P R ES E NTE R S CR I P T
Approaches to Curriculum & Syllabus
Design
Applied Linguistics · 10-Minute Academic Presentation
Key sources: Richards (2017), Nunan (1988a/b), Wilkins (1976), Munby (1988), Graves (2012), Brown & Lee (2015),
Frida & Olshtain (1990), Corder (1973), Hoang Van Van (2015–2023), BGDĐT (2018a/b)
How to Use This Script
• Each section opens with a SLIDE tag showing the slide number, title, and suggested timing.
• Gold boxes are presenter notes — cues to pause, engage the audience, or manage transitions.
• Text in [brackets] should be customised with your own name or contextual details.
• Total speaking time: ~10 minutes. Practise aloud at least twice with a timer.
SLIDE 1: Title Slide | 0:00 – 0:15
Good [morning / afternoon], everyone.
Today I will be presenting on Approaches to Curriculum and Syllabus Design in Language
Teaching — a topic that sits at the very heart of applied linguistics and shapes, in fundamental
ways, how languages are taught and learned in institutional contexts.
We will draw on key theoretical frameworks from Richards, Nunan, Wilkins, Munby, and
Graves, and we will connect these frameworks to the Vietnamese EFL context through the work
of Hoang Van Van and the BGDĐT's 2018 national English curriculum.
Let us begin.
💡 Presenter Note: Speak deliberately. Establish eye contact before advancing. This introduction sets the
scholarly tone for the rest of the presentation.
SLIDE 2: Key Concepts: Curriculum vs. Syllabus | 0:15 – 1:00
Before exploring the various approaches, it is essential that we establish a clear distinction
between two terms that are frequently — and mistakenly — used interchangeably: curriculum
and syllabus.
CURRICULUM — THE MACRO LEVEL
Richards (2017) defines curriculum as the total planned learning experience — encompassing
educational philosophy, broad goals, learning outcomes, methodology, and assessment policy.
It answers the foundational questions: Why are we teaching this language? And what should
learners ultimately be able to do with it?
Corder (1973) provides an important disciplinary context: applied linguistics serves as the
theoretical bridge between linguistic science and practical curriculum decisions. Without this
bridge, curriculum design risks becoming either theoretically naïve or practically irrelevant.
SYLLABUS — THE MICRO LEVEL
The syllabus, by contrast, operates at a more specific level. Nunan (1988a) defines it as the
selection and sequential organisation of content — the specification of what is to be taught and
in what order. It answers: How do we organise the content of teaching?
Graves (2012) adds a crucial corrective: syllabuses are not merely bureaucratic documents to be
received and implemented. They become real through the professional agency of teachers who
interpret, adapt, and enact them in their specific contexts. A written syllabus and a lived
curriculum are never identical.
💡 Presenter Note: Pause briefly after the Curriculum/Syllabus distinction — point to the two cards on the slide
and invite the audience to hold this distinction in mind for the rest of the presentation.
SLIDE 3: Needs Analysis: The Starting Point of All Design | 1:00 – 2:00
Needs analysis is the indispensable starting point for any principled curriculum or syllabus
design. It is impossible to make defensible decisions about content, sequencing, or pedagogy
until we understand who the learners are, what they need to do with the language, and in what
contexts they will do it.
MUNBY (1988) — COMMUNICATIVE NEEDS PROCESSOR
Munby's (1988) Communicative Needs Processor remains one of the most comprehensive
frameworks for systematic needs analysis in the field. It specifies nine parameters for
constructing a learner profile: participant characteristics, purposive domain, setting, interaction,
instrumentality, dialect, target level, communicative event, and communicative key.
The output of this analysis is a detailed specification of communicative needs that directly
drives the design of the syllabus. Munby's framework is notably rigorous — it forces the
designer to move from vague statements about 'what learners need' to precise, operationalised
specifications.
NUNAN (1988B) — LEARNER-CENTRED NEEDS
Nunan (1988b) introduces an important conceptual distinction that moves needs analysis
beyond the purely external: target needs — what learners need to actually do with the
language in real-world contexts — and learning needs — what learners require in order to
acquire that ability in the classroom.
His learner-centred curriculum goes further still, arguing that needs analysis is not something
done to learners, but with them. The negotiated curriculum — in which learners participate in
shaping their own learning experience — is both a methodological commitment and an ethical
one.
