CC BY
54Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22230
ADVANTAGES OF MULTI-SYLLABUS APPROACH IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING COURSE DESIGN
N. Ostonova
UzSWLU
Scientific adviser: N. Khamrakhanova
ABSTRACT
The article is devoted to the study of the advantageous and disadvantageous sides of implementing multi-syllabus approach in EFL classroom. In fact, a whole lot of techniques, methods and approaches have been in vogue in the field of foreign language teaching but every method and approach has its own upsides and downsides. The research has been done in the area of communicative language learning and various techniques are suggested to improve vocabulary, automaticity of learning and ultimately the performance of learners in developing their language abilities via integrated aspects of different syllabi at a time.
Keywords: multi-syllabus, layered syllabus, communicative language teaching, communicative competence, language structures, fluency, interaction, experiential learning, learner-centered classroom
The diverse assortment of syllabuses and the host of related issues in the field of second language teaching and course development make it evident that syllabus design is one of the most controversial areas of second language pedagogy. The implementation of syllabuses for use in specific language teaching programs inter alia may include issues related to the structuring of the units, the methodology used to convey the content, and the format, presentation and assessment of the content.
The terms "syllabus", "syllabus design" and "curriculum" have given rise to confusion in terms of their definitions and use. According to Stern (1983) the field of curriculum studies is part of the discipline of educational studies. In its broadest sense, it refers to the study of goals, content, implementation and evaluation of an educational system. In its restricted sense, curriculum refers to a course of study or the content of a particular course or programme. It is in this narrower sense of curriculum that the term "syllabus" is employed. According to Stern, "syllabus design" is just one phase in a system of interrelated curriculum development activities. Shaw's (1975) survey of literature on second language syllabus development brings out the following distinction between "curriculum" and "syllabus". He says "... he curriculum includes the goals, objectives, content, processes, resources, and means of evaluation of all the learning
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22230
experiences planned for pupils both in and out of the school and community, through classroom instruction and related programs..." He then defines "syllabus" as "a statement of the plan for any part of the curriculum, excluding the element of curriculum evaluation itself." "Curriculum" as defined by Allen (1984) is a very general concept. It involves consideration of philosophical, social and administrative factors which contribute to the planning of an educational programme. "Syllabus" then refers to that subpart of a curriculum which is concerned with the specification of what units will be taught. In defining a language "syllabus", Noss and Rodgers (1976) refer to it as "a set of justifiable, educational objectives specified in terms of linguistic content". Here the specification of objectives must have something to do with language form or substance, with language-using situations, or with language as a means of communication. Strevens (1977) says that the syllabus is "partly an administrative instrument, partly a day-to-day guide to the teacher, partly a statement of what is to be taught and how, sometimes partly a statement of an approach ... The syllabus embodies that part of the language which is to be taught, broken down into items, or otherwise processed for teaching purposes." In Wilkins' (1981) words, syllabuses are "specifications of the content of language teaching which have been submitted to some degree of structuring or ordering with the aim of making teaching and learning a more effective process." Johnson (1982) explains syllabus as an "organized syllabus inventory" where "syllabus inventory" refers to the items to be taught. Crombie (1985) also defines "syllabus" as a list or inventory of items or units with which learners are to be familiarised. But Corder (1975) points out that it is more than just an inventory of items. In addition to specifying the content of learning, a syllabus provides a rationale of how that content should be selected and ordered (Mackey, 1980). Candlin (1984) takes a different stand when he says that syllabuses are "social constructions, produced interdependently in classrooms by teachers and learners ... They are concerned with the specification and planning of what is to be learned, frequently set down in some written form as prescriptions for action by teachers and learners." Basically, a syllabus can be seen as "a plan of what is to be achieved through our teaching and our students' learning" (Breen, 1984) while its function is "to specify what is to be taught and in what order" (Prabhu, 1984). 2.1 "Syllabus design" After having understood what the terms "curriculum" and language "syllabus" refer to, the next step would be to come to terms with what language "syllabus design" encompasses. According to Webb (1976), syllabus design is understood as the organization of the selected contents into an ordered and practical sequence for teaching purposes.
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
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22230
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.
Let it be repeated that syllabi are classified according to the units of analysis in their design of language courses (Long & Crookes, 1993; Rahimpour, 2010; Robinson, 2009, 2013). For example, units of analysis can be structures, notions and functions, situations, words or tasks, projects, and genres. Robinson (2009) underscores that these units and the way in which they are sequenced are essential components of a syllabus (p. 294). The unit of analysis chosen will clearly reflect the designer's views on the nature of language and language learning (Nunan, 1988). Central to language syllabus design are the following questions: "Is the language 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" (Robinson, 2009, p. 295)?
