence, taking the learner learner has - and, second, they are diagnostic of
from ' core' functions to a greater refinement of his what the learner does not yet know or cannot yet do
or her functional repertoire. The sequencing of (the latter being the starting point for the on-going
the Task-Based syllabus relates to two things; the sequence of learning tasks). Subsequent tasks are
nature of a task and, importantly, the emerging sequenced in terms of the development of know-
learning problems of learners which are uncovered ledge and abilities from the learner's initial com-
during participation in a communication task. petence. This development is both linear in terms of
Sequencing in the Task-Based syllabus can therefore progress towards target competence and expansive
be characterised as cyclic in relation to how learners in terms of competence to participate in a widening
move through tasks, and problem-based (or range of task types.
problem-generated) in relation to the on-going Therefore, sequencing of communication and
difficulties which learners themselves discover. (related) learning tasks are planned as a syllabus in
There will be a sequence of refinement in learner advance on the basis of two sets of criteria or on the
competence because tasks themselves will require basis of relating the two. These criteria are: (i) the
more and more of learner competence, and there relative familiarity of the task to the learner's
will be a sequence of diagnosis and remediation like a current communicative knowledge and abilities,
163

and (ii) the relative inherent complexity of the task Taking tasks as the main 'item' or element of
in terms of the demands placed upon a learner. the syllabus, the Task-Based syllabus assumes that
But, within the Task-Based syllabus, these criteria participation in communication tasks which require
which may guide planning are only half the story. learners to mobilise and orchestrate knowledge and
The sequencing of tasks in relation to emerging abilities in a direct way will itself be a catalyst
learner problems or difficulties - the diagnosis and for language learning. The emphasis is upon using
remediation sequence - can not be worked out in language to communicate and in order to learn.
advance. Sequencing here depends upon: first, the The second major motivation for change in
identification of learning problems or difficulties as syllabus design which has influenced both the Task-
they arise; second, the prioritising of particular Based and Process syllabuses is the concern with a
problems and the order in which they may be dealt more sensitive methodology. The Task-Based sylla-
with; and, third, the identification of appropriate bus represents the effort to relate content (the
learning tasks which address the problem areas. The conventional focus of a syllabus) to how that
learner would subsequently undertake these learning content may be worked upon and, thereby, learned
tasks — as a kind of side road to the main route of more efficiently (conventionally the realm of
tasks - until the problem or difficulty was resolved. methodology). Through learning tasks, the Task-
Because learning difficulties will vary between Based syllabus addresses knowledge and abilities in
learners — however homogeneous the classroom a problem-based and analytical way. It focuses upon
group - they will be relatively unpredictable in the individual's learning process by assuming that
relation to any main task. This implies that learners will locate their learning problems and
sequencing on the basis of learning problems will difficulties, undertake chosen tasks for their solution,
derive from the learner's own syllabus and from and reflect on their own learning experience in
the learner's experience of working with the new order to consider alternatives.
language. For the designer of the Task-Based The Task-Based syllabus is both means-focused
syllabus, this involves the initial provision of a wide and ends-focused. It exploits a learner's current
range of learning tasks of two types: those which competence and learning difficulties as dual means
may be seen directly to serve particular communi- towards the development of competence in a new
cation tasks - in a preparatory or consolidating language. It also provides tasks which derive from
way - and an unsequenced set of learning tasks relevant everyday communicative activities and
which are identified by the specific problems that events which may be undertaken by users of the
learners may have but which represent a set of target language. (We have seen that the Formal and
supportive tasks as a resource used by particular Functional syllabuses are largely ends-focused.)
learners only when they need them. Finally, the Task-Based syllabus assumes that
learning is necessarily both a metacommunicative
(e) The rationale for the Task-Based syllabus and a communicative undertaking. It is based on
In reviewing the broader motivations for the Task- the belief that learners can be analytical in their ex-
Based and Process syllabuses, I suggested that both ploration of communication in the target language
reflected a broader view of the nature of what is to and of the knowledge and ability use it entails.
be achieved in language learning. Whilst the Formal It rests on the principle that metacommunicating is
syllabus prioritised linguistic competence (a know- itself a powerful springboard for language learning.
ledge of the rules governing the formal or textual
nature of language), and the Functional syllabus
4.3 Sources and references
prioritised communicative performance (a reper-
toire of language functions), the more recent types The roots of task-based work probably most directly
of syllabus give priority to communicative com- reside in ' situational' approaches to language
petence. They see the learner as knowing how to teaching which evolved over twenty years ago
become accurate, appropriate and meaningful (Corder, 1960). However, three further influences
through the new language and becoming able to can be traced which have been seen by many
interpret, express, and negotiate meanings in speech teachers to be of value in their work. These are:
and/or writing. Such competence underlies the (i) The comprehensive analysis of knowledge and
actual tasks in relevant everyday communication - capabilities which learners need in order to achieve
in whatever medium - in the target language, and certain things. Bloom et al. (1956) exemplifies this
learners already mobilise such knowledge systems concern with a precise account of requirements
and abilities as communicators in their first language. upon learners, whilst Singleton (1978) provides a
The Task-Based syllabus therefore represents the more recent and interesting analysis of skills.
means whereby the learner's initial competence can (ii) The classroom use of materials which are not
be engaged as the foundation upon which new tied to a syllabus but which are thematic or project-
knowledge and capabilities may be accommodated based or which require learners to undertake open-
during the undertaking of tasks. ended tasks particularly related to their everyday
164

