Designing a task-based writing skill syllabus for the first year English majors of Phuong Dong University

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ GIANG

DESIGNING A TASK-BASED WRITING SKILL SYLLABUS
FOR THE FIRST YEAR ENGLISH MAJORS
OF PHUONG DONG UNIVERSITY
THIẾT KẾ CHƯƠNG TRÌNH DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT THEO NHIỆM VỤ CHO
SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN TIẾNG ANH NĂM THỨ NHẤT
CỦA TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC PHƯƠNG ĐÔNG

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10

HANOI, 2013


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ GIANG

DESIGNING A TASK-BASED WRITING SKILL SYLLABUS
FOR THE FIRST YEAR ENGLISH MAJORS
OF PHUONG DONG UNIVERSITY
THIẾT KẾ CHƯƠNG TRÌNH DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT THEO NHIỆM VỤ CHO

SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN TIẾNG ANH NĂM THỨ NHẤT
CỦA TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC PHƯƠNG ĐÔNG

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor: Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, Ph.D.

HANOI, 2013


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii
PART 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims and Objectives of the study .............................................................................. 2
3. Scope of the study ....................................................................................................... 2
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
4.1. Research questions ............................................................................................... 2
4.2. Research methods ................................................................................................. 3
5. Design of the study ...................................................................................................... 3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Literature Review............................................................................................ 4
1.1. Approaches to Teaching Writing ........................................................................ 4
1.1.1. Product Oriented Approaches ..................................................................... 4
1.1.2. Process Oriented Approaches ...................................................................... 4
1.1.3. Genre Approaches ........................................................................................ 5

1.2. Task-Based Approaches ...................................................................................... 5
1.2.1. Tasks and types of tasks ............................................................................... 6
1.2.1.1. Target Tasks ............................................................................................ 6
1.2.1.2. Learning Tasks ........................................................................................ 7
1.2.2. The framework of TBLT applied in teaching writing ............................... 8
1.3. Syllabus Design in Language Teaching ............................................................ 10
1.3.1. Approaches to Language Syllabus Design ( LSD) ................................... 10
1.3.1.1. Synthetic Approach ............................................................................... 10
1.3.1.2. Analytic Approach ................................................................................ 11
1.3.2. Different Types of Syllabus ........................................................................ 11
1.3.2.1. Product Based Syllabus ........................................................................ 12
1.3.2.1.1. Grammatical syllabus ........................................................................ 12
1.3.2.1.2. Situational syllabus ............................................................................ 13
1.3.2.1.3. Notional/Functional syllabus ............................................................. 13
1.3.2.2. Process Based Syllabus ......................................................................... 14
1.3.2.2.1. Content based syllabus...................................................................... 14
1.3.2.2.2. Task-Based syllabus (TBS) ................................................................ 14
1.3.3. Steps in Task –Based Syllabus Design ...................................................... 15
1.3.3.1. Needs Analysis (NA) in TBS Design .................................................... 16
1.3.3.1.1. Target Need Analysis ......................................................................... 16
1.3.3.1.2. Learning Need Analysis ..................................................................... 17
1.3.3.2. Aims and objectives setting .................................................................. 17
1.3.3.3. Task Selecting and Sequencing ........................................................... 18
Chapter 2: Methodology .................................................................................................. 19
iv


2.1 . Setting of the study ........................................................................................... 19
2.2 . Research questions ........................................................................................... 20
2.3 . Informants......................................................................................................... 20

2.4 . Data collection instruments ............................................................................. 21
2.5 . Data collection and data analysis procedure. ................................................ 22
Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion ............................................................................... 24
1. The situational analysis of the teaching and learning context in PDU ............ 24
3.1.1. The teachers................................................................................................. 24
3.1.2. The students ................................................................................................. 24
3.1.2.1. Background ............................................................................................ 24
3.1.2.2. Writing competence .............................................................................. 25
3.1.2.3. Motivation in learning writing skills ................................................... 26
3.1.3. The shortcoming of the current syllabus .................................................. 27
2. Needs Analysis ....................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1. Target Needs Analysis .................................................................................... 29
3.2.1.1. Target tasks and target language focus perceived by the university
based on the CEFR ................................................................................................... 29
3.2.2. Target tasks and learning tasks perceived by teachers and learners .... 31
3. Learning needs analysis ....................................................................................... 32
Chapter 4: The Proposed task based Writing Syllabus ................................................ 35
4.1.
Justifications for the choice of task based approach to designing the syllabus .. 35
4.2.
Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................. 35
4.3.
Tasks Selecting and Grading ................................................................................... 36
Part 3: Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 43
1. Summary of the study .............................................................................................. 43
2. Limitations of the study............................................................................................ 44
3. Suggestions for further studies ................................................................................ 44
References ........................................................................................................................... 46
Appendixes ................................................................................................................................ I
Appendix 1: NEEDS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987) ............... I

