Synthetic And Analytic Syllabuses
Teaching Context‘Synthetic and Analytic Syllabuses’In a South Korean University Settingby:Paul Z. JamborCurrently (October, 2009) at:Korea UniversityIFLS: Department of Education, Art & DesignDate of Completion: March 31, 2006
1Table of Contents1Introduction . 2‘Type A’ Syllabus2.1Lexically Based Syllabus2.2The Notional-Functional Syllabus3‘Type B’ Syllabus3.1The Process Syllabus3.2The Procedural Syllabus . . . . . . . .Chart 1 (‘Type A’ & ‘Type B’ Syllabuses) . .4Cultural Context .5The Author’s Classroom Experience6Cultural Values in the Teaching Context - . .‘Type A’ or a ‘Type B’ syllabus?7p. 2p. 3p. 4p. 7p. 10p. 11p. 13p. 15p. 15p. 16 .p. 18Summary .p. 20References .P. 22Appendix .P. 23
21 IntroductionWhen one is considering whether a ‘Type A’ or a ‘Type B’ syllabus aremanyconsiderations such as cultural contexts, learner types, desired aims andobjectives, as well as institutional structuring, that one should keep in mindbefore making a final decision regarding one’s classroom teaching approach.This essay’s primary aims are to identify the many characteristics of eitherapproach, and to lay down a compelling body of reasoning, in an effort bythe author, to best determine which of the two syllabus types would mostpreeminently serve the interests of his learners and the institution, and whichwould best fit into the cultural context of his classroom environment.As this paper intends to show, the ‘Type B Syllabus’ is finer tuned atproviding students with better communicative potential, however, the ‘Type ASyllabus’ allows the teacher to be more accountable so that s/he mayprovide the head teacher and/or the principal with a more detailedbreakdown of the language items being taught. - All of which aims todetermine whether the syllabus the author is currently working with conformsto the ‘Type A’ or ‘Type B’ tradition.While a ‘Type A’ syllabus provides students with an externalknowledge of language, the ‘Type B’ syllabus offers an internal awareness oflanguage. Also, while a ‘Type A’ syllabus follows a synthetic approach, the‘Type B’ syllabus follows a more analytic one, with the earlier representing a‘What is to be learnt?’ (content) and the latter a ‘How is to be learnt?’(process) culture. While the ‘Type B’ approach is better suited at improving
3learners’ communicative competence, in terms of putting the language tofluent bona fide use, the ‘Type B’ approach would certainly prove to be moreuseful in training teachers whose primary task is to teach grammar as asubject in its own right.Given the fact that the author teaches communication classes,designed to improve speaking skills, a “Type B’ approach would be of mostuse to the learners, however, the cultural contexts/values, surrounding anyEFL classroom in Korea, do well to accommodate a ‘Type A’ syllabus, thus acombination of the two would most likely serve all parties of interest.2 ‘Type A’ Syllabus(See Chart 1: p.14)The author has never been an advocate of this Reconstructionistsynthetic syllabus type as it is counterproductive for improving his students’communicational fluency as it fails to teach language holistically. It is far tooconcerned with the content of the lessons, and not enough attention isplaced on the process of learning itself.Most syllabi that fall under the umbrella of a ‘Type A’ syllabus arebest represented by a notion of controlled practice, sequentially presentinglanguage items (content) one at a time, whereby learners are expected tobuild a gradual understanding of language (See Willis, 1990:42). Studentswho learn English through extensive grammatical focus, do well onlinguistically based grammar tests, however, they possess a limited ability tospeak and understand the language when confronted with real life situations.From the author’s experiences, in Hungary and Korea, wherein hetried teaching English by utilizing itemized syllabi, he concluded that such
4syllabi proved futile in developing fluency as it merely provided learners withexternal rather than internal grammatical competence. The kind of structuralfocus found in a synthetic syllabus does provide learners with a reasonablygood knowledge of simplified grammar rules, however, for the most part, itfails in developing fluent speaking skills as this conscious form of knowledgeis not readily available.In the act of writing, learners have the time to apply the rules ofgrammar, but because verbal communication takes place in real time, thereis simply not enough time for them to efficiently apply their repertoire ofgrammar rules to spoken discourse.Michael West asserts that the synthetic approaches (of the 1950s)have ‘low surrender value’ as learners achieve little progress in relation tothe amount of time they invest in learning (see White, 1988:12).Consequently, from this particular point of view, a synthetic approach can beseen as unsatisfactory in developing fluent speakers of L2.Given that the author teaches communication/conversation classes,this syllabus type would most likely prove to be fruitless in helping learnersbecome fluent speakers. Willis, and Carol, among others, believe that alexically based syllabus is the solution to effectively teach language (seeWillis, 1990:46).2.1 The Lexically Based SyllabusAlthough the lexical syllabus is described by some (i.e. M. H.Long and G. Crookes of the University of Hawaii (see references)) as a