lives. The Humanities Curriculum Project (1970) in colleagues in Southern India. (Brumfit, 1984 b, and
Britain and values clarification activities for learners Berretta & Davies, 1985, provide particular accounts
in the United States (Simons et al., 1972) illustrate whilst Prabhu himself, 1987, offers a detailed
seminal versions of such material. rationale and description). In addition to revealing
(iii) The use of problem-solving as a means for the possibilities of a task-based syllabus for young
the learning of a wide range of knowledge and and beginning learners, the Bangalore Project
capabilities, where problem-solving is seen as a more was innovative in three important respects. First,
holistic account of learning than those implied the teaching and learning of language was not the
by the analytical approaches of (i). Winitz and objective of the tasks. The tasks focused upon the
Reeds (1975) explore problem-solving tasks as a learners' use and development of their own cognitive
basis for teaching whilst Adams (1986) provides a abilities through the solution of logical, mathe-
typology of tasks which may serve the development matical and scientific problems. The target language
of problem-solving strategies. was the means through which they worked in order
From theory and research within language to do such things. Second, Prabhu's 'procedural
teaching, four arguments specifically supporting syllabus' of tasks focused upon what was to be done
task-based teaching have been recently proposed. in the classroom and not upon selected language
They are: input for learning. Third, the syllabus of tasks was
(i) The inherent value of problem-solving tasks not pre-planned but was evolved during the teaching
in generating learner interaction and, thereby, the and learning by a process of trial and error where-
negotiation of comprehensible input (Long, 19836, by new tasks could become more sensitive to the
1985). achievements and needs of the particular learners in
(ii) The need for pedagogy to focus upon the the particular teaching situation.
processes of learner participation in discourse Work on bilingual programmes in Canada
(Widdowson, 1981; Zamel, 1983) and the pro- valuably illustrates the application of theme-based
cedures which they adopt in order to access new organisation of content as the focus of learning
knowledge (Bialystok & Sharwood Smith, 1985) tasks; a focus upon social, cultural and everyday
rather than the products or outcomes which learners learning which may be seen as broader in scope than
may derive from their work. These proposals Prabhu's attention to cognitive abilities (Stern,
highlight the fact that whatever we select for 1971 ; Stern et al., 1980, and Ullman, 1981). Within
learning work — new knowledge or the new appli- modern language teaching in Europe, a task-based
cation or capabilities - has to be accommodated by approach is perhaps best illustrated through the
the learner. And accommodation entails learner recent interest in project work wherein learners
reinterpretation of any content (Breen, 1987). How undertake a large activity - perhaps over a good
a learner works upon and with a new language is, period of time - which involves the achievement of
therefore, a major pedagogic issue. a range of contributory tasks (Legutke, 1982; Fried-
(iii) The possibility that a syllabus can be se- Booth, 1982; Edelhoff, 1984; Deutscher Volk-
quenced on the basis of emergent learner problems, shochschul-Verband E. V., 1986; and Carter &
thereby overcoming the limitations of conventional Thomas, 1986).
criteria for sequencing in syllabus design (Schin- Within English language teaching, the earlier
nerer-Erben, 1981). A wide range of tasks designed functionalist orientation of ESP has more recently
to deal with learner difficulties as they emerged evolved into a strong concern with the development
would serve as a path alongside appropriate course of tasks which are appropriate to the learning and
content. target needs of specific groups - such as students
(iv) The design of language teaching materials has in diverse academic disciplines and learners of par-
conventionally given priority to the selection of ticular technical and vocational areas of knowledge
content - particular target language input and par- and skill. Task-based work in ESP emerges from the
ticular information about the language and its use. practicalities of planning classroom work so that it
The selected content has typically been wedded to may have face validity for students who are learning
exercises seen to be most appropriate to that content. a language, not for its own sake, but as the means
In essence, materials have tended to be content- for the achievement of communication within
driven. The alternative which addresses how learners particular work and study related contexts and
might work upon input and information and which events (Kennedy & Bolitho, 1984; McDonagh,
reduces the pressure on the teacher to continually 1984; Swales, 1984; Williams et al,. 1984; Hutchin-
search for content material can be a range of son & Waters, 1987). Interesting illustrations of tasks
problem-solving tasks which would be applied to designed for specific learning purposes are found in
any content (Breen et al., 1979). British Council (1980), Waters & Hutchinson (1985),
and Harper (ed.) (forthcoming).
Perhaps one of the most interesting classroom
implementations of a task-based approach has been There is currently a rapid growth of proposals
the experimental work of N. S. Prabhu and his and suggestions for course planning and classroom
165

work which entail the use of tasks - from simula- organising the subject matter of language. The
tions (Jones, 1984) to the exploitation of different designer will not focus upon, select, subdivide or
media in a single task or series of tasks (Longman, sequence content on behalf of teachers and learners.
BBC & Institut fur Film und Bild, 1977; Candlin & A major priority of the designer is to provide a
Edelhoff, 1982), and with reference to the develop- framework which enables teacher and learners to do
ment of particular reading and writing capabilities these things themselves and, therefore, create their
in learners (Freedman et al., 1983; Kaplan & Shaw own syllabus in the classroom in an on-going and
(eds.), 1983). Diverse syllabuses of tasks are also adaptive way. The justification for such an apparent
being explored: tasks related to grammar (Tongue abdication of a syllabus designer's responsibilities is
& Gibbons, 1982; Rutherford, 1987), tasks related found in the everyday phenomenon of teacher and
to situations (Clark & Hamilton, 1984), and tasks learner reinterpretation of every pre-planned sylla-
related to a lexically-based syllabus (Willis, 1986; bus. Even when a teacher is obliged to work from
Sinclair & Renouf, 1987). Perhaps we are fast ap- a required syllabus, he or she will interpret that
proaching a time when the concept of task-based syllabus so that it can be implemented in a particular
work, as with the concept of communicative classroom. Although the teacher's interpretation
language teaching, will be expanded to the extent may be more appropriate to his or her learners, the
that it fails to capture a distinctive realm of action learners themselves will further reinterpret the
within our profession. On the other hand, we might teacher's version of the original plan in order to
perceive such a coming together from a variety of make it their own and, thereby, a helpful source
starting points and priorities as a growing interest in of guidance and continuity for their learning. An
the potential of process plans which tasks exemplify alternative response to this inevitable reinterpreta-
in a direct way (Candlin & Murphy (eds.), 1987). tion which renders every pre-planned syllabus
redundant from the moment teacher and learners
try to implement it, is for the designer to provide
4.4 The process syllabus a syllabus which deliberately engages reinterpreta-
When interpreting Task-Based and Process sylla- tion ; which explicitly addresses teacher and learner
buses as particular responses to the current challenges capacities to select, subdivide and sequence subject
facing syllabus design (3.3), I suggested that a major matter for language learning which they (jointly)
characteristic which distinguished them from earlier perceive as most valuable to them. It is this joint
creation and implementation of a syllabus which the
types of syllabus was their focus upon how something
Process syllabus tries to serve.
is done rather than the mere provision of a plan of
the knowledge of language as subject matter to be Because the Process syllabus is something of a
worked on. Task-Based syllabuses, as we have seen, deviant in relation to the conventions of syllabus
are concerned with how communication may be design, it can not be described in terms of the five
undertaken and how the learning of the rules and questions which I have previously applied to other
conventions of communication can be facilitated types of syllabus. My account of the Process syllabus
through tasks (4.1). I also indicated that the Process will therefore deal with the following issues: (a)
syllabus extends the focus upon procedures for What does the Process syllabus provide ? (b) What is
learning to account for the actual social situation the relationship between the Process syllabus and
in which learning will take place. In this way, the the content or subject matter to be learned? and (c)
What is the rationale of the Process syllabus ?
Process syllabus goes further than a Task-Based
syllabus by providing a bridge between content and
methodology and in offering a means whereby the
actual syllabus of a classroom group may be made (a) What does the Process syllabus provide ?
more accessible to each of its members. The Process The designer of the Process syllabus provides two
syllabus focuses upon three processes: communi- things: (i) a plan relating to the major decisions
cating, learning, and the purposeful social activity of which teacher and learners need to make during
teaching and learning in a classroom. It is primarily classroom language learning, and (ii) a bank of
a syllabus which addresses the decisions which have classroom activities which are themselves made up
to be made and the working procedures which have of sets of tasks. The plan which identifies decisions
to be undertaken for language learning in a group. for classroom language learning is presented in
It assumes, therefore, that the third process - how terms of questions which require shared considera-
things may be done in the classroom situation - will tion by teacher and learners together so that they
be the means through which communicating and may jointly agree upon the important aspects of
learning can be achieved. their work with the new language. Questions will
The Process syllabus is a plan for classroom work refer to three main aspects of classroom work:
and, in this concern, is quite distinctive from the participation, procedure and subject-matter. Deci-
other types of syllabus so far described. The designer sions concerning participation derive from the
of a Process syllabus is not directly concerned with question: 'Who works with whom?'. It has to be
166

