Some models of language curriculum design: Analysis and Comparison

Pham Huong Lan, Vietnam National University of Agriculture

Introduction

Language curriculum design is a broad area involving principles and procedures for
planning, management, and assessment of learning. This is a must activity for every
educational institution before starting the implementation of a new language major. There
have been numerous studies about language curriculum design in the literature which are
derived from multiple perspectives. This article aims to present an overview discussion
about a few models of language curriculum design which is part of the process in the
preparation for developing teaching materials for English for Husbandry and Animal
Science course at Vietnam National University of Agriculture.

Definitions of the curriculum

As denoted by different scholars, there are a number of definitions to a language

curriculum. Historically, curriculum refers to the “what should be” of a language program
including syllabus outlines, sets of objectives, and various other planning documents.
However, Nunan (1988) described the curriculum as a plan for learning, producing and
outcome evaluating which was involved teachers’ activities in practice rather than what
were expected. A more recent approach made by Thornbury (2010) viewed the matter of
curriculum as the whole complex of ideological, social and administrative factors which
contribute to the planning of an organization’s teaching programmes. According to this
perspective, a curriculum practices at least four different kinds of decisions about (1) the
objectives and goals of the programme, (2) the content of the syllabus, (3) the method of
instruction, and (4) the evaluation of the programme. It could be found that all these
references to the curriculum have not yet mentioned such matters as target learners,
physical facilities and teaching and learning materials which all are focused in the current
trend of curriculum research.

Curriculum versus Syllabus

The differentiation between these two terms according to researchers is presented in the
following table.

Viewpoints Curriculum Syllabus

Allen (1984) - Scope a general concept which a subpart of a curriculum

involves consideration of which is concerned with the

philosophical, social and specification of
administrative factors what units will be taught
which contribute to the
planning of an educational
programme

Nunan (1988) – program related to planning, focuses more narrowly on

development process implementation, evaluation, the selection and grading of
management and content
administration of education
programs

Rogers (1976, cited in all those activities in which prescribe the content to be
Johnson, 1989) children engage under the covered by a given course,
auspices of the school form only a small part of the
total school programme

Dublin & Olshtein (1986) a broad description of more detailed and

general goals which is the operational statement of
reflective of national and teaching and learning
political trends by elements which translates
indicating an overall the philosophy of the
curriculum into a series of
 educational-cultural planned steps leading
philosophy towards more narrowly
objectives at each level

Candlin (1984) concerned with making based on accounts and

general statements about records of what actually
language learning happens at the classroom

items and suggestions about level as teachers and

how these might be used in learners apply a given
class curriculum to their own
situation

It can be concluded from those arguments that a syllabus works as one of the components
constituting a curriculum.

Models of language curriculum design

Various models of language curriculum development have been suggested by several

curriculum design experts. There are ways to categorize these models. This article intends
to provide an overview on two groups of curriculum design models based on the names of
scholars: Nation & Macalister (2010) and Richards (2013).

Nation & Macalister’s model (2010)

Curriculum is largely a “how-to-do-it” activity. This model describes the curriculum design
process as a circle in which the components connect to each other and have mutual
influence in the development process.
 Figure 1. Model of the parts of the curriculum design process (Nation &Macalister, 2010)

As can be seen from Figure 1, the outer circle is the evaluation of the overall process in
which the goals are set interrelatedly with the principles, environment and needs. All these
are involved into practical and theoretical considerations that will affect guiding the actual
process of course production. As further descriptions, there are several factors to consider
when developing a course: the learners’ current knowledge and lacks, the resources
including time, the teachers’ skills, the course designers’ strengths and limitations and the
principles of teaching and learning. Taking these factors into considerations helps to make
the course suitable to the situation and learners, and result in an effective and efficient
course in terms of encouraging learning. In Nation and Macalister’s model of curriculum
design process, the mentioned factors are illustrated in three sub-processes, namely
environment analysis, needs analysis and the application of principles.

Richards’ model (2013)

According to Richards (2013), there are three dimensions of a curriculum including the
input (the content selected, organized into teachable and learnable units as well as arranged
in a rational sequence – Syllabus), the process (teaching methods and the design of
classroom activities and materials addressed – Methodology), and the output (what learners
are able to do as the result of a period of instruction – Learning outcomes).
Correspondingly, there are three approaches to curriculum design: the forward design, the
central design and the backward design.