Synthetic syllabi are built on the components of the target language's linguistic system that "are taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of language has been built" (Wilkins, 1976, p. 2). It is thus the responsibility of the learner to synthesize these discrete elements of the language into meaningful utterances. Synthetic syllabi support a pedagogy in which L2 learning is the result of a form-focused, linear, systematic, and cumulative process.
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22230
Whereas synthetic syllabi use the target language grammatical system as their starting point for design, analytic syllabi start with the communicative purpose for which language is used. Nunan (1988) explains that "analytic syllabi are organized in terms of the purposes for which people are learning the language and the kinds of language performance that are necessary to meet those purposes" (p. 28). Analytic syllabi support a pedagogy in which L2 learning is understood as a meaning-driven, non-linear, and recurrent process.
In the United States, it is well documented that this debate around synthetic and analytic syllabus informs syllabus design and determines the nature of the units of classroom activity and the order in which they are presented over the course of an academic term. Examples of syllabi on both ends of the spectrum can be found in postsecondary language programs; however, we must also acknowledge that mixed or layered syllabi, sometimes referred to as proportional syllabi, which incorporate, to a greater or lesser degree, elements from both the synthetic and analytic syllabi, also exist. Mixed or layered syllabi have a semantic grammatical organizational base, a linguistic component based on language functions, and themes that play a linking role through the units. It is a syllabus that integrated aspects of all the three mentioned syllabuses. This integrated model is attempted to synthesize the content-oriented model, the objective-oriented model and the process-oriented model. It is also called "a proportional syllabus".
According to Yalden (in Finney, 1996:10), there are three principles which can form syllabus design, namely:
■ A view of how a language is learned which would result in a structure-grammar-based syllabus.
■ A view of how a language is acquired which would result in a process-based syllabus or functional-based syllabus.
■ A view of how a language is used which result in situational syllabus.
This syllabus includes all levels all the time but the emphasis changes at different stages of learning. It consist three components: the structural, functional, and experimental. The learning process ultimately depends on the interaction between the teacher and the learners in the classroom, and on the teaching approaches, activities, materials and procedures employed by the teacher.
Teachers must be reflective, analytic, creative, and open to new methods and new ideas. Although the four types of syllabus content are defined here in isolated contexts, it is rare for one type of syllabus or content to be used exclusively in actual teaching settings. Syllabi or content types are usually combined in more or less integrated ways, with one type as the organizing basis around which the others are arranged and related.
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=2223Q
In discussing syllabus choice and design, it should be kept in mind that the issue is not which type to choose but which types, and how to relate them to each other. Allen (1984) has devised a syllabus named variable focus syllabus which emphasizes the importance of using a hybrid type of syllabus by language teachers in the classroom. This syllabus is similar to Yalden's proportional syllabus. Allen's formulation of the variable focus syllabus consists of three components: structural, functional and experiential. This syllabus includes all levels in all the time, but the emphasis changes at different stages of learning. Yalden (1987) represents the advantage of this model when she states that ''it would seem to allow the syllabus designer the most freedom to respond to changing or newly perceived needs in the learners, and at the same time provides a framework for the teacher who may not be able or willing to go fully communicative...''
Although choices about syllabus type might be determined by L2 research, most often they are a matter of preference based on the approach the LPD is most familiar with, the approach used in the selected course textbook, or the approach recommended by the institution (Herschensohn, 1990; Scida & Jones, 2017). Few empirical studies have examined the outcomes of specific syllabus choices; those that do exist have been conducted outside the United States in English as a Foreign Language contexts. The picture that emerges from these studies is one that supports analytic over synthetic syllabi (Cubillos & Ilvento, 2019).
Scholars who have been interested in language syllabus design Breen, 1987; Feez, 1999; Krahnke, 1987; Long & Crookes, 1993; Nunan, 1988,2001; Rabbini, 2002; Rahimpour, 2010; Robinson, 2009, 2013) have outlined several primary syllabus types that are commonly used in postsecondary language programs in the United States.
Students differ in their abilities, intelligence and learning styles and are in need of differentiated instruction. The Layered Syllabus Approach was developed by Dr. Kathie Nunley as a strategy for differentiating instruction. This approach addresses the various learning styles observed in the class and encourages students to learn academic content by relying on their strengths. Instead of assigning one common activity for all students, the layered curriculum approach matches students to numerous activities that suit their needs and abilities.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT* theory. American Journal of Psychology 105, 165-80.
2. Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. J. Brumfit (ed.), General English syllabus design, (pp. 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon.
Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF 2022=4.63) Passport: http://sjifactor.com/passport.php?id=22230
3. Broad, M. (1997). Overview of transfer of training: From learning to performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly 10, 2, 7-21.
4. Harmer, J. 1983. Krashen's input hypothesis and the Teaching of EFL. World Language English 3/1.
5. Harmer, J. 1995. Taming the big 'I': Teacher performance and students satisfaction. ELTjournal 49/4.
6. Van Ek, J. (1976). The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. London: Longman.
