M.A.

(English Language Teaching)

2
nd
Semester



Assignment
ELT- 525 - Curriculum Planning & Syllabus Design





Submitted to:

Submitted by:
Muhammad Younus


National University of Modern Languages
Department of English (GS)
(Karachi Campus)
Q. Write a note on Grammatical syllabus.
Grammatical Syllabus
The Grammatical Syllabus (also called Structural Syllabus) is the traditional syllabus design
method which has been the basis of grammar translation and audio-lingual methods as well as
others, such as TPR (Total Physical Response) and The Silent Way.
It has been defined as a syllabus which consists of a list of grammatical items selected and
graded in terms of frequency or complexity (Nunan, 1988). Rod Ellis (1993) also defines it as
consisting of a list of grammatical items, usually arranged in the order in which they are to be
taught. The structures in grammatical syllabus are generally presented one by one, usually, but
not always, in contrasting pairs, for example, simple present versus simple past or singular nouns
versus plural nouns (Long & Crookes, 1993, quoted by Baleghizadeh 2010).
Brown (1995) points out that textbooks based on grammatical syllabus can be either organized
following the easy to difficult (complexity) principle or most frequent to less frequent
(frequency) principle. If an author follows easy to difficult rationale, his textbook may start from
present tense and then move on to future tense and finally introduce past tense. However, a
textbook following the frequency principle may start from high frequency parts of speech like
articles, prepositions and pronouns and gradually move to less frequent verb tenses.
An example of a text book based on grammatical syllabus is Understanding and Using English
Grammar by B.S. Azar (1988) and we can clearly see from its index that it has been organised
around structures. (Brown 1995)
Chapter 1 - Verb Tenses

1-1 The Simple Tenses
1-2 The Progressive Tenses
1-2 The Perfect Tenses
1-4 The Perfect Progressive Tenses

Chapter 2 - Modal Auxiliaries and Similar Expressions
..


Chapter 3 - The Passive
.


Chapter 4 - The Gerunds and Infinitives
.

Underlying Theory
The theory underlying grammatical syllabus is that language rules are learned in a linear fashion
and learners should demonstrate complete mastery of one rule before moving on to the next
(Nunan, 2001). Thus, it is the learners task to put these isolated and supposedly mastered items
next to one another and re-synthesise the language that has been presented to them in a broken
fashion (Wilkins, 1976 quoted by Baleghizadeh 2012). Once the learners manage to do this, they
could be said to have mastered the target language.
Characteristics of Grammatical Syllabus
It is essentially a synthetic syllabus, which Wilkins (1976, quoted by Baleghizadeh 2012) defines
as a strategy in which the different parts of language are taught separately and step-by-step so
that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of the parts until the whole structure of the
language has been built up. Thus in the grammatical syllabus, language is broken down into
smaller units (e.g., grammatical items plus a word list) and then taught piece by piece. This
approach, as Wilkins observed, exposes learners to limited samples of language in that each
lesson in the syllabus centres on one particular grammatical feature.
A Grammatical syllabus is also a product-oriented syllabus as the focus of the syllabus is the
grammatical knowledge and competence which learners will develop as a result of instruction in
the classroom, rather than the learning processes and experiences of learners in the classroom.
(Nunan 1988)
Criticism on Grammatical Syllabus
The major criticism on grammatical syllabus is that its focus is solely on mastery of grammatical
structures to the exclusion of teaching all other important aspects of language which make a
leaner communicatively competent. Students who have learned a second or foreign language
such as English through purely grammatically centered materials are capable of producing well-
formed sentences, but incapable of communicating effectively in real-life settings. (Baleghizadeh
2010)
Widdowson (1979, quoted by Baleghizadeh 2010) rightly points out that the ability to compose
sentences is not the only ability we need to communicate. To be able to communicate naturally,
students ought to be aware of the communicative value of the grammatical elements that they
study. In other words, they should know how to use a grammatical form rather simply study its
Usage. For example, teaching present progressive tense by telling only its structure (am/is/are +
ing-form of verb) is teaching the usage, however, the use of this tense can be taught by teaching
students the communicative acts performed by this tense, such as descriptions, as in My daughter
is standing next to John. She is wearing a white dress.
Another valid criticsm on the grammatical syllabus is that it advocates a linear approach to
language acquisition which posits that students cannot and, of course, should not work on a new
grammatical item unless they have completely mastered the one preceding it. For example,
students should first master conditional type I before being introduced to type conditional type II.
However, contrary to this picture, learners do not learn a new language in this step-by step
fashion. Rather, they demonstrate a U-shaped behavior (Kellerman, 1985, quoted by
Baleghizadeh 2010). A typical example of this U-shaped behavior, experienced by most
EFL/ESL teachers, occurs when learners apparently master irregular past-tense morphology
(e.g., went, wrote, came) and then proceed to confuse them with regular past forms, the result of
which is the production of wrong forms (e.g., goed, writed, comed). SLA research and studies
now confirm that second language acquisition does not follow a discrete-point fashion: one does
not first learn Rule A perfectly and then proceed to Rule B. (Baleghizadeh 2010)
Suggestions for using Grammatical Syllabus effectively
Baleghizadeh (2010) has given one of his research papers a very appropriate title, The structural
syllabus: The golden-egg-laying goose that should not be killed. I agree with him that despite
valid criticism on grammatical syllabus on sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic fronts,
grammatical syllabus should not be completely discarded from the ESL/EFL teaching. It still has
very valuable contribution to make in acquisition of a foreign language as Ellis (2002b, quoted
by Baleghizadeh 2010) argues that such a syllabus ensures a systematic coverage of the grammar
of the target language to be taught and provides both teachers and learners with a sense of
achievement and satisfaction. Swan (2002) also believes that grammatical syllabus is important
because it helps learners to communicate common types of meaning comprehensibly and makes
them more accurate which is not only a requirement in the examination but also helpful in
acquiring jobs and gaining acceptance in certain social strata.
I believe that grammatical syllabus should be used in such a way that its shortcomings can be
removed and its strengths are fully exploited. There are a number of strategies which could be
adopted to benefit from grammatical syllabus which I will suggest below.
The grammatical syllabus should not be used as the central or only syllabus for teaching English
language. It should be integrated in functional-notional, skill-based or task-based syllabus,
depending on the learners needs and the context.
A very effective model for integrating grammatical and task based syllabus is suggested by
Baleghizadeh (2010) which he has termed as Task-supported Structural Syllabus or TSSS.
Major components of a task-supported structural lesson include:
1. Presentation of the new structure through a CR (consciousness-raising) task
2. Practice through meaning-focused language exercises
3. Practice through communicative activities
4. Production through focused tasks
5. Comprehension/Production through unfocused tasks

