This document provides an overview and comparison of different types of language syllabi, including structural, functional/notional, and situational syllabi. It defines each type and discusses their key characteristics, theoretical bases, considerations for sequencing content, positive and negative aspects. The structural syllabus focuses on grammatical forms, while the functional/notional syllabus emphasizes the communicative functions and notions expressed through language. The situational syllabus organizes content around real or imagined situations. No single syllabus type is appropriate for all contexts. An effective syllabus design considers insights from various approaches.

1. In God we trust

2. student: Zahra Bayani
Spring, 2018
Structural
Functional/Notional
And
Situational
Syllabus
Course:
Language Syllabus Design and
Materials Development

3. Outline:
1. Definition and Features
2. Sequencing and grading
3. The positive
characteristics
4. The Negative
characteristics
1. Situational Syllabus
Definition
2. Three types of
situational syllabus
3. Main characteristics
4. The positive
characteristics
5. The negative
characteristics
6. Conclusion
Structural syllabus
1. Definition and Features
2. Theoretical Base
3.Content & Key features
4. Sequencing and grading
5. The positive
characteristics
6. The negative
characteristics
7. Criticism
8. Role of structural
Syllabus
Functional/ Notional
Syllabus
Situational Syllabus

4. Syllabus definition:
The syllabus is simply a framework
within which activities can be carried. It
is a teaching device to facilitate learning.
Any syllabus will express however
indirectly, certain assumptions about
language, about the psychological
process of learning, and about the
pedagogic and social processes within a
classroom (Widdowson, 1987).

5. Syllabus types:
Syllabuses are based on accounts and records
of what actually happens at the classroom level
as teachers and learners apply a given
curriculum to their own situation.
‘Syllabus’ focuses more narrowly on the
selection and grading of content (Nunan, 1993).

6. S T
Y Y
L P
L E
A S
B
U
S
A structural/ grammatical syllabus
A notional/functional syllabus
A situational syllabus
A skill-based syllabus
A task-based syllabus
A content-based syllabus

7. 1. Structural syllabus
A structural syllabus is a kind of syllabus in which
the content of language teaching is a collection of
the forms and structures, usually grammatical
elements such as verbs, nouns, past tense and so on.
This syllabus has been used as the basis for planning
general courses, particularly for beginning-level
learners (Krahnke, 1987).

8. Features:
 Structural syllabus focuses on grammatical forms.
 Structural syllabus is constructed based on the
theory that assumes that the grammatical or
structural aspects of language form are the basic
or useful.
 Structural syllabus has most been associated with
Grammar Translation Method, Audiolingualism
and Silent Way (McKay in Brown, 1995:7).

9. Theoretical Base:
Language is a system which consists of a set of
grammatical rules.
The syllabus input is selected and graded
according to grammatical notions of simplicity and
complexity.
 This type of syllabus maintains that it is easier for
students to learn a language if they are exposed to
one part of the grammatical system at a time
(McKay in Brown, 1995:7).

10. Top priority to teaching the
grammar or structure of
the target language.
 A list of linguistic structures
(noun, verb, pronoun,
adjective, singular, plural,
present tense, past tense…).
 A list of words, that is, the
lexicon to be taught.
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

11.  The key features of structural
syllabus is synthetic, requires
analysis of language/ content i.e.
word frequency, grammatical
analysis, and discourse analysis.
 In synthetic syllabus, different parts
of language are taught
separately and step by
step. So that learners’ acquisition
on the language is gradually the
accumulation of parts until the
whole structure (Yalden, 1987).
Key
F
E
A
T
U
R
E

12. Consideration for
sequencing or grading the
content

13. Typically, the consideration for
sequencing or grading the content
in structural syllabus is starting
with easy structures and gradually
progressing to the difficult ones
or from the most frequently used
structures to the less frequently
M used ones (Brumfit, 1984).

14. Selection and sequencing of vocabulary in a structural syllabus
are done with the help of the criteria mentioned by Michael West
(1953):
1) Frequency: The number of times the word appears in our use
of language.
2) Range: The number of texts / areas in which the item is found.
3) Availability: The most appropriate and necessary for certain
situations.
4) Familiarity: The most familiar words.
5) Coverage: The degree to which a word covers other words.
6) Learnability: Easily learnable (p. 117).

15. Krahnke (1987) claimed that
there is no ultimate way to
solve the sequencing problem.
Even if it exists, it is lack of
empirical evidence.

