Analysing Different Teaching

Syllabus English Language

Essay
Published: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work
written by our professional essay writers.

In the domain of language teaching, many teaching syllabuses have emerged which
can be classified according to their goals. Examples are the grammatical or
structural syllabus which focuses on teaching grammar; the lexical syllabus of which
the goal is to teach students lexis and the orthography of the target language; the
situational syllabus which is concerned with teaching language related to certain
situations; the topic-based syllabus, which has as its goal the teaching of specific
topics, for example, geographical topics such as global warming. There is also the
skills-based syllabus which takes into account the four skills of language learning,
namely, listening, speaking, reading and writing; the task-based syllabus, in which
the task is the key to acquiring language and the integrated syllabus, which attempts
to integrate all types of syllabus into one syllabus. This kind of syllabus is central to
the 'Headway' series of books.
The focus of the teaching syllabuses in schools and colleges used to be on the
grammar of the target language. Priority was given to structural categories, such as
word class, and to mastering these categories. It was noted, however, that learners
using the structural syllabus lacked the ability to communicate fluently in the target
language, because they had little practice in expressing themselves
communicatively, even though they had mastered the grammar. They were able only
to memorise the structural categories and never engaged in communicating with
others. This problem, therefore, could be solved only by producing a new syllabus
which could meet learners' needs and improve their communicative ability. As a
result, a notional-functional syllabus emerged, with new goals and procedures.
This paper examines the notional- functional syllabus. In the first part, a brief section
seeks to define the word 'syllabus', followed by a section about the general meaning
of a notional-functional syllabus. The second part considers the approach taken in
this kind of syllabus and discusses it. The third part focuses on an important aspect
in the notional-functional syllabus, namely, needs analysis. The fourth part highlights
the strengths and weaknesses of this syllabus. The fifth part shows how the notional-
functional syllabus has been influenced by theories of language and learning. The
final part, attempts to describe the teaching situation best suited to this type of
syllabus and some of its most important aspects.

The Notional- functional syllabus:

Before we embark on describing and discussing the notional-functional syllabus, we
should provide a definition for the word syllabus.

What is a syllabus?
It is noteworthy that many writers such as, (Brumfit: 1984; Nunan: 1988; Richards:
2001) have sought to define this word. For example, a syllabus is defined as:
a specification of the content of a course of instruction which lists what will be taught
and tested (Richards: 2001:2).
It is defined also by Nunan (1988:159) as:
a specification of what is to be taught in language and the order in which it is to be
taught.
Furthermore, it can merely lay down what is to be taught, or attempt the harder task
of organizing what is to be learnt (Brumfit: 1984). Accordingly, it is noted that they
agree that a syllabus should be a specified by a plan which leads teaching aims.
White (1988) agrees with Nunan (1988), in addition, that a syllabus may include such
aspects as, structure, functions, topics, skills and situations. The choice of priority
among these aspects will specify the type of syllabus.