Appendix 2: THE STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................. II
Appendix 3: THE TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRES .......................................................... IV
Appendix 4: The Current Syllabus .......................................................................................... VI
Appendix 5: Written test evaluation criteria (Adapted from CEFR (2001)) ...................... VIII
Appendix 6: sample lesson procedures .................................................................................... X

v


TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Framework for task based writing teaching .............................................................. 8
Figure 2:Product based vs. Process based syllabus (adapted from White (1988: 44))........... 12
Figure 3: Types of Language Syllabus ................................................................................... 12
Figure 4 Framework for task based syllabus design (Ellis. 2003: 66) ................................... 15
Figure 5 Framework for task based syllabus design (Nunan, 2004:25) ................................. 16
Figure 6 The subject Writing Skills for English majors in PDU ............................................ 19
Figure 7 Students‟ length of time of learning English............................................................ 24
Figure 8: Table of the university entrance exam score ........................................................... 25
Figure 9 the estimated writing competence of the students.................................................... 25
Figure 10: Students‟ attitudes toward Writing Skills ............................................................. 27
Figure 12 The target level for the writing skills after the first semester as required by PDU (
Based on CEFR( 2001:61,62, 82) ........................................................................................... 30
Figure 13 Teachers' and students' preference for the specific writing tasks ......................... 32
Figure 14 the familiar vs. the expected teaching and learning styles ..................................... 33
Figure 15 Target Tasks for the syllabus ................................................................................. 37
Figure 16 Task sequencing ..................................................................................................... 38
Figure 17 Language focus ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 18 Writing Skills 1 Syllabus........................................................................................ 42

vi

PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Writing is one of the four major language skills that foreign language students
have to master. It is a common knowledge that writing is very important in language
learning as, according to Rames (1983), writing helps learners not only in the ways it
reinforces learners to practice certain grammar and vocabulary structures and reflect on
why those are used and not others but also in the way it improves the learners‟ thinking
skills as when students write, they make effort to express ideas with constant use of eyes,
hands and brain and discover a real need for finding the right word and the right sentence.
As writing is of such great importance for language learners, teaching how to write
well is the inevitable aim of almost all language courses. Yet, teaching writing is
challenging for language teachers as „writing fluently and expressively is a tough task for
all language users regardless of whether the language in use is first, second or foreign
language‟ (Nunan,1988:3).
Whether the journey writing teachers and learners have to go on under their
writing course is smooth and whether the learners can reach the destination of the journey
depend on a wide variety of factors such as the course syllabus, the teaching methodology,
the available resources and the motivation of the students. From all these influential
factors, the course syllabus is extremely important because if appropriately designed with
careful need analysis, the syllabus can act as the guidance for both teachers and learners in
terms of aims, the objectives, teaching methodology, material suggestions, time allocation,
assessments, and almost all the matters of learning and teaching. In fact, a course syllabus
can be compared with a helpful travel guidebook or a compass for teachers and learners in
their journey to knowledge.
Despite the importance of syllabus in teaching writing -one of the most difficult
language skills, it is not always given adequate attention to. This is exemplified by the
context of teaching writing in Phuong Dong University (PDU) where the current used
syllabus is available but developed out of the syllabus writers‟ personal experience and

intuition without referring to the situation analysis and learner needs analysis.
Consequently, when the syllabus was operated, it showed a lot of pitfalls, the greatest of
1


which being the students‟ disinterest in learning writing, the irrelevance of the writing tasks
and the teaching methodology. This fact gives rise to the need to design a new writing
syllabus for a particular group of students, i.e., beginner students, low-intermediate,
intermediate, etc. That syllabus should be based on careful analyses of contextual factors
and learner needs as well as educational needs, i.e., the objectives of the foreign language
program.
The ideas above motivate me to design a new writing skills syllabus for the elementary
students at PDU.
2. Aims and Objectives of the study
The study aims at designing a new appropriate writing skills syllabus for the elementary
English majors at PDU.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives are established:
(1) To develop a theoretical framework related to writing syllabus design
(2) To identify the needs perceived by the university, the teachers, the first year English
majors toward an appropriate writing syllabus for the target students.
(3) To propose a writing syllabus based on the relevant theories and the needs analysis
3. Scope of the study
The syllabus limits itself to the design of new writing skills syllabus for the Elementary
English majors in PDU. Thus, it is not intended for other groups of the students at the
University or students from other universities. However, once the syllabus has been
implemented, and evaluated by the university teachers who implement the syllabus, it can
serve as a reference for those who are interested in designing a similar syllabus for similar
groups of students.
4. Methodology
4.1. Research questions

1. What are the students‟ learning needs and target needs from the perspective of the
students, the teachers and the university?
2. What aims and objectives should be included in the writing skills syllabus for the
elementary English majors?
2


3. What contents and teaching methodology should be included and organized in the
writing skills syllabus for the elementary English majors?
4.2. Research methods
In order to design an appropriate syllabus of writing skills, the following research
instruments were employed:
1. Current syllabus analysis.
2. Learners‟ writing paper analysis
3. Questionnaires
5. Design of the study
The thesis will be comprised of three parts
Part 1 is the introduction, which presents the rationales, the aims, the objectives, the scope,
the methods and the design of the study.