16. The positive
characteristics of
structural syllabus

17. 1) It’s the most
general
component of
communicative
competence.

18. 2) Familiarity.
3) It is relatively easy
to describe.

19. 4) It’s the most
measurable of the
components of
communicative
competence.

20. 5) Prevents later
fossilization or
cessation of learning.

21. 6) Serves as basis for
learner to monitor,
check, and self-correct
(Krashen’s Monitor
/Acquisition Theory).

22. 7) Offers basis for
teachers or others to
provide learners with
feedback on the
accuracy of their
production.

23. 8) Value- and culture
free.

24. The negative
characteristics of
structural syllabus

25. The most important are:
the usability,
applicability, or
transferability of structural
knowledge.

26. Studies of the relationship of
teaching of language form to
writing ability in the learners' first
language, for example, have shown
that it has no measurable effect on
any aspect of their writing ability.
Negative
points

27. The second major drawback is that
it can mislead learners into
thinking they are learning a
language when, in fact, they are
learning facts or information about a
language.

28. The third drawback is a result of
the sequencing or grading problems
referred to earlier. A strictly
structural syllabus prevents
students from producing
structures they have not been taught
(Long,1989).
Negative
points

29. Criticism:
• During the 1970s, the use of structural syllabus came
under increasing criticism:
1. They represent only a partial dimension
of language proficiency.
2.They do not reflect the acquisition
sequences seen in naturalistic SLA.

30. 3.They focus on the sentence rather than on longer
units of discourse.
4. They focus on form rather than meaning.
5. They do not address communicative skills.
6. The attack on grammatical syllabus is in part an attack on
the view that language must be taught as a body of
knowledge, a package that the teacher passes to the
learner (Long,1989).

31. Instruct in new language via
“easy rules”.
 Serve as organizing framework
for other language instructional
content types.
Role
of
Structural
Syllabus

32. Section II:
Functional/ Notional
Syllabus

33. Definition:
According to Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983), the term “function”
refers to the communicative purpose of the speaker. Thus, the
functions to be expressed depend only on the speaker.
Notional/ functionalism defines it in two ways:
1. Notions (categories of meaning) Semantic or
grammatical categories which are usually characterized by
interaction between categories of meaning and
grammatical forms in most languages (time, duration,
quantity, agent, instrument, place, and many others
(Wilkins:1976)

34. 2. Functions
The uses to which language forms are
put on communicative purposes.
(agreement, greeting, approval,
prediction, requesting, directions,
apologizing, and so on).

35. A notional/functional syllabus is the one in
which the content of the language is a
collection of the functions that are to be
performed when language is used, or of the
notions that language is used to express.
For example, informing, agreeing, apologizing,
requesting, promising and so on (Krahnke, 1987)

36. • They reflect a more
comprehensive view
of language and
focus on the use of
language rather than
linguistic forms.
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S

37. • They can readily be
linked to other types
of syllabus content
(e.g., topics, grammar,
vocabulary).

38. • They provide a
convenient
framework for the
design of teaching
materials,
particularly in the
domains of listening
and speaking (Nunan, 1993).

39. Why is
notional/functionalism
often called
"communicative’’?

40. • 1. Teaching toward
specific discourse types,
based on an analysis of
the discourse.

41. • 2. By teaching the
association of form
and meaning,
communicative
ability will be more
likely to result than if
form is taught alone
(Yalden, 1987).

42. Sequencing and grading:
• Sequencing and grading of language material do
not seem to be of major concern to
notional/functional syllabus designers.
• The notional syllabus, it is claimed, develops
students' ability to do this by accounting for
communicative competence within the actual
design of the syllabus itself
• (Widdowson, 1979).

43. The positive
characteristics of
functional-notional
syllabus

44. 1. The greatest strength
of the notional/functional
syllabus is that it includes
information
about language use that
structural syllabi do not.

45. 2. They will have more
experience with, and
knowledge about, which
linguistic forms do
what in the new language,
and they will have had
exposure to at least some real
or simulated interaction in the
language.

46. 3. They may view the
language less as an
abstract system of
elements and rules, and
more as a communicative
system.

47. The Negative
characteristics of
functional-notional
syllabus

48. 1. There are no
clear criteria for
selecting or
grading functions.

49. 2.They present a
simplistic view of
communicative
competence and fail to
address the processes
of communication.

50. 3. They present an
atomistic approach to
language, that is, one that
assumes that language
ability can be broken
down into discrete
components that can be
taught separately.