5synthetic syllabus, it fails to meet all the characteristics of such asyllabus, as synthetic approaches generally utilize simplified nonauthentic language while the lexical syllabus uses authentic languagewhich is composed of text that has been generated by natural discourseintended to serve a communicative purpose, rather than to exemplifygrammatical patterns of the target language.Willis suggests that ‘the most difficult thing about language isthat there is simply so much to learn’ (Willis, 1990:139). Therefore, themost effective way to teach language is by exposing learners to thecommonest words in the language and in doing so evading a ‘lowsurrender value’.Willis pointed out that H. E. Palmer and Michael West were thefirst to propose a word based syllabus in the 1930s and 1950srespectively. He further stated that in 1971 Carol devised an estimatethat the most frequent 1,000 words make up 74% of the Englishlanguage, while the next 1,000 words account for an additional 7% of thelanguage, and a further 1,000 for only 4% (Willis, 1990:46). The utilityproves to fall drastically after the first 1,000 most common words. Willisadvocates the COUBUILD research corpus which is based oncomputerized concordances of lexis. The COBUILD project devised asimilar but slightly different estimate to that of Carol’s, stating that the700 most frequent words make up 70% of native speaker text, the next800 accounting for a further 6%, whilst the next 1,000 words accountingfor only 4% of the English language text (Willis, 1990:46). Here too the
6utility fell sharply.By presenting the language as lexical chunks which embodyboth meaning and context, a rich body of input could be generated forthe learners for processing and to make a part of their own corpus sothey can build toward an internal awareness of the target language as awhole, as well as being concerned with the learning process.Even though the lexical syllabus has characteristics of a holisticapproach, it can be described as synthetic on the basis of its gradedtasks, sequenced lexis and the grammatical items which are exemplifiedby the language encompassing these lexical items.This syllabus would supply the author with a sufficient level ofaccountability with regard to the institution’srequirementsandspecifications due to the clear prescribed lexical items in the syllabuscontent, thus providing a level of transparency into the structure of thecourse. Nevertheless, the author makes little attempt to employ thissyllabus type since most research corpora are based on native-speakerlanguage, thus making little attempt to meet the Korean languagelearner’s needs. Furthermore, there is little attempt by researchers todevelop pedagogic corpora that could prove to be more learner friendly.It is important to note that approximately 80% of all Englishdiscourse takes place between non-native speakers (see Carter,1998:50). Additionally, most Korean learners will predominantly useEnglish to communicate with non-native English speakers within theirregion, therefore, they need not acquire native-like skills to communicate
7efficiently.Non-native speaker pedagogic corpora would better serve theinterests of Korean learners, however they’re unavailable. Moreover theycould help to empower Korean English teachers.The textbook ‘KnowHow’ by Oxford University Press, preselected by the English department head at the author’s university, onlyuses roughly 40% of the first 2,000 most common words according to thecalculations of one of my colleagues, Sharon Simpson, at Hoseouniversity, therefore the textbook, itself seems to provide little focus on aword-frequency based syllabus.This could raise the question: Could a notional and functionalsyllabus better serve Korean students’ needs?2.2 The Notional-Functional SyllabusLanguage learning, in a sense, is conceptualized by a repertoireof notions and functions in a notional-functional syllabus. The Notionalsyllabus is designed to compel learners to produce pre-designed chunksof language, which are perceived as vital for carrying out certain tasks(see Smith & Mcarthy, 1997:259).Because students are expected to produce pre-constructedlanguage structures in the hope of empowering them with the ability toeffectively deal with any particular real life situation, the author feels thisis just another means of rote learning which leads to the buildup ofunnatural language in the learners’ L2 repertoire. Rote learning has
8mainly provided the author’s students with the ability to mimic the desiredsentence unicate effectively when confronted by real life situations.Even though ‘notion’ is a part of its name, this syllabus typenonetheless fails to deal with the concept of notions directly, as on theone hand it claims to base the language learning experience on certainconceptualizations of real life situations, while on the other it stilladvocates the acquisition of those language forms which are prescribedby the language teacher (see Willis, 1990:58).SLA research has offered EFL teachers the insight thatlanguage is ineffectively taught one item at a time; be it lexis,grammatical items or language chunks (see Willis, 2000:37). Languageis holistic therefore elements must be taught within a holistic framework,in context, so learners can devise abstract systems of rules to help thembetter understand the complexity of the English language (See Willis,2000:30). Willis asserts that linguists try very hard to simplify functionalgrammar into easily comprehensible rules, however, the painful truth isthat the authentic rules governing language are so intricate and difficultto comprehend that linguists are unable to explain them entirely. Williswould put it as such: the internal grammatical system operated subconsciously by fluentspeakers was vastly more complex than was reflected by or could beincorporated into any grammatical syllabus – so complex and inaccessibleto consciousness in fact, that no grammar yet constructed by linguists wasable to account for it fully (Willis, 1990:8).
