I have come to understand that a syllabus is a more complex and dynamic thing than I had

previously considered. This short essay will examine some different perceptions of syllabus
before communicating what my new understanding of the term is.
Firstly, it is useful to distinguish the term from both curriculum and method. Nunan (1988, p.
158 - 159) distinguishes syllabus from curriculum. A curriculum combines assumptions and
procedures for the development, implementation, evaluation, and management of a language
teaching program. It includes within it syllabus design which involves a specification of what
is to be taught and the order in which it is to be taught. It can be seen as a selection and
grading of content. A syllabus may possibly include such components of language as,
grammar, functions, topics, tasks. According to Richards (2001, p. 2), a method can be viewed
as a framework of teaching practices based upon a theory of language and language learning.
According to Nunan (1988, p. 5), there is no clearly defined notion of syllabus. He identifies
two views of syllabus which he calls the broad approach and narrow approach to syllabus
design. Those who support the narrow approach see a clear separation between syllabus
design and methodology. Those taking the broader view believe such a distinction between
content and tasks cannot always be made.
Apart from prescribing the how of language instruction, methods also promote a particular
content of teaching. Early approaches to language syllabus design sought to determine the
vocabulary and grammar content of courses and were informed by the particular method in
vogue at the time known as the structural method. From this emerged procedures indentified
as selection and gradation, i.e. deciding the appropriate units of language to be taught in
addition to deciding upon the most effective way to teach them. (Richards, 2001, pp. 2 - 4)
The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method became influential in the 1970s and
elements of the approach were integrated into syllabus design. Syllabus design moved from a
focus on linguistic components which students need to master to thinking about what learners
want and need to do with the language. This added to the content of syllabus design of not
only vocabulary and grammar but also functional skills. It has been common practice that
syllabuses whether oriented linguistically or communicatively, stated content in terms of
learner outcomes and as such, can be viewed as product oriented. In recent times, some
syllabus designers have suggested a process orientation, where content is stated in terms of
learning tasks and activities. The argument is that communication is a process rather than a set
of outcomes. This is an example of the broad view of syllabus design. (Nunan, 1988, p. 11)
Yalden (1987, pp. 85 - 86) says the notion of second language syllabus has become more
significant and complex. This is due to both our ever increasing understanding and theorizing
of language and language teaching and a focus on the requirements, desires, and aspirations of
language learners. A syllabus is a tool by which teaching, through the guidance of a syllabus,
can provide learning activities that will match the needs and aims of learners.
Yalden (1987 , pp. 86 - 89) outlines three characteristics of language syllabuses. Firstly, they
lend efficiency to the process of langage acquisition. Learning language in a structured setting
is more efficient than learning in a non structured way. The second characteristic is that they
state clearly what will be taught. They can be seen as a summary of the content that will be
covered in the course. Achievement should not be narrowly defined but be expected to fall
within a suitable range. Lastly, syllabuses are born from a set of principles. These include
assumptions about language and second language learning. Sequencing and continuity of
content are also an important aspect of organizing principles. In recent years, the question of
how to identify components of communicative competency has lead to asking which aspects
of language can be taught systematically and non-systematically, what can be taught in a