51. 4. They often lead to a
phrase-book approach to
teaching that
concentrates on teaching
expressions and idioms
used for different
functions .

52. 5. Students learning from
a functional course may
have considerable gaps in
their grammatical
competence .

53. 6. Too much emphasis on
frozen phrases leads to
the unanalyzed use of
language instead of
productive language
structures (Richards, 2001).

54. Section III:
Situational Syllabus

55. Definition:
A situational syllabus is one in which
the content of language teaching is a
collection of real or imaginary
situations in which language occurs
or is used. A situation usually involves
several participants who are engaged
in some activity in a specific setting
(Yalden, 1987).

56. The primary purpose of a
situational language teaching
syllabus is to teach the
language that occurs in the
situations. Sometimes the
situations are purposely relevant
to the present or future needs of
the language learners, preparing
them to use the new language in
the kinds of situations that make
up the syllabus (Yalden, 1987).
P
U
R
P
O
S
E

57. 3 types of situational
syllabus
based on informational
content:

58. 1. The limbo
situation:
The information
of specific
setting is little or
unimportant.
Setting: at a
party
Topic:
introduction
2. The concrete
situation:
The information
is about specific
and concrete
setting and the
language
associated with
it. Setting: at the
restaurant Topic:
ordering a meal
3. The mythical
situation:
The information
is based on
fictional story
line, frequently
with a fictional
cast characters in
a fictional place.

59. Different types of
situations
based on linguistic
focuses:

60. Functional/notional
focus
Lexical focus
Pronunciation
focus
Grammatical focus
Discourse or
interactional focus

61. Main characteristics:
• Because of the wide variety of types and applications of
situational content ,it is not associated with any specific
theory of learning.
• Situational content has been used with audiolingual
( behaviorist),cognitive and experiential instruction.
• Situational syllabi are also associated with various
theories of language. For example, a syllabus that relied
almost exclusively on realistic situations is broadly
communicative view of language (Richards, 2001).

62. The Product of Situational
Syllabus:
Product in syllabus design is
mainly concerned with
what students are expected to
learn; or in other words,
the objectives of the syllabus.
The main priority in product
of situational syllabus is
communicative competence
(Wilkins, 1976).
P
R
O
D
U
C
T

63. The positive
characteristics of
situational syllabus

64. 1. Motivating learners
Learner-centered not
subject-centered.
It takes account of the
learner and his needs.
P
O
S
I
T
I
V
E

65. 2. Concrete contexts:
learners learn language
structures within those
contexts thus making it
easier to visualize and
then remember.
P
O
S
I
T
I
V
E

66. 3. Improving
Communicative competence:
Language teaching begins with
the spoken language, and
material is taught orally before
it is presented in written forms.
P
O
S
I
T
I
V
E

67. The negative
characteristics of
situational syllabus

68. 1. Syllabus can not include all
the situations in the real life:
Little is known about the
language used in different
situations , so selection of
teaching items is typically based
on intuition.
N
E
G
A
T
I
V
E

69. 2. Physical situational
setting doesn’t
necessarily predict the
language
forms that will be used.
N
E
G
A
T
I
V
E

70. 3. Language used in
specific situations
may not transfer to
other situations.
N
E
G
A
T
I
V
E

71. 4. Situational
syllabus often lead
to a phrase-book
approach.
N
E
G
A
T
I
V
E

72. 5. Grammar is dealt with
incidentally, so a situational
syllabus may result in gaps
in a student’s grammatical
knowledge (Richards, 2001).
N
E
G
A
T
I
V
E

73. Concluding remark:
In closing, it is a great importance to note that
“no single type of syllabus is appropriate for all
teaching settings”.
This is due to the fact that we can choose a
syllabus to implement must be based on all
present investigation and valuable insights to
create a language program and course
(Rahimpour, 2010).

74. Reference:
Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of language curriculum: A systematic to
program development. Heinle & Heinle Publishers: USA
Brumfit, G. J. (1984). General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Finocchiaro, M. & Brumfit C. (1983). The functional-notional approach
from theory to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language
learning. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-based interactions. University of
Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26.
Nunan, D. (1993). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

75. Rahimpour, M. (2010). Current trends on syllabus design in FL
instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2,1660-
1664.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
West, M. (1953). The general service list. Cambridge University
Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design. In Tickoo
(Eds.), Syllabus design: The state of art. Singapore: Regional
English Language Centre.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teaching.