decided whether learners work individually, in pairs comes. The choice from this bank of activities - and
or small groups, or as a whole group. Similarly, it the actual work upon them - remains part of the
has to be decided whether the teacher will work decision-making process of the classroom group.
with individual learners, with small groups, or Perhaps the key element of the Process syllabus
with the whole class. Decisions concerning procedure is its emphasis upon evaluation. Once a particular
derive from a series of questions, such as: ' Which working procedure is agreed, once purposes and
particular activity or task will be undertaken?'; content have been identified, and activities have
'How will the activity or task be worked upon?'; been undertaken, teacher and learners together share
' What resources should be used during the activity outcomes from the work. Achievements and diffi-
or task?'; 'When should it be undertaken and for culties have to be carefully identified so that they
how long?'; 'How shall we share and evaluate the may be related back to chosen procedure, purposes
outcomes of the activity?' etc, etc. Decisions and content, and chosen activities. It is from this
concerning subject-matter derive from the questions: crucial evaluation phase that adaptations or alterna-
' What shall be the focus of the work ?' and ' For tives in each of these things can be proposed and
what learning purposes?'. These two overall sought by teacher and learners together. In other
questions clearly relate to the content syllabus of the words, the group refers back to earlier decisions in
classroom group and lead to questions which the the light of achievements and difficulties in order to
syllabus designer most often answers on behalf of a plan further. The Process syllabus thereby involves
teacher and learners. In being involved in deciding teacher and learners in a cycle of decision-making
together on appropriate answers to these questions, through which their own preferred ways of
the Process syllabus provides teacher and learners working, their own on-going content syllabus, and
with the explicit task of prioritising, selecting, sub- their choices of appropriate activities and tasks
dividing, and sequencing what is to be achieved are realised in the classroom. The designer of the
in an on-going and negotiated way. Process syllabus assumes that the question-based
Clearly, decisions made about participation, plan and the bank of activities will serve only as the
procedure and subject-matter will relate one to the starting point and framework for the teaching-
other and they will generate the particular process learning process in any one classroom. The initial
syllabus of the classroom group. They will also lead engagement of teacher and learners in joint decision-
to agreed working procedures within the class; a making — and in the on-going evaluation of the
'working contract' to be followed for an agreed outcomes from these decisions - will inevitably lead
time, evaluated in terms of its helpfulness and ap- to more detailed planning and even the design by
propriateness, and subsequently refined or adapted teacher and learners of their own preferred activities
for a further agreed period of time. Thirdly, this and tasks. Therefore, the initial bank of activities
joint decision-making will lead to a particular and tasks within a Process syllabus will be further
selection of activities and tasks. supplemented by those who exploit such a syllabus.
The plan, therefore, provides a series of related The foregoing description of what a Process
questions which require consideration and answers syllabus provides is summarised in Fig. 1. The
by teacher and learners working together. The de- Process syllabus can be characterised in terms of
signer of such a plan may also provide a range of different levels. Level 1 represents the major focus of
alternative answers to the questions which then the syllabus itself: the decisions which have to be
require choices to be made. In addition to a plan for made by teacher and learners concerning language
decision-making, the designer will provide a bank learning work in the classroom. Level 2 represents
of activities and tasks. These are indexed for two related outcomes from these decisions: the
classroom use along the lines of a Task-Based agreed working procedure(s) of the class and the
syllabus. The Process syllabus therefore contains on-going content syllabus. Level 3 is the bank of
a bank of alternative activities which — in a hier- alternative activities which themselves entail alterna-
archical way - contain tasks, and these tasks will tive tasks. It is at the level of tasks - level 4 - that
provide alternative means towards the completion the main classroom work is undertaken. Tasks there-
of the main activity. The tasks themselves - as in a fore represent the meeting point of the decision-
Task-Based syllabus - will either be communicative making process. Finally, and subsequent to the
in nature or metacommunicative. The latter type of undertaking of tasks, the Process syllabus requires
task may also include alternatives which are quite teacher and learners to undertake evaluation of task
conventional Formal tasks. In offering a bank of outcomes so that achievements and difficulties may
alternative activities and tasks, the Process syllabus be related back to decisions made at the previous
represents an extension of the Task-Based syllabus. three levels. It is through detailed evaluation that
The distinction, however, is that activities and tasks any subsequent decision-making can be guided and
are not sequenced. The activities are categorised in informed from the experience of the members of
terms of their own objectives, content, suggested the classroom group.
procedure, and suggested ways of evaluating out-
167