Part 2 is the development which consists of four chapters:
o Chapter 1 reviews the literature related to the syllabus design and the
theoretical issues on the definition and features of task based language
teaching in relation to the teaching of writing skills in EFL context.
o Chapter 2 reports the research methodology the setting, the informants, the
instruments and the data collection and analysis procedure.
o Chapter 3 presents and discuss the findings from need analysis in light of
teaching problems with the current syllabus, the insiders‟ attitudes towards
writing skills and the current syllabus as well as their expectations of the
changes in teaching and learning writing skills.

o Chapter 4 is the main part of the study. Based on the situational analysis and
need analysis, a suitable syllabus framework will be developed. Decisions
regarding the objectives, the content and the structure of the course are
justified.
Part 3 is the conclusion that provides a summary, state the limitations of the study and give
some suggestions for further research on the topic.

3


PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature Review
1.1. Approaches to Teaching Writing
This part endeavors to review major movements in the teaching of writing.
According to Raimes (1983), there are 3 principal ways of approaching the writing task:
focusing on form, focusing on the writer, focusing on the reader. The first perspective can
be found in traditional, text-based approach or product oriented approach in other words.
Teachers who adopt this approach often present authoritative text for students to imitate or
adapt and they may see errors as something they have a professional obligation to correct
and eliminate (Tribble, 1996: 37). The second approach which is called “process approach”
emerges in part as a reaction against the tradition of form- focus. It particularly stresses on
the writers as an independent producers of text. The third approach called “genre
approach” is considered to be more socially oriented with the assumption that if the reader
cannot recognize the purpose of a text, communication can not be successful.
1.1.1. Product Oriented Approaches
According to Brown (2000), product-oriented approaches to writing largely concern
the forms of the written products that students compose. The writing exercises applied in
this approach typically deal with sentence-level writing and paragraph-level organization.
Students are often given a framework which illustrates a pattern of rhetorical organization;
then, they are asked to fit their ideas into this framework. Both the content and the form

which the students deal with are largely controlled by the teacher. Since the main focus of
these approaches is on written form, grammar is emphasized and a particular effort is made
to avoid errors.
1.1.2. Process Oriented Approaches
Dissatisfaction with controlled composition approach paved the way for the process
approach, an „expressive approach‟ which became prominent in English-speaking
composition classrooms during the 1980s. Process approach encourages students‟
communication of ideas, feeling and experiences (Steele, 2002). Process approach focuses
4


more on the various class activities which are believed to promote the development of
skilled language use. With the process approach, writers are encouraged to get their ideas
on paper in any shape or form without worrying too much about formal correctness. It also
encourages collaborative group work among students as a way of enhancing motivation
and developing positive attitudes towards writing. Moreover, process approach encourages
the development of critical thinking skills, which help them to have chances to challenge
their social reality (Nunan, D, 1991: 87).
1.1.3. Genre Approaches
Genre Based approach has become popular since the 1980s along with the notion
that student writers could benefit from studying different types of written texts. (Yan,
2009). To begin with, genre-based approaches start with the whole text as the unit in focus
rather than the sentence. The focus on the whole texts implies that there is higher level of
order and patterning in language than just in sentence-grammar at the level of discourse
organization and meta-patterning of grammatical features. Genre –based approaches
emphasize that this higher order must be attended to for effective language use. The
specification of genres to be taught is based on the classification used by many systemic
functional linguists, especially in application to classroom teaching of English (Lin, 2006).
Genre approaches have strong similarities with product approaches, and in some
ways, genre approaches can be regarded as an extension of product approaches. Like

product approaches, genre approaches regard writing as predominantly linguistic but,
unlike product approaches, they emphasize that writing varies with the social context in
which it is produced. As a result, there is a range of kinds of writing-such as sales letters,
research articles, and reports - linked with different situations (Flowerdew 1993: 307).
1.2. Task-Based Approaches
Apart from the three mainstream approaches above, there is also an approach
namely TBLT that is rather slippery to be classified into either product oriented, processoriented or genre approaches as it is kind of selected combination of all to serve the
purpose of enhancing communicative competence with target language. For that reason,
task based approach in this paper is discussed in a separated part.

