Syllabus Planning

course of study visualize plat random variable A plan is an expression of opinion on the nature of actors line and culture it acts as a guide for twain t distributivelyer and collecter by providing some goals to be attained. Hutchinson and Waters (198780) destine plan as follows At its simplest level a curriculum evict be exposit as a statement of what is to be learnt. It reflects terminology and linguistic performance. This is a preferably traditional interpretation of course of instruction way on outcomes preferably than run. However, a syllabus can also be seen as a summary of the bailiwick to which learners pass on be unresolved (Yalden. 1987).It is seen as an approximation of what entrust be taught and that it cannot accurately predict what go out be learnt A voice communication breeding syllabus involves the integration of issuing matter and linguistic matter. Difference in the midst of political program and course of instruction Curriculum is wid er term as comp bed with syllabus. Curriculum covers whole the activities and arrangements made by the administration finished out the academic year to facilitate the learners and the instructors. Where as Syllabus is limited to particular subject of a particular class. Syllabus Design To design a syllabus is to decide what gets taught and in what aim.For this reason, the possibleness of language underlying the language direction method lead play a major role in determining what syllabus should be adopted. opening of education also plays an important part in determining the lovable of syllabus utilize. For example, a syllabus establish on the theory of schooling evolved by cognitive code statement would emphasize language forms and whatsoever explicit descriptive inhabit conductge about those forms. A syllabus found on an acquisition theory of learning, however, would emphasize unanalyzed and carefull selected experiences of the sore language.The choice of a syllabu s is a major decision in language teaching, and it should be made as consciously and with as more than information as possible. There has been much confusion over the long time as to what different types of means are possible in language teaching syllabi and as to whether the differences are in syllabus or method. several(prenominal) distinct types of language teaching syllabi hold up, and these different types may be apply in various teaching situations. TYPES OF SYLLABI Although six different types of language teaching syllabi are treated here as though each travel byred purely, scarcely in practice, these types rarely occur independently.Almost all actual language teaching syllabi are combinations of deuce or more of the types defined here. For a inclined course, one type of syllabus usually dominates, while other types of pith may be combined with it. Furthermore, the six types of syllabi are not just distinct from each other. For example, the distinction between skill -based and task-based syllabi may be minimal. In such(prenominal) cases, the distinguishing factor is often the way in which the instructional content is use upd in the actual teaching procedure.The characteristics, differences, strengths, and weaknesses of individual syllabi are defined as follows 1- Product-Oriented Syllabus This kind of syllabuses emphasizes the product of language learning and is prone to approval from an authority. There are three types of syllabus described in the following (i) The Structural Syllabus Historically, the most prevalent of syllabus type is perhaps the geomorphological or grammatical syllabus in which the selection and grading of the content is based on the complexity and repose of grammatical items.The learner is expected to master each structural ill-use and add it to her grammar collection. As such the focus is on the outcomes or the product. mavin problem facing the syllabus designer pursuing a grammatical order to sequencing input is t hat the ties connecting the structural items may be rather weak. A more fundamental criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on altogether one aspect of language, namely grammar, whereas in truth there exist many more aspects of language. Finally, recent research suggests there is a isagreement between the grammar of the spoken and of the written language raising complications for the grading of content in grammar based syllabuses. (ii) The Situational Syllabus The limitations found in structural approach led to an alternative approach where situational needs are emphasized rather than grammatical units. Here, the principal organizing characteristic is a advert of situations which reflects the way language is used in everyday life i. e. outside the classroom.Thus, by linking structural theory to situations the learner is able to grasp the meaning in relevant context. star advantage of the situational Syllabus is that motivation exit be heightened since it is learner- r ather than subject-centered (Wilkins. 1976). However, a situational syllabus forget be limited for students whose needs were not encompassed by the situations in the syllabus. This dissatisfaction led Wilkins to describe notional and communicative categories which had a important impact on syllabus design. (iii) The Notional/Functional SyllabusWilkins criticism of structural and situational approaches lies in the fact that they answer only the how or when and where of language use (Brumfit and Johnson. 197984). Instead, he enquires what it is they communicate through language Thus, the starting point for a syllabus is the communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of language i. e. notions and functions, as opposed to only the grammatical items and situational elements. In order to establish objectives of such a syllabus, the needs of the learners lead pay back to be analyzed on the base of communication need.Consequently, needs analysis has an association with notional/ oper able syllabuses. White (198877) claims that language functions do not usually occur in isolation and there are also difficulties of selecting and grading function and form. The above approaches belong to the product-oriented category of syllabuses. An alternative path to Syllabus Design would be to adopt process oriented principles, which assume that language can be learnt experientially as opposed to the step-by-step procedure of the synthetic approach. 