LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The Structural Syllabus

Instructor: Mahshad Tasnimi, Ph.D.

By: Mahdieh Asgari

INTRODUCTION

A Structural Syllabus (also known as the Grammatical Syllabus, the Formal

Syllabus, the Traditional Syllabus, the Synthetic Syllabus) is one in which

grammatical structures form the central organizing feature. The Structural or

Grammatical Syllabus is one of the most common types of syllabus and still today

we can see the contents pages of many course books set out according to

grammatical items. The Structural Syllabus derives its content largely from the

structural linguists. It is a product-oriented content-based syllabus. Here the

focus is on the knowledge and skills which learners should gain as a result of

instruction, not on how they can attain them. The synthetic teaching strategy is

essential to produce such a syllabus. The Structural Syllabus happens to be the best-

known example of a Synthetic Syllabus. The synthetic approach to syllabus design,

according to Wilkins is a synthetic language teaching strategy in which the different

parts of a language are taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a

1
process of gradual accumulation of the parts until the whole structure of the language

has been built up.

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

The major characteristics of the Structural Syllabus are as follows:

Theoretical Bases

The underlying assumptions behind the Structural Syllabus are that:

 Language is a system which consists of a set of grammatical rules; learning a

language means learning these rules and then applying them to practical

language use.

 The syllabus input is selected and graded according to grammatical notions of

simplicity and complexity. These syllabuses introduce one item at a time and

require mastery of that item before moving on to the next.

 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.

Content

The content of the syllabus is determined by giving top priority to teaching the

grammar or structure of the target language. The Structural Syllabus generally

consists of two components:

2
 1. A list of linguistic structures, that is, the grammar to be taught

2. A list of words, that is, the lexicon to be taught.

Sequencing and Grading

Very often the items on each list are arranged in order, showing which are to be

taught in the first course, which in the second, and so on. The criteria for sequencing

are various. The teacher regards the items from the point of view of levels or stages.

For example, beginning, intermediate, advanced, or grades, 1,2,3, etc.

Objectives

Grammar makes up the core of the syllabus. Whatever rules are followed,

learning a language means learning to master the grammar rules of the target

language. In addition, it is also expected that the students will learn adequate basic

vocabulary. The teacher in following the syllabus may use either the Audio-lingual

Method or the Grammar Translation Method, or a combination of the two or an

eclectic approach. Whichever he uses, the content of the syllabus is determined by

giving top priority to teaching the grammar or structure of the language.

Procedure

In the initial stage of teaching, the linguistic components of the type of performance

desired are analyzed. Next, the language is broken down into small grammatical

components and presented in a strictly controlled sequence. The sequence is

3
arranged in accordance with increasing complexity, from simple grammatical

structure to more complex grammatical structure. The learners are exposed at one

time to a limited sample of the target language. The teacher moves progressively

through the syllabus until, theoretically, all the structures of the target language have

been taught. The learner’s job is to re-synthesize language that has been taken

apart, and presented to him in small parts. This synthesis takes place only in the final

stage of leaning, the so-called advanced stage.

ADVANTAGES

Many learning principles implicit in a structural approach are sound. The merits of

a Structural Syllabus are as follows:

 The learner moves from simpler to more complex grammatical structures and

may grasp the grammatical system more easily.

 Teaching and testing are relatively simple because teachers deal with discrete-

point knowledge and skills. The teachers need not be fluent in the language

they teach since grammatical explanations and drills do not require a high

level of language proficiency.

 It is very much helpful to develop writing skills.

 It enriches student’s basic vocabulary.

4
  Sequencing and selection of teaching items is not as difficult as it with other

syllabuses.

DISADVANTAGES

Despite its numerous advantages, it has few shortcomings too. The drawbacks of a

Structural Syllabus are as follows:

 The potential disadvantage of the Structural Syllabus is that it over-

emphasizes language structure and neglects communicative competence. It

does not address the immediate communication needs of the learner who is

learning a language within the context of a community where the language is

spoken. In fact, the sociolinguistic aspects of communicative competence are

not in focus at all in a strictly structural syllabus. It is, therefore, more useful

in a context where the language learner does not have immediate

communication needs.

 It hampers the student’s creative sides because it confines him/her within the

walls of some specific rules.

 Here the role of the student is passive since it is the teacher who is deciding

what to teach in which stage. It is, thus, a teacher dominated syllabus.

5
CONCLUSION

Despite its drawbacks, it is still the most accepted model for designing course plans.

As a result, we can neither reject nor discriminate this type of syllabus entirely. There

is no existence of a perfect syllabus type, and the Structural Syllabus is no exception

in this respect. So, it is wise to select a combined or integrative syllabus, rather than

a particular one. And the Structural Syllabus is eligible enough to provide some

important guidelines for the combined syllabus.

REFERENCES

Bleghizadeh, S. (2010). The structural syllabus: The golden-egg-laying goose that should not be

killed. TESL Reporter, 43, 20-20.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL

quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.

Ellis, R. (1994). Comments on Rod Ellis's" The Structural Syllabus and Second Language

Acquisition". Implicit/Explicit Knowledge and Language Pedagogy. Tesol

Quarterly, 28(1), 166-172.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London/New York, 401-405.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. Language

in Education: Theory and Practice, No. 67. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Book Distribution Center,

Route 59 at Brook Mill Drive, West Nyack, NY 10994.

6
Valdman, A. (1982). Toward a modified structural syllabus. Studies in second language

acquisition, 5(1), 34-51.