5


Although the approach known as „task-based language teaching‟ (TBLT) has
already emerged since mid 1980s

with Long & Porter (1985), Nunan.D (1989) and

flourished with a lot of research done honors the names of Candlin , Crookes, Skehan,
Willis, Ellis and many other scholars of ELT, little research has been concerned with
teaching writing in particular except for Yoshito, S. (2009) and Setyaningrum, Z.(2011).
However, none of these two studies suggests any definition or framework for TBLT for
teaching writing skills. Therefore, task based writing, like other language skills, in this
studied, is discussed mainly based on the general framework for TBLT in general.
Accordingly, TBLT approach to teaching writing seeks to engage learners in
interactionally authentic language writing by having them perform a series of tasks. It aims
to both enable learners (1) to acquire new linguistic knowledge and (2) to proceduralize
their existing knowledge (Ellis, 2003).
1.2.1. Tasks and types of tasks
Willis, J. (1996:23) defines „tasks are always activities where the language is used

by the learners for the communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.‟
More clearly, according to Ellis (2003), a task is a work plan that requires learners to
process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in
terms of content (rather than language). In these two definitions, tasks are seen in the
pedagogical perspectives only.(Nunan, 2004).
Nunan, (2004) refers the definition of tasks in Ellis (2006) as „definition of
pedagogical tasks‟ (Nunan, 2004:3) and gives his own definition in terms of two tasks:
real world tasks and pedagogical tasks which are called target tasks and pedagogical tasks
by Long, & Crookes (1992) and communication tasks and learning tasks by Breen (1987,
2) respectively .
The two terms Target Tasks and Learning Tasks are used instead in this study.
1.2.1.1.

Target Tasks

Target tasks are the things people do in their real life. Thus, examples of target tasks
including filling a form, dressing a child, buying a pair of shoes, writing a cheque, etc. (
Long & Crookes, 1992)

6


1.2.1.2. Learning Tasks
Learning tasks are pieces of classroom work that involve learners in
comprehending, manipulating, producing and interacting in target language while their
attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express
meaning rather than manipulate forms. (Nunan, 2004)
Therefore, a controlled practice activity involving repetition of target patterns is not
a task, even if this is done in pairs. For example, the activity of changing the verb forms
from present to past simples or in pairs ask and answer question using Do you like ….?Yes,

I do, No, I don’t. (Willis, J., 1996)
In short, tasks draw the attention paid on meaning while a controlled practice
activities or exercises are focused on forms. That tasks are meaning focused does not mean
that forms are not important, but it means forms can be learnt simultaneously through the
process of task completion.

7


1.2.2.

The framework of TBLT applied in teaching writing
Although Willis‟ framework for TBLT is a complete guide to the methodology and

practice of task-based language teaching, she does not provide much about the framework
for task-based writing teaching. Based on the framework for TBLT in general in Willis
(1996), the following framework for task based writing teaching is developed.
1. PRE-TASK PHASE
INTRODUCTION TO TASK
Teacher explores the communicative situation with the class with specific communicative
prompts. The prompts should provide learners good reasons to write and should include useful
words and phrases. Teacher helps learners understand writing task instructions. Learners may be
exposed to the description of others doing a similar task, or read part of a text as a lead in to a
task as a source of input language for their task completion later.
2. TASK CYCLE
TASK PREPARING
TASK PLANNING
TASK COMPLETING
Students discuss how to do the After planning how to do and Some groups present their
task and what to do in pairs or what to do to fulfill the task, written or oral reports of how

small

groups.

Teacher students work individually, in they did the task to the class

monitors from a distance, pairs or in groups to complete and show their written works
encouraging all attempts at the
communication,

task

that

definitely as an indispensable evidence

not involves writing something as of task completion. They can

correcting. Since this situation the only mean to complete the exchange written reports and
has a "private" feel, students task. For example, if the task written work and compare
feel

free

to

experiment. is applying for a job, they Teacher acts as a chairperson,

Mistakes don't matter.

have to write an application and then comments on the
letter.

FEEDBACKS

content of the written work.

3. LANGUAGE FOCUS
PRACTICE

Students examine and then discuss specific Teacher also highlights their common errors in
features of their written works with their their written work and suggests corrections and
peers with references to the input language in conducts practice of new words, phrases, and
the prompts provided in the beginning.

patterns occurring in the task cycle.

