CC BY
20SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22257
TEACHERS AND LEARNERS AS COURSE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR
ROLES IN SYLLABUS DESIGN
N. Ostonova
UzSWLU Scientific adviser: N. Khamrakhanova
ABSTRACT
Appropriately designed syllabus for a language teaching course plays a huge role in the attainment of the pre-set course goals and objectives. The role and importance of teachers in the formulation of an effective course syllabus is immense. In this regard, learners' perspectives should also be taken into account as the accomplishment of the course should enable the learners to become competent users of the target language. This article sheds light on the roles of teachers and learners in the course syllabus design.
Key words: syllabus, language teaching course, teachers' perspectives, learners' perspectives, curriculum
Syllabus design is based essentially on a decision about the "units" of classroom activity, and the "sequence" in which they are to be performed. The syllabus thus formalizes the content to be learned in a domain of knowledge or behavior, and "arranges this content in a succession of interim objectives" (Widdowson, 1990, p. 127). As in other areas of instruction (see Reigeluth, 1999) there are options in, and differing theoretical rationales for, the units to be adopted in specifying and sequencing pedagogic content for second language (L2) learners, and a number of these will be described in this chapter. Theoretical rationales, of course, should be concerned with issues of how the L2 is internalized and learned, and also accessed and acted upon, since it is the cognitive processes leading to learning and successful performance, as they take place in specific pedagogic contexts, that the syllabus is intended to promote. Individual differences between learners in the cognitive and other abilities contributing to their "aptitudes" for learning and performing in the L2 will also modulate, and contribute to variance in, the effectiveness of specific pedagogic contexts and sequencing decisions at the group or program level (Robinson, 2002, 2005a, 2007a). These are theoretical and empirical issues for research into instructed second language acquisition (SLA) to address, in order to establish an optimally effective, learner-sensitive approach to syllabus design. Experimental and classroom-based research into a number of psycholinguistic issues in instructed SLA has begun with this prospect in view. Perhaps the most fundamental issue for syllabus design addressed by this research
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22257
so far is the following: Is the L2 best learned explicitly, by understanding and practicing a series of formal units of language, however characterized, or is it best learned incidentally from exposure to the L2 during communicative activities and tasks (see, e.g., Doughty, 2001; Doughty & Williams, 1998; N. Ellis, 2005, this volume; Ortega, this volume; Robinson, 1996a, 1997, 2001)? Commitment to one or the other of these broad pedagogic orientations and psycholinguistic positions underlies a number of proposals that have been made for units of syllabus design. Units have been based on an analysis of the language to be learned, in terms of a series of grammatical structures, graded in difficulty, as in Ellis (1993, 1997), or of lexical items and collocations, graded in frequency, as in Willis (1990). Units have also been based on an analysis of the components of simple versus complex skilled behavior in the second language, e.g., the reading microskills described by Richards (1990) or the communicative skills forming part of Munby's (1978) communicative needs profiler, and Johnson's (1996) work. Units have also been based on observed real-world performative acts involving the L2, or "target tasks" for a population of learners identified during a needs analysis (see Brown, this volume). Target tasks involve varied real-world activities, such as greeting passengers and serving meals on an airplane (Long, 1985, 2005) or finding a journal article in a library with the aid of library technology and then using it to find needed answers to questions (Robinson & Ross, 1996). Target task L2 performance is gradually approximated during classroom performance of simpler pedagogic versions of these tasks. Examples of these, and other units, that have been proposed will be given below. Along with choices in the units to be adopted, there are choices in the "sequence" in which they can be presented. Some sequencing criteria are specific to a particular unit, or units, as will be described below - such as more to less "frequent" in the case of lexical items. However, the relative merits of broader sequencing options, and educational philosophies supporting them, have been discussed in the literature on L2 syllabus design. A syllabus can consist of a prospective and fixed decision about what to teach, and in what order. In this case the syllabus will be a definition of the contents of classroom activity. This is largely the approach to syllabus design discussed in this chapter. However, sequencing decision can also be made online, during classroom activity as in the "process" syllabus (Breen, 1984) or the "negotiated" syllabus (Clarke, 1991). In this case the initial syllabus will only guide, but not constrain, the classroom activities. Finally, Candlin (1984) has proposed that a syllabus can be retrospective, in which case no syllabus will emerge until after the course of instruction. In this case, the syllabus functions only as a record of what was done, imposing no controlling constraint on the classroom negotiation of content.