Fig. 1
THE LEVELS OR ELEMENTS OF A PROCESS SYLLABUS
Characteristics: A plan (or framework) of questions concerning the decisions which

need to be made in classroom language learning. Decisions to be
considered and jointly made by teacher and learners.
A bank of alternative procedures, activities, and (entailed) tasks to

be chosen on the basis of decisions reached.
Each level or element relates to the others - a higher level entailing those below it.
The Process syllabus in use involves regular evaluation and, thereby, a cyclic process
through all levels - from 4 back to 1.
Level 1 DECISIONS FOR CLASSROOM LANGUAGE LEARNING
Relating to participation, procedure and subject matter
(Who does what with whom, on what content, with what

resources, when, how, and why?)
Level 2 ALTERNATIVE WORKING PARTICULAR CONTENT

PROCEDURES SYLLABUS OF THE
CLASSROOM GROUP
To be chosen and agreed Outcome of decisions

upon as the 'working concerning WHAT is to
contract' of the class be achieved and WHY
(Changes over time) (Changes over time)
Level 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES
To be selected from on the basis of

appropriateness to decisions made
at levels 1 and 2
Level 4 ALTERNATIVE TASKS

To be selected and undertaken for the
achievement of chosen activities. The
actual teaching-learning work within
the class
ON-GOING EVALUATION OF TASKS, ACTIVITIES, PROCEDURE AND CONTENT
Based on the outcomes (achievements and difficulties) from activities.

Evaluation related to initial decisions made.
subject-matter for any group of language learners,

(b) What is the relationship between the the Process syllabus offers a means whereby the
Process syllabus and the content or subject- selection and organisation of subject matter become
matter to be learned? part of the decision-making process in the class-
The Process syllabus is obviously unconventional room. It is also a framework within which teacher
in that it does not provide a plan of what is to be and learners decide how they should best work upon
achieved through teaching and learning. It assumes subject-matter.
that the teacher and the different learners will all Participation in a Process syllabus leads to the
have particular and varying views as to what might creation of a particular syllabus of content in an on-
constitute the most appropriate content for learning. going way by the classroom group. At first glance,
It further assumes that learners' views will change the adoption of a Process syllabus by a teacher and
as learning progresses and as they uncover aspects her or his learners who are working towards some
of the new language and its use during their externally required and predetermined objectives
work. And it assumes that particular problems and would seem to be entirely inappropriate. (Indeed, its
difficulties which learners may discover can not be apparent rejection of a pre-planned external syllabus
planned for in advance. Given variation, change, is sometimes seen as its major failing.) However, the
and unpredictability regarding the most appropriate Process syllabus can be appropriate to such a situa-
168

tion because it addresses two of the major problems classroom. It is a recognition of the practical realities
entailed in the implementation of an external confronting the language teacher concerning: first,
syllabus; how to relate such a syllabus to the internal how to implement any syllabus over time with a
syllabus of a group of learners and how to gradually specific group of learners in a particular teaching
create the classroom syllabus of that group which situation; second, how to cope with emerging
must be a synthesis of external and learners' needs, problems, and achievements of any group of
syllabuses. The Process syllabus is proposed as the learners; and, third, how to adapt to the changes in
means whereby external and internal syllabuses are their own knowledge and abilities which learners
negotiated and, through such negotiation, how a experience as they undertake the learning of the
synthesised classroom syllabus may be created. new language - how to adapt to the learners'
A classroom group adopting a Process syllabus experience of change. The Process syllabus is a
would deduce and implement its own content recognition that any syllabus, however carefully
syllabus; a syllabus of subject-matter in the con- planned, is never worked through as the plan itself
ventional sense would be designed, implemented, proposed because teachers and learners are engaged
and evaluated within the Process syllabus. In in a complex process which requires the reinter-
circumstances where an external pre-planned sylla- pretation and recreation of the plan if it is to be
bus already existed and had to be undertaken by the made real.
teacher with his or her learners, the decisions for (iv) The Process syllabus prioritises classroom
classroom language learning would be related decision-making on the assumption that decision-
directly to such a pre-planned syllabus. As a result, making is necessary for any classroom group to
the external syllabus may be incorporated within function in a relatively efficient and harmonious
the group's process — with or without modifications way towards the achievement of certain objectives.
as decided upon by the group — and used as a In making such decision-making an overt and
continual reference point - or source of helpful shared matter, the Process syllabus also assumes that
criteria — during decision-making and evaluation. It participation by learners in decision-making will be
is more than likely that any external syllabus will conducive to learning.
be modified as the group works with it. In sum, the (v) Decision-making can be seen as an authentic
Process syllabus is a context within which any communicative activity in itself. The Process sylla-
syllabus of subject-matter is made workable. bus, because its objective is to serve the development
of a learner's communicative competence in a new
language, calls upon the communicative potential
(c) What is the rationale of the Process which exists in any classroom group. It recognises
syllabus ? the principle that authentic communication between
There are six justifications for the use of a Process learners will be characterised by the genuine need to
syllabus when language learning is to be undertaken share meaning and to negotiate about things that
within a classroom group: actually matter and require action on a learner's
(i) Any classroom group does not work through part. In essence, the Process syllabus exploits the
only one syllabus. A classroom group represents the classroom reality — and the decisions it entails — as a
meeting point of three types of syllabus. There is the major situational focus for communication.
pre-planned - sometimes externally planned - sylla- (vi) The Process syllabus is an extension of the
bus which the teacher has to reinterpret in order to Task-Based syllabus and it therefore rests also upon
implement it with his or her learners. There are the justifications for the existence of the latter. It
learner syllabuses - diverse and variable, clear and similarly aims towards the development of under-
sophisticated or opaque and primitive. The third lying communicative competence in a new langu-
syllabus is that syllabus which is daily worked out age; prioritises communicating in a new language
and created by teacher and learners together - and for language learning; and assumes that learners
however covertly or overtly - which is an inevitable are not only capable of being metacommunicative
synthesis of the other two. The Process syllabus is a as a means to help their discovery of a new
plan and a bank of resources specifically designed to language, but also capable of making important
facilitate this synthesis through a decision-making decisions about their own language learning in a
process undertaken by teacher and learners together. classroom with other learners. The Process syllabus
(ii) The Process syllabus exists to meet the problem does not merely assume that learners are capable of
these things, but implicitly proposes that meta-
of actual implementation of any syllabus. It provides
communication and shared decision-making are
a means whereby content or subject-matter (the
necessary conditions of language learning in any
conventional concern of syllabus design) can be
classroom. It assumes that these things already take
related to how such content may be worked upon
place when teacher and learners work together in
in a classroom (specific methodology).
a language class, but that they occur in hidden,
(iii) The Process syllabus exists to cope with indirect, and - sometimes - disfunctional ways. It
change in any teaching-learning experience in a
169