Figure 1: Framework for task based writing teaching

8


To put concretely, in the first phase, what need to be done in writing classrooms are
mainly some preparatory activities for a specific writing task. The teacher should set a
written task, then highlights useful words and phrases, as well as a variety of background
knowledge to help students understand task instructions. At the beginning of the second
phase „task cycle‟, students are firstly required to discuss task orally in pairs or groups to
decide how to approach this task while the teacher monitors from a distance. After that,
each pair or group will be asked to discuss outline and to write down some notes in the
planning stage. Then, the first draft for the task will be asked to finish within one pair or

group in required time. Subsequently, drafts will be exchanged with another pair or group
asking for some suggestions for improvements. At the end of planning stage, each pair or
group will be required to redraft, check, improve their first versions to make final drafts
ready for audience. After planning, several pairs or groups of students will be randomly
chosen to present their reports to the rest of the class, sharing with other groups what they
have found and learnt from their collaboration pertinent to specific features of the written
products. In addition, some points worthy of noticing will also be summed up by the
teacher.
In such a framework for task-based teaching of writing, its core is the task cycle, in
which the emphasis is on fluency and spontaneity during the task stage and the planning
stage, while the report presentation puts demands on attention to accurate grammatical
forms and also contains what need to be finished in what is referred to as „language focus‟
in the TBL framework.
As for specific tasks conducted in college EFL writing classrooms, Horowitz
summarizes it with a classification of writing tasks employed in college into 7 types: book
reports, bibliography, experience reports, reports on theoretical studies, reports on
empirical studies, statistical synthesis and reports of experiments (Horowitz, 1986).
In a very real sense, target tasks used in current college EFL writing classrooms are
supposed to be more than what Horowitz has proposed. In other words, all tasks in which
learners use appropriate English resources they have for showing writing skills in order to
share and compare experiences, to exchange information, to introduce something or
someone, to defend themselves and refute others‟ viewpoints or argue with others, or even
9


to solve some practical or real-life problems, etc. can be considered as what I count in this
study.
1.3. Syllabus Design in Language Teaching
The term syllabus is generally defined as “a description of the contents of a course
of instruction and the order in which they are to be taught” (Richards & Schmidt, 2002:

532). There is some disagreement, however, concerning the role of methodology and its
relationship with syllabus design, resulting in two diverging approaches. The narrow
approach views syllabus and methodology as clearly and necessarily distinct: The syllabus
consists of the selection and grading of content while the methodology consists of the
selection of teaching practices and procedures. Proponents of the broad approach on the
other hand, argue that the emergence of CLT has invalidated the idea that syllabus and
methodology can be developed separately (Nunan, 1988).
In some cases, such as in task-based language teaching (TBLT) there is no clear
boundary between the syllabus content and the classroom procedures and activities. In
other cases, it is argued that combining certain syllabuses with certain methodologies
creates conflict, such as communicative methodology paired to a structural-grammatical
syllabus (Willis, 1990).
For the purpose of this paper, a syllabus will be broadly defined as the interaction
between pedagogic content and methodology within a specific approach to language and
language learning.
1.3.1. Approaches to Language Syllabus Design ( LSD)
Syllabus proposal of kind or another kind might be analyzed in many different ways.
Although there are a variety of attempts to classify approaches to LSD, the division into the
two main strands: Synthetic and Analytic suggested in Wilkin (1976) and Long & Crookes
(1992, 1993) seems to be the most commonly accepted.
1.3.1.1. Synthetic Approach
„A Synthetic language teaching strategy is one in which the different parts of language are
taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation
of parts until the whole structure of language has been built up’ (Wilkin, 1976:2 )

10


In this view, structural, lexical, notional and functional, and most situational and topical
syllabuses are all synthetic (Long and Crookes, 1993). Those are the syllabi which the

focus is on forms -the knowledge and skills that learners should gain as a result of
instruction. The language learning process is seen as the steady accumulation of linguistic
rules and items, in the ultimate direction of command of the second language. It is assumed
that the learner is able to learn language in parts, and to integrate them when the time
comes to use them for communicative purposes. Wilkins (1976) indicated that the learner‟s
role is “to re-synthesize the language that has been broken down into a large number of
small pieces with the aim of making his learning task easier”.
1.3.1.2. Analytic Approach
On the contrary, analytic syllabi „are organized in terms of the purposes for which people
are learning language and kinds of language performance that are necessary to meet those
purposes (Wilkin, 1976:13).
Here a chunk of language is presented to the learner in the context of a meaning oriented
lesson. Analytic refers not to what the syllabus designer does, but to the operations required
of the learner to recognize and analyze the linguistic components of the language chunks
presented.
Long and Crookes (1993: 11) updates Wilkins‟definition, pointing out that analytic
syllabuses are those that present the target language whole chunks at a time, in molar rather
than molecular units, without linguistic interference or control. They rely on (a) the
learners‟ presumed ability to perceive regularities in the input and induce rules, and/or (b)
the continued availability to learners or innate knowledge of linguistic universals and the
ways language can vary, knowledge which can be reactivated by exposure to natural
samples of the L2.
In this sense, process approach based CLT syllabi including procedural, process, and task
based syllabus are examples of the analytic approach to LSD.
1.3.2. Different Types of Syllabus
As there are two main approaches to LSD, there are two main types of syllabus: the
analytic syllabus and the synthetic syllabus, In fact, this classification is just theoretical
because in the real teaching practice, there are no solely analytic or solely synthetic. The
11

