There is a confusion over the terms syllabus and curriculum Some specialists assume

that these two words are synonymous. But, there are some differences between these
two terms concerning their working field. Candlin, a prominent linguist suggests that
curriculums are concerned with making general statements about language learning,
purpose and experience, evaluation and the role relationship of teachers and learners.
They will contain bank of learning items and suggestions about how these might be
used in the class. On the other hand syllabuses are more localized, and are based on
accounts and records of what actually happens at the class level, as teachers and
learners apply a give curriculum to their own situation.
A curriculum of an educational institution can be studied from three main perspectives(1) identifying students needs and goals or Planning Phase(2) observing the teaching/
learning process to study how the intentions of the curriculum plans have been
implemented in classroom or Implementation Phase, (3) Finding out what students
have learned and have failed to learn in relation to what had been planned or
Evaluation phase/ It is important that, in the planning, implementation and evaluation
of a given curriculum, all elements be integrated, so that decisions made at one phase
are not in conflict with these made at another.
On the other hand, syllabus design concerns the following1) whether the content is
communicable (2) objectives(goals/ purposes of learning) (3) social belief, (4) practical
specification (5) capability of the teacher etc. In developing a language program the
above components are essential to be considered in an ideal syllabus.
It is possible to distinguish a broad and a narrow approach to syllabus design.
According to the supporters of a narrow view; syllabus design is seen as being
concerned essentially with the selection and grading of content, while methodology is
concerned with the selection of learning tasks and activities. Thus, the former is
concerned with the WHAT of curriculum; the latter is concerned with the HOW of
establishing the curriculum. On the other hand, those who adopt a broader view
question this strict separation arguing that with the advent of communicative language
teaching the distinction between content and tasks is difficult to sustain.
Therefore, it can be said that traditionally syllabus design has been seen as a subsidiary
component of curriculum design. In brief, the distinction between the two is that,
curriculum is a very general concept which involves consideration of the whole complex
of philosophical, social and administrative factors which contribute to the planning of an
educational program, implementation and evaluation.
Syllabus on the other hand refers to that subpart of curriculum which is concerned with
a specification of what units will be taught.
So, syllabus design is essential concerned with the selection of materials and grading.
S. D generally refers to procedures for deciding what will be taught in a language
program.
Therefore, curriculum is a larger field while syllabus design is a smaller one. SD focuses
more narrowly on the selection of content and grading.

1.

The Taba Model Another approach to curriculum development was

proposed by Hilda Taba in her book Curriculum Development: Theory and
Practice published in 1962. She argued that there was a definite order in
creating a curriculum. She believed that teachers, who teach the
curriculum, should participate in developing it which led to the model being
called the grass-roots approach. She noted 7 major steps to her grassroots model in which teachers would have major input. She was of the
opinion that the Tyler model was more of an administrative model.
2. 11. The Taba Model Diagnosis of need: The teacher who is also the
curriculum designer starts the process by identifying the needs of students
for whom the curriculum is planned. For example, the majority of students
are unable to think critically. Formulation of objectives: After the teacher
has identified needs that require attention, he or she specifies objectives to
be accomplished.

3. 12. The Taba Model Selection of content: The objectives selected or

created suggest the subject matter or content of the curriculum. Not only
should objectives and content match, but also the validity and significance
of the content chosen needs to be determined. i.e. the relevancy and
significance of content. Organisation of content: A teacher cannot just
select content, but must organise it in some type of sequence, taking into
consideration the maturity of learners, their academic achievement, and
their interests. Selection of learning experiences: Content must be
presented to students and students must be engaged with the content. At
this point, the teacher selects instructional methods that will involve the
students with the content.
4. 13. The Taba Model Organisation of learning activities: Just as content
must be sequenced and organised, so must the learning activities. Often,
the sequence of the learning activities is determined by the content. But the
teacher needs to keep in mind the particular students whom he or she will
be teaching. Evaluation and means of evaluation: The curriculum planner
must determine just what objectives have been accomplished. Evaluation
procedures need to be designed to evaluate learning outcomes.

Teachers as course developers and their roles in syllabus design Finally the main
question 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
peoples 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 Massoud Rahimpour / Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 16601664 1663 syllabus designers. In line with this,
Nunan (1993:8) agrees with Bell and argues that few teachers are in the position of
being able 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). 6. Conclusion & Implications The propose of this paper was to
present the key and central issues and options available for syllabus design in order
to provide English teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills and familiarize
them with these information necessary for syllabus design. This study has also
investigated the different teaching approaches to teaching on L2 learners
performance. This study is of immediate relevance for task-based language
teaching and learning, and in particular for the syllabus designers. It was argued
that the task-based approach creates more favourable condition for the
development of second language. Therefore, it can be concluded that task-based
language teaching facilitates better learning and promotes learners performance in
oral skill. Finally, it is hoped that the issues and views discussed in this paper
provide important theoretical and practical rationale for syllabus designers and
material developers in ESP, TESOL, and TOFEL and also provide pedagogic
implications which may be of particular relevance to teaching ESP.
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Threshold-Level_CUP.pdf