linear fashion and what cyclically. How one answers these questions depends on ones view
of language and language acquisition.
Stern (1987, pp. 23 - 26) takes a critical look at some recent perceptions of syllabus. Firstly,
Candlin and Breen rejected the idea of a preplanned and imposed syllabus. A good syllabus is
born out of a negotiation between teacher and learners from which there is a focus on the
learning process and promoting learner autonomy.
Widdowson and Brumfit take a different view of syllabus. Widdowson sees value in a
preplanned syllabus, but acknowledges the need for a broader non prescriptive syllabus for
instruction. To accommodate these two conflicting elements, they separate syllabus from
method. The syllabus provides structure and the teacher is free to employ their own methods.
Brumfit saw a good syllabus as being grounded in ideas about language, learning, and
language use. The content should address linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural concerns.
Brumfit regards as crucial the acknowledgement of practical teaching considerations and
flexibility so as not to stifle good teaching.
Yalden like Brumfit asserts a theoretical basis for content. Content will emerge depending
upon ones view of language and language learning. Those that see language as learned will
see content sequenced in accordance with grammar rules. The view that sees language as
acquired as in Krashens definition will see no limitations on linguistic content. If language
use is the foundation of a syllabus, a needs analysis is required which will then determine the
choice of syllabus content. While Yalden does accept the need to consider learner needs,
unlike Breen and Candlin she is not concerned with the learners participation in the
development of the syllabus.
My view of syllabus is more aligned with the narrow approach. Like Widdowson, I like the
idea that a syllabus gives structure to a program because clearly defined aims, outcomes, and
processes can help teachers and learners focus their efforts toward effective acquisition.
Additionally, having teachers employ their own methods rather than following a prescribed
one appeals to me. I subscribe to the eclectic approach to method as a one size fits all
approach ignores different teaching and learning styles as well as perhaps cultural differences.
Furthermore, I think syllabuses must consider learners complex and varied needs and
motivations for learning a second language, so a syllabus needs to make use of needs analysis.
However, like Yalden I do not believe learners need to be involved in the creation of the
syllabus. Additionally, like Brumfit and Yalden I believe that a syllabus needs to be grounded
in a particular view of language and its acquisition as this will inform teaching and learning
practices that are in line with expert opinion. Finally, as Breen and Candlin stated, I believe
that a good syllabus should encourage learner autonomy.

If the curriculum is to be the instrument of change in education, its meanings and operational terms must be clearer than they are currently.
For all its frivolous Latin roots, curriculum's larger meanings do not spring from the literal meaning, a racecourse, but from the practical,
chilly, Calvinist climate of Scotland. Medieval universities and colleges derived their power not from teaching, research, or a coherent
program of studies but from the right to certify and examine. Historical accounts show us that studies on the continent and in England were
little more than loose congeries of subjects grouped around faculty members. Canon law, theology, and civil law predominated. The period of
study was of indeterminate length, with the professor and examiners the arbitrators.

How long a student remained part of the corporation of professeurs depended on a number of factors. . . . The
duration depended primarily on a student's choice of professor or university, for . . . the period of residence
demanded of graduands could vary significantly from faculty to faculty and from institution to institution. 1
In Spain, students often attended university only a year or two, until they landed a preferment in the hierarchy of civil or church
administration.2 The fortunes, enrollments, and subjects in French and German universities were continually threatened by the brooding,
`protective' presence of spiritual and temporal powers.3 Only the Scottish universities adopted the modern usage for curriculum. The
earliest recorded reference, at the University of Glasgow in 1643, identifies a curriculum quinque annorum. The term kept its meaning, and
the Glasgow calendar of 1829 refers to the curriculum of students who mean to take degrees in Surgery to be three years. 4
Scottish usage did not spread widely or rapidly. In the normal course of events, once a useful concept is introduced, the term is
elaborated, invested with specific meanings, and articulated as part of the technical terminology. Those events never quite
happened with the idea of a curriculum. It is not accidental that the two settings where the notion of a curriculum did persist
were Scotland and the United States. Scottish learneds and divines populated the colonial universities in America. They brought
with them the influences of the Scottish Enlightenment, stern in its theology and orderly in its views of education.
The colonial colleges, founded like the lower schools to preserve tradition and transmit culture, had become mildly innovative in
spite of themselves. . . . Colonial colleges consequently often looked for precedent and advice to the more lively Scottish
universities and the far more innovative Dissenting academies of England. 5