types of syllabus should be determined according to the prominence given to the forms or
form. Therefore, to be more exact and easier to follow, this paper hereafter employs the
two terms the product based syllabus and the process based syllabus.
The comparison of the two types and their sub-types are presented in the two figures
below:
Product based syllabus:
What is to be learnt
Determined by authority
Teacher as decision-maker
Content = what the subject is to the expert
Content = a gift to the learner from the
teacher or knower
Objectives defined in advance
Subject emphasis
Assessment by achievement or by mastery
Doing things to the learner

Process based syllabus:
How is to be learnt
Negotiated between learners and teachers
Learner and teacher as joint decision
makers
Content = what the subject is to the learner
Content = what the learner brings and
wants
Objectives described afterwards
Process emphasis
Assessment in relationship to learners‟
criteria of success

Doing things for or with the learner

Figure 2:Product based vs. Process based syllabus (adapted from White (1988: 44))

LANGUAGE SYLLABUS
SYNTHETIC

ANALYTIC

PRODUCT -BASED

GRAMMATICAL

SITUATIONAL

PROCESS- BASED

NOTIONAL/
FUNCTIONAL

TASK-BASED

CONTENT BASED

Figure 3: Types of Language Syllabus

1.3.2.1.

Product Based Syllabus

1.3.2.1.1. Grammatical syllabus
Historically, the most prevalent of syllabus type is perhaps the structural or
grammatical syllabus in which the selection and grading of the content is based on the
complexity and simplicity of grammatical items (Nunan, 1988). The learner is expected to
12


master each structural step and add it to her grammar collection. As such the focus is on the
outcomes or the product.

One problem facing the syllabus designer pursuing a

grammatical order to sequencing input is that the ties connecting the structural items may
be rather weak. A more fundamental criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on
only one aspect of language, namely grammar, whereas in truth there exist many more
aspects of language. Finally, recent research suggests there is a disagreement between the
grammar of the spoken and of the written language; raising complications for the grading
of content in grammar based syllabuses.
1.3.2.1.2. Situational syllabus
The limitations found in grammatical approach led to an alternative approach where
situational needs are emphasized rather than grammatical units. Here, the principal
organizing characteristic is a list of situations which reflects the way language is used in
everyday life i.e. outside the classroom. Thus, by linking structural theory to situations the
learner is able to grasp the meaning in relevant context.
One advantage of the situational Syllabus is that motivation will be heightened since
it is "learner- rather than subject-centered" (Wilkins.1976). However, a situational syllabus
will be limited for students whose needs were not encompassed by the situations in the
syllabus. This dissatisfaction led Wilkins to describe notional and communicative
categories which had a significant impact on syllabus design.
1.3.2.1.3. Notional/Functional syllabus

Wilkins' criticism of structural and situational approaches lies in the fact that they
answer only the 'how' or 'when' and 'where' of language use. Instead, he enquires "what it is
they communicate through language"

Thus, the starting point for a syllabus is the

communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of language i.e. notions and functions, as
opposed to only the grammatical items and situational elements.
In order to establish objectives of such a syllabus, the needs of the learners will have
to be analyzed on the base of communication need. Consequently, needs analysis has an
association with notional/functional syllabuses. White (1988:77) claims that "language
functions do not usually occur in isolation" and there are also difficulties of selecting and
grading function and form
13


1.3.2.2.

Process Based Syllabus

1.3.2.2.1. Content based syllabus
According to Nunan (1988), the primary purpose of instruction in a content
based syllabus is to teach some content or information using the language that the students
are also learning. The students are simultaneously language students and students of
whatever content is being taught. The subject matter is primary, and language learning
occurs incidentally to the content learning. The content teaching is not organized around
the language teaching, but vice-versa. Content-based language teaching is concerned with
information, while task-based language teaching is concerned with communicative and
cognitive processes. An example of content-based language teaching is a science class
taught in the language the students need or want to learn, possibly with linguistic