9With such an insight at the disposal of the author, it should beevident that an abstract set of rules, accumulated through constantrevision of holistic language forms, would better serve his learners byproviding them with a subconscious understanding of grammar whichcan readily be retrieved. In such a way, learners could form a largerpicture of the language which they could in turn understand throughabstract principles, rather than looking at language in concrete terms.The Notional Functional syllabus fails to empower learners with such anabstract understanding of language. Rather, it sequences languagechunks learners are required to produce. Correspondingly, Willis makesthe following claim: When [the Notional Functional Syllabus] is used to teach English forgeneral purposes [it] is subject to one criticism laid against syntheticapproaches. They are concerned with specifying and ordering what it is thatthe learners will be expected to produce, rather than with helping the learnerto build up a picture of the language (Willis, 1990:45)Consequently, this syllabus type fails to teach language holistically. Thus,the author distances himself from utilizing this syllabus type due to itsPresent - Practice – Produce teaching approach.Nevertheless, because of the transparency into the specificationand ordering of its content, it would provide a level of accountability forthe author with regard to his institution, by providing informationnecessary to fill out the mandatory online syllabus form (See Appendix;
10Figures 1 & 2). However, in light of the claim that this approach allowslittle deviation from the prescribed form, it might not be appropriate inhelping the author’s students develop a holistic knowledge of thelanguage that is readily available.3 ‘Type B’ Syllabus(See Chart 1: p.14)The author himself prefers the ‘Type B’ syllabus as it moreeffectively improves his students’ abilities to communicate fluently by meansof sustaining his students’ interlanguage development, however, as we shallsee, it provides him with limited accountability regarding his institutionalcontext.This Progressivist syllabus type is best described as an analyticsyllabus born out of the Communicative approach. It is more concerned withthe learning process than the content, since it is the actual process thatfacilitates interlanguage development. In other words, it is the way studentslearn that best determines the amount of input they convert into intake.According to interlanguage theorists like Selinker (1972) and Coder (1967),among others, input does not necessarily mean intake, (See Carter andNunan, 2001:1). Consequently, the synthetic sequencing of language itemscan be viewed as being pointless since what students are exposed to maynot always transform to what they retain. At the same time, recyclinglanguage items in context, as is often done in a ‘Type B syllabus’, would helpthe learners readily remember useful knowledge (See Willis, EKT: p1). Thatis to say, learners could develop an internal system of language reinforced
11through constant recycling of holistic authentic language.According to the principles of the ‘Type B’ approach, it is believedthat fluency leads to accuracy and not the other way around (Willis, 2000:37).This type of a syllabus would prove useful for the author in developinglearners’ communicative skills, however, it might be particularly challengingto justify with the institution and the Korean educational bodies since itprovides limited transparency into the structural framework of the lessons.This is because language items are not sequenced in advance in the form ofa ‘concrete pre-designed course’, thus offering only limited amounts of keyinformation for the internet based syllabus (See Appendix; Figure 1 & 2). Thetwo main syllabi that fall under the umbrella of a ‘Type-B’ syllabus areprocess and the procedural syllabi, both being ‘differing products ofprogressivism’ (White, 1988:25).3.1 The Process SyllabusAs this syllabus type makes no attempt at pre-designing thelanguage course, due to its student led nature, it would certainly providelittle accountability for the author as a teacher, given the lack oftransparency into the course structure. Furthermore, as we shall see,most Korean learners are reluctant to adapt a learning style necessary toaccommodate such a syllabus.Candin and Breen’s procedural syllabus is yet another taskbased approach, with a focus on the learning process, built on a nonauthoritarian classroom power structure, wherein the teacher and the
12students choose the tasks through constant negotiation. Moreover, it isinternal rather than external to the learner (See Long and Crookes, p.3).The direction of the course is determined by the students as the courseprogresses, rather than being established by the presentation of aninventory of sequentially selected items learners would eventually haveto practice and produce as in the Present-Practice-Produce approachwell embedded in any synthetic syllabus.Widdowson asserts that in fluent discourse language issubmissively regulated by grammar rules rather than being generated bythem (See Willis, EKT: p.11). Therefore, there should be no direct focuson language form unless the learners decide that they need grammaticalclarification on a particular form they have already experienced.Johns sees the learner as a researcher while the teacher as acoordinator of the classroom processes (see Willis, EKT: p.3). Emphasishere is laid on the process rather than on the subject. John’s approachthreatens most Korean learners of EFL since it challenges theirexpectations of the teachers’ roles as an authority figure (See Section 5).No doubt, the power structure of the institution in which thelanguage learning is to take place should be structured to permitteachers to assume different roles, and should exist in a cultural context(See Section 4) wherein it is acceptable for students to take on a moredirective role in their learning experience. This type of student role isexceptionally rare in a Korean classroom context, thus the ‘learner led’process syllabus should prove to be particularly challenging to implement,