BROWN & LEE (2015) — SITUATION ANALYSIS
Brown and Lee (2015) broaden the scope of needs analysis to include situation analysis: the
examination of institutional constraints, available resources, community context, and teacher
readiness. Goals, they argue, must be both principled — grounded in learner needs — and
realistic — achievable within the actual conditions of the teaching environment.
💡 Presenter Note: This is a dense slide. Focus your spoken delivery on the Munby/Nunan distinction — it is the
most theoretically significant. Use the phrase 'target needs versus learning needs' explicitly; it is likely to
resonate with the applied linguistics audience.
SLIDE 4: Major Approaches to Syllabus Design | 2:00 – 5:30
With learner needs established, the designer must select an approach to organising the
syllabus. Four major traditions have dominated the history of language teaching, each reflecting
a distinct theory of language and a distinct theory of learning.
01 — STRUCTURAL / GRAMMATICAL SYLLABUS (PRE-1970S)
The structural syllabus is the oldest and remains the most widespread globally. Language is
organised as a progression of grammatical structures — typically from simple to complex — and
learning is conceived as the mastery of these structures through presentation, practice, and
production.
Corder (1973) documents this as the default approach in pre-communicative applied linguistics.
The learner is positioned as a passive recipient of grammatical rules, and communicative
competence is assumed to emerge automatically from formal accuracy. This assumption has
been extensively challenged, but the structural syllabus retains a powerful institutional
presence.
02 — NOTIONAL-FUNCTIONAL SYLLABUS (WILKINS, 1976)
The publication of Wilkins's Notional Syllabuses in 1976 represented a fundamental shift in the
conceptualisation of language teaching. Wilkins proposed organising syllabus content not
around grammatical forms, but around meanings — notions such as time, quantity, location,
and duration — and communicative functions such as requesting, describing, apologising, and
persuading.
This reorientation was revolutionary. It positioned language as a tool for meaning-making and
social action, rather than a formal system to be internalised. The notional-functional approach
became the theoretical foundation of Communicative Language Teaching — arguably the
dominant pedagogical paradigm in EFL to this day.
03 — TASK-BASED SYLLABUS (NUNAN, 1988A)
Nunan's (1988a) task-based approach takes the communicative thrust of the notional-
functional syllabus further. Here, the organising unit of the syllabus is not a grammatical
structure or a communicative function, but a real-world task — a piece of work that learners
must accomplish using language meaningfully.
Nunan distinguishes between pedagogic tasks — classroom activities designed to develop
language — and real-world tasks — the authentic communicative acts that learners need to
perform outside the classroom. The syllabus is constructed to build learners' ability to manage
the latter through engagement with the former. Formal accuracy remains important, but it is
treated as secondary to successful task completion.
04 — LEARNER-CENTRED CURRICULUM (NUNAN, 1988B)
Nunan's Learner-Centred Curriculum (1988b) is the most radical of the four approaches. Here,
all curricular decisions are driven by learner needs — not as determined by an external analyst,
but as negotiated between teacher and learner. The curriculum is conceived as a process rather
than a product; it evolves in response to learners' developing needs, interests, and goals.
The teacher's role shifts from instructor to facilitator and curriculum co-designer. This approach
has deep implications for teacher training and institutional culture, since it requires a degree of
curricular flexibility that many educational systems — including the Vietnamese national system
— are structurally reluctant to accommodate.
💡 Presenter Note: This is the longest and most conceptually demanding slide — approximately 3.5 minutes.
Maintain a clear signalling structure: 'The first approach...', 'Moving to the second...', 'A more radical step...'.
Do not rush Wilkins — the notional-functional concept is the historical pivot of the whole field.
SLIDE 5: From Theory to Practice: The Course Design Process | 5:30 – 7:00
Having selected an approach, the curriculum designer must translate that philosophy into a
teachable programme. This requires a systematic course design process that aligns goals,
content, materials, and assessment.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONTENT — BROWN & LEE (2015); FRIDA &
OLSHTAIN (1990)
Brown and Lee (2015, Chapter 9) provide a practical framework: the course design process
begins with broad goals — general statements of educational intention — which are then
translated into specific, measurable objectives. These objectives specify what learners will be
able to do at the end of the course, and they drive everything that follows.
Frida and Olshtain (1990) elaborate the content selection and sequencing stage in detail.
