Syllabus Types
Comparing grammatical, functional, task-based, and content-based syllabuses.
Open three different ELT coursebooks. Book A organizes chapters by grammar structures (Unit 1: Present Simple; Unit 2: Present Continuous). Book B organizes chapters by social functions (Unit 1: Ordering Food; Unit 2: Asking for Directions). Book C organizes chapters by real-world topics (Unit 1: Climate Change; Unit 2: Digital Technology). Why do these structures differ so completely? The underlying syllabus design dictates how language learning is conceptualized and sequenced over time.
Core Theory & Terminology
1. Synthetic vs. Analytic Syllabuses (David Nunan)
David Nunan (Language Teaching Methodology) highlights the fundamental distinction between two course design philosophies:
- Synthetic Syllabus: Breaks language down into discrete structural items (grammar rules, vocabulary lists) taught in a pre-determined sequence. The learner is expected to synthetically re-assemble these pieces into communication (e.g., Grammatical Syllabus).
- Analytic Syllabus: Presents holistic chunks of language structured around meaningful communicative purposes, tasks, or topics. The learner’s brain analytically breaks down the input to induce underlying rules (e.g., Task-Based Syllabus).
2. Major Syllabus Paradigms
- Grammatical / Structural Syllabus: Sequenced by perceived structural complexity (e.g., Present Simple before Past Perfect).
- Notional-Functional Syllabus: Organized around conceptual notions (time, space, quantity) and communicative functions (apologizing, requesting).
- Task-Based Syllabus: Organized around real-world communicative tasks (booking a hotel, designing a survey).
- Content-Based / CLIL Syllabus: Language is learned through studying an academic subject matter (e.g., science, history taught in English).
In the classroom
Teacher educators look for syllabus design awareness when candidates evaluate materials and plan courses:
- In Formal Lesson Planning: Identify which syllabus strand your lesson belongs to (e.g., Functional Strand: Unit 4) and ensure your task aligns with that strand’s objective.
- On Observed Lessons: When supplementing a coursebook, bridge gaps in the underlying syllabus—such as adding functional speaking tasks to a heavy structural syllabus unit.
- Mentor Feedback: Observers evaluate course alignment—checking whether course objectives match the needs analysis of the target learner group.
Practical Classroom Application
Syllabus Type Comparison Matrix
| Syllabus Type | Organizing Unit | Major Strength | Potential Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural | Grammatical structures | Clear progression; easy to test | Can lead to artificial, non-communicative speech |
| Functional | Communicative acts | Immediately useful real-world language | Grammatical systematicity can become fragmented |
| Task-Based | Real-world tasks | High communicative authenticity & engagement | Difficult to sequence by traditional difficulty |
| Content-Based | Academic subject matter | High cognitive motivation & depth | Language support may get lost in subject content |
Quick check
What is the defining characteristic of a 'Synthetic Syllabus' according to David Nunan?
Correct.
Quick check
Which syllabus type organizes course units around real-world acts like 'booking a flight' or 'planning an event'?
Correct.
Reflection & Further Reading
Reflective Question
Examine your main teaching coursebook. Is it primarily structural, functional, or multi-strand? How does its syllabus design shape your daily staging choices?
Key Reference Areas
- Nunan, D. — Language Teaching Methodology (Chapter 11: “Syllabus Design”).
- Richards, J. C. — The Language Teaching Matrix (Chapter 1: “Syllabus Design”).
- Thornbury, S. — An A-Z of ELT (Entry: Syllabus).