13however, if such a syllabus could be employed successfully, it would behighly beneficial for learners in the author’s communication classes. Itwould certainly need the support of a series of lessons on the L2 culture,although, the author has no time for them as there are only around 17teaching hours available in each semester.The following quote is one criticism of the process syllabus:‘published criticism of the process syllabus ( see, e.g., Kouraogo, 1987:R. V. White, 1988) claim that [it] assumes an unrealistically high levelof competence in both teachers and learners, and implies a redefinitionof role relationships and a redistribution of power on authority in theclassroom that would be too radical and/or culturally unacceptable insome societies (Long & Crookes, p.11).Learners and teachers are both expected to follow certain cultural normswithin the classroom environment, and it is impractical to expect theseroles and the allocation of powers to radically change between them.Moreover, learners can’t be expected to know what’s best for them, andteachers may be incapable of recognizing when it is most appropriate toallocate control to the learners.3.2 The Procedural SyllabusThe Procedural Syllabus, however, could work well in a Koreanteaching context as it makes no requirement on the part of the studentsto assume any leading role as it is the teacher’s duty to sequence alltasks according to difficulty.
14If learners in all their other classes, at the author’s university,are to play the part of the receiver of pre-selected information, then whyshould they be expected to assume alternate roles in their Englishclasses? Willis asserts:One cannot expect that learners will very readily adopt a pattern of behaviour inthe English class which is at variance with the roles they are required to play intheir other lessons. (Willis, 2000:9)Because this syllabus type would allow for the usual Koreanteacher-student roles, it may well be a good solution, however, sinceth
Mar 31, 2006 · synthetic syllabus, it fails to meet all the characteristics of such a syllabus, as synthetic approaches generally utilize simplified non-authentic language while the lexical syllabus uses authentic language which is composed of text that has beengenerated by natural discourse intended to
contains syllabuses for 24 management subjects and it is on these syllabuses that the training packages have been based. The list of subjects and syllabuses is as follows: 1. Co-operative Knowledge 2. Co-operative Law 3. "Co-operative" Management 4. Farming 5. Collecting and Receiving Agricultural Produce 6. Transport Management 7. Storage .
IGCSE SYLLABUSES. 1. IGCSE SYLLABUSES. MAY -JUNE Series. IGCSE Syllabuses. Subject name Syllabus Option . Coursework Assignment 02: Externally set Assignment 1058 Biology (Extended) 0610 CX . Travel & Tourism 0471 AY 12: Written Paper 22: Paper 22 Alternative to Coursework 928.
COMPLEX ANALYTIC GEOMETRY AND ANALYTIC-GEOMETRIC CATEGORIES YA’ACOV PETERZIL AND SERGEI STARCHENKO Abstract. The notion of a analytic-geometric category was introduced by v.d. Dries and Miller in [4]. It is a category of subsets of real analytic manifolds which extends the c
Analytic Continuation of Functions. 2 We define analytic continuation as the process of continuing a function off of the real axis and into the complex plane such that the resulting function is analytic. More generally, analytic continuation extends the representation of a function
The Synthetic Turf Council's quality guidelines help assure an attractive appearance over many years for synthetic grass landscape, particularly in residential communities, business areas and places where curb appeal is essential. The Synthetic Turf Council (STC) created this guide to showcase the numerous uses and benefits of synthetic grass.
Synthetic turf can be utilized around 3,000 hours per year with no "rest" required, more than three times that of natural grass. All synthetic turf fields are not the same. There are a variety of synthetic turf systems and infill materials. Currently, between 12,000-13,000 synthetic turf
Master Eco Hybrid 0W-20 Fully synthetic SP-RC, GF-6A Master Eco Hybrid 5W-30 Fully synthetic SP-RC, GF-6B Master Eco VCC 0W-20 Fully synthetic SN A1/B1, . RENAULT RN0720 Elite Evolution RN 5W-30 Fully synthetic C3 RENAULT RN17 Elite Evolution V 0W-30 Fully synthetic C3 BMW LL-04, PORSCHE C30, VW 507.00/504.00
The API also provides the user with ability to perform simple processing on measurements made by the CTSU for each channel and then treat each channel as a Touch Button, or group channels and use them as linear or circular sliders. The API inherently depends on the user to provide valid configuration values for each Special Function Register (SFR) of the CTSU. The user should obtain these .