The Perception of Teacher Involvement
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=222ff7
Much of the work on this subject makes clear that teacher involvement does not lead to active engagement or successful curricular change (Bowers, 1991). It merely focuses on the engagement of teachers in the determination of curriculum within their own classrooms. Kennedy (1996) found that a general perception often held by teachers was that "the curriculum is developed else where" so that they simply need some guidance for the "correct application" of a curriculum which is "handed down to them from the top". They believe that the policy of decision making is highly centralized and that their engagement in the syllabus determination is within their own classroom practicesonly. Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelchand, & Tucker (1999) indicated that this view had created the impression that teachers operate solely within the classroom wallsand that it was the only place where they could make a contribution to the curriculum denying the broader functions that couldpossibly be fulfilled outside the classroom. Curriculum development as a concept is regarded as the encompassing and continual process during which any form of planning, designing, dissemination, implementation and assessment of curricula may take place (Carl, 2002). It is within this process of curriculum development that the teacher can and should become involved (Fullan, 2001). And this involvement is more than the activities defined within the classroom walls. Carl (2002) distinguished two main tendencies regarding teacher participation:
• Firstly, teachers are regarded as merely the "recipients" of the curriculum that is developed by specialists elsewhere. The teacher's curriculum function remains limited to the correct application of what has been developed by these specialists. Thisso-called "top down" approach is detrimental to the process of taking ownership of the curriculum.
• Secondly, teachers are partners in the process of curriculum change. There should therefore be an opportunity for their "voices" to be heard before the actual implementation, in other words, they should be given the opportunity to make an input during the initial curriculum development processes. The educational system often determines which of these two interpretations or tendencies triumphs. For Kirk & Macdonald (2001), aspects such as leadership and the centralization or decentralization of an educational system, that allows input and participation, may determine or influence the nature and the degree of participation.
The main question in ELT course syllabus design is: 'what is the role of the classroom teacher in syllabus design?' Nunan (1993) refers to Bell (1983) who claims that teachers are consumers of other people's syllabuses and their role is to implement the plans of applied linguists, government agencies. While some teachers have a relatively free hand in designing their own syllabuses on which their teaching programs are based, most are, as Bell (1983) suggests, consumers of other syllabus designers. In line with this, Nunan (1993:8) agrees with Bell and argues that few teachers are in the position of being able
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=222ff7
to design their own syllabuses. Again Nunan (1987) reports that some teachers believe that syllabus development should be carried out by people with specific expertise. But I believe that classroom teachers should be given appropriate training to be equipped with necessary skills and information to design their own syllabuses if they are to be successful teachers. Meanwhile they should regard the syllabus open and negotiable. Indeed the syllabus should be negotiated by teachers and their students on the basis of the learners' needs analysis (Brindley, 1984). In sum, I would suggest teachers to follow Stern (1984) who advises that: The more we emphasize flexibility and negotiation of the curriculum the more important it is for us, as teachers, to have something to negotiate about, and, surely, as Brumfit, Widdowson, and Yalden have stressed, it is important for the teacher to define the parameters, to provide direction, and to have the resources at our disposal which make up ESL/EFL as learnable and worthwhile subject matter in general education (Stern, 1984:12). The role of the learner in approaches to syllabus design
Another distinction which is useful in conceptualizing options in syllabus design was made initially by Wilkins (1976) and refers to the learner's role in assimilating the content provided during group instruction and applying it individually to real-world language performance and interlanguage development. Synthetic syllabi involve a focus on specific elements of the language system (such as grammatical structures, or language functions), often serially and in a linear sequence. The easiest, most learnable, most frequent, or most communicatively important (sequencing decisions can be based on each of these often non-complementary criteria, and on others) are presented before their harder, later learned, less frequent, and more communicatively redundant counterparts. These syllabi assume the learner will be able to put together, or synthesize in real-world performance, the parts of the language system they have been exposed to separately. In contrast, analytic syllabi do not divide up the language to be presented in classrooms, but involve holistic use of language to perform communicative activities. The learner's role in these syllabi is to analyze or attend to aspects of language use and structure as the communicative activities require them to, in line with: (1) their developing interlanguage systems; (2) their preferred learning style and aptitude profile; and (3) to the extent that they are motivated to develop to an accuracy level which may not be required by the communicative demands of the task. For these reasons analytic approaches to syllabus design have been argued to be more sensitive to SLA processes and learner variables than their synthetic counterparts. This distinction will also be related to the following description of syllabi that have been proposed. Why Construct a Learner-Centered Syllabus? As alluded to previously, there is mounting evidence that learner-centered syllabi can have positive effects on both students and teachers (e.g., DiClementi & Handelsman, 2005; Harrington & Gabert-
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=222ff7