1.2. What is a notional-functional syllabus?

The first appearance of this type of syllabus was in the 1970s, when sociolinguists
and language philosophers first tried to reflect the functional aspects of language in
the teaching syllabuses (Nunan: 1988). It is worthy mentioning the the notional-
functional syllabus is based on two important aspects, namely, a conceptual or
notional aspect and a functional aspect. The first, takes into consideration concepts
such as, cause and effect, time, movement and space. The second describes and
classifies the intentions behind language use. In fact, neither of these aspects was
new for language teaching. They always been of much concern in the language
teaching field, yet what was new was the adoption of notional-functional categories
as principles in syllabus organisation. As a result, the great stress on grammatical
considerations was relaxed, because the communicative categories were taken into
account (White, 1988).
It is, however, worth mentioning that the Threshold syllabus (Van Ek: 1975) and the
Waystage syllabus (Van Ek and Alexander: 1977) are prototypes of notional-
functional syllabuses prepared by the Council of Europe. The content of these
syllabuses includes notions such as those mentioned above and functions such as
are found at the Threshold level ( Ek and Trim: 1990), ( see, Appendix:1).
D.A.Wilkins (1976) was the keenest advocate of the notional- functional syllabus. He
notes that this type of syllabus should encompass three categories of meaning: first,
semantico- grammatical meaning , in which grammatical form is taught by
semantics, such as, time, which consists of point of time, duration and relations;
second, modal meaning, in which there is a concern with the nature of the speaker's
attitudes, such as, the scale of certainty, including: conjecture, doubt, conviction and
disbelief; and third, the communicative function, in which speakers are expected to
provide communicate information, such as, requests and complaints (Wilkins: 1976).
The approach applied in the Notional-
functional syllabus:
It is important to note that there is a contention among such writers in the language
teaching domain as, (Wilkins: 1976; Nunan: 1988; Richards: 2001). This contention
is about whether the approach taken in a notional- functional syllabus is analytic or
synthetic. In fact, Wilkins (1976) is the first writer who has paid attention to the
difference between synthetic and analytic approaches in teaching syllabuses
(Nunan: 1988). The distinction lies in the fact that the strategy of language teaching
in a synthetic approach relies on the process of acquiring language through a
gradual accumulation of language parts. These different parts are taught separately
until the complete linguistic structure is built up. In contrast, with the analytic
approach linguistic control of the learning environment is not important, because
language components are not viewed as building blocks. In other words, they are not
gradually accumulated. Furthermore, the important forms of language are isolated
from the contrasting context in which they probably occur. Therefore, the focus of
learning is significant aspects of the language structure (Wilkins: 1976). Wilkins goes
on to propose that a notional-functional syllabus maybe considered an example of
the analytic approach to language teaching. This is because it entails no compulsory
exposure to grammar, although we will probably be able to separate particular forms
from their language environment in order to learn the grammatical system
adequately (ibid, p 19).
It emerges that (Nunan: 1988; Richards: 2001) disagree with Wilkins's view that the
approach of a notional- functional syllabus is analytic; they consider it synthetic. The
reason is that the functional-notional syllabus was an attempt to replace the
structural syllabus, yet ultimately, it remained similar to the latter, because, the type
of exercise and the content which learners need to master is altogether similar to
those of the structural syllabus ,although, the units in the notional-functional syllabus
have functional labels(Nunan: 1988). Moreover, it is noted that the notional
-functional syllabuses continued to be the same as the structural syllabuses,
because they failed to get rid of the need for linguistic control and gradually forms
accumulated (Richards: 2001). It is, therefore, agreed with the views of Nunan and
Richards, because functional-notional syllabuses are not different enough from
structural syllabuses. For example, in structural syllabuses learners have to learn the
different verb tenses gradually. In notional- functional syllabuses, they have to create
sentences according to the type of function in a sequence way. Hence, the approach
tends to be synthetic rather than analytic.

Needs analysis:
This term refers to a set of procedures used to collect information about learners and
their communications tasks which might help in syllabus design. The question why
learners need to learn the target language is not solely the concern of needs
analysis. Syllabus planners, however, will need information about such aspect as,
the social expectations placed on learners and the possibility of resources to help
implement the syllabus. Syllabus designers, therefore, use two different types of
needs analysis. The first is learner analysis and the second, task analysis. Learner
analysis is concerned with the learner's purpose in learning the language and with
many other questions through which a great deal of information can be amassed
through, for example, data collection forms (Nunan,1988). In needs analysis a
syllabus plan is derived from the specifications which syllabus planners or teachers
derive from determining the sort of language required. This specifies the ends which
the learners desire (White: 1988). White seems to have considered a needs analysis
similar to a blue print for a house build since, in order to drew up plan, an architect
needs to look at another house to collect information about the design. The architect,
therefore, is similar to a syllabus planner or teacher (ibid, p83). Wilkins, on the other
hand, drew attention in notional-functional syllabuses to the learners' needs. He
proposed that the categories to apply in syllabus should be "relevant to the particular
population of learners" (Wilkins: 1981:84). Consequently, notional-functional
syllabuses are based on the learner's needs, which are known through needs
analysis, for example, from interviews asking learners what they require to learn
(see, Appendix: 2).