With moral philosophy at the peak of the curriculum, these influences continued
well into the 19th century.
It is not hard to understand the conquest of academic America in the early 19th century by the philosophy of Common Sense. It
was enlightened, moderate, practical, and easy to teach. It could be used to sustain or validate any set of ideas, but was in fact
associated with the Moderate Enlightenment and Moderate Calvinism. It was never anti-scientific nor obscuranist, never cynical,
and it opened no doors to intellectual or moral chaos. 6
In the United States, the development of a structure for the curriculum, the macrodimension of the teaching-learning experience,
proceeded rapidly. The expansion and differentiation of the natural sciences, the elective principle [that] led to the gradual
elimination of the old curriculum and to the success of the new scholarly disciplines and professional studies, and the more
sophisticated organization of American universities all contributed to the evolution of an orderly, phased schedule of studies. 7
Structural features of the curriculum were standardized: the adoption of Carnegie credits in high schools that carried over into
colleges, and agreement on course nomenclature, degrees, and academic dress. Much of the writing on the curriculum . . . in
the U.S. was . . . administrative and managerial in emphasis, however.8
In contrast to the growth of curricular structure, the passage of the ideathe concept of what the realm of the curriculum might
bebecame highly diffused, and two consequences persist. First, the curriculum as a concept, as a discrete idea, is almost
without boundaries. It can mean anything from the bundle of programs an institution offers to the individual experience of a
particular student. Second, systematic description, that is, an orderly, technical terminology that enhances insights on practice
and links ideas to application, has not developed. What we appear to lack . . . is a general vocabulary or framework for
understanding the nature of knowledge and skills across university disciplines. 9 Often faculty at work on the curriculum must
invent their own labels to describe what they do.
The idea of a curriculum has been differentiated across a wide range of meanings. One basic view is that curriculum is what is
taught.10 A narrow view holds that curriculum is the body of courses that present knowledge, principles, values, and skills that
are the intended consequences of formal education.11 The broad view holds that the curriculum . . . will have to be conceived
as the name for the total active life of each person in college. 12 Even the set of choices from which the curriculum can be
defined is broad.

Some see a split in the definition:

It is important at the outset to distinguish clearly between two meanings of the term curriculum. The word [can] connote either
formal structural arrangements or the substance of what is being taught. (To be sure, the relations between form and substance,
here as always, are complex.)13

Others find evidence of six uses:

1.

a college'sor program'smission, purpose, or collective expression of what is important

for students to learn

2.

a set of experiences that some authorities believe all students should have

3.

the set of courses offered to students

4.

the set of courses students actually elect from those available

5.

the content of a specific discipline

6.

the time and credit frame in which the college provides education14

The distinction between structure and concept is important in light of the preemptive administrative interest and faculty neglect
of the idea. Most faculty would side with the notion that the structural aspects of the curriculum have much less to do with the
quality of an education than is often believed. Quality instead is more importantly linked to matters of substance. 15 Or they
would agree that all arguments of detail about the curriculum are absolutely pointless. . . . Arguments of principle, centering on
what to do instead of lining up courses end to end until graduation, might be helpful. 16
A result of this diffusion is recorded in faculty interviews showing how difficult it is for faculty members to get much beyond their
own courses in thinking about the curriculum.17 Most analysts find the situation chaotic as well. This disorder is a product of
many factors:
The curricular disarray constitutes a major artifact that permits several inferences. It testifies to the loss of confidence among
faculty. It testifies to the enlargement of popular functions . . . And it provides archeological evidence of the vast transformation
of the amount and shape of knowledgewhat there is to teachover the past century.18
In sum, application of the concept of curriculum spread in the United States, but it did not achieve the refined meaning, precise
definition, or consensus among professors that standards of professional practice normally require. Those who apply the
concepts of the curriculum to real situations must first devise a working definition and then put it into operation. Doing so might
not be all bad, for it forces consideration of meanings, and any working definition must allow plenty of room for local initiatives.
Those who are building a working definition fortunately have recent scholarly compilations of definitions to draw on. 19 It is
interesting, perhaps a sign of progress, to find that many of the earlier working definitions of, say, 20 years ago tried to
incorporate as many dimensions of study as possible, while later definitions have tended to focus on coherence across a more
limited scope.
A working definition can be constructed around several common concepts. First, the concept of the curriculum as a plan for
learning is well developed, based on a comprehensive analysis of the literature on the subject. 20 Further field research among
faculty led back to the course as the fundamental component of such a plan, not the curriculum. Second, the curriculum can be
seen as an instructional system, another well-developed approach.21 Third, the concept of system has been extended to
consider the curriculum as a major subsystem of the university, thus opening analysis of inputs and outcomes.22 This approach
can be characterized as systemic curricular planning. Fourth, the idea of the curriculum as a medium of student
development has been explored and developed in some of the most compelling literature of higher education. 23 Fifth, strong