Quillen, 2015; Richmond et al., 2013, 2014, 2016b; Saville et al., 2010). First, research suggests that when teachers construct learner-centered syllabi, students are empowered and behave better in class (DiClementi & Handelsman, 2005). A learner-centered syllabus may cause students to perceive the teacher as possessing more exemplary teaching characteristics (e.g., approachability, flexibility) and greater rapport with them. Moreover, students remember more details from a learnercentered syllabus (Richmond et al., 2014; Saville et al., 2010). In a true experimental design with random assignment, Richmond and colleagues (2016b) asked students to read hypothetical course syllabi that were independently rated as learner-centered or teacher-centered, using Cullen and Harris's (2009) rubric for evaluating learner-centeredness. Students then rated the instructor associated with each syllabus on student-professor rapport (Wilson & Ryan, 2013) and the master teaching behaviors outlined by Keeley, Furr, and Buskist (2009). Richmond et al. (2016b) found that students who read a learner-centered syllabus perceived its teacher as possessing more rapport with students (e.g., in terms of student engagement and perceptions) and as exhibiting higher levels of the master-teacher behavioral qualities of "approachable/personable," "creative/ interesting," "encouraging/caring," "enthusiastic," "flexible/ open-minded," and "happy/positive." Additionally, students who received a learner-centered syllabus recalled more elements of the syllabus than students who received a teacher-centered syllabus. In a similar study, Saville and colleagues (2010) found that students who received a very detailed syllabus (including learner-centered elements) perceived the instructor as possessing significantly higher levels of master-teacher behaviors (e.g., approachable, creative, caring, enthusiastic) compared to an instructor who wrote a brief syllabus for the same course. Therefore, it appears that constructing a learner-centered syllabus can positively affect your students' perceptions of your teaching behaviors and the rapport you have with them. Second, constructing a learner-centered syllabus with a positive tone and discussing it on the first day of class may affect how students perceive the instructor (Harnish & Bridges, 2011). In a cleverly designed experiment, Harnish and Bridges randomly assigned students to read syllabi that were designed with either a cold or a warm tone. (See Table 1 for examples of warm and cold syllabus tones.) Students then rated the instructor who "wrote" the syllabus on scales of approachability, warmth, coldness, motivation, and difficulty. Harnish and Bridges found that students perceived the instructor who wrote the warm syllabus as significantly more motivated, warm, and approachable, as well as a less difficult teacher. Third, asking students to generate elements of the syllabus, such as classroom behavior rules, on the first day of class versus the instructor providing such behavior rules is associated with higher student ratings (DiClementi & Handelsman, 2005). In the self-generated classroombehavior class, students were divided into small groups, which were each assigned a behavioral
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=222ff7
category (e.g., eating in class) and instructed to develop a rule for it. The class then voted on each of the rules generated and discussed strategies for implementation and enforcement. Finally, each student wrote the classroom rules and strategies on his or her syllabus. DiClementi and Handelsman found that the class in which the instructor generated the classroom rules experienced higher frequencies of negative student behaviors. Students who wrote their own classroom-behavior rules rated the instructor more favorably; however, there was no difference between the two groups in perceived fairness and importance of the classroom rules or in course grades. Finally, syllabi that have been peer-reviewed by syllabi experts and published (e.g., Project Syllabus of the Society of Teaching of Psychology) tend to be more learner-centered than teacher-centered. Richmond et al. (2013, 2014) studied peer-reviewed exemplary psychology syllabi and found they were predominantly learner-centered regarding learning rationale, collaboration, the student's role, outside resources, syllabus tone and focus, grading, feedback mechanisms, and learning outcomes. However, they also found that the syllabi tended to be teacher-centered when it came to the teacher's role and accessibility, evaluation, and revising and redoing. As demonstrated by several studies (e.g., DiClementi & Handelsman, 2005; Harrington & Gabert-Quillen, 2015; Richmond et al., 2016b; Saville et al., 2010), when you redesign your course syllabi with a learner-centered focus you can increase many desirable student learning outcomes and improve perceptions of both the teacher and course.
All in all, "A detailed course syllabus, handed out on the first day of class, gives students an immediate sense of what the course will cover, what work is expected of them, and how their performance will be evaluated...A well-prepared syllabus shows students that you take teaching seriously" (Davis, 1993, p. 14).
References:
1. Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. J. Brumfit (ed.), General English syllabus design, (pp. 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon.
2. Broad, M. (1997). Overview of transfer of training: From learning to performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly 10, 2, 7-21.
3. Brockett, C. (2000). A communicative framework for introductory Japanese language curricula. Washington State Japanese Language Curriculum Guidelines Committee: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Technical Report # 20. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
4. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.
5. Candlin, C. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (ed.), General English syllabus design, (pp. 29-46). Oxford: Pergamon.
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 6 I 2022 _ISSN: 2181-1601
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=5.016) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22257
6. Clarke, D. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and is it likely to work? Applied Linguistics 12, 13-28.
7. Crombie, W. (1985a). Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Harmer, J. 1982. What is Communicative? ELT Journal 36/3.