2- Process-Oriented SyllabusesProcess-Oriented Syllabuses are increaseed as a declaration of a sense of misfortune in product-oriented courses to enhance communicative language skills. Syllabus is a process rather than a product. That is, focus is not on what the student will have fulfiled on completion of the program, but on the judicial admission of learning tasks and activities that s/he will undertake during the course. (i)Procedural/Task-Based Syllabus Prabhus (1979) Bangalore Project is a classic example of a procedural syllabus. Here, the nous concerning what becomes subordinate to the question concerning how.The focus shifts from the linguistic element to the educational, with an emphasis on learning or learner. Within such a frame blend in the selection, ordering and grading of content is no longer wholly significant for the syllabus designer. Arranging the Syllabus around tasks such as information- and opinion-gap activities, it was hoped that the learner would perceive the language subconsciously whilst consciously concentrating on solving the meaning behind the tasks. There appears to be an indistinct boundary between this approach and that of language teaching methodology.A task-based syllabus assumes that speaking a language is a skill best improve through practice and interaction, and uses tasks and activities to encourage learners to use the language communicatively in order to achieve a purpose. Tasks must be relevant to the real domain language needs of the student. That is, the unde rlying learning theory of task based and communicative language teaching seems to suggest that activities in which language is active to complete meaningful tasks, enhances learning. (ii)Learner-Led SyllabusThe notion of basing a syllabus on how learners learn language was proposed by Breen and sackdlin (1984). Here the emphasis lies on the learner, who it is hoped will be involved in the implementation of the syllabus design. By being fully aware of the course they are studying, it is believed that their interest and motivation will increase, conjugated with the positive effect of nurturing the skills required to learn. However, as suggested earlier, a predetermined syllabus provides support and guidance for the teacher and should not be so substantially dismissed.Critics have suggested that a learner-led syllabus seems radical and utopian in that it will be difficult to follow as the direction of the syllabus will be largely the responsibility of the learners. This leads to th e final syllabus design to be examined the proportional syllabus as suggested by Yalden (1987). (iii)The Proportional Syllabus The proportional syllabus basically attempts to develop an overall competence. It consists of a shape of elements within the main theme playing a linking role through the units.This theme is designated by the learners. It is expected initially that form will be of central value, but later, the focus will turn towards interactional components. The syllabus is designed to be dynamic, not static, with sufficient opportunity for feedback and tractability. The shift from form to interaction can occur at any time and is not limited to a particular stratum of learners. As Yalden ob fares, it is important for a syllabus to indicate explicitly what will be taught, not what will be learned.This functional approach with its focus on flexibility and spiral method of language sequencing leading to the recycling of language, seems relevant for learners who escape exp osure to the target language beyond the classroom. Practical Guidelines to Syllabus pickaxe and Design It is clear that no single type of content is portion for all teaching launchtings, and the needs and conditions of each setting are so particular that specific recommendations for combination are not possible. However, a set of guidelines for the process is provided below. steps in preparing a serviceable language teaching Syllabus Choice 1.Determine, to the extent possible, what outcomes are desired for the students in the instructional program i. e. what the students should be able to do as a dissolvent of the instruction. 2. Rank the syllabus types presented here as to their likelihood of leading to the outcomes desired. assign the six types with preference you going to give to each type. 3. Evaluate on hand(predicate) resources for teaching, needs analysis, materials choice and production and in training for teachers. 4. Rank the syllabi carnal knowledge to on tap(pr edicate) resources. That is, determine what syllabus types would be the easiest to implement within available resources. . Compare the lists made under Nos. 2 and 4. Making as fewer adjustments to the earlier list as possible, produce a new list of ranking based on the availability of resources. 6. Designate one or two syllabus types as dominant and one or two as secondary. 7. Review the question of combination or integration of syllabus types and determine how combinations will be achieved and in what proportion. In making practical decisions about syllabus design, one must take into consideration all the possible factors that might affect the teachability of a particular syllabus.By starting with an run of each syllabus type, tailoring the choice and integration of the different types correspond to local needs, one may find a principled and practical solution to the problem of appropriateness and effectiveness in syllabus design. Suggested Steps for Planning Syllabus Develop a well-grounded rationale for your course. find out what you want students to be able to do as a result of taking your course, and how their work will be appropriately appraiseed. Define and trace course content. Structure your students active involvement in learning. Identify and develop resources. Compose your syllabus with a focus on student learning. Suggested Principles for plan a Syllabus that Fosters Critical Thinking Critical conjectureing is a learnable skill the instructor and class fellows are resources in