traditional orientations to the curriculum as an analog to the structure of knowledge persist in essentialist approaches and in
contemporary reinterpretations.24
Useful but more instrumental or prescriptive aids to defining curriculum also abound in the literature. Perhaps the simplest
framework for looking at the curriculum is provided by four penetrating questions about purpose, content, organization, and
evaluation.25 Dressel's 21 general principles of curriculum construction examine the curriculum from many positions. 26
In the best tradition of American pragmatism is the competency-based approach to curriculum. A product of the last 20 years, it
has been fully articulated at Alverno College. Stated competence is also characteristic of programs that lead to external
certification or licensing, such as nursing, business, and engineering. The same goal-oriented approach to the curriculum is
found in the contemporary emphasis on outcomes.27
In looking for guidance to develop a working definition of the curriculum, one caveat is worth noting. At an early meeting of any
committee, study group, or task force, someone will likely recommend that a comprehensive statement of philosophy must
precede any detailed consideration. Philosophy in education is tricky business. At the start of a project, philosophical
assumptions have to be made, but they are not the philosophy. The full meaning, the philosophy of the curriculum, cannot be
known until the working components are in place and the program has been operating for a time.
The history of the curriculum is one in which theories are never realized in the manner they are intended. There are always
unintended, unanticipated, and unwilled consequences as theories are put into social action. 28

Many a curriculum committee has foundered because at the first meetingand every
one thereaftersomeone insisted that the philosophy be fully articulated before any
action is undertaken.

Candlin suggested the syllabus could serve as a record of what went on in the classroom
p.The relation between syllabus and curriculum design is an important one to consider for L
educators and educators in general because the former does have an effect on the latter. Candlin
states that curriculum design is concerned with the how a language program is run including
administrative issues, language learning, purpose, experience and evaluation as well as the relationship
between teachers and students.
p.The broad view discounts the separation between syllabus design and teaching
methodology due, in part, to the advent of Communicative Language Teaching CLTwhich makes the
distinction difficult to maintain pp. Candlin , Breen and
Yalden question the separation of syllabus design and teaching methodology suggesting the
what and the how of a language programme can be one and the same.Nunan, pp.
Stern , p. outlines four schools of thought that contribute to the debate; The
Lancaster School, The London School, Yalden and The Toronto School which reflect the controversy
surrounding the separation of syllabus design and teaching methodology.
The Lancaster School, supported by Candlin and Breen, reflects the broad view of syllabus design
discounting the notion of a fixed syllabus. Candlin and Breen suggest an open negotiation between
teacher and student culminating in a consensus on the appropriate syllabus the theories of Candlin and
Breen suggest selection of grading and content of a language programme is a matter to be
openly discussed between teachers and students which may focus too much on how language teaching
material can be used in the classroom without considering theoretical concerns. These two viewpoints
represent the extremes of the syllabus designteaching methodology debate; is there a middle ground? A
good place to start would be the concept of needs assessment supported by Yalden and Allen.
First, the needs of the students should be the primary concern when considering the design of a syllabus.
The teacher may be the best person to analyze the needs of the students according to their personal
theory of language teaching and classroom management.