The Forward Design

In the Forward Design, the three items content, process, and outcomes are put in a linear
relationship. In other words, the input needs to be resolved before the methodology and the
output are dealt with. In this sense, curriculum design is seen to constitute a sequence of
stages that occur in a fixed order. This approach is normally adopted when referring to
courses of “general English”, Communicative Language Teaching, Content-based
teaching/CLIL

Figure 2. The Forward Design

Curriculum design process towards this type can be implemented in the following order:

Content  Syllabus  methodology  outcomes  assessment

The Central Design

In the Central Design, curriculum development begins with teaching activities, techniques
and methods, and then followed by either the elaboration of a detailed language syllabus
or specification of learning outcomes. This is considered a progress-based approach.

Figure 3. The Central Design

It is shown in research on teachers’ practices teachers often adopt the central design
approach in their lesson development by initializing their focus on the activities and
teaching procedures they will use, and then it comes to the considerations into the input
and output. Central design can thus be understood as a ‘learner-focused and learning-
oriented perspective’ (Leung, 2012). In this regard, the model of the Central Design can be
represented in another way:

Figure 4. The Central Design – Teacher’s implementation

One example of the Central Design approach involves Task-based Language Teaching
TBLT (Version 1). According to Richard (2013), the focus in this approach is primarily
put is on meaning, and students need to use their own linguistic and non-linguistic
resources to perform the activities. The linguistic and communicative competence are the
outcomes of the task work. Other examples can be named as Dogme (teaching is built
around conversational interaction between teacher and students and among students
themselves), Counseling Learning (the syllabus or language focus is not pre-planned and
language and content emerge from the processes of interaction and negotiation that the
teacher initiates), Post-method Teaching, The Ecological Classroom.

The Backward Design

This approach starts with a specification of learning outputs which plays the fundamental
role in developing instructional processes and input.

Figure 5. The Backward Design

The implementation of the Backward Design contains seven steps:

 Step 1: identifying needs

Step 2: setting objectives

Step 3: selecting content

Step 4: organizing content

Step 5: adopting learning activities

Step 6: organizing learning activities

Step 7: determining what and how to evaluate

Popular examples of those adopting the Backward Design include Competency-based

Instruction and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT - Version 2) which starts with an
analysis of the students’ needs. In this regard, TBLT consists of five sequential stages
namely (1) Identify target tasks through needs analysis, (2) Design classroom tasks, (3)
Apply TBLT methodology, (4) Identify language and other demands of the tasks, (5)
Follow up language work. The use of standards in the Common European Framework of
Reference is also another employment of the Backward Design with a system of
benchmarks, core skills, performance profiles and target competencies. The Common
European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR) can be the most widespread
example of backward design using standards in current use. The development of stages
with the CEFR is illustrated as followed:

outcomes syllabus materials teaching assessment

& tests

Figure 6. Development Stages with the CEFR

Conclusion

This article has provided quite a brief discussion about the two groups of language
curriculum design by Nation & Macalister’s model (2010) and Richards’ model (2013).
Through analysis and comparison, the differences among the models are clearly inferred.
The latter model is known as an approach which consists of three sub-models namely the
Forward Design, the Central Design and the Backward Design. These sub-models can be
understood as other terms of the Content model, the Process model, and the Objective
model. Whereas, the former model is considered as the mixed-focus curriculum which puts
the focus on all the three main factors in a circular interrelationship. It is important for ESP
materials developers to do an insightful study into each model so that they can find the
most suitable model to their educational case.

References

Allen, J. P. B. (1984). General Purpose Language Teaching: A Variable Focus Approach:

in C. J. Brumfit,(Ed) General English, Syllabus Design.

Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. General English syllabus

design, 29-46.

Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and materials for
language learning. Cambridge university press.

Johnson, R. K. (1989). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge University Press, 40

West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011.

Leung, C. (2012). Outcomes-based language teaching. The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy

and Practice in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 161-
79.

Macalister, J., & Nation, I. P. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge.

Nunan, D., Candlin, C. N., & Widdowson, H. G. (1988). Syllabus design (Vol. 55). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (2010). An A-Z of ELT. Great Britain: Scotprint.