Richards Chapter 6

1. Grammatical syllabus- this syllabus is made especially in teaching grammar or structure of a language. It is used mostly in beginning level teaching. Positive element underlying this is that the learners learn chronologically and beginners will benefit from learning about sentences. The problematic element is that it does not teach communicative skills such as how to use the language in context. I can see this applied to my learners because they would benefit from chronological lessons as they are very young in age. They need that extra grammar especially at their age (7-8 yrs old). However I do not foresee using only grammar in language teaching because they need to be able to learn how to use language in everyday communication.
2. Lexical syllabus- this syllabus is made especially for vocabulary teaching (like most frequent words in English). Positive elements in this is learners benefit from mastering vocabulary, therefore would be able to read better knowing a percentage of words since 70% of English is made up of 700 most common words in language. The problematic element is that this kind of teaching does not teach concepts or critical thinking skills. I do use a basic list of words called Fry Words. It is important to expose students especially the age group I teach, so that they acquire reading skills easily.
3. Functional syllabus- this syllabus is made to teach language and not linguistics. This would teach the functions such as requesting, complaining, suggesting, agreeing, and other forms of how-to language. This is a positive way of teaching language since it helps students explore how to use the language in everyday situations and more realistic. The problematic element is that is grading would be difficult, often fall into use of phrase books, and this fails to address process of language. I would use this to introduce basic words like hellos and goodbyes in everyday language so that students are exposed to many forms of languages and not just their own.
4. Situational syllabus-this syllabus is used in situations of everyday life such as at the airport, store, doctors, and restaurants. This is positive because it teaches the learners in context of everyday life. The problematic element is that it does not teach grammar structures and does not fill in needed gaps in learner’s language (much like the functional syllabus). I would like to use this in teaching how to use these in daily situations and not follow through a phrase book, but as an additional resource for my learners.
5. Topical or content-based syllabus- this syllabus teaches around content, topics, or themes. This is an example of thematic units where content is focused around themes and languages taught are further explored around the concepts and or skills that enhance the theme. I like this approach because it is a better rounded approach in that it infuses themes, language such as comprehension, skills, students’ needs met, and the use of authentic materials. The problematic element is that the ESL may not be qualified to teach through themes, how to pick themes, and what to assess (content or language). This is relevant to me because I do use thematic unit and I try to create well-rounded lessons where language and content are present. I do need to begin to focus on effective assessment and hopefully I will begin to ask myself what my goals, aims, and objectives are and to create assessments that meet these.
6. Competency –based syllabus- this syllabus is used to help learners enhance essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes of specific situations in life like read phone book, speak on phone, and take messages. The positive element is like situational and functional syllabus where they are learning skill of daily lives. The problematic element is much like the two mentioned that learners language needs are not met and language gaps are not addressed. I would also use this as a resource in teaching situations so that students are exposed various forms of literature.
7. Skills syllabus-this syllabus teaches through skill like reading, writing, listening, and speaking. This approach hopes to gain master of a number of different skills since learners speak, read, write, and listen. The positive element is that learners can explore language in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The problematic element is that the approach does not integrate communicative abilities needed to live daily lives. I see this approached used in the SIOP model where lessons were created based on reading, writing, speaking, and listening, therefore this is useful to me. I do not see this as my only language program, though.
8. Task-based syllabus- this syllabus teaches around tasks or activities that learners must complete in the target language. The hope here is that student will acquire grammar as they engage in these activities therefore grammar is not taught. The positive is that students learn by doing and they are physically engaged in activities such as working on puzzles, creating maps, and giving directions. The problematic element is that definitions of tasks are too broad, unclear design and selection of tasks, and fluency versus accuracy.
9. Text-based syllabus- this approach is used in situational analysis where language will be used. The text is created to suit the needs of the learners. Some of the text based forms include exchanges, forms, procedures, story texts, and persuasive texts. The positive elements include that explicit structures and grammatical features are taught, connects spoken to written text, and communication is meaningful through texts. The problematic element is that it focuses on skill rather than general language proficiency and maybe impractical. I can see some of the elements here being used in my lessons like the spoken and written connections to social and cultural context. I would use this when I read non-fiction or fiction multicultural books and would create activities that enhance the knowledge gained from text. An example would be if we read about other cultures, we can dress or cook food that we have learned about.
10. Integrated syllabus- this approach is a mixture of syllabi like grammar, skills, text, and tasks. This syllabus is used in hoped that the learners will be provided with a well rounded language program. The problematic element is that one will have to decide what to integrate first, like grammar, skills, or tasks. I do see myself more of an integrated approach to creating lessons. This approach takes a lot of time and you have to know specific lessons from each category.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Course planning and syllabus design. In Curriculum deveopment in language teaching. (pp. 145-196) New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 6- Richards

Richards, J. C. (2001) Course planning and syllabus design. In Curriculum development in language teaching. (pp.145-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.

This chapter begins with rationale for the language program. This is vital in creating a curriculum. It also talks about entry and exit levels, which talks about where the learners are and where they should be or where they need to be by end of the curriculum. The scope and sequence ties into this section as well. but further discusses course content into topics such as grammar, functions, topics, skills, processes, and text.
My reflection in this chapter is I like the reality check questions that one needs to be able to answer when creating curriculum. Anything worthwhile should be well organized and well planned. My personal connection to this chapter is that if it takes that long to make then I usually laminate my projects so that I can use them repeatedly. Language planning should be worthwhile in order to have effective input and output.
My question is in the lexical syllabus the number of vocabulary targeted for Elementary students is 1,000 words. Does this distinguish between basic English site words and vocabulary? I always separated the two. In selecting vocabulary, I chose about 8-10 words per week to study and explore from each reading, I always selected words that are not from the basic English site word list.

Chapter 5-Richards

Richards, J. C. (2001) Planning goals and learning outcomes. In Curriculum development in language teaching. (pp.112-142). New York: Cambridge University Press.

This chapter was about goals for writing curriculum. This addressed the importance of goals as a rigor and focus in planning and implementing language programs. Stating goals of a language curriculum helps in creating scope and sequences, outcomes, and content need to be used. In writing goals, it is hoped that curriculum is sound and focused on the needs of learners, growth needed to success and language input and output, and cultural pluralism.
My reflections from this reading is that one should always have a goal in mind so that you know where you are going and what means are most effective to get you there. It can be personal goals, professional goals, and in this case goals of a language curriculum. A personal connection I made is from the section on cultural pluralism where language programs seek to "redress racism, to raise the self-esteem of the minority, and to help children appreciate the viewpoints of other cultures of religions"(p.119). Since I created my own Multicultural Thematic Unit in hopes that student may gain cultural pluralism; I just found this section staking claim to my personal goals.
My question is how can you tell if nonlanguage objectives are met? Furthermore how can you tell if a student displaying nonlanguage outcome like confidence or motivation is due to the objective from the lesson and not from positive social interactions or distinguish from generally happy students?

It's Joanne..Miss Sundown if your wondering!

Good day SLATE classmates:
Welcome back to Fairbanks this summer and I'm looking forward to seeing and sharing and having a good time with you this summer! I want to encourage you all to hang in there and if you need to talk...you know I'm always here for friends! Just make sure you come to laugh with/ or at me! LOL! :) Holla!!!!!!