developing circumstantial thinking skills. Problems, questions, or issues are the point of entry into the subject and a source of motivation for nonstop inquiry. Successful courses balance the challenge to think critically with supporting studentsdevelopmental needs. transmission lines should be assignment centered rather than text and lecture centered.Goals, methods and evaluation emphasize using content rather than simply acquiring it. school-age childs are requ ired to formulate their ideas in compose or other appropriate means. Students should collaborate to learn and to stretch their thinking, for example, in pair problem solving and small group work. racetracks that teach problem-solving skills farm students metacognitive abilities. The developmental needs of students are acknowledged and used as information in the design of the course. Teachers in these courses make standards explicit and then dish out students learn how to achieve them. Syllabus Functions Establishes an early point of contact and company between student and instructor Describes your beliefs about educational purposes Acquaints students with the logistics of the syllabus Contains roll up handouts Defines student responsibilities for successful course work Describes active learning Helps students to assess their readiness for your syllabus Sets the course in a broader context for learning Provides a conceptual framework Describes available learning resources Commu nicates the role of engineering in the course Can improve the effectiveness of student note-taking Can include material that supports learning outside the classroom Can serve as a learning contract Checklist Syllabus Design title Page Table of Contents Instructor Information Letter to the Student Purpose of the mannikin Course Description Course and Unit Objectives Resources Readings Course Calendar Course Requirements Evaluation Grading Procedures How to Use the Syllabus How to say for This Course Content Information Learning Tools Course Objectives What will the students know and be able to do as a result of having taken this course? What levels of cognitive thinking are required from students to engage in? What learning skills will the students develop in the course? Instructional Approaches given over the kind of learning Id like to encourage and bring up, what kinds of instructional interactions need to occur? Teacher-student, student-student, student-peer tutor? What kin ds of instructional approaches are most conducive to helping students accomplish set learning objectives? How will classroom interactions be facilitated? In-class? Out-of-class? Online? electronic watchword? Newsgroups? Chatroom?Course Requirements, Assignments What will students be expected to do in the course? What kinds of assignments, tests do most appropriately reflect the course objectives? Do assignments and tests bring forth the kind of learning I want to foster? Assignments (frequency, timing, sequence)? Tests? Quizzes? Exams? Papers? Special projects? Laboratories? Field trips? Learning logs? Journals? Oral presentations? Research on the sack up? Web publishing? Electronic databases? What kinds of skills do the students need to have in order to be successful in the course? calculating machine literacy?Research skills? Writing skills? Communication skills? Conflict resolution skills? Familiarity with software? Course Policies What is expected of the student? Attendance? Participation? Student responsibility in their learning? Contribution to group work? Missed assignments? Late work? Extra credit? donnish dishonesty? Makeup policy? classroom management issues? Laboratory safety? Grading, Evaluation How will the students work be driftd and evaluated? Number of tests? In-class? Take-home? Point value? Proportion of each test toward final grade? Grading scale? How is the final grade determined? Drop lowest grade? How do students receive timely feedback on their performance? Instructor? Self-assessment? Peer review? Peer tutors? Opportunities for good? Ungraded assignments? Texts/Resources/Readings/Supplies What kinds of materials will be used during the course? Electronic databases? Electronic Course Reserve? Course Webpage? Software? Simulations? Laboratory equipment? What kinds of instructional technologies will be used? Course Calendar In what sequence will the content be taught? When are major assignments due?Fieldtrips? Guestspeaker? Schedule for confines Examination? Result? Vacations? Study Tips/Learning Resources How will the student be most successful in the course? What resources are available? Online prove generator? Study guides? Lecture notes online? Lecture notes on reserve in library? Guestspeaker to explain/demonstrate online resources? TA? Peer tutors? Study groups? pedantic Services Center? Writing Center? Evaluation of online resources? Citation of web resources? Student Feedback on Instruction Anonymous suggestion box on the web and E-mail. Student feedback at midterm for instructional improvement purposes. End-of-term student feedback. Supplement to departmental student feedback form. Bibliography 1. Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1979) The Communicative Approach To words Teaching. Oxford University Press. 2. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) position For Specific Purposes A Learning Centred Approach. Cambridge University Press. 3. Long, R. W. and Russell, G. (1999) Student Attitudinal Change ove r an Academic Year. The Language Teacher. Cambridge University Press. 4. Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design.Oxford University Press. 5. Prabhu, N. S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press. 6. Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (1986) Approaches And Methods In Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. 7. White, R. V. (1988) The ELT Curriculum Design, Innovation And Management. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 8. Widdowson, H. G. (1978) Teaching Language As Communication. Oxford University Press.. 9. Wilkins, D. A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press. 10. Yalden, J. (1987) Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.