A detailed description of the activities in TSSS model with examples and a sample lesson plan
can be found in the Baleghizadehs research paper (2010) which can be accessed online.
The grammar translation method should not be used for teaching grammatical syllabus. Instead I
suggest an eclectic approach to teaching grammar which focuses on form with contextualized,
communicative practice of the target structure through interactive activities and following a
natural sequence while learning, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing (detailed
description in Savage, Bitterlane and Price, 2010). It is important that teaching of grammatical
syllabus should be in accordance with the principles of communicative language teaching.
Another possibility is that grammatical syllabus should be organized on the basis of learners
needs. As the aim of teaching a language is to make learners communicatively competent who
could use the language accurately and appropriately in different social contexts, only those topics
of grammar can be selected and included in the syllabus which are problem areas for the
learners. After all, the teaching of grammar should not be only for the sake of teaching grammar,
but for teaching language. A rigid adherence to teaching all the contents in a grammar book may
not be fruitful.
To conclude, grammatical syllabus has it shortcomings, but it should not be discarded from the
English language teaching. However, it should not be taught blindly following the age-old
grammar translation method, instead it should be integrated into other modern syllabuses with a
communicative focus and taught using an eclectic approach focusing on form and meaning,
using consciousness-raising activities and providing contexualised practice through
communicative activities.
Bibliography:
Brown, J.D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum. Heinles & Heinles USA
Baleghizadeh, S. (2010). The structural syllabus: The golden-egg-laying goose that should not be
killed. TESL Reporter 43(1) pp. 15-30.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2012) Grammatical Syllabus and EFL Textbooks: The Need for
consciousness-raising Activities. Per Linguam Journal 28(1) pp. 111-116
Ellis, R. (1993). The Structural Syllabus and SLA. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27 (1) pp. 91-113.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press UK
Swain, M. (2002) Seven bad reasons for teaching grammar, and two good ones in Methodology
in Language Teaching (Eds) Richards and Renandya. Cambridge University Press India
Savage, K. L., Bitterlin, G. & Price, D. (2010) Grammar Matters. Cambridge University Press