therefore represents a type of syllabus which can the teaching of different subjects to different learner
facilitate metacommunication and decision-making groups are provided by Abercrombie (1960) and
in explicit, shared, and productive ways. Rogers (1983). Examples of the development of this
approach in the in-service training of teachers can be
found in Cooper and Ebbutt (1974) and Breen et al.
4.5 Sources and references (forthcoming). Suggestions concerning how a Pro-
Although the concept of a Process syllabus might cess syllabus may be initiated within the classroom
be perceived as a fairly radical departure from the are offered in Breen (forthcoming).
norms of syllabus design, its roots are found in
educational thought and practice which influence 5. From prepositional to process
the work of many language teachers. The recent
rediscovery of the humanist approach to teaching
plans or a new synthesis?
and learning (Dewey, 1974; Holt, 1976) has In this second part of my interpretation of current
coincided with the discovery of the important alternatives in syllabus design, I have suggested that
benefits to be derived from learners working process plans represent particular responses to
together in groups (Barnes, 1978; Smith, 1980). The changing frames of reference within our profession.
feasibility of on-going negotiation between teachers Task-Based and Process syllabus types are shaped by
and learners concerning what they may jointly new challenges to the designer which are motivated
work on and achieve together has also been by currently held views of language, teaching
confirmed in a wide variety of subject areas and in methodology, the contributions of learners, and
a wide range of situations (Centre for Educational views concerning how we may best plan for
Research and Innovation, 1973; White (ed.), 1981; classroom work (3.3). I have suggested also that
Skilbeck, 1984). Learner reinterpretation and ac- these views relate to one another as a consensus
commodation of new knowledge and capabilities within our profession regarding which ideas we
(Bartlett, 1932; Ausubel, 1985) has also been shown consider important, which problems we identify as
to be facilitated through the sharing of ideas that worth pursuing, and how we may work and act
groupwork allows (Bannister & Francella, 1980; upon these ideas and problems. And I believe this
Bonarius et al. (eds.), 1981). consensus is the expression of an alternative para-
Within language teaching specifically, a number digm to that which generated propositional plans.
of arguments against the need to plan a syllabus of The present decade in syllabus design has been
content (Newmark, 1971; Corder, 1980; Krashen characterised by at least the beginnings of a paradigm
& Terrell, 1983) have seemingly left a vacuum shift which is expressed in a set of design features
concerning the teacher's felt need to plan for which are distinctive from those features that realised
classroom work. Whilst the planning of a Task- the established paradigm (I summarise these features
based syllabus represents one alternative for many in Fig. 2). The coming decade will be very likely
teachers, classroom work devoted to the engage- characterised by an evolution in the particular
ment of learners' metalinguistic judgements (Haw- frames of reference which I identified earlier (3.2).
kins, 1984) and their participation in needs analysis In one respect the 1990s will be no different from
(Brindley, 1984) represent areas of joint decision- the present decade. We are very likely to find the
making which the Process syllabus assumes possible same tensions between the drive for innovation
on a broader scale (Breen, 1984). within our profession and the genuine situational
Just as a conventional content syllabus will be constraints of actual teaching situations within
worked upon and evolved within a Process syllabus, which a syllabus has to be transformed into teaching
so also will the particular Process syllabus of a and learning work (1.2). The account offered in this
particular classroom be implemented through a paper is an interpretation of prototypical plans and
teacher's and his or her learners' views of how the what they may imply for teaching and learning. All
classroom can best serve their purposes. Any Process four syllabus types are realised in diverse ways in a
syllabus will be special to a particular classroom wide range of teaching situations, and all four may
group because it is inevitably contextualised within be perceived as difficult to implement or quite
the teacher's overall approach to classroom work conventional and manageable by different teachers
and the learners' diverse approaches to learning. and learners. And it is the accessibility of a plan
Therefore, a Process syllabus will be variously to its users which translates innovative ideals or
implemented. Examples of Process syllabuses in- prototypes into the actual syllabus of a classroom.
clude Dam's (1982, 1983) work with young be- Accessibility is, of course, a major problem
ginners which itself reveals the emergence of this surrounding any innovation. Whilst process plans
type of syllabus, Huttunen's (1986) experiment with do not question the genuine need for the kind of
senior secondary school pupils, and Allwright's planning which has been met by propositional plans
(1982) programme with adult learners. Seminal in the past, they do raise important questions which
examples of the use of a Process syllabus approach in address accessibility in direct ways. These questions
170

Fig. 2
THE PARADIGM SHIFT IN LANGUAGE SYLLABUS DESIGN
PROPOSITIONAL PLANS •• PROCESS PLANS
Formal and Functional Task-based and Process

Syllabus Types Syllabus Types
Represent: Knowledge of language Procedures for communicating, learning,

Use of skills and classroom work
Repertoire of uses
Criteria for Language system and Learner capacity to develop established

design: categories communicative competence
Learner capacity to impose order on new

knowledge and required capabilities
Social potential of classroom to provide

opportunities for the above
Purpose and Development of accurate Development of underlying competence