adjustment to make the science more comprehensible
1.3.2.2.2. Task-Based syllabus (TBS)
One particular type of process syllabus is a TBS, where the emphasis is as much
on what learners do in order to learn as the eventual objectives. In TBS, tasks are treated as
„unit of teaching on their own right and serve as the basis for designing the complete
courses‟ and „tasks are the actual means for constructing the syllabus‟ (Ellis, 2003:65)
TBS is built with two types of tasks: target tasks learning tasks. Target tasks
prioritize the purposeful use of the target language in the real sharing of meaning.
Learning tasks aim to explore the workings of knowledge systems themselves especially
how these may be worked and learned (Breen, 1987). That is, a learning task serves to
facilitate a learner‟s participation in target tasks while a target task „facilitates the learning
of something new‟ and solves a problem. A learning task aiming to prepare for a target
task or solve an earlier problem can generate real communication among participants.
They both require participants to engage the underlying competence in
undertaking interpretation, expression, and negotiation in actual communicative events.
Breen (1987) indicates that „learners can cope with the unpredictable, be creative and
adaptable, and often transfer knowledge and capability across tasks.‟ In a Task-based
14


syllabus, communicative abilities and learning capability are achieved simultaneously
through the new language.
1.3.3.

Steps in Task –Based Syllabus Design
Nunan (1988: 60) points out that the initial step in the process of designing a

syllabus is to carry out a needs analysis to assess the needs of the learners. Basing on the
result of this analysis, the aim and the objectives of the syllabus will be set up and the
content of the syllabus will be selected and graded

In case of TBS design, Long & Crookes (1992) offers the following steps for
developing a task-based syllabus:
o Conduct a needs analysis to obtain an inventory of target tasks.
o Classify the target tasks into task types.
o From the task types, derive pedagogical tasks.
o Select and sequence the pedagogical tasks to form a task based syllabus.
Ellis (2003), however, suggests a rather different framework for designing TBS.
This process includes the specification of tasks involving task selection and sequencing and
the specification of language to be incorporated into tasks.

Figure 4 Framework for task based syllabus design (Ellis. 2003: 66)

15


Nunan (2004:25) proposes a framework particularly for TBS design as following

Figure 5 Framework for task based syllabus design (Nunan, 2004:25)

Based on the common features of the three ideas above, another framework for
the TBS designing is suggested with the following steps:
o Situational analysis (the teachers, the students, the current syllabus)
o Need analysis (target needs (target tasks and target language) and learning
needs (learning style preference))
o Aim and objective setting
o Task selecting and sequencing:
-

Task types selection
Learning task development and target language incorporation

Task sequencing

1.3.3.1. Needs Analysis (NA) in TBS Design
A syllabus compilation is necessarily preceded by a needs analysis, as it „provides a
basis for setting goals and objectives‟ (Nunan, 1988: 27). In case of TBS it also provides a
basis for task selection.
As Hutchinson, Tom and Waters (1987: 54) point out, what is meant by needs analysis here
is ultimately the analysis of the target needs and learning need analysis
1.3.3.1.1. Target Need Analysis
Target Needs refers to what students need to do in the target situation. It is like an
umbrella term that hides a number of important distinctions: Necessities, Lacks and Wants.

16


Necessities, according to the demands of the target situation, are what the learner has to do
(target tasks) and to know (target language) in order to function effectively in that situation.
Lacks is a gap between the existing proficiency and the target proficiency. This may be
investigated in the contextual analysis. Based on what the learner already knows, what
necessities are missing is detected.
Wants is what the learners expect to learn. In case of TBS, it means the tasks learners want
to do. However, the learner's "wants" may or may not conform those perceived by the
teachers or course designers. (Hutchinson,Tom and Water, 1987)
1.3.3.1.2. Learning Need Analysis
The learning need is equated to the route of learning. This concerns things such as
how learners learn the language, why they learn it, what resources are available to help
them learn. In this study, learning need analysis was done through the questionnaire to
investigate the learning styles preferred by the students and expected by the teachers. Why
they learn and what resources are available are investigated in the situational analysis
instead.

1.3.3.2. Aims and objectives setting
Establishing the basis aims and objectives of the syllabus is very important since
such aims will in fact govern the whole process of the syllabus design as well as the
syllabus implementation. Aims refer to the underlying reasons for purposes of a course
while objectives describe what is to be achieved in a course.
As stated by Ellis Rod, the course objectives are “indicated by the needs analysis,
and expressed in terms of what the learner should be able to do” (Ellis, 2003:35). In other
words, the course objectives are set in relation to the learners‟ own objectives in learning
the language. However, in my opinion, apart from learners‟ own objectives or the
learners‟ wants in other words, the objectives should be also indicated on a basis of
necessities or what learners are supposed to do even regardless of whether they want to
do or not.
According to Branden (2006), most modern language programs aim at the learners‟
ability to use language in real communication. However this overarching goal should be

