Not the snappiest title for a blog post, but I wanted to share with teachers a significant aspect of second language teaching and learning research, one which is very relevant to your day to day practice. The chances are you are working with a synthetic syllabus and were taught using one. Researchers will tell you that there are some compelling reasons not to.
So what is it? The term was coined by David Wilkins (actually a former lecturer of mine at the University of Reading in England).
Wilkins (1974, 1976) divided syllabuses into two types, synthetic and analytic. Although, as has been pointed out by Long and Crookes (1991), these are really two points on a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy. So a syllabus can more or less synthetic or more or less analytic.
Synthetic syllabuses break down the target language into discrete items for presentation one at a time, step by step. The gradual accumulation of these bits aims to build up a learner's proficiency with the language. So the word synthesis is about putting together a whole from the parts. The learner "re-synthesises" the language which has been broken down into small pieces.
These bits can be based, for example, on grammar (a structural syllabus), vocabulary (a lexical syllabus) or communicative functions (a functional syllabus). You may well be using a text book which combines elements of all of these. The syllabus is still synthetic. The syllabuses designed by NCELP (ncelp.org) are synthetic, with a strong basis on grammatical progression and vocabulary selection. (In this respect NCELP follows a very traditional way of looking at language learning which goes back many decades and more.)
On the other hand, an analytic syllabus, by the Wilkins definition, presents language (authentic, adapted authentic or teacher written) which has not been chosen to exemplify particular grammatical structures or lexis. The language is chosen for its general interest or relevance to the learners. The input may be what's called in the literature 'roughly-tuned' to the level of the students. (On the other hand, 'finely-tuned' input is designed to contained specific structures or vocabulary.) If you teach in a UK secondary school, the analytic syllabus may be a bit alien to you. You can tell by the language teachers use that they are thinking 'synthetically': "I need a song on the perfect tense." "I need a text with examples of the subjunctive." "I need a text with environment vocab." That sort of thing.
What's the problem with synthetic syllabuses? The main issue is that designing a course in this way does not align with how students acquire a language. Take grammar, for example. It has been clearly demonstrated in much research that learners are only developmentally ready to acquire grammatical structures at a certain time, possibly even in a fairly set order. So when you teach a 'structure of the day', many learners will not be ready to 'acquire' it (i.e. internalise it for spontaneous use), even after repeated explanation and practice. It is tempting to think that students learn what we teach them in the languages classroom, but this is not the case, as you must have noticed. It's easy to underestimate how coloured our thinking is - so many teachers (me included in the past) see a course and lesson planning in terms of grammatical structures.
The analytic syllabus, on the other hand, is said to be a better reflection of how we acquire languages. Given input at the right level, our learning mechanisms, whether they be language-learning specific or general learning processes, detect patterns in the input either explicitly or implicitly (unconsciously) and we gradually acquire expertise.
The problem of the the synthetic syllabus is less acute if it is based on vocabulary, lexical chunks or communicative functions, since these units are more obviously 'learnable' in a way grammar is not, but they do result in language content which may be artificial and contrived. (Whether this is a problem is open to debate! In some teaching contexts it may be more of an issue than in others. For example, a business person doing a language course may benefit from more authentic language use than a school pupil for whom the language may not be needed for a specific purpose, beyond that of passing an exam.)
Long and Crookes (1991) wrote:
"In sum, whatever the unit of analysis - structure, notion, function, word, topic or situation- synthetic syllabuses suffer from some generic problems, most obviously their static, target language, product orientation. Syllabus content is ultimately based on an analysis of the language to be learned, whether this be overt, as in the case of word, structure, notion and function, or covert, as with situation and topic" (p.9).
One thing is certain, there are serious issues with the traditional grammatical syllabus we still find in most textbooks, even when it is camouflaged by topic and communicative functions. Grammar is not acquired bit by bit in this fashion.
Now you could argue, as a tutor of mine did many years ago, that you have to organise a syllabus somehow and that using grammar is as good a way as any. And it's true that some learners do very well using a synthetic grammar syllabus and that such syllabuses may also supply plenty of useful and interesting comprehensible input (which is the real basis for acquisition). Repetitive grammar or lexicogrammar exercises supply input and repetition, so all good, you might say. The downside is that content is frequently lacking in interest and a focus on grammar, in particular, is off-putting for many students. (You can argue the same, by the way, for situational or communicative syllabuses, where activities may seem artificial or irrelevant to students.)
There are alternatives to a synthetic syllabus, with task-based language learning being the most obvious candidate. A serious issue to be faced with TBLT in secondary school settings is the fact that 'tasks' need to correspond to students needs. (Doing a needs analysis is a crucial part of TBLT.) The other reservation, often expressed, is that inexperienced learners lack the language needed to do the type of tasks often described in the literature. I maintain the belief that TBLT is better suited to settings outside the secondary MFL classroom. Others will disagree with that view.
In general terms, a more feasible alternative would be a hybrid syllabus, with texts and activities chosen for their cultural relevance and student interest (e.g. simple narratives, games, simple 'tasks', communicative function, situations and so on). Vocabulary would be limited in the early stages, grammar taught in 'pop-up' style with some drilling where useful and when students are ready for it. The sort of syllabus design championed by Gianfranco Conti and which we describe in Breaking the Sound Barrier and Memory: What Every Language Teacher Should Know is synthetic by the Wilkins definition, but has the benefit of not being primarily based on a grammatical, 'structure of the day' model. Communicative function is more of a driving force, with grammar taught in the 'pop-up' fashion, as and when appropriate. The choice of chunked language/lexicogrammar, flooded input and building in a thorough progression from input to output has other powerful benefits too. The challenge of that sort of syllabus, I would venture to suggest, is to incorporate interesting content and storytelling.
PS
I got thinking about this issue again after re-reading a couple of articles by Michael Long, who sadly passed away recently.
References
Long, M. and Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
Available at: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/38603/1/Long%20&%20Crookes%20%281991%29_WP10%281%29.pdf
Wilkins, D. A. (1974). Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minimum adequate grammar. In S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (Eds.), Linguistic insights in applied linguistics. AIMAV /Didier.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Image: pixabay.com
Comments
Post a Comment