Language content — whether structured, functional, or task-based — must be selected
according to criteria of communicative relevance, frequency of use, and pedagogic difficulty,
then ordered in a sequence that is both logically coherent and instructionally manageable.
Crucially, materials must embody the philosophy of the syllabus — not contradict it. A notional-
functional syllabus that produces structurally organised materials has failed at the design stage.
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION — RICHARDS (2017)
Richards (2017) insists that assessment must be aligned with stated objectives — washback
must be positive. And he distinguishes course evaluation from student assessment: evaluation
asks not whether individual learners have succeeded, but whether the course itself is effective,
coherent, and fit for purpose.
TEACHER AGENCY — GRAVES (2012)
Graves (2012) provides a vital corrective to overly technicist models of course design. Teachers,
she argues, are not passive conduits for externally designed curricula — they are course
developers in their own right, drawing on three knowledge domains: conceptual knowledge of
theory and principles; contextual knowledge of the institutional environment; and procedural
knowledge of what works in practice.
This framing positions the teacher not as the end-point of curriculum delivery, but as an active
agent in curriculum realisation — a perspective that has important implications for teacher
education and professional development.
💡 Presenter Note: The Graves point is worth emphasising for an audience of practising or future teachers. You
can briefly personalise: 'As language teachers yourselves, your curricular knowledge and agency matter as
much as any official document.'
SLIDE 6: The Vietnamese Context: BGDĐT 2018 & National Foreign Language 2020 | 7:00 – 8:30
I will now connect these theoretical frameworks to a concrete national context: the reform of
English language education in Vietnam — a case study in how international curriculum theory is
negotiated, adapted, and contested when it meets local institutional realities.
THE NFL 2020 REFORM AND TEXTBOOK DEVELOPMENT
The National Foreign Language 2020 Project sought to fundamentally transform the quality and
approach of English teaching across the Vietnamese school system. Hoang Van Van (2015)
documents the cross-cultural collaborative development of a new 10-year English textbook
series — a process that drew on international expertise in notional-functional and task-based
curriculum design while remaining sensitive to Vietnamese educational culture and pedagogic
traditions.
Hoang Van Van (2016) frames this curriculum renovation as a strategic imperative: moving
beyond predominantly structural syllabuses toward more communicative, competency-based
frameworks is presented as essential for Vietnamese learners to participate effectively in an
integrated, globalised world.
BGDĐT 2018 — CIRCULAR 32: A NEW FRAMEWORK
The pivotal legislative moment came with the Ministry of Education and Training's Circular 32 of
2018. BGDĐT (2018a) established a CEFR-aligned, competency-based national English
curriculum covering Grades 3 to 12 — with learning outcomes specified as can-do descriptors
from A1 to B1. BGDĐT (2018b) introduced an innovative Introductory English programme for
Grades 1 and 2, reflecting the functional principle that meaningful language exposure should
begin at the earliest stages of schooling.
Hoang Van Van (2022) interprets this curriculum in scholarly detail, clarifying its theoretical
orientations and noting where it reflects notional-functional and task-based influences, as well
as where structural traditions remain embedded.
THE GRAMMAR CHALLENGE — THEORY TO TEXTBOOK
Hoang Van Van (2023) raises a critical implementation problem: the grammar content specified
in the 2018 curriculum is frequently mis-translated when adapted into actual textbook
exercises. The curriculum intends grammar to be treated as a resource for communication —
but textbook exercises often reduce it to isolated, form-focused drills. This gap between
curriculum intention and classroom reality is a perennial challenge in language education, and
one that illustrates the limits of top-down curriculum reform without corresponding
professional development for teachers.
💡 Presenter Note: This slide connects theory to practice in a way that is directly relevant to the Vietnamese EFL
audience. The Hoang Van Van (2023) grammar point is particularly salient — you can invite the audience to
reflect: 'How many of you have experienced this gap between what the curriculum specifies and what actually
appears in the textbook?'
SLIDE 7: Critical Synthesis: Comparing Syllabus Approaches | 8:30 – 9:15
The comparison table on this slide allows us to see the four major approaches in relation to one
another across six critical dimensions.