17


broken down to more concrete and operational goals that guide the design of the different
components of a syllabus down to the level of separate lesson activities.
At this practical level, TBLT formulates operational language learning goals not in
terms of which particular words or grammar rules that learners need to acquire but rather
in terms of the target tasks that learners will need to perform.
1.3.3.3. Task Selecting and Sequencing
Once target tasks have been identified via the needs analysis, the next step is to
classify and organize them. Learning tasks which engage the students in various aspects of
communication are then developed and sequenced to form the TBS. Simplicity and
complexity will not result from the traditional application of linguistic criteria, but reside in
some aspects of the tasks themselves. A few of the potential sequencing criteria that have
been proposed are: the number of steps involved, the number of solutions to a problem, the

amount and kind of language required, the number of learners involved, and other aspects of
intellectual challenge a learning task poses. (Long & Crookes, 1992)
Task based theorists de-emphasize the need to articulate methodological concerns
and suggest that they are inherent in the tasks. The negotiation of learning process urged
by many (Breen, 1987; Candlin, 1980; Hutchinson, Tom & Waters, 1987) can be built into
task-based language teaching as a methodological consideration. Breen (1987) draws
attention to the frequent disparity between what the teacher intends as the outcome of a
task and what the learners actually derive from it.
According to Nunan (1988: 20) learning outcomes will be influenced by learners'
perceptions about what they should contribute their views about the nature and demands of
the task, and their definitions of the situation in which the task takes place. In addition, we
cannot know for certain how different learners are likely to carry out a task. Nunan (1989:
20) suggests that one way of dealing with the discrepancy between psychological/operational
realities for the learner and the teacher is to involve learners in designing or selecting tasks.
He suggests that it should be possible to allow learners choices in deciding what to do and
how to do it provided there is a major change in our view of the roles we assign to learners
and teacher

18


Chapter 2: Methodology
The main aim of the empirical part of the thesis was to determine the needs of the
elementary English majors in PDU who are going to take a writing course as a part of their
curriculum. In other words, the study represents the first stage of a writing syllabus design
process, the outcomes of which could subsequently be used when making any important
decisions considering the course objectives, contents and the selection of tasks to be
included in the syllabus. It was hoped that with the help of the needs analysis it would be
easier to produce a more efficient syllabus for the first year English major students in PDU.
2.1 . Setting of the study

Phuong Dong University is a private university which offers a wide range of majors
such as Finance and Banking, Architecture and Construction, Telecommunication
Technology, Information Technology, etc. English language has been taught here for both
English majors and non majors since the university establishment in 1993.
The English majors have to take different courses of English within 91 credits (1365
class hours) as their compulsory and elective subjects in order to get the BA degree.
English as a major is taught with different subjects allocated throughout the academic
program of 4 years. After graduation, English major graduates often have such jobs as
translators, teachers and mostly office staff who deal with the correspondence of the office.
Writing skills, a compulsory subject of that program, is taught in five courses in five
semesters and accounts for 16 credits (240 class hours). The general description of the five
courses of Writing Skills is illustrated in the following table:
Course name
Writing Skills 1
Writing Skills 2
Writing Skills 3
Writing Skills 4
Writing Skills 5

Semester
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

Class hours
30 hours
30 hours
60 hours

60 hours
60 hours

Figure 6 The subject Writing Skills for English majors in PDU

19

Aim
To build sentence writing skills
To build Paragraph writing
To build Essay writing (general essay)
To build Essay writing (academic essay)
to coach writing skills for exams (TOEFL,
IELTS)


As can be seen from the table, Writing skills 1 is the first writing course for the
first year students right after they enter PDU. This course is important as it is the very first
foundation for learners and can be either motivating or demotivating factors that may affect
their learning process in the long run. Despite its importance, the syllabus of this course,
though available, was developed out of the designers‟ intuitive without referring to need
analysis and syllabus design methodology, so its pitfalls can be seen in the fact that it is not
helpful for teachers in implementing it and it partly contributes to learners‟ disinterest in
learning Writng skills 1.
Furthermore, at the present time, PDU has to conform its training programs to the
CEFR (The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) as required by the
Ministry of Education and Training. Therefore, PDU insists that all the syllabi should be
revised and changed if in need to meet the target demand prescribed in the CEFR, and the
syllabus of writing skills 1 is not an exception.
The above objective necessities urged the researcher, also a teacher in PDU, to

carry out the study to design a new writing syllabus for the course writing skills 1
2.2 . Research questions
The three questions the studies seeking the answers for are:
1. What are the students‟ learning needs and target needs from the perspective of the
students, the teachers and the university?
2. What aims and objectives should be included in the writing skills syllabus for the
elementary English majors?
3. What contents and teaching methodology should be included and organized in the
writing skills syllabus for the elementary English majors?
2.3 . Informants.
The informants of the study were selected from the student and teacher population of
PDU. All the first year students (62) were taken as the student informants of the study.
They are selected on the account that they are the target learners of the course of which the
syllabus is intended to design. They had taken 16 hours of the course Writing Skills 1 by
the time they were asked to answer the questionnaires.
20