Focus: and fluent performance in accuracy, appropriateness, and
meaningfulness within activities and
events
Product (ends) focused Process (means) focused
Elements: Discrete/analysed rules Integration of communicative knowledge

and conventions of systems and use of abilities
language system and
its use
Coherence intrinsic to Coherence provided by communicative

the language system and needs of learners and by learning and
categories of use teaching process
Implied Use: Established plan to be Established plan as basis for learning

followed through work (Tasks)/A framework for
transmission to learners classroom planning (Process)
Content assumed separable Implementation assumes content

from methodology and methodology in continual
relationship
include: Who should do the planning? (Designers 2. There are signs even now of a multiplication
working at a distance from classrooms or teachers of Task-Based syllabuses. As with communicative
and learners together in classrooms ?); When will approaches to language teaching in recent times,
the planning take place ? (Before or during teaching many versions purporting to represent such an in-
and learning ?); And with reference to what design novation will be little more than the old paradigm
criteria? (What appropriate subject-matter? What in a new disguise. There will be programmes of
preferred procedures? What organising principles tasks which are assimilated into propositional plans
are helpful or unhelpful? Etc.) It is possible that rather than programmes which express genuine
future syllabus designs will more explicitly recognise new directions.
the syllabus as not merely a pedagogic plan but also 3. Particular teachers in particular teaching
a socially constructed schema. And such recognition situations will initiate and develop Process syllabuses,
would entail closer communication between de- and their experimentation will itself refine what is
signers, teachers, and learners. meant by such a syllabus.
On the bisis of my interpretation of current 4. There is likely to be a growing emphasis upon
alternatives in syllabus design, and at great risk of the implementation - in various ways in different
being proved incorrect, I anticipate six areas of situations - of those changes in viewpoint which
innovation in syllabus development in the coming began to emerge over ten years ago and to which
decade: Task-Based and Process syllabuses are only a partial
1. Our views of the nature of language, of response. There could well be an exploration of
appropriate methodology, of learners, and of ways implementation which is not - hopefully - synony-
of planning will further evolve in similar directions mous with a preoccupation with methods. The
to those identified in section 3.2. The resultant solution to the apparent gap between a content
challenges for the syllabus are likely to be confirmed syllabus and its achievement through teaching and
rather than diminish. learning is not the abandonment of planning for
171
LTA 20

content. The issue should be how content can be BANNISTER, D. & FRANSELLA, F. (1980). Inquiring man. Har-
planned in a way that maximises its accessibility mondsworth: Penguin.
during implementation. BARNES, D. (1978). From communication to curriculum. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin.
5. The current growth of classroom-oriented BARTLETT, F. C. (1932) Remembering: a study in experimental and
research - and especially the undertaking of action social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
research by teachers in their own classrooms - will BERETTA, A. & DAVIES, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore
tell us much more than we presently know about project. ELT], 39, 2.
the actual nature and use of syllabuses in the BIALYSTOK, E. & SHARWOOD SMITH, M. (1985). Interlanguage is
not a state of mind: an evaluation of the construct for SLA.
language class. The related development of evalua- Applied Linguistics, 6, 2.
tion procedures may also provide insights into BLAIR, R. W. (ed.) (1982). Innovative approaches to language
learner views on the nature and values of a syllabus. teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
6. As figure 1 may suggest, process plans can be BLOOM, B. S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives 1:
seen at least as extensions of propositional plans. The cognitive domain. London: Longman.
BONARIUS, H., HOLLAND, R. & ROSENBERG, S. (eds.) (1981).
Although capturing alternative design features, Personal construct psychology: recent advances in theory and
the features of process plans may be regarded as practice. London: Macmillan.
incorporating those of propositional plans. The de- BREEN, M. P. (1983). How would we recognise a communi-
sign features go further, of course, but the current cative classroom? In B. Coffey (ed.), Teacher training and the
revival of interest in the pedagogic interpretation curriculum: the Dunford House Seminar 1982. London: The
British Council.
of Formal aspects of language (Rutherford, 1987; BREEN, M. P. (1984) Process syllabuses for the language
Carter & McCarthy, 1987; inter alia), subsequent classroom. In C.J. Brumfit (ed.), General English syllabus
to the distractions of Functionalism, suggest that design, ELT Documents, 118.
process plans may be developed in ways that capture BREEN, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design in
the proven beneficial features of earlier plans. If so, C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (eds.), Tasks in language learning.
Prentice Hall International.
a new synthesis would be possible. Task-Based and
BREEN, M. P. (forthcoming). The evaluation cycle for language
Process syllabuses, unlike Functional syllabuses, do learning tasks. In R. K.Johnson (ed.), Programme design:
not overlook the significance of linguistic com- development and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
petence. They locate it within communicative know- versity Press.
ledge as a means for ability use during tasks. A BREEN, M. P., CANDLIN, C. N. & WATERS, A. (1979). Com-
crucial challenge to the location of Formal know- municative materials design: some basic principles. RELC
Journal, 10, 2.
ledge within a process plan will be that the designer BREEN, M. P. & CANDLIN, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a
can integrate this knowledge with the process of its communicative curriculum for language teaching. Applied
diverse use and with various learning procedures Linguistics, I, 2.
which may render the knowledge manageable. This BREEN, M. P., CANDLIN, C. N., DAM, L. & GABRIELSEN, G.
challenge implies that the designer must consider (Forthcoming). The evolution of a teacher training pro-
how amenable the plan may be to the reinterpre- gramme. In R. K.Johnson (ed.).
tations of its users and the situated activities of BRINDLEY, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objectives setting in the
adult migrant education program. Sydney: Adult Migrant
teaching and learning which will convert the plan Educational Service.
into action. THE BRITISH COUNCIL (1980). Projects in materials design. ELT
Documents Special.
BRUMFIT, C.J. (1981). Language variation and the death of
References for Part 2 language teaching. BAAL Newsletter, 13.
BRUMFIT, C.J. (ed.) (1983). Learning and teaching languages for
ABERCROMBIE, M. L.J. (1960). The anatomy of judgement. communication: applied linguistic perspectives. London: Centre
Harmondsworth: Penguin. for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
ADAMS, H. B. (1986). The teaching of problem-solving BRUMFIT, C.J. (1984a). Communicative methodology in language
strategies. Gifford Education International, 4. teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ALLEN, J. P. B. (1984) General-purpose language teaching: a BRUMFIT, C.J. (1984ft). The Bangalore Procedural Syllabus
variable focus approach. In C.J. Brumfit (ed.), General ELTJ, 38, 4.
English syllabus design, ELT Documents, 118. CANALE, M. & SWAIN M. (1980). Theoretical basis of com-
ALLEN, J. P. B. & HOWARD, J. (1981). Subject-related ESL: an municative approaches to second language teaching and
experiment in communicative language teaching. Canadian testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1.
Modern Language Review, 37, 3. CANDLIN, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process
ALLWRIGHT, R. L. (1982) Perceiving and pursuing learners' in C.J. Brumfit (ed.), General English syllabus design, ELT
needs. In M. Geddes & G. Sturtridge (eds.), Individualisation. Documents, 118.
Oxford: Modern English Publications. CANDLIN, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based learning. In C. N.
ALLWRIGHT, R. L. (1984). Why don't learners learn what Candlin & D. F. Murphy (eds.)
teachers teach?: the interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton CANDLIN, C. N. & EDELHOFF, C. (1982). Challenges: teacher's
& D. G. Little (eds.), Language learning informal and informal guide. London: Longman.
contexts. Dublin: IRAAL. CANDLIN, C. N. & MURPHY D. F. {eds.) (1987). Tasks in
ALTMAN H. B. & VAUGHAN JAMES, C. (eds.) (1980). Foreign language learning. Prentice Hall International.
language teaching: meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon. CARTER, G. & THOMAS, H. (1986). 'Dear brown eyes': experi-
AUSUBEL, D. (1985). Learning as constructing meanings. In ential learning in a project-oriented approach. ELTJ, 40, 3.
N. J. Entwistle (ed.) New directions in educational psychology.CARTER, R. A. & MCCARTHY, M. J. (eds.) (1987). Vocabulary in
London: The Falmer Press. language learning. London: Longman.
172