Strengths and weaknesses of the notional-

functional syllabus:
One of the positive aspects which characterises the notional-functional syllabus is
the focus on communicative factors as a starting point in a syllabus plan. For
example, in this syllabus, there is a concern for the linguistic elements which
learners need in order to communicate. Furthermore, the grammatical and situational
factors, on the one hand, are not neglected in this syllabus, because communicative
competence will be produced and learners will be motivated by the use of language.
On the other hand, all types of language functions could be covered in functional
notional syllabuses not solely the typical language functions that might emerge in
certain situations (Wilkins, 1976).
It is worth clarifying the difference here between grammatical competence and
communicative competence. According to Richards (2006), grammatical competence
involves a concentration on the sentence as a unit of analysis and the ability of
language learners to analyse the form of the sentence in order to create their own
sentences in the target language. Communicative competence, however, means a
state in which learners can use the language in meaningful communication.
Another positive aspect of a notional-functional syllabus according to Widdowson, is
the improvement which it represented over grammatical syllabuses, because this
syllabus allows an authentic and communicative use of language in the context in
which the forms are presented (Widdowson: 1978).
However, Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) praise the syllabus for giving the
communicative purposes of students highest priority. Moreover, adopting a
functional-notional syllabus in the language teaching domain provides distinct
benefits: First, no compulsory exposure to language grammar; second, the provision
of concrete learning tasks; third, the chance for teachers to be guided by some
principles of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and educational theory; fourth, the
insistence on the need for language learners to have a real purpose in speaking.
Fifth, the widespread progress of target language courses is provided by this kind of
syllabus. Sixth, modular and flexible courses could be improved by this syllabus.
Moreover, listening and reading activities which are also called receptive activities
are provided in this. Furthermore, the communicative abilities of learners will be
motivating due to the basic communicative functions which existing in this syllabus
(ibid, p36).
Hence, we could see that notional-functional syllabus takes into account the
importance of communicative activities in language teaching. As Littlewood (1981)
indicates, the purposes of communicative activities are, first, to give whole-task
practice, whereby students in the target language classroom get practice in
completing a whole task with its varied communicative activities. Second, they
improve motivation, in that the important target for is to communicate with others;
consequently if they recognise that their classroom can serve this target their
motivation to learn seems to give them close attention. Moreover, they can create a
context which supports learning, because communicative activities encourage
positive relationships between learners and their teacher. As a result, these
relationships contribute to a propitious learning environment.
But, despite its positive aspects, this type of syllabus still has some limitations. One
of these limitations is the difficulties which syllabus designers have with respect to
grading and selection, because a notional-functional syllabus has much concern for
communicative factors. To illustrate, grading is the process of arranging the content
of a syllabus from easy to difficult (Nunan, 1988). The items, which should be
included in this syllabus, are not chosen on linguistic basis only, but also on the
communicative purposes with which learners embark on a course (ibid, p37).
Furthermore, because in a functional framework syllabus planners have no empirical
evidence to build their selection of exponents and structures, it is thought that their
selection is based merely on intuition (White, 1988). In an attempt, however, to solve
the problem of grading and selection in the notional-functional syllabus, hybrid
syllabuses emerged. These syllabuses combine the structural and notional
categories in one syllabus, yet even these models of syllabuses have proved
problematic, because, as White indicates, there have not been enough evaluate
them (ibid, p82).
Another shortcoming, with this type of syllabus is that there is no compatibility
between function and form, because, in order to decide which function is being
explained, we need to know about the context. For instance, in the following
sentences:
We are thinking of going to see the new Woody Allan film tonight.
How about going to see the new Woody Allan film tonight.
(White, 1988:76).
In these examples, there is confusion whether they should be seen as forms of
invitation or function ways of making a suggestion (ibid, 77). Moreover, Widdowson
in his critique the notional-functional syllabus notes that the methodology of dress
rehearsal results in the activities which aim to produce authentic communication in
the classroom. This methodology may enable learners only to convey the items
learned in the situations which they can rehearse, but not in new situations
(Widdowson: 1987).
The notional-functional syllabus also lacks a rigorous use of needs analysis.
According to Richards (2001), the term needs is not identified clearly because needs
may identified on the basis of intuition and the interests of the syllabus planners.
Therefore, the criteria for this term in the syllabus are not clear-cut. Hence, from the
limitations of notional-functional syllabus discussed above, it could be seen, that
such a syllabus tends to be product- based syllabus, which focusing on what
language is learnt rather than process-based syllabus which focuses on how
language is learnt. The consequence is that the list of items which a notional-
functional syllabus offers is presented to be learnt, yet how they will be learnt is not
specified.