Notice the historical trajectory: from the structural tradition's focus on grammatical form and
the passive learner, through Wilkins's communicative revolution, to the increasingly learner-
oriented commitments of task-based and learner-centred approaches. This is not simply a
chronological sequence — it reflects a progressive reconceptualisation of what language is,
what learning involves, and what teaching is for.
Critically, however, these approaches should not be understood as mutually exclusive in
practice. Most real-world curricula are eclectic — blending elements of several traditions
according to contextual demands and theoretical commitments. The BGDĐT 2018 curriculum,
for example, reflects notional-functional and task-based orientations while retaining a
systematic treatment of grammar that echoes structural traditions.
The Vietnamese context also illuminates the limits of the learner-centred approach: while
theoretically compelling, full curriculum negotiation remains largely aspirational in a highly
centralised educational system where national textbooks and standardised assessment
constrain teacher and learner agency alike.
The tension between top-down curriculum authority and bottom-up teacher agency — which
Graves (2012) frames as a question of professional identity — is precisely the productive
tension that applied linguists working in curriculum design must navigate.
💡 Presenter Note: Do not read the table aloud row by row. Instead, guide the audience through the diagonal
trajectory from top-left to bottom-right, highlighting the shift in focus, learner role, and organising unit. Two or
three incisive observations are more effective than a complete table reading.
SLIDE 8: Conclusion | 9:15 – 9:50
To conclude: curriculum and syllabus design is never a neutral, technical exercise. Every
decision — from how we conceptualise learner needs, to how we select and sequence content,
to how we design materials and assessments — reflects a theory of language, a theory of
learning, and a set of values about education and society.
We have seen four major approaches to organising the syllabus: the structural tradition, which
dominated language education for most of the twentieth century; Wilkins's notional-functional
revolution, which recentred the purpose of language teaching on meaning and communicative
function; Nunan's task-based approach, which positioned purposeful real-world activity as the
organising principle; and the learner-centred curriculum, which insists that the learner must be
an active participant in shaping their own learning.
We have seen that principled design always begins with needs — Munby's comprehensive
analytical framework, Nunan's target-versus-learning-needs distinction, and Brown and Lee's
situation analysis all insist that the starting point must be the learner, not the textbook.
And we have seen, through the Vietnamese context, how these theoretical frameworks are
received, negotiated, and sometimes undermined when they meet the institutional realities of
a national educational system — a reminder that curriculum theory is only as powerful as its
implementation.
"Curriculum development is not a linear, technical process but a complex,
recursive, and deeply human one."
— Richards (2017)
Thank you. I am happy to take any questions.
💡 Presenter Note: Hold a 2-second pause after the Richards quote. Step back slightly and make eye contact —
this signals completion. During Q&A, be prepared to discuss: (1) which approach is most appropriate for the
Vietnamese EFL context; (2) the gap between curriculum and textbook in BGDĐT 2018; (3) the role of teachers
in curriculum adaptation.
SLIDE 9: References | 9:50 – 10:00
The following references are cited in this presentation, in APA format.
BGDĐT (2018a). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông: Chương trình môn tiếng Anh (Thông tư số
32/2018/TT-BGDĐT). Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo.
BGDĐT (2018b). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông làm quen tiếng Anh lớp 1 và lớp 2 (Thông tư số
32/2018/TT-BGDĐT). Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo.
Brown, H. D. & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy
(Ch. 9, pp. 178–195). Pearson Education.
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics (Ch. 12). Penguin.
Frida, D. & Olshtain, E. (1990). Course Design: Developing Programs and Materials for Language
Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Graves, K. (Ed.) (2012). Teachers as Course Developers. Cambridge University Press.
Hoang Van Van (2015). The Development of the Ten-Year English Textbook Series. VNU Journal of
Foreign Studies, 31(3), 1–17.
Hoang Van Van (2016). Renovation in Curriculum Design and Textbook Development. VNU Journal of
Education Research, 32(4), 9–20.
Hoang Van Van (2020). The General School Education Introductory English Curriculum for Grade 1 & 2.
VNU Journal of Science of Education Research, 36(4), 1–24.
Hoang Van Van (2022). Interpreting MoET's 2018 General Education English Curriculum. VNU Journal of
Foreign Studies, 38(5), 1–22.
Hoang Van Van (2023). Grammar in the General Education English Curriculum. VNU Journal of Foreign
Studies, 39(3), 1–20.
Munby, J. (1988). Communicative Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988a). Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988b). The Learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press.