CENTRE FOB EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (1973). KRASHEN, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. Oxford: Pergamon.
OECD case studies of educational innovation: III At the school KRASHEN, S. D. & TERRELL, T. D. (1983). The natural approach.
level. Paris: O.E.C.D. Oxford: Pergamon.
CLARK, J. & HAMILTON, J. (1984). Syllabus guidelines 1: LEECH, G. N . (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
communication. London: CILT. LEGUTKE, M. & THIEL, W. (1982). 'Airport': ein projecktfur den
CORDER, S. P. (1960). English language teaching and television. Englischunterricht in Klasse 6. Hessisches Institut fur Bildung-
London: Longman. undschulentwicklung.
CORDER, S. P. (1980). SLA research and the teaching of LEVINSON, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge
grammar. BAAL Newsletter, 10. University Press.
CORDER, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: LONG, M. H. (1983a). Does second language instruction make
Oxford University Press. a difference ? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 3.
COUNCIL OP EUROPE (1984). Towards a more comprehensive LONG, M. H. (19836). Native speaker/non-native speaker
framework for the definition of language learning objectives, Vols conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke
1 & II. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation. & J. Hanscombe (eds.), On TESOL '82. Washington, D . C :
DAM, L. (1982) Beginning English: an experiment in learning TESOL.
and teaching. Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhojskole LONG, M. H. (1985). The design of classroom second language
(Mimeo). acquisition: towards task-based language teaching. In K.
DAM, L. (1983) Intermediate English: an experiment m teaming and Hyltenstan & M. Pienemann (eds.), Modelling and assessing
teaching. Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhojskole (Mimeo). second language development. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
DEUTSCHER VOLKSHOCHSCHUL-VERBAND E. V. (1986). Cross- Matters.
cultural learner project. Frankfurt: Padagogische Arbeits- LONGMAN, B. B. C. & INSTITUT FUR FILM UND BILD (1977).
stelle. Challenges. London: Longman.
DEWEY, J. (1916). Democracy and education. N e w York: MCDONOGH, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: a practical guide.
Macmillan. London: Collins Educational.
DEWEY, J. (1974). Experience in education. N e w York: Collier. MITCHELL, R. (1985). Communicative interaction research project:
DUBIN, F. & OLSHTEIN, E. (1986). Course design. Cambridge: final report. Dept. of Education, University of Stirling.
Cambridge University Press. NEWMARK, L. (1966). H o w not to interfere with language
EDELHOFP, C. (1984). Landeskunde zum Anfassen: the Lancaster learning. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32, 1.
outing. In M. Schratz (ed.), Englischunterricht im Gesprdch. NEWMARK, L. (1971). A minimal language teaching program.
Bochum: Kamp. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (eds.), The psychology of second
ELLIS, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. PARKER, J. C. & RUBIN, L. J. (1966). Process as content. Chicago:
FREEDMAN, A., PRINGLE, I. & YALDEN, J. (eds.) (1983). Learning Rand McNally.
to write: first language/second language. London: Longman. PETERS, R. S. (1959). Authority, responsibility and education.
FRIED-BOOTH, D. (1982). Project work with advanced classes. London: Allen & Unwin.
ELTf, 36, 2. POSTMAN, N . & WEINGARTNER, C. (1969). Teaching as a sub-
FRIERE, P. (1970). Cultural action for freedom. Harmondsworth: versive activity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Penguin. PRABHU, N . S. (1987). Second language pedagogy: a perspective.
HARPER, D . P. L. (ed.) (forthcoming). Task-based learning in the Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah: 1975-84 (provisional Q U I N N , T. J. (1985). Functional approaches in language
title). Prentice Hall International. pedagogy. In R. B. Kaplan et al. (eds.), Annual Review of
HAWKINS, E. (1984). Awareness of language: an introduction. Applied Linguistics 5.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RICHARDS, J. C. (1984 a). The secret life of method. TESOL
HOLEC, H. (1980). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Quarterly, 18, 1.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. RICHARDS, J. C . (19846). Language curriculum development.
HOLT, J. (1976). Instead of education. Harmondsworth: Penguin. RELC Journal, 15, 1.
HUMANITIES CURRICULUM PROJECT (1970). The Humanities ROBERTS, J. (1982). Recent developments in E L T : part II.
Curriculum Project: an introduction. London: Heinemann Language Teaching, 15, 3.
Educational. ROGERS, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Colombus O h i o : Merrill.
HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. (1987). English for Specific ROGERS, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 'eighties. Columbus,
Purposes: a learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge O h i o : Merrill.
University Press. RUBIN, J. & WENDON, A. L. (1987). Learner strategies: theory,
HUTTUNEN, I. (1986). Towards learner autonomy inforeign language research and applications. Prentice Hall International.
learning in senior secondary school. Oulu, Finland: University RUTHERFORD, W. (1987). Teaching and learning second language
of Oulu. grammar. London: Longman.
HYMES, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic SAVIGNON, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: an experiment
theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (eds.), Language acquisition in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: Centre for C u r -
models and methods. N e w York: Academic Press. riculum Development.
HYMES, D . (1972). Models of the interaction of language and SAVIGNON, S.J. (1983). Communicative competence: theory and
social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in classroom practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.
sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. N e w York: SAVIGNON, S.J. & BERNS, M . S . (eds.) (1984). Initiatives in
Holt, Rinehart & Winston. communicative language teaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison
JOHNSON, R. K. (ed.) (forthcoming). Programme design: develop- Wesley.
ment and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University SCHINNERER-ERBEN, J. (1981). Sequencing redefined. Lancaster
Press. Practical Papers in English Language Education, 4.
JONES, K. (1984). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge: SIMONS, S. et al. (1972). Values clarification: a practical handbook
Cambridge University Press. of strategies for teachers and students. N e w York: Hart, Rineholt
KAPLAN, R. & SHAW, P. A. (1983). Exploring academic discourse. & Winston.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. SINCLAIR, J. M c H . & RENOUF, A. J. (1987). A lexical syllabus
KENNEDY, C. & BOLITHO, R. (1984). English for Specific Purposes. for language learning. In R. A. Carter & M . J . McCarthy
London: Macmillan. (eds.).
173