The influence of language theories and

learning on the notional-functional syllabus:
Theoretical views of language teaching varied in their ideas. Fore example, there is
the structural view in which language is considered a structural system connected
with elements for the coding of meaning. This view is considered traditional in
language teaching. The functional view, therefore, came as a reaction to it, on the
one hand, and an attempt to improve it, on the other hand. Language in the
functional view is considered a means of conveying functional meaning (Richards
and Rodgers: 1986). Nunan (1988), however, draws attention to the way in which the
communicative view was integrated by syllabus designers in the 1970s and at that
time attracted a great deal of concern. This view, which is allied to the functional
view, asserts that the communicative and semantic dimensions of language are as
important as the grammatical characteristics of language. Thus, the content of
language teaching is specified and organized by its communicative and semantic
dimensions through meaning and function categories instead of, structure and
grammar elements (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). As a result, the notional
syllabuses adopted by Wilkins in 1976 came as an attempt to apply this view of
language in teaching syllabuses. Hence, the notional syllabuses comprised not
solely grammar elements and lexis, yet also specification of the notions, topic and
concepts which learners require in communication (ibid, p17). It is noted, moreover,
that the functional view tends to be with views such as Halliday's view (1970) which
believes that:
linguistics is concerned with the description of speech acts or texts, since only
through the study of language in use are all the functions of language and therefore,
all components of meaning, brought into focus ( Halliday:1970:145).
Hence, it seems clear that the notional-functional syllabus is heavily influenced by
functional and communicative views of language.
It is important to note, however, that the notional-functional syllabuses are influenced
not only by theories of language, yet also theories of learning. Because, as Richards
and Rodgers (1986) observe, the models of structural, functional and interactional
approaches in language teaching are considered incomplete in themselves, because
they provide only theoretical frameworks for teaching language. Thus, they need
educational theories of language learning in order to be complete. According to
Richards and Rodgers, there are two types of learning theories, namely, process-
oriented theories and condition-oriented theories. The first, is built on the processes
of learning namely, "habit formation, induction, inferencing, hypothesis testing and
generalization" (ibid, p18). The second concentrates on language learning from the
perspective of human nature and the physical context. Therefore, it is should be
noted that communicative meaning comes under the umbrella of condition-oriented
theories, because, learners need to learn how they can transfer their communicative
meaning through language. They could do it through a notional approach to
language teaching, because the basis of this approach comes from the belief that
what learners need in the domain of language is significantly more important than
language mastery as unapplied system (Wilkins, 1976). As a result, it could be seen
that a notional-functional syllabus relies heavily on the functional view of language
and condition-oriented theories of learning. As Wilkins (1981) emphasizes, what links
the notional approach with the communicative language teaching movement is the
knowledge of language learning in which the communicative purposes have a great
deal of concern.

The teaching situation best suited to the

notional-functional syllabus:
Since, the focus of a notional-functional syllabus is on the development of
communicative competence such as language learners need for communication in
the target language, Furthermore, this kind of syllabus provides for the teaching of
every day language in the world beyond the classroom. It could, therefore, be argued
that the notional-functional syllabus is suitable for English for Specific Purpose (ESP)
or short English courses. Such as, courses in Business English taught in an oil
company. Courses of this kind would be suitable for those who want to visit an
English speaking country for a business trip or holiday, where they will need to
interact in different situations. This syllabus benefits those who want basic
communicative functions, for instance, greeting, asking for directions, or expressing
feelings. As Wilkins (1976:71) indicates,
actual language courses regarded by some learners as complete in themselves
but by others a basis for further learning. I would argue that a notional syllabus is
can meet defined communication needs while at the same time it is constructing a
more widely based linguistic competence.
It is, however, important to note that there are some aspects which should be taken
into account in the teaching situation suited to the notional-functional syllabus,
including the following:

6.1. Language level:

Linguistic proficiency among language learners is classified into levels, such as,
beginner, elementary, pre - intermediate, intermediate, upper - intermediate and
advanced. It could be, therefore, argued that notional-functional syllabus seems to
be suitable for intermediate or advanced learners rather than beginners. The reason
is that learners in the early stages attempt to concentrate on vocabulary learning
before learning how to express themselves communicatively through functional
meanings. Accordingly, it is thought that this syllabus seems to be un suitable for
beginners, because intermediate or advanced learners already possess the core
vocabulary, however, their focus will be on producing sentences communicatively.
Thus, it seems more appropriate for them.
6.2. Class size:
It could be argued that since a functional-notional syllabus focuses on learners
needs, as Wilkins(1976) indicates, in his notional syllabuses that the categories
which need to be applied in this kind of syllabus should be individual to a particular
group of learners. It is thought, therefore, that large classes which are composed of
dissimilar learners are not suitable for the functional-notional syllabus. This type of
syllabus needs a specific group of learners, for instance, when it comes to English
for Specific Purpose (ESP) courses. In them are particular groups, such as,
Business English learners, engineering English learners or medical English learners.
These groups of learners will be suitable for this kind of syllabus.

6.3. Assessment:
Since, the goal of a notional-functional syllabus is to improve the communicative
language ability of learners, in other words, their ability to use language in their
communications. There seems, therefore, to be no need for formal assessment. The
reason is that the assessment will focus on the way in which learners can achieve
this ability through expressing concepts such as, possibility or affirmation. For
instance, in the case of business English courses, the assessment is based on the
learners' performance in communicative language with customers; that is, how well
they can communicate with their customers for instance, in making requests or
offering business.

Conclusion:
Syllabuses in the language teaching domain have varied in their goals and
procedures. The traditional ones are structural or grammatical, with a focus on
finding ways of learning the grammar of the target language. But this syllabus
neglects ways of acquiring competence in communicative language. Hence, as can
be seen in the above, the notional-functional syllabus emerged as a way for learners
to improve their communicative abilities which would be motivated through its basic
communicative functions. It all depends on what we use language to do.
Furthermore, we can conclude that the notional-functional syllabus is based on the
learners' needs, which are discovered through a needs analysis strategy. This
syllabus has two main aspects: functions which deal with such the communicative
abilities as, requesting, grading, arguing and expressing feelings and notions related,
for example, to space, location, time and quantity. It is noted, however, that the main
in designing this kind of syllabus comprise: first, the situations in which learners will
use the target language, broken down into the place, the time and people who
engaged in these situations; second, the topics which are found in every day
communication, such as, asking for directions, offering help or shopping. Admittedly,
the notional-functional syllabus possesses negative as well as positive aspects.
Some of the positive aspects are its focus on communicative factors as a starting
point and in its high motivating power, because it enables learners to express their
ideas and feelings more easily. Moreover, all types of function could be covered in
functional- notional syllabuses, not solely the typical language functions which might
emerge in certain situations. It is noted, however, that some of the negative aspects
which are highlighted in the present paper are the difficulties in selecting and
grading, the functions and forms and there lack of compatibility between function and
form, because, in order to decide which function is being explained, we need to know
about the context. Furthermore, needs analysis strategy is not identified clearly,
because the identification of learns' needs only on the basis of intuition on the part of
syllabus planners.
We could see, however, that the notional-functional syllabus has been influenced
heavily by functional and communicative views of language and condition-oriented
theories of learning. Finally, we can conclude that, although this kind of syllabus has
some limitations, it is widely used in many countries, because it is effective for
learners with special purposes, such as, learners of ESP ( English for specific
purposes).