SINGLETON, W. T. (ed.) (1978). The study of real skills: Vol I: the WATERS, A. & HUTCHINSON T. (1985). Interface. London:
analysis of practical skills: Lancaster: MTP Press. Longman.
SKILBECK, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. WHITE, A. ed. (1981). New directions for teaching and learning:
London: Harper Educational Series. interdisciplinary teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
SMITH, P. (1980). Group processes and personal change. N e w WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication.
York: Harper & Row. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
STENHOUSE, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1981). English for specific purposes:
development. London: Heineman. criteria for course design. In L. Selinkcr et al. (eds.), English
STERN, H. H. & WEINHIB, A. (1971) French language teaching for Academic and Technical Purposes: studies in honour of Louis
modules: a new approach to language teaching materials. Trimble. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 27, 3. WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1984a). Learning purpose and language use.
STERN, H. H., ULLMAN, R., BALCHUNAS, M., HANNA, M., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SCHNEIDERMANN, E. & ARGUE, V. (1980). Module making: a WIDDOWSON, H. G. (19846). Educational and pedagogic factors
study in the development and evaluation of learning materials for in syllabus design. In C. J. Brumfit (ed.), General English
French as a second language. T o r o n t o : Ontario Ministry of syllabus design. ELT Documents, 118.
Education. WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design (mimeo).
STERN, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. WILLIS, D. (1986). A task-based approach to language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. In D. Higgs (ed.), Dunford House Seminar Report: Com-
STEVICK, E. W . (1976). Memory, meaning and method, Rowley, munication skills training in bilateral aid projects. London: The
Mass.: Newbury House. British Council.
STEVICK, E. W. (1980). Teaching languages: a way and ways. WILLIAMS, R., SWALES, J. & KIRKMAN, J. (eds.) (1984). Common
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. ground: shared interests in ESP and communication studies.
SWALES, J. (1984). Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon. Oxford: Pergamon.
TONGUE, R. & GIBBONS, J. (1982). Structural syllabuses and the WINITZ, H. & REEDS. (1975). Comprehension and problem-solving
young beginner. Applied Linguistics, 3, 1. as strategies for learner training. The Hague: Mouton.
ULLMAN, R. (1981). A thematic and activity approach to YALDEN, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: evolution, design
communicative language teaching in second language class- and implementation. N e w York: Pergamon Press.
rooms. Bulletin of the Canadian Association ofApplied Linguistics ZAMEL, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL
(LACLA), 3, 2. students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 2.
174

Appled Part II PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appled Part II PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Teaching

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here

Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design Part II

Language Teaching / Volume 20 / Issue 03 / July 1987, pp 157 - 174

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S026144480000450X

How to cite this article:

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 27 Feb 2015

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

Characteristics: A plan (or framework) of questions concerning the decisions which

A bank of alternative procedures, activities, and (entailed) tasks to

Level 1 DECISIONS FOR CLASSROOM LANGUAGE LEARNING

Relating to participation, procedure and subject matter

(Who does what with whom, on what content, with what

Level 2 ALTERNATIVE WORKING PARTICULAR CONTENT

To be chosen and agreed Outcome of decisions

Level 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES

To be selected from on the basis of

Level 4 ALTERNATIVE TASKS

ON-GOING EVALUATION OF TASKS, ACTIVITIES, PROCEDURE AND CONTENT

Based on the outcomes (achievements and difficulties) from activities.

subject-matter for any group of language learners,

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

PROPOSITIONAL PLANS •• PROCESS PLANS

Formal and Functional Task-based and Process

Represent: Knowledge of language Procedures for communicating, learning,

Criteria for Language system and Learner capacity to develop established

Learner capacity to impose order on new

Social potential of classroom to provide

Purpose and Development of accurate Development of underlying competence

Product (ends) focused Process (means) focused

Elements: Discrete/analysed rules Integration of communicative knowledge

Coherence intrinsic to Coherence provided by communicative

Implied Use: Established plan to be Established plan as basis for learning

Content assumed separable Implementation assumes content

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Feb 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

You might also like